NEWS
2001 NEWS STORIES
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
LETTERS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
NEWS
SEPTEMBER 2001
BISHOP TOD BROWN of Orange, according to the June 11 Los Angeles Times, said he hopes his $75 million fund raising campaign "will help us serve the least among us, such as the poor, immigrants and those who live on the margins of our consumer culture -- as Jesus would have us do." Bishop Brown addressed worshippers at Holy Family Cathedral in Orange on Sunday, June 10 in a special Mass celebrating the diocese's silver anniversary. Brown described diocesan plans that include construction of new parishes, endowments for Catholic education, and housing and care for retired priests. The centerpiece of the bishop's plans is the construction of a new cathedral for the diocese.
The new cathedral will be accessible to those "on the margins of our consumer culture," said Brown -- it will be situated on a plot of land near South Coast Plaza in Santa Ana. The building, which will seat approximately 2,500 worshippers will replace Holy Family, which seats only 850. No plans for the cathedral have as yet be drawn up; its cost is yet uncertain; not even its name has been decided; still, said the Times, the Orange cathedral will be "more modest" than the in-progress $163 million dollar Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles.
Holy Family Cathedral, said Brown, is too small for the needs of a diocese that has tripled in population over the past 25 years. According to the Catholic Directory, Catholics in Orange County now number over one million and make up a third of Orange County's 2.76 million population.
Bishop Brown's proposed cathedral has not drawn criticism like Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. That's because, said a June 10 Los Angeles Times story, Bishop Brown had been generous to poor parishes. In the first year of Brown's rule, the diocese agreed to fund the building of a new church for the poor Our Lady of Lourdes parish in Santa Ana. Brown, too, has forgiven $1 million in debts owed by parishes to the diocese. Some have criticized Brown, though, for the diocese's purchase of $388,000 two-story bishop's house in a middle class Santa Ana neighborhood. Brown does not live in the bishop's residence because former bishop Norman McFarland had asked to live out his retirement there. Brown, who entertains prominent religious figures at his house, calls it "an essential part of my ministry."
BECAUSE MARY TYLER MOORE, Michael Fox, and Christopher Reeves support stem cell research, doesn't mean it's O.K., said Bishop John Steinbock in his July 14 letter to the faithful of the diocese of Fresno. To say that, said Steinbock, "is like saying that 'because Elizabeth Taylor, Barbara Streisand and Whoopi Goldberg are for abortion, abortion must be O.K.'"
In his letter, Bishop Steinbock taught that human embryos, as human, must be respected as human life. "We live in a technological society," wrote the bishop, "and if we do not respect human life, at every stage of its development, we will become a utilitarian society where life at any stage can be manipulated, used, and killed for what some would consider good for the human race, or for the money profit motive."
Steinbock warned that "the biotechnology industry wants this embryonic stem cell research in order to use human cloning to create embryos for medical research." The process will end in the development of fetuses simply to harvest them for medical research. "It is not fantasy to say that this will lead to human cloning with a view to obtaining organs for transplants, and for the sale of human organs," warned Bishop Steinbock. "We are moving to a brave new world where human beings are seen as objects to be used and discarded for what the elite in society would deem good for society. Where would this leave the elderly, the handicapped, the mentally sick, the imprisoned, those that are not of the proper ethnicity?" Later, Bishop Steinbock warned that "embryonic cell research would further justify in the minds of many, abortion itself, and as some 'ethicists' are talking about these days, the justification of the killing of the baby even after birth if it is not deemed a healthy baby. Do not kid yourself. This is all related."
While blessing medical advances that eradicate disease, Bishop Steinbock said that such advances could not come at the price of "destroying respect for human life, or by taking human life." In exchange for dubious medical benefits (for embryonic stem cell research "may not even work"), we, said Bishop Steinbock, "would be exchanging our human culture that manifests a respect for the poor, the sick and the less advantaged in society, for a brave new world that has not respect for human life in itself, but only for its utility to society."
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, it appears, will not seek a waiver to discontinue offering the morning-after pill in county clinics. As the Mission reported in May, the San Bernardino Count board of supervisors voted in March to seek such a waiver from the federal government. Supervisor Bill Postmus, in February, had suggested that the county require parental consent before allowing county clinics to give the morning after pill to minor girls. Since federal law, though, prohibits selective banning of what it deems birth control, the county, in March, decided to seek a waiver to ban entirely the morning after pill in order to maintain its federal funding.
According to the Riverside Press-Enterprise, on Friday, June 1, the Los Angeles-based California Health Council, a non-profit organization that oversees "family-planning" grants, refused the county's request for a waiver, saying the county had not demonstrated any medical or legal justification for their request. Supervisor Postmus said he was not surprised at the council's response. "I knew that they would never grant us the waiver," he said, "because the California Health Council has a history of being very left-wing." The county board of supervisors' next step, said Postmus, was to appeal the California Health Council's decision to the United States Health and Human Services Department.
The Press-Enterprise said that Jon Dunn, president of Planned Parenthood for San Bernardino and Orange Counties, praised the California Health Council's decision, but worried that the Bush Administration would use San Bernardino as a test case to limit availability of "emergency contraceptives."
Dunn need not have worried. On June 12, Supervisor Jerry Eaves, who all along had opposed seeking a waiver, made a motion to overturn the March vote seeking a waiver. No one seconded Eaves, so his motion failed. Then Supervisor Jon Mikels made the motion that the county's public health department not pursue the waiver without further direction from the board of supervisors. The board approved this motion, 3-2; Dennis Hansberger, who had voted for the waiver with Postmus and Fred Aguiar in March, joined opponents Eaves and Mikels.
Though about a dozen attendees spoke in favor of the waiver, Supervisor Postmus remained quiet during the discussion. Among those speaking in favor of the waiver at the board meeting was Father Tom Burdick, reading a statement from Bishop Gerald Barnes of San Bernardino. After the vote, Postmus gave out a pre written statement calling the board's action a "disservice to families and counties throughout the nation."
Postmus had seen the waiver as a local control and family rights issue. "The reasons for the waiver request," said his statement, "included possible side effects, lack of long-term study of potential effects, and widespread disagreement in the scientific community over the actual classification of the treatment -- specifically whether it constitutes pregnancy prevention, contraception, or actual termination. The request also cited a desire to protect children, uphold community standards, preserve local control, and defend parental rights."
GEORGE BUSH, THE ENEMY. In June, according to an in-house report, CARAL, the California Abortion Rights Action League, announced that it was expanding its "strategic grassroots political and educational work" to Southern California. The new location at 10951 West Pico Boulevard in West Los Angeles was formerly staffed by NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, whose president, Kate Michelman, expressed pleasure at the transfer. "There has never been a more critical time for NARAL's important work nationwide," said Michelman. "Our California affiliate is one of the strongest in the country, and with CARAL expanding statewide, NARAL can make a greater investment in other states."
CARAL's "strategic" move, said its executive director Belle Taylor-McGhee, is a response to the threat George W. Bush poses to "reproductive rights." "From the moment George W. Bush declared he was a candidate for President of the United States," said McGhee, "CARAL has been educating and mobilizing Californians about the threats he poses to their reproductive health and rights. This expansion into Los Angeles uniquely positions CARAL to serve as a firewall throughout the state against increased attacks on a woman's right to choose."
According to the CARAL report, Taylor-McGhee said California voters have shown their support for "women's reproductive freedom" in the last election in giving their "overwhelming support" to a pro-abortion candidate. "CARAL is proud to build on the strategic political work advanced by NARAL during the 2000 elections," said Taylor-McGhee. "We won't allow candidates to skirt the issue as Bush did in his campaign. Nor will we allow candidates to confuse or mislead voters about their true positions on reproductive choice."
Citing the "assault" "anti-choice politicians" waged against "emergency contraception" in San Bernardino County, and how, in Los Angeles, protestors surround "women's health clinics," "while anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers continue to proliferate," Taylor-McGhee said, "this is not the time for pro-choice Californians to become complacent."
THE UNITED STATES BISHOPS, during their meeting in Atlanta, June 14-16, worked through a full agenda of items that included statements on refugee protection, global warming, the mandatum (episcopal permission) for teachers of theology in Catholic colleges and universities, and discussion on the liturgical norms issued by the Holy See in Liturgiam Authenticam and the General Instruction for the Roman Missal. The bishops also approved the revision of the 1994 Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare.
The 1994 Ethical and Religious Directives had contained a section that addressed the issue of cooperation in immoral acts that some ethicists had criticized as being far too unclear. The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Boston, for instance, had criticized the bishops' statement on cooperation for failing clearly to distinguish between material cooperation (which is sometimes permissible) and implicit formal cooperation (which is never permissible). The appendix on cooperation further, said the ethicists, addressed individual, not institutional, cooperation. (See "Why Do the Feminists Rage?" January 1999 Mission; http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1999/0199hw.htm.) Rather than revising the statement on cooperation, the bishops simply omitted it. Instead, they said, "reliable theological experts should be consulted in interpreting and applying the principles governing cooperation, with the proviso that, as a rule, Catholic partners should avoid entering into partnerships that would involve them in cooperation with the wrongdoing of other providers."
The revised Directives clarified what is morally permissible when Catholic hospitals merge with or form partnerships with non-Catholic healthcare providers. One new directive says: "Catholic health organizations are not permitted to engage in immediate material cooperation in actions that are intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization." The footnote to this directive references the 1975 "Reply of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Sterilization in Catholic Hospitals": "Any cooperation institutionally approved or tolerated in actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end. is absolutely forbidden. For the official approbation of direct sterilization and, a fortiori, its management and execution in accord with hospital regulations, is a matter which, in the objective order, is by its very nature [or intrinsically] evil."
The bishops approved the second volume of the lectionary for weekdays and holy days. They also approved a doctrinal statement, The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Basic Questions and Answers, which, according to the Adoremus Bulletin, "consists of answers to fifteen questions about the nature of the Eucharist" and "strongly reaffirms the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, the real and substantial presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist." (One can read the bishops' document at http://www.nccbuscc.org/dpp/realpresence.htm)
The bishops also approved an "American Appendix" containing adaptations for the United States of norms contained in the new General Instruction on the Roman Missal. The new General Instruction, issued last year, contained rules that forbade lay eucharistic ministers to handle sacred vessels. According to Adoremus, the American bishops want permission for eucharistic ministers to distribute the Blood of Christ into secondary vessels, to consume what remains of the Blood of Christ, and to cleanse the sacred vessels. The "American Appendix" requires approval from the Holy See.
The appendix also incorporates the use of the Apostles Creed, instead of the Nicene Creed, in Childrens' Masses and during the Easter season. The bishops approved continuing the practice of kneeling throughout the Eucharistic Prayer. According to Adoremus, Cardinal Roger Mahony suggested that the American Church (for the sake of unity) follow the universal norm which specifies standing through the Eucharistic Prayer, and kneeling only for the consecration. Though the bishops said refusing communion to those who kneel to receive it is "reprehensible and should be corrected," they specified in the "Appendix" that standing should be the norm for the reception of communion.
COMPULSORY KINDERGARTEN. A bill that passed the California State Assembly on June 6 calls for mandatory kindergarten attendance. The bill lowers the compulsory school attendance from six to five, requiring that each person between the ages of 5 and 18 to attend school full-time. In the analysis offered to the state Senate Education Committee, the bill's author, Assembly Member Herb Wesson (Democrat, Culver City), wrote: "Initially kindergarten was not mandated because kindergarten was seen primarily as a means to teach socialization and behavior skills prior to academic instruction. With the recent approval of state academic content standards in language arts, mathematics, science and history/social sciences, kindergarten curriculum is now viewed as an important start for a child's academic success. Mandatory kindergarten will help ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to achieve academic success."
The Home School Legal Defense Association joined with Family Protection Ministries to oppose the state bill, arguing it is a serious infringement on parental rights and could set a precedent to further lowering the mandatory school age of children. Both organizations urge those opposed to the bill to contact their state senators and urge them to vote against the bill.
The Senate Committee on Education passed the compulsory education bill 9-4 on July 17. The ayes were Senators (all Democrats) John Vasconcellos, Richard Alarcón (San Fernando Valley), Dede Alpert, Wesley Chesbro, Betty Karnette (Long Beach), Jack O'Connell (San Luis Obispo), Deborah Ortiz, Jack Scott (Pasadena), and Edward Vincent (Pasadena); the nos (all Republicans), Bruce McPherson (Santa Cruz), Ray Haynes (Riverside), Pete Knight (Palmdale, Santa Clarita), and Dick Monteith (Modesto). The bill was sent on to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, who were scheduled to hear it on August 20.
HOME SCHOOL TEACHERS MUST BE CERTIFIED? The Rialto Unified School District has sent out a number of intimidating letters to home schooling families, according to the July/August Home School Court Report, a publication of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association. The school district's director of child welfare and attendance in the letters wrote that he was contacting the parents because they had filed the state-required private school affidavit but had indicated that they had enrolled less than six students. The low enrollment, said the director, indicated that the schools were home schools. The director went on to reiterate a California Department of Education legal opinion, now several years old: "If your school is conducting a home schooling program in which children are instructed exclusively at home by non-credentialed persons. your program is not in compliance with the requirements of the compulsory school attendance laws of California."
Home School Legal Defense also reported that another home schooling mother in Ventura County is being threatened with a reduction in her Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments because she withdrew her son from the public school to teach him at home. "Mrs. B" followed California law, filing her affidavit as a private school. However, Ventura County declares that Mrs. B's son is not enrolled "in school." According to the Home School Legal Defense, "the county apparently is taking the current position of the California Department of Education: that parents teaching their children at home must be California certified teachers."
Home School Legal Defense will represent both Mrs. B and the Rialto parents. For more information on the Home School Legal Defense Association, one may contact them at P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville, VA 20134-9000; phone: (540) 338-5600; fax: (540) 338-2733; e-mail: mailroom@hslda.org; web page: http://www.hslda.org/
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR DRAG QUEENS? Making its through the state senate committees is legislation that has been, unofficially, titled, the "Cross Dressers Bill of Rights." Introduced by Assembly member Jackie Goldberg (Democrat from Los Angeles) and co-authored by Santa Monica's Democratic Senator Sheila Kuehl, the bill would, in the words of the senate summary, "extend the coverage of existing anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing to discrimination based on perceptions of an individual's gender regardless of whether the perceived gender characteristics are different from those traditionally associated with the individual's gender at birth. This bill would prohibit discrimination in housing and employment based on gender stereotypes. It would also extend the protection of existing anti-discrimination laws to transsexual and transgender individuals."
The bill passed the state assembly on May 31. It has since passed the senate judiciary committee and has been referred to the committee on appropriations.
BE SENSITIVE TO MUSLIMS. Officials of the yet-to-be-opened Junipero Serra High School in San Juan Captistrano have decided to change their team name, because it is too politically sensitive, said a June 26 Los Angeles Times report. The school's board had originally chosen the name "Crusaders," along with a logo sporting a shield with a cross and two swords, for their teams; school supporters, though, thought the name would offend Muslims. The school is now looking for another name to replace "Crusaders."
Bishop Tod Brown of Orange (head of ecumenical affairs for the United States bishops) said the news of the name change was "good news." "The challenge," said Brown, "is always to be respectful of other people's faith and be very sensitive to cultural and religious issues of those faiths."
Shabbir Mansuri, founder of the Council on Islamic Education in Fountain Valley, though, said he thought the Crusader name is a minor one. "The crusades are part of our history," said Mansuri, "but you can't put everything in black and white." The crusades, he said, led to "great exchanges of thoughts and ideas" between Muslims and Catholics.