Catholic News 2

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Birmingham, Ala., Apr 1, 2016 / 03:13 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Mother Angelica’s life must be viewed in reference to Jesus, the homilist at her funeral Mass said on Friday.

“We cannot understand Mother Angelica without reference the One that she loved with the passion of a bride, Jesus, the Eternal Word Who became man and dwelt among us,” said Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe, MVFA, in his homily at the funeral Mass for Mother Angelica, foundress of EWTN and Abbess Emerita at Our Lady of the Angels monastery in Hanceville, Alabama.

“Her legacy is a legacy of His work in her,” Fr. Joseph Mary added.

An estimated 2,000 mourners attended Mother Angelica’s funeral Mass at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, 45 miles north of Birmingham.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said the Mass, joined by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, as well as Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix, Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham, and his predecessor, Bishop David Foley, Mother’s long-time bishop.

Archbishop Vigano read aloud a message from Pope Francis at the end of the Mass.

“His Holiness Pope Francis was saddened to learn of the death of Mother Mary Angelica of the Annunciation, and extends heartfelt condolences to the Poor Clares of the Perpetual Adoration of Our Lady of the Angels Monastery, and to the EWTN community,” he said.

Pope Francis showed his “gratitude for mother Angelica’s service to the Gospel through social communications and through a life of prayer,” he continued. “The Holy Father commends her soul to the merciful love of Almighty God.”

Fr. Joseph Mary reflected that Christ, Mother Angelica's “bridegroom”, prompted her work at EWTN. She defended Church teaching because “she would defend the One she was wed to.”

Pointing to her healing as a teenager, he quoted her as saying she had previously been a “lukewarm” Catholic, but afterward “had a whole different attitude,” saying that “all I wanted to do after that healing was to give myself to Jesus.”

She carried this love with her for the rest of her life, especially in her work at EWTN, he noted.

“What was it that prompted the transformation of a garage into a television studio? The divinity of Jesus must be upheld,” he said. “He is the Eternal Word, the Divine Son of God. He is the bridegroom of the Church, and thus hers [Mother’s].”

“As a faithful bride she would defend the One she was wed to,” he added. “It was love for Jesus that impelled her.”

“Do we love Jesus enough to defend Him?” he asked.

He noted Mother’s love for the Eucharist, lived out in her daily adoration and reception of Holy Communion. She was “able to give life,” he said, “because [Jesus] gave life to her.”

Another legacy of Mother Angelica was her message of the “call to holiness being attainable for everyone,” Fr. Joseph Mary pointed out. She “cared deeply about the ordinary person,” and “hers was a practical spirituality for the man in the pew.”

“I think everyone here wants to be a saint,” he said. “Mother helped us to believe that it is attainable.”

He quoted from Sister Mary Michael, who came to Alabama with Mother Angelica in 1962. Mother had a “wealth of spiritual knowledge” combined with “experience” and “common sense,” he said, and she had a gift for seeing the “root of the problem.”

She even had a “yelling theology” she used if there was no other way to reach a person who wasn’t listening, he quipped. But “she never crushed you,” he added: she let you know afterward she still loved you.

Mother had to live through many illnesses and difficulties, but she never got discouraged, Fr. Joseph Mary said. She saw setbacks as an “opportunity to look for a solution,” and through trust in God “what seemed to be setbacks” would turn into “something better,” he noted.

“No pity parties allowed,” he said, explaining Mother’s outlook.

“Her only fear was not to do God’s will.”

Full Article

Charlotte, N.C., Apr 1, 2016 / 05:01 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The overturn of a Charlotte, North Carolina ordinance allowing biological males to enter women’s restrooms helps offer important protections against sexual predators, said family advocacy groups this week.

“The (original) Charlotte ordinance jeopardized the safety of women, and children,” Tami L. Fitzgerald executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, told CNA March 29. “It would have allowed any man in any woman’s bathroom, locker or shower room at any time where women and young girls would be in various stages of undress and be exposed or exposed to. The governor and state legislature were right to intervene and block it.”

Fitzgerald was responding to the passage of House Bill 2 by the North Carolina General Assembly on March 23, which blocked a Charlotte City Council Ordinance that would have gone into effect on April 1.

The nondiscrimination ordinance involved housing, employment and public facilities. It would have allowed individuals to use bathrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities that corresponded with their self-perceived “gender identity,” even if this differs from their biological sex.

Fitzgerald cautioned that the ordinance could have been used by sexual predators as a license to harm women and children.

The ordinance was met with widespread opposition. In North Carolina, 69 percent were in favor of repealing the Charlotte ordinance, according to a poll by Survey USA, sponsored by the Civitas Institute.

In response, House Bill 2, also known as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory after a decisive vote in favor, with the House 83-25 and the Senate 32-0.

The law blocks the Charlotte ordinance and explicitly clarifies that individuals are to use public locker rooms and restrooms corresponding to their biological sex, as designated on their birth certificate.

“Even 12 Democrats crossed over to help pass the bill,” noted Fitzgerald. “This is not a partisan issue but a commonsense issue. You just don’t allow men in women’s bathrooms.”

John Rustin, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council, told CNA March 30 that the Charlotte ordinance would have put the religious freedom of business owners at risk.

“The Charlotte ordinance is the type of measure that has been used in cities across the nation to go after florists, bakers, photographers, bed and breakfast owners, and small business owners who refuse to comply with a radical definition of sexuality and gender identity,” Rustin said.

“These small business owners have been sued and vilified because they have refused to use their gifts and talents, whether it is to bake a cake, take pictures or what have you, and participate in a same-sex ceremony because it violates their religious beliefs about what marriage truly is – the union of one man and one woman.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina disagrees and filed a lawsuit March 28 against the state, claiming it discriminates against the LGBT community. According to the lawsuit, the bill violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.  

Kellie Fiedorek, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said that the lawsuit is “completely meritless and contradicts the commonsense principle that men and women need to have privacy and safety when entering an intimate setting.”

“This is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because under North Carolina law, everyone is treated the same,” she told CNA.

“The law simply looks at biology as stated on a person’s birth certificate and is blind to any other characteristic,” she said. “This is the only sensible and enforceable policy that has worked for hundreds of years. And the law also offers accommodations for those with special circumstances.”

Fiedorek also said that Title IX does not require schools to open restrooms to members of the opposite sex. Rather, it “specifically allows schools to provide separate bathrooms, showers and locker rooms on campus on the basis of biological sex.”

“Since Title IX became law almost 44 years ago, federal courts have consistently ruled in favor of schools having the right to adopt these privacy policies,” she continued.

At a news conference on March 29, State Attorney General Roy Cooper sided with the ACLU and said House Bill 2 is “discriminatory” and will hurt North Carolina’s economy. He vowed to repeal it and “restore North Carolina’s national reputation.”

Since signing the bill into law, Governor McCrory has received numerous boycott threats from companies and franchises.

More than 90 business leaders – including those from Google Ventures, Starbucks, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Accenture – have called for the repeal of the law, saying that it “sanctioned discrimination.”

Threats of boycotting the state have followed with San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee issuing an order banning federal employees from traveling to North Carolina. The NBA also threatened to move the 2017All-Star Game out of Charlotte.  

Indiana and Georgia also recently received boycott threats from major corporations, including Apple, Disney and the NFL, after trying to enact laws protecting religious freedom.

Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American principles and public policy at The Heritage Foundation, warned that some businesses are unjustly trying to impose their values on society.

“Big business should not get to dictate what our laws are going to be,” Anderson said. “We are now seeing the emergence of what I call a ‘cultural cronyism,’ which is similar to crony capitalism, whereby big business colludes with big government to get its way. In this instance, big business is trying to get the government to impose its cultural values and its definition of sexuality.”

Anderson said that these broad anti-discrimination measures are being used by activists to expand upon their same-sex marriage victory at the Supreme Court.

“These anti-discrimination ordinances include sexual orientation and gender identity so that anyone who does not comply will be accused of discrimination. It is a way to eliminate dissent.”

While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of same-sex civil marriage, Anderson stressed that “freedom is a two-way street” that should respect all people.

“People should be free to live how they want to live,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean that we should rush in and allow biological males to have unfettered access to women and children’s bathrooms or that we should be shutting down Catholic adoption agencies opposed to helping same-sex couples adopt a child, or penalize schools that won’t employ teachers who undermine their religious teachings.”

Noting that the majority of people in North Carolina had opposed the original Charlotte ordinance, Anderson said that “the battle with the American people has not been lost” and urged public officials to be brave in overcoming threats from big business.

“The American people are in favor of laws that protect their religious freedom and the safety of women and children in restrooms,” he said. “It is the elites that are not. Public officials will need courage not to be bullied into submission – whether it is by corporate elites, media elites or Hollywood elite – to enact policies that preserve the common good.”

 

Full Article

IMAGE: CNS photo/Joshua Roberts, Reuters

By Carol Zimmermann

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Immediately after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell March 23 challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive requirement, the second-guessing began about how the court will rule.

The 108-page transcript of the arguments was gleaned for hardly obscure clues and court watchers predicted a split decision of 4-4 from the eight-member court.

And then less than a week later, that prediction became cloudy.

On March 29, the court issued an unusual order seeking additional briefs from the plaintiffs and the federal government about how and if contraceptive insurance coverage could be obtained by employees through their insurance companies without directly involving religious employers who object to this coverage.

The two-page order was given a positive spin by both sides and also seen by many as a clear indication that the court was taking extra steps to avoid an evenly split decision that would uphold the lower courts' rulings and mean the contraceptive mandate for religious groups would be interpreted differently in different parts of the country.

The case argued before the court involves the Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, the Pennsylvania dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, and the Archdiocese of Washington and other religious groups challenging the Affordable Care Act's mandate that most religious and other employers must cover contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients through employer-provided health insurance.

These groups, who do not fit the narrow exemption to the contraceptive mandate given to churches, argue that providing contraceptive coverage even indirectly through a third party, as the Obama administration allows through what it calls an accommodation, still violates their religious beliefs.

In oral arguments, the discussion centered on health exchanges, grandfathered clauses and exemptions, and ways to provide seamless health care coverage. But the allotted time seemed to have left unanswered questions about other possibilities, which the court's subsequent order is now seeking.

Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the Little Sisters of the Poor, called the court's order "an excellent development."

He said it shows the court "understood the sisters' concern that the government's current scheme forces them to violate their religion." In a March 29 statement, he also said the attorneys "look forward to offering alternatives that protect the Little Sisters' religious liberty while allowing the government to meet its stated goals."

Priests for Life also reacted confidently, saying: "We see this as a positive development."

"The court appears to be looking for a least restrictive alternative that would not burden our religious beliefs, which will ultimately mean that the government did not satisfy its burden under Religious Freedom Restoration Act," the group said.

On the other side, some groups that filed amicus briefs on behalf of the Justice Department, which is representing the Obama administration, also viewed the court's action in a positive light.

Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, described the court's order as a twist she hadn't expected, but she also said the request for more information could be interpreted as a recognition that "taking contraception out of health plans is harmful."

And Greg Lipper, senior counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a blog post that "it's foolish to read tea leaves" in the court's order, but he would do so anyway.

He called it "a decent sign for the government," which he said signaled that at least five justices seemed to think that the challengers' proposed alternatives to the government's accommodation would "harm women by preventing them from receiving seamless and convenient coverage."

"If the court thought that those other alternatives were sufficient, then it wouldn't be looking for a way to ensure that women retained accommodation-style seamless coverage," he added.

Vivian Hamilton, a law professor at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, told Catholic News Service that although she would be careful about "reading too much into the justices' request for more information," it did seem to suggest that they are "considering whether an accommodation might be crafted that would both permit the government to meet its compelling interest in ensuring that women have the ability to obtain contraceptive health coverage yet also respect religious employers' objection to participating -- even indirectly -- in the provision of such coverage."

Another interpretation, from legal analyst Lyle Denniston, who writes for www.scotusblog.com, a blog on the Supreme Court, said the specific wording of the court's order makes it seem that the justices have accepted, even if tentatively, the views of both sides.

If lawyers representing religious employers and the government do not come up with satisfactory answers to the order, Denniston said the justices will have to make their decision based on the oral arguments.

And if that's the case, the decision could very well hinge on the word "hijack," which was used seven times in the 94 minutes of oral arguments to refer to the plaintiffs' arguments the government was "hijacking" insurance plans to make religious groups provide contraceptive coverage against their will.

"The petitioner has used the phrase 'hijacking,' and it seems to me that that's an accurate description of what the government wants to do," Chief Justice John Roberts told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote everyone is looking at in this case, also picked up on the hijacking theme. When Verrilli explained that it was necessary to include contraceptive coverage in employer health plans instead of in a separate plan, Kennedy said: "That's why it's necessary to hijack the plans."

Kennedy sided with the majority in the 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling when it said family-owned companies run on religious principles could object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the Affordable Care Act for religious reasons.

In the March 23 argument, Kennedy questioned whether it would be difficult for the government to arrange alternative access to contraceptive coverage that would not force religious groups to be complicit.

"If it's so easy to provide, if it's so free, why can't they just get it through another plan?" he asked.

For now, it's back to the drawing board for both sides to come up with more answers.

And the only clear signal is that a decision on this case is not likely to come down soon, especially with the extra homework for both sides; it will likely be released near the end of the term in late June.

- - -

Follow Zimmermann on Twitter @carolmaczim.

- - -

Copyright © 2016 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. www.catholicnews.com. All rights reserved. Republishing or redistributing of CNS content, including by framing or similar means without prior permission, is prohibited. You may link to stories on our public site. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To request permission for republishing or redistributing of CNS content, please contact permissions at cns@catholicnews.com.

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article