Catholic News 2

Full Article

Washington D.C., Jun 19, 2017 / 02:59 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- As a new administration takes form, human rights advocates have showed concern over a possible de-emphasis on human rights and religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy.

“Freedom of religion is the foundational freedom upon which our nation was founded. Because this is a core American value, the U.S. cannot simply ignore the cries of oppressed sufferers abroad,” Dr. Randel Everett, president and founder of the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, stated May 23.

“Our foreign policy must reflect this essential component of global security,” he continued.

In a May 3 speech to State Department employees by new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, he said that U.S. foreign policy cannot always be contingent on “values” like religious freedom and human rights.  

“Now, I think it’s important to also remember that guiding all of our foreign policy actions are our fundamental values: our values around freedom, human dignity, the way people are treated,” Tillerson said.

“Those are our values. Those are not our policies; they’re values,” he continued, explaining that “policies can change,” while “our values never change. They’re constant throughout all of this.”

Yet Tillerson went on to say that “in some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our national security goals or our national security interests.”

The U.S. took a long time to fundamentally adopt these “values,” he added, and cannot expect other countries to adopt them overnight.

“If we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests,” he said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) responded with a May 8 op-ed in the New York Times, insisting that “we are a country with a conscience. We have long believed moral concerns must be an essential part of our foreign policy, not a departure from it.”

“To view foreign policy as simply transactional is more dangerous than its proponents realize,” he continued. “Depriving the oppressed of a beacon of hope could lose us the world we have built and thrived in.”

Tillerson’s speech was not the only signal from the State Department that concerned human rights advocates.

Back in March, the agency held a somewhat muted release of its annual reports on human rights in foreign countries. Tillerson was not present at a public release of the report, something that reporters pointed out was a break with long-standing precedent.

Instead, the report was discussed in an on-background conference call with reporters by a “senior administration official.”

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.), co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, noted this in his April statement on the administration’s record in promoting human rights.

“I am concerned at the muted attention the administration has given so far on human rights,” he said, noting “the downplayed release of the State Department’s human rights report.”

“Promoting trade and economic and military cooperation are all essential to America's future – but these mean little if we ignore the people in countries around the world who are suffering at the hands of their own governments and their rights are being abused,” he continued, in a statement made weeks before Tillerson’s May 4 speech.

The concerns come at a time when some are trying to ratchet up international attention on human rights abuses. The bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, for instance, launched its Prisoners of Conscience Project earlier this spring, drawing attention to the plight of those detained, tortured, or killed by foreign governments because of their religious beliefs.

The commission hopes that the project will attract the attention of the public, but also of lawmakers who can ask to visit these prisoners when they travel abroad. “Public inattention can often lead to more persecution,” the commission’s chair, Fr. Thomas Reese, stated at the launch of the project.

Yet religious freedom advocates are also worried about the direction of the State Department. Everett issued a response to Tillerson’s speech on May 23, explaining how important the promotion of international religious freedom is to U.S. national security interests.

“When we disregard the brutality of religious persecution, the world becomes more dangerous for all,” he said.

As an example of this, he pointed out that “fifteen of the nineteen terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. All were Islamist extremists who believed violence is an acceptable tool to achieve their goals of global adherence to their strict religious laws.”

“Is it a coincidence that these men came from a nation where there is no religious freedom?” he asked.

Not all State Department actions have received criticism from human rights advocates. On April 4, the administration announced it would stop supporting the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) because of its support for China’s coercive two-child policy, which was for years a one-child policy until 2015.

China’s forced family-planning policy has resulted in massive human rights abuses like forced abortions and sterilizations of women. The UNFPA “gave China’s brutally enforced population control policies the international stamp of approval,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chair of the House panel on global human rights, stated.

Smith applauded the administration’s decision to stop funding the UNFPA.

“I am heartened by the Trump Administration’s early action to apply Kemp-Kasten and end U.S. support for this most egregious human rights violation,” Smith said of the action. The Kemp-Kasten Amendment allows the President to decide not to fund entities that engage in forced abortions or sterilizations.

Others are trying to inform and push the administration to recognize the importance of religious freedom to U.S. diplomacy. The Religious Freedom Institute released a March report with recommendations for the U.S. government.

“The President should state clearly and often that U.S. IRF policy will be a national security and minority rights priority for his administration,” the report stated.

It also asked the President to nominate an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom soon, and for Congress to support the new ambassador by making sure he or she has the proper resources and staff within the State Department.

Full Article

Los Angeles, Calif., Jun 19, 2017 / 03:11 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles stressed the importance of unity at a Mass recognizing immigrants, as the archdiocese launched a new website with information and resources on the subject of immigration.

Some 3,000 people attended the Mass in Recognition of All Immigrants, celebrate on June 18, the Feast of Corpus Christi, at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.

“Let us dedicate ourselves – all of us – to the beautiful promise of America!” the archbishop said in his homily. “Out of many – we can be one! We will be one!”

The Mass marks the end of a novena throughout Los Angeles, as well as the end of a “three-day, 50-mile walking pilgrimage by a group of faithful from Orange County to the Cathedral for all those impacted by the broken immigration system,” according to an archdiocesan press release.

One day following the Mass, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles launched a new bilingual resource website, TheNextAmerica.org (FuturoEstadosUnidos.org). The goal of the website is “to raise awareness, provide resources and share the Christian perspective on immigration.”

The website offers information on the topic of immigration and current laws surrounding the issue, as well as the principles outlined by Archbishop Gomez for comprehensive immigration reform. It also offers opportunities to attend events and workshops, contact lawmakers, present prayer requests and seek immigration help.

The June 18 Mass and subsequent launch of the resource website took place just days after Archbishop Gomez spoke to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on the efforts of the immigration working group which he helped direct.

The archbishop spoke in both English and Spanish as he delivered his homily. In addition to the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, he said, “(t)oday, we are also celebrating the immigrant spirit that makes America wonderful.”

Reflecting on immigration in the country, Archbishop Gomez said that “America has always been a beautiful collection of immigrant peoples. And the immigrant spirit is still renewing the soul of America.”

He gave advice for confronting the challenges behind immigration, saying, “In our lives, we need prayer and action. But, as the saints remind us – prayer should always come first.”

“The promise of America is that this land will be a home for all peoples – no matter the color of their skin, or what nation they come from, or what language they speak, or what religion they believe,” he commented on the history of the nation.

He indicated the relics of three saints by the altar – St. Junipero Serra, St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, and St. Toribio Romo – and asked for their prayers.

“The saints, my brothers and sisters, are with you and the Church is with you. And our country needs you. America needs your gifts and talents,” he said.

“Out of many, we are one. This is the promise of America.”

Reflecting on the Feast of Corpus Christi, the archbishop noted that “In the Body of Christ, we are no longer strangers. We meet one another as friends.”

“The beautiful mystery of Corpus Christi means that we have a duty to care for others, to show compassion,” he said. “In Jesus Christ, we are one Body. And when one member of the Body is suffering, it means we all suffer.”

“Jesus told us that he would be present in the poor – just as he is present in the Eucharist.”

In closing his remarks, Archbishop Gomez called for prayers for the country’s leaders, and for “peace and security and freedom in our borders.” He invoked the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe to “help us build the next America, and renew the soul of our society.”

After Mass, the relics of the three saints were presented for veneration. The faithful also wrote prayer requests, which will be presented at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City on July 8, during the Archdiocesan Pilgrimage with Archbishop Gomez.

 

Full Article

Washington D.C., Jun 19, 2017 / 03:26 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a defendant has a right to a mental health evaluation independent of the prosecution, which could have wide-ranging implications for the justice system.

“This is a very important decision,” Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, told CNA of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in McWilliams v. Dunn.

“A mental health expert helps the defense investigate mental health defenses in the case,” he explained June 19. “Although most states already routinely provide independent mental health experts for the defense, this decision makes clear that this type of expert has always been required by due process,” he said.

The defendant in the case, James Edmond McWilliams, was convicted in 1985 in Alabama of robbing, raping, and murdering a store clerk. He was sentenced to death the following year.

A three-member “lunacy commission” was organized by the state to evaluate his condition, and they concluded that McWilliams had not been significantly impaired by mental illness at the time of his crime. McWilliams was convicted of capital murder.

Before his sentencing hearing, his defense had requested a mental health expert to conduct neurological and neuropsychological tests, as he had previously suffered serious head trauma.

However, the mental health expert was provided by the state. The neuropsychologist Dr. John Goff concluded that McWilliams had exaggerated his condition but nevertheless showed signs of neuropsychological problems.

However, the results of McWilliams’ evaluation were not given to his lawyers until two days before the sentencing hearing. They reportedly did not receive his mental health records until the day of the hearing.

At the hearing, his lawyers requested more time to review the report and the records, as well as a mental health expert to help interpret those records, but their request was denied by the judge, who promptly sentenced McWilliams to death.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the decision did not manifest the “substantial and injurious effect or influence” required for relief in the case, and denied McWilliams’ request for relief.

On Monday, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and sent it back to the circuit court. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion, wrote that Ake v. Oklahoma, a 1985 Supreme Court decision, “does not require just an examination”  of a defendant’s competency.

“Rather, it requires the State to provide the defense with ‘access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate [1] examination and assist in [2] evaluation, [3] preparation, and [4] presentation of the defense’,” he continued.

Alabama failed to meet this standard in McWilliams’ case, he said, as “petitioner in this case did not receive that assistance.”

The availability of a mental health expert independent of the prosecution was critical to the case, Dunham argued.

“An independent mental health expert would have been able to explain that McWilliams had brain damage and other serious mental health impairments,” Dunham said, “but without an independent mental health expert, the Alabama trial judge who imposed the sentence found no mitigating evidence at all.”

“It’s not unusual that the prosecution will present a mental health expert or a forensic expert who offers unscientific or even junk science testimony,” he added. “We’ve had dozens of cases where prosecutors have presented junk science testimony about bite marks” or “microscopic hair comparison.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch. The question at hand, he argued, was whether the defense is entitled to a mental health expert that it can select.

“We granted review in this case to decide a straightforward legal question on which the lower courts are divided: whether our decision in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68 (1985), clearly established that an indigent defendant whose mental health will be a significant factor at trial is entitled to the assistance of a psychiatric expert who is a member of the defense team instead of a neutral expert who is available to assist both the prosecution and the defense,” he wrote.

“The answer to that question is plain: Ake did not clearly establish that a defendant is entitled to an expert who is a member of the defense team,” he stated.

Ultimately, the decision will have wide-ranging effects in the justice system, Dunham said, affecting more inmates than McWilliams.

Two inmates in Arkansas, Bruce Ward and Don Davis, recently received stays of execution based on the outcome of the McWilliams case. Their scheduled executions were two of eight that were planned by the state in the span of 10 days in April, and because of Monday’s decision they now have “an opportunity to get relief,” Dunham said.

Monday’s decision is also significant because the Supreme Court found precedent in the case. Thus, it was able to apply the 1985 Ake decision to McWilliams’ case, which began shortly after that decision was issued.

Dozens of inmates have been executed, Dunham said, because “the courts have not applied the Constitution to their cases.” Now, this precedent can apply to all cases dating back to 1985.

McWilliams’ counsel of record Stephen Bright stated that the decision is ultimately “about fairness.”

“The adversarial process cannot function properly if the prosecution can retain mental health experts, but the defense is not even allowed to consult with an expert,” he stated.

“James McWilliams could not have a fair trial without a mental health expert to assess his brain damage and other mental impairments and to help his counsel present that information to the sentencing court. He was denied such assistance.”

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article

Full Article