St. James News and Information

Richmond Diocese Information on VA Tech Tragedy

From the Richmond Diocese Website:

Tragedy at Virginia Tech

Letter From Representative of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI
Statement From Bishop DiLorenzo
Pastoral Care at Virginia Tech Prayer
Richmond Diocese Services for Virginia Tech

Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility

Introduction

Elections are a time for debate and decisions about the leaders, policies, and values that will guide our nation. Since the last presidential election and our last reflection on faithful citizenship, our nation has been attacked by terrorists and has gone to war twice.1 We have moved from how to share budget surpluses to how to allocate the burdens of deficits. As we approach the elections of 2004, we face difficult challenges for our nation and world.

Our nation has been wounded. September 11 and what followed have taught us that no amount of military strength, economic power, or technological advances can truly guarantee security, prosperity, or progress. The most important challenges we face are not simply political, economic, or technological, but ethical, moral, and spiritual. We face fundamental questions of life and death, war and peace, who moves ahead and who is left behind.

Our Church is also working to heal wounds. Our community of faith and especially we, as bishops, are working to face our responsibility and take all necessary steps to overcome the hurt, damage, and loss of trust resulting from the evil of clerical sexual abuse. While working to protect children and rebuild trust, we must not abandon the Church's important role in public life and the duty to encourage Catholics to act on our faith in political life.

These times and this election will test us as American Catholics. A renewed commitment to faithful citizenship can help heal the wounds of our nation, world, and Church. What we have endured has changed many things, but it has not changed the fundamental mission and message of Catholics in public life. In times of terror and war, of global insecurity and economic uncertainty, of disrespect for human life and human dignity, we need to return to basic moral principles. Politics cannot be merely about ideological conflict, the search for partisan advantage, or political contributions. It should be about fundamental moral choices. How do we protect human life and dignity? How do we fairly share the blessings and burdens of the challenges we face? What kind of nation do we want to be? What kind of world do we want to shape?

Politics in this election year and beyond should be about an old idea with new power--the common good. The central question should not be, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" It should be, "How can ‘we'--all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable--be better off in the years ahead? How can we protect and promote human life and dignity? How can we pursue greater justice and peace?"

In the face of all these challenges, we offer once again a simple image--a table.2 Who has a place at the table of life? Where is the place at the table for a million of our nation's children who are destroyed every year before they are born? How can we secure a place at the table for the hungry and those who lack health care in our own land and around the world? Where is the place at the table for those in our world who lack the freedom to practice their faith or stand up for what they believe? How do we ensure that families in our inner cities and rural communities, in barrios in Latin America and villages in Africa and Asia have a place at the table--enough to eat, decent work and wages, education for their children, adequate health care and housing, and most of all, hope for the future?

We remember especially the people who are now missing at the table of life--those lost in the terror of September 11, in the service of our nation, and in the bloody conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa.

A table is also a place where important decisions are made in our communities, nation, and world. How can the poorest people on Earth and those who are vulnerable in our land, including immigrants and those who suffer discrimination, have a real place at the tables where policies and priorities are set?

For Catholics, a special table--the altar of sacrifice, where we celebrate the Eucharist--is where we find the direction and strength to take what we believe into the public square, using our voices and votes to defend life, advance justice, pursue peace, and find a place at the table for all God's children.

Tasks and Questions for Believers

Our nation has been blessed with freedom, democracy, abundant resources, and generous and religious people. However, our prosperity does not reach far enough. Our culture sometimes does not lift us up but brings us down in moral terms. Our world is wounded by terror, torn apart by conflict, and haunted by hunger.

As we approach the elections of 2004, we renew our call for a new kind of politics--focused on moral principles not on the latest polls, on the needs of the poor and vulnerable not the contributions of the rich and powerful, and on the pursuit of the common good not the demands of special interests.

Faithful citizenship calls Catholics to see civic and political responsibilities through the eyes of faith and to bring our moral convictions to public life. People of good will and sound faith can disagree about specific applications of Catholic principles. However, Catholics in public life have a particular responsibility to bring together consistently their faith, moral principles, and public responsibilities.

At this time, some Catholics may feel politically homeless, sensing that no political party and too few candidates share a consistent concern for human life and dignity. However, this is not a time for retreat or discouragement. We need more, not less engagement in political life. We urge Catholics to become more involved?by running for office; by working within political parties; by contributing money or time to campaigns; and by joining diocesan legislative networks, community organizations, and other efforts to apply Catholic principles in the public square.

The Catholic community is a diverse community of faith, not an interest group. Our Church does not offer contributions or endorsements. Instead, we raise a series of questions, seeking to help lift up the moral and human dimensions of the choices facing voters and candidates:

1. After September 11, how can we build not only a safer world, but a better world?more just, more secure, more peaceful, more respectful of human life and dignity?
2. How will we protect the weakest in our midst--innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a "culture of death"? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems--abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?
3. How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world, as well as the fact that the younger you are, the more likely you are to be poor here in the richest nation on Earth?
4. How can our nation help parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, a sense of hope, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility? How can our society defend the central institution of marriage and better support families in their moral roles and responsibilities, offering them real choices and financial resources to obtain quality education and decent housing?
5. How will we address the growing number of families and individuals without affordable and accessible health care? How can health care better protect human life and respect human dignity?
6. How will our society combat continuing prejudice, overcome hostility toward immigrants and refugees, and heal the wounds of racism, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination?
7. How will our nation pursue the values of justice and peace in a world where injustice is common, desperate poverty widespread, and peace is too often overwhelmed by violence?
8. What are the responsibilities and limitations of families, community organizations, markets, and government? How can these elements of society work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, care for creation, and overcome injustice?
9. When should our nation use, or avoid the use of, military force--for what purpose, under what authority, and at what human cost?
10. How can we join with other nations to lead the world to greater respect for human life and dignity, religious freedom and democracy, economic justice, and care for God's creation?

We hope these questions and the 2004 campaigns can lead to less cynicism and more participation, less partisanship, and more civil dialogue on fundamental issues.

A Call to Faithful Citizenship

One of our greatest blessings in the United States is our right and responsibility to participate in civic life. Everyone can and should participate. Even those who cannot vote have the right to have their voices heard on issues that affect their communities.

The Constitution protects the right of individuals and of religious bodies to speak out without governmental interference, favoritism, or discrimination. Major public issues have moral dimensions. Religious values have significant public consequences. Our nation is enriched and our tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups contribute their values to public debates.

As bishops, we have a responsibility as Americans and as religious teachers to speak out on the moral dimensions of public life. The Catholic community enters public life not to impose sectarian doctrine but to act on our moral convictions, to share our experience in serving the poor and vulnerable, and to participate in the dialogue over our nation's future.

A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of "right" or "left," nor tthe platforms of any party. Our values are often not "politically correct." Believers are called to be a community of conscience within the larger society and to test public life by the values of Scripture and the principles of Catholic social teaching. Our responsibility is to measure all candidates, policies, parties, and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person?whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good.

Jesus called us to "love one another".3 Our Lord's example and words demand care for the "least of these"4 from each of us. Yet they also require action on a broader scale. Faithful citizenship is about more than elections. It requires ongoing participation in the continuing political and legislative process.

A recent Vatican statement on Catholic participation in political life highlights the need for involvement:

Today's democratic societies . . . call for new and fuller forms of participation in public life by Christian and non-Christian citizens alike. Indeed, all can contribute, by voting in elections for lawmakers and government officials, and in other ways as well, to the development of political solutions and legislative choices which, in their opinion, will benefit the common good.5 In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation. All believers are called to faithful citizenship, to become informed, active, and responsible participants in the political process. As we have said, "We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate [more fully] in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power."6 Even those who are not citizens are called to participate in the debates which shape our common life.

Catholic Assets in the Public Square

Our community of faith brings three major assets to these challenges.

A Consistent Moral Framework
The Word of God and the teachings of the Church give us a particular way of viewing the world. Scripture calls us to "choose life," to serve "the least of these," to "hunger and thirst" for justice and to be "peacemakers."7

Catholic teaching offers consistent moral principles to assess issues, political platforms, and campaigns for their impact on human life and dignity. As Catholics, we are not free to abandon unborn children because they are seen as unwanted or inconvenient; to turn our backs on immigrants because they lack the proper documents; to create and then destroy human lives in a quest for medical advances or profit; to turn away from poor women and children because they lack economic or political power; or to ignore sick people because they have no insurance. Nor can we neglect international responsibilities in the aftermath of war because resources are scarce. Catholic teaching requires us to speak up for the voiceless and to act in accord with universal moral values.

Everyday Experience
Our community also brings to public life broad experience in serving those in need. Every day, the Catholic community educates the young, cares for the sick, shelters the homeless, feeds the hungry, assists needy families, welcomes refugees, and serves the elderly.8 In defense of life, we reach out to children and to the sick, elderly, and disabled who need help. We support women in difficult pregnancies, and we assist those wounded by the trauma of abortion and domestic violence. On many issues, we speak for those who have no voice. These are not abstract issues for us; they have names and faces. We have practical expertise and daily experience to contribute to the public debate.

A Community of People
The Catholic community is large and diverse. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We are members of every race, come from every ethnic background, and live in urban, rural, and suburban communities in all fifty states. We are CEOs and migrant farm workers, senators and persons on public assistance, business owners and union members. But all Catholics are called to a common commitment to protect human life and stand with those who are poor and vulnerable. We are all called to provide a moral leaven for our democracy, to be the salt of the earth.9

The Role of the Church

The Church is called to educate Catholics about our social teaching, highlight the moral dimensions of public policies, participate in debates on matters affecting the common good, and witness to the Gospel through our services and ministries. The Catholic community's participation in public affairs does not undermine, but enriches the political process and affirms genuine pluralism. Leaders of the Church have the right and duty to share Catholic teaching and to educate Catholics on the moral dimensions of public life, so that they may form their consciences in light of their faith.

The recent Vatican statement on political life points this out:

[The Church] does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends--as is its proper function--to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.10 We urge our fellow citizens "to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest."11 As bishops, we seek to form the consciences of our people. We do not wish to instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing or opposing candidates. We hope that voters will examine the position of candidates on the full range of issues, as well as on their personal integrity, philosophy, and performance. We are convinced that a consistent ethic of life should be the moral framework from which to address issues in the political arena. 12

For Catholics, the defense of human life and dignity is not a narrow cause, but a way of life and a framework for action. A key message of the Vatican statement on public life is that Catholics in politics must reflect the moral values of our faith with clear and consistent priority for the life and dignity of the human person.13 This is the fundamental moral measure of their service. The Vatican statement also points out:

It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good.14 Decisions about candidates and choices about public policies require clear commitment to moral principles, careful discernment and prudential judgments based on the values of our faith.

The coming elections provide important opportunities to bring together our principles, experience, and community in effective public witness. We hope parishes, dioceses, schools, colleges, and other Catholic institutions will encourage active participation through non-partisan voter registration and education efforts, as well as through ongoing legislative networks and advocacy programs.15 As Catholics we need to share our values, raise our voices, and use our votes to shape a society that protects human life, promotes family life, pursues social justice, and practices solidarity. These efforts can strengthen our nation and renew our Church.

Themes of Catholic Social Teaching

The Catholic approach to faithful citizenship begins with moral principles, not party platforms. The directions for our public witness are found in Scripture and Catholic social teaching. Here are some key themes at the heart of our Catholic social tradition.16

Life and Dignity of the Human Person
Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, each person's life and dignity must be respected, whether that person is an innocent unborn child in a mother's womb, whether that person worked in the World Trade Center or a market in Baghdad, or even whether that person is a convicted criminal on death row. We believe that every human life is sacred from conception to natural death, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it protects and respects the life and dignity of the human person. As the recent Vatican statement points out, "The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle."17

Call to Family, Community, and Participation
The human person is not only sacred, but social. The God-given institutions of marriage--a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman--and family are central and serve as the foundations for social life. Marriage and family should be supported and strengthened, not undermined. Every person has a right to participate in social, economic, and political life and a corresponding duty to work for the advancement of the common good and the well-being of all, especially the poor and weak.

Rights and Responsibilities
Every person has a fundamental right to life--the right that makes all other rights possible. Each person also has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. We also have a duty to secure and respect these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society.

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
Scripture teaches that God has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable.18 The prophets denounced injustice toward the poor as a lack of fidelity to the God of Israel.19 Jesus, who identified himself with "the least of these",20 came to preach "good news to the poor, liberty to captives . . . and to set the downtrodden free."21 The Church calls on all of us to embrace this preferential option for the poor and vulnerable,22 to embody it in our lives, and to work to have it shape public policies and priorities. A fundamental measure of our society is how we care for and stand with the poor and vulnerable.

Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God's act of creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers, owners, and others must be respected—the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to organize and choose to join a union, to economic initiative, and to ownership and private property. These rights must be exercised in ways that advance the common good.

Solidarity
We are one human family. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, wherever they may be. Pope John Paul II insists, "We are all really responsible for all". Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that "if you want peace, work for justice."23 The Gospel calls us to be "peacemakers."24 Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we be "sentinels of peace" in a world wounded by violence and conflict.25

Caring for God's Creation
The world that God created has been entrusted to us. Our use of it must be directed by God's plan for creation, not simply for our own benefit. Our stewardship of the Earth is a form of participation in God's act of creating and sustaining the world. In our use of creation, we must be guided by a concern for generations to come. We show our respect for the Creator by our care for creation.

These themes anchor our community's role in public life. They help us to resist excessive self-interest, blind partisanship, and ideological agendas. They also help us avoid extreme distortions of pluralism and tolerance that deny any fundamental values and dismiss the contributions and convictions of believers. As the Vatican's statement on public life explains, we cannot accept an understanding of pluralism and tolerance that suggests "every possible outlook on life [is] of equal value".26 However, this insistence that there are fundamental moral values "has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good".27

Moral Priorities for Public Life

We wish to call special attention to issues that we believe are important in the national debate in this campaign and in the years to come. These brief summaries do not indicate the depth and details of the positions we have taken in the documents which are cited at the end of this statement.

Protecting Human Life
Human life is a gift from God, sacred and inviolable. Because every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, we have a duty to defend human life from conception until natural death and in every condition.

Our world does not lack for threats to human life. We watch with horror the deadly violence of terror, war, starvation, and children dying from disease. We face a new and insidious mentality that denies the dignity of some vulnerable human lives and treats killing as a personal choice and social good. As we wrote in Living the Gospel of Life, "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others".28 Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable. The destruction of human embryos as objects of research is wrong. This wrong is compounded when human life is created by cloning or other means only to be destroyed. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is never an act of mercy. It is an unjustifiable assault on human life. For the same reasons, the intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong.

In protecting human life, "We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem."29

We urge Catholics and others to promote laws and social policies that protect human life and promote human dignity to the maximum degree possible. Laws that legitimize abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are profoundly unjust and immoral. We support constitutional protection for unborn human life, as well as legislative efforts to end abortion and euthanasia. We encourage the passage of laws and programs that promote childbirth and adoption over abortion and assist pregnant women and children. We support aid to those who are sick and dying by encouraging health care coverage for all as well as effective palliative care. We call on government and medical researchers to base their decisions regarding biotechnology and human experimentation on respect for the inherent dignity and inviolability of human life from its very beginning, regardless of the circumstances of its origin.

Catholic teaching calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding ever more effective ways to prevent conflicts from arising, to resolve them by peaceful means, and to promote post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. All nations have a right and duty to defend human life and the common good against terrorism, aggression, and similar threats. In the aftermath of September 11, we called for continuing outreach to those who had been harmed, clear resolve in responding to terror, moral restraint in the means used, respect for ethical limits on the use of force, greater focus on the roots of terror, and a serious effort to share fairly the burdens of this response. While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force.

Even when military force is justified, it must be discriminate and proportionate. Direct, intentional attacks on civilians in war are never morally acceptable. Nor is the use of weapons of mass destruction or other weapons that cause disproportionate harm or that cannot be deployed in ways that distinguish between civilians and soldiers. Therefore, we urge our nation to strengthen barriers against the use of nuclear weapons, to expand controls over existing nuclear materials and other weapons of mass destruction, and to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as a step toward much deeper cuts and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. We also urge our nation to join the treaty to ban anti-personnel landmines and to address the human consequences of cluster bombs. We further urge our nation to take immediate and serious steps to reduce its own disproportionate role in the scandalous global trade in arms, which contributes to violent conflicts around the world.

Society has a right and duty to defend itself against violent crime and a duty to reach out to victims of crime. Yet our nation's increasing reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. We do not teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others. Pope John Paul II has said the penalty of death is "both cruel and unnecessary".30 The antidote to violence is not more violence. In light of the Holy Father's insistence that this is part of our pro-life commitment, we encourage solutions to violent crime that reflect the dignity of the human person, urging our nation to abandon the use of capital punishment. We also urge passage of legislation that would address problems in the judicial system, and restrict and restrain the use of the death penalty through use of DNA evidence, a guarantee of effective counsel, and efforts to address issues of racial justice.

Promoting Family Life
God established the family as the basic cell of human society. Therefore, we must strive to make the needs and concerns of families a central national priority. Marriage must be protected as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman and our laws should reflect this principle.. Marriage, as God intended, provides the basic foundation for family life and the common good. It must be supported in the face of the many pressures working to undermine it. Policies related to the definition of marriage, taxes, the workplace, divorce, and welfare must be designed to help families stay together and to reward responsibility and sacrifice for children. Because financial and economic factors have such an impact on the well-being and stability of families, it is important that just wages be paid to those who work to support their families and that generous efforts be made to aid poor families.

Children must be protected and nurtured. We affirm our commitment to the protection of children in all settings and at all times, and we support policies that ensure that the well-being of all children is safeguarded. This is reflected within our Church in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and other policies adopted by our bishops' conference and dioceses to ensure the safety of children.

The education of children is a fundamental parental responsibility. Educational systems can support or undermine parental efforts to educate and nurture children. No one model or means of education is appropriate to the needs of all persons. Parents—the first and most important educators—have a fundamental right to choose the education best suited to the needs of their children, including private and religious schools. Families of modest means especially should not be denied this choice because of their economic status. Government should help provide the resources required for parents to exercise this basic right without discrimination. To support parents' efforts to share basic values, we believe a national consensus can be reached so that students in all educational settings have opportunities for moral and character formation to complement their intellectual and physical development.

Communications play a growing role in society and family life. The values of our culture are shaped and shared in the print media as well as on radio, television, and the Internet. We must balance respect for freedom of speech with concern for the common good, promoting responsible regulations that protect children and families. In recent years, reduced government regulation has lowered standards, opened the door to increasingly offensive material, and squeezed out non-commercial, religious programming.

We support regulation that limits the concentration of control over these media; disallows sales of media outlets that attract irresponsible owners primarily seeking a profit; and opens these outlets to a greater variety of program sources, including religious programming. We support a TV rating system and technology that assist parents in supervising what their children view.

The Internet has created both great benefits and some problems. This technology should be available to all students regardless of income. Because it poses serious dangers by giving easy access to pornographic and violent material, we support vigorous enforcement of existing obscenity and child pornography laws, as well as efforts by the industry to develop technology that assists parents, schools, and libraries in blocking out unwanted materials.

Pursuing Social Justice
Our faith reflects God's special concern for the poor and vulnerable and calls us to make their needs our first priority in public life.

Church teaching on economic justice insists that economic decisions and institutions be assessed on whether they protect or undermine the dignity of the human person. We support policies that create jobs for all who can work with decent working conditions and adequate pay that reflects a living wage. We also support efforts to overcome barriers to equal pay and employment for women and those facing unjust discrimination. We reaffirm the Church's traditional support of the right of workers to choose to organize, join a union, bargain collectively, and exercise these rights without reprisal. We also affirm the Church's teaching on the importance of economic freedom, initiative, and the right to private property, through which we have the tools and resources to pursue the common good.

Efforts to provide for the basic financial needs of poor families and children must enhance their lives and protect their dignity. The measure of welfare reform should be reducing poverty and dependency, not cutting resources and programs. We seek approaches that both promote greater responsibility and offer concrete steps to help families leave poverty behind. Welfare reform has focused on providing work and training, mostly in low-wage jobs. Other forms of support are necessary, including tax credits, health care, child care, and safe, affordable housing. Because we believe that families need help with the costs of raising children, we support increasing child tax credits and making them fully refundable. These credits allow families of modest means with children to keep more of what they earn and help lift low-income families out of poverty.

We welcome efforts to recognize and support the work of faith-based groups not as a substitute for, but as a partner with, government efforts. Faith-based and community organizations are often more present, more responsive, and more effective in the poorest communities and countries. We oppose efforts to undermine faith-based institutions and their identity, integrity, and freedom to serve those in need. We also vigorously resist efforts to abandon civil rights protections and the long-standing protections for religious groups to preserve their identity as they serve the poor and advance the common good.

We are also concerned about the income security of low- and average-wage workers and their families when they retire, become disabled, or die. In many cases, women are particularly disadvantaged. Any proposal to change Social Security must provide a decent and reliable income for these workers and their dependents.

Affordable and accessible health care is an essential safeguard of human life, a fundamental human right, and an urgent national priority. We need to reform the nation's health care system, and this reform must be rooted in values that respect human dignity, protect human life, and meet the needs of the poor and uninsured. With tens of millions of Americans lacking basic health insurance, we support measures to ensure that decent health care is available to all as a moral imperative. We also support measures to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid as well as measures that extend health care coverage to children, pregnant women, workers, immigrants, and other vulnerable populations. We support policies that provide effective, compassionate care that reflects our moral values for those suffering from HIV/AIDS and those coping with addictions.

The lack of safe, affordable housing is a national crisis. We support a recommitment to the national pledge of "safe and affordable housing" for all and effective policies that will increase the supply of quality housing and preserve, maintain, and improve existing housing. We promote public/private partnerships, especially those that involve religious communities. We continue to oppose unjust discrimination or unjust exclusion in housing and support measures to help ensure that financial institutions meet the credit needs of local communities.

The first priority for agriculture policy should be food security for all. Food is necessary for life itself. Our support for Food Stamps, the Special Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and other programs that directly benefit poor and low-income people is based on our belief that no one should face hunger in a land of plenty. Those who grow our food should be able to make a decent living and maintain their way of life. Farmers who depend on the land for their livelihood deserve a decent return for their labor. Rural communities deserve help so that they can continue to be sources of strength and support for a way of life that enriches our nation. Our priority concern for the poor calls us to advocate especially for the needs of farm workers, whose pay is generally inadequate, whose housing and working conditions are often deplorable, and who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. We urge that public policies support sustainable agriculture and careful stewardship of the Earth and its natural resources.

The Gospel mandate to love our neighbor and welcome the stranger leads the Church to care for and stand with immigrants, both documented and undocumented. While affirming the right and responsibility of sovereign nations to control their borders and to ensure the security of their citizens, especially in the wake of September 11, we seek basic protections for immigrants, including due process rights, access to basic public benefits, and fair naturalization and legalization opportunities. We oppose efforts to stem migration that do not effectively address its root causes and permit the continuation of the political, social, and economic inequities that contribute to it. We believe our nation must remain a place of refuge for those fleeing persecution and suffering exploitation—refugees, asylum seekers, and victims of human trafficking.

All persons, by virtue of their dignity as human persons, have an inalienable right to receive a quality education. We must ensure that our nation's young people?especially the poor, those with disabilities, and the most vulnerable?are properly prepared to be good citizens, to lead productive lives, and to be socially and morally responsible in the complicated and technologically challenging world of the twenty-first century. This requires that all educational institutions have an orderly, just, respectful, and non-violent environment where adequate professional and material resources are available. We support the necessary initiatives that provide adequate funding to educate all persons no matter what school they attend—public, private, or religious—or their personal condition.

We also support providing salaries and benefits to all teachers and administrators that reflect the principles of economic justice, as well as providing the resources necessary for teachers to be academically and personally prepared for the critical tasks they face. As a matter of justice, we believe that when services aimed at improving the educational environment—especially for those most at risk—are available to students and teachers in public schools, these services should be available to students and teachers in private and religious schools as well.

Our schools and our society in general must address the growing "culture of violence." We need to promote a greater sense of moral responsibility, to advocate a reduction in violence in the media, to support gun safety measures and reasonable restrictions on access to assault weapons and hand guns, and to oppose the use of the death penalty. We also believe a Catholic ethic of responsibility, rehabilitation, and restoration can become the foundation for the necessary reform of our broken criminal justice system.

Our society must also continue to combat discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, disabling condition, or age. Discrimination constitutes a grave injustice and an affront to human dignity. It must be aggressively resisted. Where the effects of past discrimination persist, society has the obligation to take positive steps to overcome the legacy of injustice. We support judiciously administered affirmative action programs as tools to overcome discrimination and its continuing effects.

In the words of Pope John Paul II, care for the Earth and for the environment is a "moral issue."31 We support policies that protect the land, water, and the air we share. Reasonable and effective initiatives are required for energy conservation and the development of alternate, renewable, and clean-energy resources. We encourage citizens and public officials to seriously address global climate change, focusing on prudence, the common good, and the option for the poor, particularly its impact on developing nations. The United States should lead the developed nations in contributing to the sustainable development of poorer nations and greater justice in sharing the burden of environmental neglect and recovery.

Practicing Global Solidarity
September 11 has given us a new sense of vulnerability. However, we must be careful not to define our security primarily in military terms. Our nation must join with others in addressing policies and problems that provide fertile ground in which terrorism can thrive. No injustice legitimizes the horror we have experienced. But a more just world will be a more peaceful world.

In a world where one-fifth of the population survives on less than one dollar per day, where some twenty countries are involved in major armed conflict, and where poverty, corruption, and repressive regimes bring untold suffering to millions of people, we simply cannot remain indifferent. As a wealthy and powerful nation, the United States has the capacity and the responsibility to address this scandal of poverty and underdevelopment. As a principal force in globalization, we have a responsibility to humanize globalization, and to spread its benefits to all, especially the world's poorest, while addressing its negative consequences. As the world's sole superpower, the United States also has an unprecedented opportunity to work in partnership with others to build a system of cooperative security that will lead to a more united and more just world.

• The United States should take a leading role in helping to alleviate global poverty through a comprehensive development agenda, including substantially increased development aid for the poorest countries, more equitable trade policies, and continuing efforts to relieve the crushing burdens of debt and disease.
• More concerted efforts to ensure the promotion of religious liberty and other basic human rights should be an integral part of U.S. foreign policy.
• It is a moral imperative that the United States work to reverse the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and to reduce its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction by pursuing progressive nuclear disarmament. It also should reduce its own predominant role in the conventional arms trade.
• The United States should provide more consistent political and financial support for appropriate United Nations programs, other international bodies, and international law, so that these institutions may become more effective, responsible, and responsive agents for addressing global problems.
• Asylum must be afforded to all refugees who hold a well-founded fear of persecution in their homelands. Our country should support protection for persons fleeing persecution through safe haven in other countries, including the United States, especially for unaccompanied children, single women, women heads of families, and religious minorities.
• The United States should adopt a more generous immigration and refugee policy based on providing temporary or permanent safe haven for those in need; protecting immigrant workers from exploitation; promoting family reunification; safeguarding the right of all peoples to return to their homelands; ensuring that public benefits and a fair and efficient process for obtaining citizenship are available to immigrants; extending to immigrants the full protection of U.S. law; offering a generous legalization program to undocumented immigrants, and addressing the root causes of migration.
• Our country should be a leader--in collaboration with the international community--in addressing regional conflicts in the Middle East, the Balkans, the Congo, Sudan, Colombia, and West Africa. Leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an especially urgent priority. The United States should actively pursue comprehensive negotiations leading to a just and peaceful resolution of this conflict that respects the legitimate claims and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, ensuring security for Israel, a viable state for Palestinians, and peace in the region. The United States, working with the international community, must also make the sustained commitment necessary to help bring stability, democracy, freedom, and prosperity to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Building peace, combating poverty and despair, and protecting freedom and human rights are not only moral imperatives; they are wise national priorities. Given its enormous power and influence in world affairs, the United States has a special responsibility to ensure that it is a force for justice and peace beyond its borders. "Liberty and justice for all" is not only a profound national pledge; it is a worthy goal for any our nation in its role as world leader.

Conclusion

We hope these reflections will contribute to a renewed political vitality in our land. We urge all Catholics to register, vote, and become more involved in public life, to protect human life and dignity, and to advance the common good.

The 2004 elections and the policy choices we will face in the future pose significant challenges for our Church. As an institution, we are called to be political but not partisan. The Church cannot be a chaplain for any one party or cheerleader for any candidate. Our cause is the protection of the weak and vulnerable and defense of human life and dignity, not a particular party or candidate.

The Church is called to be principled but not ideological. We cannot compromise our basic values or teaching, but we should be open to different ways to advance them.

We are called to be clear but also civil. A Church that advocates justice and charity must practice these virtues in public life. We should be clear about our principles and priorities, without impugning motives or name-calling.

The Church is called to be engaged but not used. We welcome dialogue with political leaders and candidates, seeking to engage and persuade public officials. But we must be sure that events and "photo-ops" are not substitutes for work on policies that reflect our values.

The call to faithful citizenship raises a fundamental question for all of us. What does it mean to be a Catholic living in the United States in the year 2004 and beyond? As Catholics, the election and the policy choices that follow it call us to recommit ourselves to carry the values of the Gospel and church teaching into the public square. As citizens and residents of the United States, we have the duty to participate now and in the future in the debates and choices over the values, vision, and leaders that will guide our nation.

This dual calling of faith and citizenship is at the heart of what it means to be a Catholic in the United States. Faithful citizenship calls us to seek "a place at the table" of life for all God's children in the elections of 2004 and beyond.

Major Catholic Statements on Public Life and Moral Issues

The following documents from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops explore in greater detail the public policy issues discussed in Faithful Citizenship. To obtain copies, call 1-800-235-8722 or go to www.usccb.org.

Protecting Human Life

A Matter of the Heart: A Statement on the Thirtieth Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, 2002
Living the Gospel of Life, 1998
Faithful for Life: A Moral Reflection, 1995
Resolution on Abortion, 1989
Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Reaffirmation, 1985
Documentation on the Right to Life and Abortion, 1974, 1976, 1981
Statement on Iraq, 2002
A Pastoral Message: Living with Faith and Hope After September 11, 2001
Sowing the Weapons of War, 1995
The Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace, 1993
A Report on the Challenge of Peace and Policy Developments 1983-1888, 1989
The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, 1983
Welcome and Justice for Persons with Disabilities, 1999
Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections, 1992
NCCB Administrative Committee Statement on Euthanasia, 1991
Pastoral Statement of U.S. Catholic Bishops on Persons with Disabilities, 1989, 1984
A Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty, 1999
Confronting a Culture of Violence, 1995
U.S. Bishops' Statement on Capital Punishment, 1980
Community and Crime, 1978

Promoting Family Life
A Family Guide to Using the Media, 1999
Renewing the Mind of the Media, 1998
Statements and testimony by the USCC Department of Communications before Congress and the Federal Communications Commission
Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions, 1998
Principles for Educational Reform in the United States, 1995
In Support of Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1990
Value and Virtue: Moral Education in the Public School, 1988
Sharing the Light of Faith; National Catechetical Directory, 1979
To Teach As Jesus Did, 1972
When I Call for Help, 2002
A Family Perspective in Church and Society, 1998
Always Our Children, 1997
Statement on Same-Sex Marriage, 1996
Walk in the Light, 1995
Follow the Way of Love, 1993
Putting Children and Families First, 1992

Pursuing Social Justice
Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, 2003
A Place at the Table: A Catholic Recommitment to Overcome Poverty and to Respect the Dignity of All God's Children, 2002
Global Climate Change, 2001
Responsibility, Rehabilitation, Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, 2000
A Commitment to All Generations: Social Security and the Common Good, 1999
In all Things Charity, 1999
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 1995
One Family Under God, 1995
Confronting a Culture of Violence, 1995
Moral Principles and Policy Priorities for Welfare Reform, 1995
The Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace, 1993
A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform, 1993 Renewing the Earth, 1992
Putting Children and Families First, 1992
New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse, 1990
Brothers and Sisters to Us, 1989
Food Policy in a Hungry World, 1989
Called to Compassion and Responsibility: A Response to the HIV/AIDS Crisis, 1989
Homelessness and Housing, 1988
Economic Justice for All, 1986

Practicing Global Solidarity
A Call to Solidarity with Africa, 2001
A Jubilee Call for Debt Forgiveness, 1999
Called to Global Solidarity, 1998
Sowing the Weapons of War, 1995
One Family Under God, 1995
The Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace, 1993
War in the Balkans: Moral Challenges, Policy Choices, 1993 Statements on South Africa, 1993, 1994
Refugees: A Challenge to Solidarity, 1992
The New Moment in Eastern and Central Europe, March 1990 The Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace, 1993
Toward Peace in the Middle East, 1989
Relieving Third World Debt, 1989
USCC Statement on Central America, 1987

Notes

1. Since 1975, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has developed a reflection on "faithful citizenship" in advance of each presidential election. This statement continues that tradition. It summarizes Catholic teaching on public life and on key moral issues. These reflections build on past political responsibility statements and integrate themes from a recent statement on Catholics in public life from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as themes from several recent bishops' statements, including Living the Gospel of Life and A Place at the Table. To provide additional information on Catholic teaching on these matters, major Catholic statements on public life and moral issues are listed at the conclusion of these reflections.
2. Cf. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Place at the Table: A Catholic Recommitment to Overcome Poverty and to Respect the Dignity of All God's Children (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002).
3. Jn 13:34-35.
4. Mt 25:40-45.
5. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), no. 1.
6. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1998), no. 34.
7. Dt 30:19-20, Mt 25:40-45, Mt 5:3-12.
8. The Catholic community has a presence in virtually every part of the nation, including almost 20,000 parishes, 8,600 schools, 237 colleges and universities, 1,062 hospitals and health care facilities, and 3, 044 social service agencies. The Catholic community is the largest non-governmental provider of education, health care, and human services in the United States.
9. Mt 13:33, Mt 5:13-16.
10. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life, no. 6.
11. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Living the Gospel of Life, no. 34.
12. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life, no. 4.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Resources designed to help parishes and dioceses share the message of faithful citizenship and develop non-partisan voter registration, education, and advocacy programs are available from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. For more information, call 800-235-8722 or go to www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship.
16. Catholic social teaching is a rich tradition that is rooted in the Scriptures and the lived experience of the people of God. It has been developed in the writings of church leaders through the ages, and has most recently been articulated through a tradition of modern papal, conciliar, and episcopal documents. For a more thorough discussion of the themes identified here and their roots, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994), Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1998), the USCCB web site (www.usccb.org/publishing), and the Vatican web site (www.vatican.va).
17. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life, no. 3.
18. Ex 22:20-26.
19. Is 1:21-23; Jer 5:28.
20. Mt 25:40-45.
21. Lk 4:18-19.
22. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte (January 6, 2001), no. 49.
23. John Paul II, On Social Concern (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis) (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1987), no. 38.
24. John Paul II, World Day of Peace Message, (January 1, 1972).
25. Mt 5:9
26. John Paul II, Angelus (February 23, 2003), no. 1.
27. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life, no. 2.
28. Ibid, no. 3.
29. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5.
30. Ibid, no. 21.
31. John Paul II, Homily in St. Louis (January 27, 1999).
32. John Paul II, The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility (January 1, 1990), no. 15.

Prefatory Statement

Every four years since 1976, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a statement on the responsibilities of Catholics to society. The purpose of the statement is to communicate the Church’s teaching that every Catholic is called to an active and faith-filled citizenship, based upon a properly informed conscience, in which each disciple of Christ publicly witnesses to the Church’s commitment to human life and dignity with special preference for the poor and the vulnerable. Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility was developed under the leadership of the Committees on Domestic and International Policy, with the Committee on Priorities and Plans, in collaboration with many other USCCB committees and offices. It was reviewed and approved in September 2003 by the Administrative Committee and is authorized for publication by the undersigned.

Msgr. William P. Fay
General Secretary
USCCB

Excerpts from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Psalms Copyright 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2003 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc., Washington, DC. All rights reserved. This work may be photocopied and distributed without charge.

Partial-Birth Abortion and the U.S. Supreme Court, Round 2

Interview With Law Professor Teresa Collett

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, OCT. 22, 2006 (Zenit.org).- In the coming weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide for a second time whether a statutory ban on partial-birth abortion is constitutional. Will a Catholic majority on the bench make a difference?

Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, doesn't think so.

As the author of an amicus brief on the partial-birth abortion case, Collett shared with ZENIT how upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban would affect future legislation, and why the Catholic justices might not be swayed by their personal beliefs.

Q: Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a statutory ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. What makes this case different from the Stenberg decision that struck down a similar ban six years ago?

Collett: In Stenberg, a majority of the court found the Nebraska law unconstitutional for two reasons.

First, they believed that the definition of the banned procedure was too broad, including both partial-birth abortion and dismemberment abortion. Dismemberment abortion -- D&E abortion -- is the method of abortion in 95% of the abortions performed at or after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Second, the justices were persuaded that a ban of any abortion method must contain an exception for performance of the procedure when necessary to preserve the woman's health, notwithstanding that that there was no evidence of any health condition that required the use of partial-birth abortion.

In crafting the federal partial-birth abortion ban, Congress did two things.

First, they narrowed the definition of the banned procedure to make it clear that it only applied to partial-birth abortion.

Second, unlike the Nebraska state legislature, they held numerous hearings to determine if there was any health condition that required the use of partial-birth abortion.

Because there was no evidence of any condition that could not be addressed through the use of other abortion techniques, the legislators did not include a health exception. Supporters of the law are optimistic that these changes will result in the court upholding the federal ban.

Q: What effect would upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban have on future abortion legislation? Would it give more latitude to Congress and the states to craft more substantive restrictions on abortion?

Collett: Whether upholding the federal ban would allow legislatures to regulate abortion more extensively depends on how and why the court upholds the ban. If it is upheld due to Congress' ability to regulate businesses that effect interstate commerce, this could have little impact on states' ability to legislate in this area.

However, a ruling could have significant impact if the law is upheld because the state's interest in protecting the unborn in the second half of pregnancy outweighs a woman's right to end the pregnancy absent a life-threatening condition.

It would have an even larger impact if the law was upheld on the basis that abortion providers cannot attack an abortion law on the basis of hypothetical cases before the law has been applied to them.

Q: One criticism of the ban was that it was a waste of time and resources because it will not actually save one child from being aborted. What practical or symbolic value do you think such legislation holds?

Collett: The federal partial-birth abortion ban has both significant practical and symbolic value. The practical value is twofold.

First, it is the first national abortion regulation that pro-life forces have passed since the restriction of federal funding for abortion.

Second, while it is true that the law does not directly save one child's life, it has established even the most extreme abortion measures.

It is clear that the national debate on this topic has moved many citizens to the pro-life side, or at least away from the "pro-choice in all circumstances" position. It also has made the issue of whether the unborn feel pain during an abortion a topic of national conversation. These are good things.

Q: One important principle of Catholic social teaching is subsidiarity. Many abortion opponents adhere to a similar principle at work in the American system of government known as federalism, and are troubled by expansive congressional regulation of a subject matter traditionally left to the states. Is there a hidden danger of using the federal government's power to regulate abortion?

Collett: Our opponents have been only too happy to use federal power to squash debate on abortion. Consider the federal Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act -- the FACE law -- that requires the imprisonment of those who pray the rosary too close to an abortion clinic.

Abortion, like slavery, infects the whole of any society that permits it. The protection of innocent life is a principle that should not depend on geographic location, but rather should be an organizing principle of our communal life.

Q: The use of international law in the constitutional decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court has been on the rise. Do you see the court looking to the abortion laws of other nations, most of which have far more restrictive abortion laws than the United States?

Collett: The partial-birth abortion procedure is not used in other Western European nations, so members of the court who want to find the law unconstitutional will be hard pressed to use international law to justify finding that it is unconstitutional under the American Constitution.

Q: What difference will a Catholic majority on the Court make on abortion-related jurisprudence?

Collett: Sadly, probably very little since most lawyers are taught that their role as lawyers and judges must trump any moral values they hold. Justice Antonin Scalia has an essay defending this view on the First Things Web site.

There is nothing to indicate that Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito see the issue of whether the court should retain the unjust interpretation of Roe v. Wade any differently because they are Catholics.

Thinking About Heaven

Interview With Father Z. Kijas, Author and Dean

ROME, SEPT. 3, 2006 (ZENIT.org).- The dean of the Theological Faculty of St. Bonaventure has written a book on heaven, inviting readers to have a fresh vision of a central mystery of the faith.

Polish Father Zdzislaw Kijas, dean of the Seraphicum, wrote "Il Cielo, Luogo del Desiderio di Dio" (Heaven the Place of the Desire for God), published by Città Nuova and now available in Italian bookstores.

ZENIT spoke with Father Kijas, a Franciscan Conventual -- who has been professor of systematic and ecumenical theology at Krakow's Pontifical Academy of Theology -- to understand how heaven appears today to the eyes of the believer.

Q: Let's begin with the central question: What is heaven?

Father Kijas: First of all, as seen with the eyes of faith, heaven exists as union with God, a union that must be seen from the point of view of the sacred texts, specifically, with the help of the Old and New Testament.

However, heaven is something more profound than this union. Its characteristics can be deduced from the biblical data and also from our experience, from the special moments of life, when we experience tranquility, serenity, [and] absence of evil desires and fear.

Heaven is not a material or geographic place, it is more than a state of spirit, it is our interiority, our spirit which is at peace with itself; it is to experience authentic peace, to live the joy of the richness of life with peace of heart.

Q: Are you saying that every one has his heaven?

Father Kijas: Every man has his personal heaven because he is like a microcosm; he has been created in the image and likeness of God. Jesus died and resurrected for each man; each man has his own richness, his own desires.

Believers should tend to personal enrichment, in the search to fulfill their own lives, plans which are essential in the life of each one, of each couple, of the consecrated and of communities.

Basing oneself on the biblical data and on one's own vocation, on the universal call to holiness, with the help of God and of his grace, each one is called to this optimum state of his life, to a more perfect, personal union with God.

Here is heaven itself: the holiness of God personalized, embodied in one's life. A personal union that leads to full development of the likeness with him.

Every age has its challenges, its appeals. Art, music and literature as expressions of one's state of life; they reflect in visible and figurative language one's state of spirit and the characteristics of one's union with God. So the way of expressing oneself, of making art, becomes a mirror of the relationship between the artist and God.

Q: How can one respond to this "desire" for heaven?

Father Kijas: In my book I speak of responding to the desire for heaven, of reviving it -- not by limiting oneself to look for heaven on earth in relationships we experience in the world even if they are fundamental.

These relationships are important, as it is important to make an effort to read the seeds of the paradisiacal state now here in this life. But what counts is to understand that here on earth there are only pale reflections of those to which we are really called.

The strength to change the everyday, the courage to face problems, the desire to live more profoundly our human vocation, our work, human relationships, does not come only from the freshness of the desire of union with God which for us, believers, is heaven.

Herein lies daily creativity in relation to paradise. Without being separated from the earthly reality, efforts must be made to change everything with the force of the desire for heaven, to shape our daily reality in view of paradise, transforming the earth with the desire for heaven.

Q: What is your idea of heaven?

Father Kijas: Heaven is not something static; even our own imagination does not understand it as something static. It is a continuous happening, a growth that advances with our call, our desires, our deficiencies themselves.

The idea I have, common to many, is that of a reciprocity made up of dialogue, a never feeling well alone but in dialogue, a reflection of the life of the Trinity, a communion of people who love one another and give themselves abundantly.

This is the paradisiacal state, never to possess, but to be open to the other's need, to his good -- a response of love to someone else's request for love.

Heaven and paradise are as synonyms, a being well together, a consequence of being well with God, convinced that he alone makes us be well in community. Heaven is communion of friends, never a boring reality, a richness enriched by others. The Church invites us to open to this dialogue that gives a foretaste on earth of the taste of the joy of heaven.

Cardinal Schönborn Proposes Evolution Debate

Calls for More Science, Less Ideology

RIMINI, Italy, AUG. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is proposing an ideology-free debate on the theory of evolution, and wants to clarify the Church's position on the topic.

The archbishop of Vienna presented his proposal Thursday to a packed auditorium at the Meeting of Friendship Among Peoples, organized by the Communion and Liberation Movement in Rimini, Italy.

At a press conference Wednesday, the cardinal, explained that the Church does not hold the position of "creationist" theories on the origin of life and man, which draw scientific consequences from biblical texts.

In fact, he added, there is "no conflict between science and religion," but, rather, a debate "between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation."

Cardinal Schönborn, who sparked a worldwide debate in 2005 with an article in the New York Times on the subject, called for clarification of the difference between the "theory of evolution" and "evolutionism," the latter understood as an ideology, based on scientific theory.

By way of example, the cardinal mentioned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who saw in the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species," "the scientific foundation for their Marxist materialist theory. This is evolutionism, not theory of evolution."

The archbishop of Vienna warned against the application of this evolutionist ideology in fields such as economic neo-liberalism, or bioethical issues, where there is the risk of creating new eugenic theories.

More than a theory

Journalists asked the cardinal what Pope John Paul II meant in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in Oct. 1996, when he spoke of evolution as "something more than a theory."

Cardinal Schönborn explained that the phrase meant that "the theory, as scientific theory, has been expanded with new scientific data, but of course that phrase cannot be interpreted as an 'Amen' of the Catholic Church to ideological evolutionism."

The archbishop of Vienna noted a document published by the International Theological Commission in 2004, with the approval of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, entitled "Communion and Service: The Human Person Created in the Image of God."

He said the paper clarifies the distinction between ideology and science, and "gives an answer to those who wished to interpret John Paul II's phrase in an ideological sense."

"What I desire intensely is that, also in school programs, questions be explained, at the scientific level, opened by the theory of evolution, such as the famous question of the missing rings," Cardinal Schönborn said.

The cardinal said that 150 years after Darwin's theory, "there is no evidence in the geological strata of intermediate species that should exist, according to Darwin's theory."

He continued: "He himself said in his book that this is a hole in his theory and asked that they be found.

"This should be discussed in a serene manner. If a theory is scientific and not ideological, then it can be discussed freely."

Bishop Barnes on U.S. Immigration Policy

Hopes for Improvements With New Bill

SAN BERNARDINO, California, MAY 31, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The U.S. Immigration Reform Bill that passed in the Senate last week incorporates some important provisions, says a bishop.

But Bishop Gerald Barnes of San Bernardino, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Refugees and Migrants, is hoping the legislation will improve when the House and Senate versions are reconciled.

The prelate shared with ZENIT his thoughts on immigration policy and the need for a comprehensive approach to the complex issue.

Q: The U.S. Congress is debating various immigration reform proposals and the Catholic bishops have been actively engaged in this debate. Why is the Church involved?

Bishop Barnes: Our faith teaches us to view civil laws from a moral perspective. Are they just? Do they uphold the God-given right to human dignity for all? Do they serve the common good?

When we bishops apply these tests to U.S. immigration laws, we conclude that significant changes are required.

In our nation there is a growing population of people who live in fear and on the margins of our society for lack of proper documentation. Families are kept apart for lack of legal means to reunify in a timely manner.

Our nation's labor demands can only be met today by employing unauthorized workers, because the availability of legal work visas pales in comparison to the demand.

And there is today an average of one migrant death per day along our southern border with Mexico, underscoring the desperation of the migrants and the inadequacies of our system.

Q: The U.S. bishops' conference has stated that sovereign nations have a right to control their borders. In a post-9/11 world, is cracking down on illegal immigration inconsistent with this right of states?

Bishop Barnes: Among the principles contained in Catholic social teaching regarding migration, yes, there is recognition that sovereign nations have the right, in fact the responsibility, to control their borders. This is to protect the common good.

There is also a principle within Catholic social teaching which holds that persons have a right to migrate to provide for themselves and their families.

Where these two seemingly conflicting principles get reconciled is in the development and application of immigration laws that take into consideration a nation's capacity to absorb newcomers, on the one hand, and the needs of migrants on the other.

In other words, richer nations have a greater responsibility than do poorer nations in being open to immigrants.

In this post-9/11 world, the United States has a special responsibility to ensure that those coming to this country are not doing so to inflict harm.

The bishops believe that if comprehensive reforms were made to our nation's immigration laws, including greater legal avenues to obtain employment and to reunify with relatives here, there would be fewer people crossing the border illegally or overstaying their temporary visas.

This, in turn, would allow border security resources to be applied more strategically toward preventing the entry of terrorists, drug smugglers and criminals.

What, then, to do about those here without proper authority? Since it is unrealistic to round them up and deport them -- the costs and economic impact rule out this option -- the government must find a way to bring these folks out of the shadows and put them on a path toward full participation in our society.

After all, the vast majority of these people has been in the United States for a period of time and has been contributing their labor and taxes.

Q: Why are U.S. lawmakers putting so much focus on immigration now? What are the key issues?

Bishop Barnes: There is growing concern over the seemingly porous borders, especially at this time of heightened security concerns over terrorism.

Americans are also frustrated over the fact that unauthorized entries have doubled during a period in which the government's investment in border enforcement has grown tenfold.

We also see record numbers of deaths of migrants in our Southwestern deserts. These things, taken together, lead to the conclusion many Americans come to: that our immigration system is out of control and badly in need of repair.

Some in Congress, however, believe the "fix" is through further border enforcement investments in the form of personnel, technology and fences, combined with more aggressive enforcement measures directed toward employers who hire undocumented aliens.

The bishops believe this approach, in the absence of other reforms, is doomed to fail.

To truly address the complex set of issues that is involved in immigration -- from the reasons people migrate, to how our nation meets its labor demands -- only a comprehensive approach will work.

From the bishops' perspective this means doing the following.

First, through U.S. foreign relations, trade and economic policies, we must encourage and support the creation of conditions that preclude the necessity for people to migrate for lack of opportunities in their homeland.

Second, we should create legal avenues for laborers to obtain jobs requiring foreign labor, while protecting American workers and the migrant worker.

Third is the elimination of the backlog of visas for family reunification, which at the present time requires up to 20 years' wait for some family members.

And lastly, for those in the country without proper authorization and who can demonstrate that they can be good citizens, we could put them on the path to citizenship.

Q: What are the biggest problems the Church in the United States has with the proposals put forward?

Bishop Barnes: The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation this past December which the bishops have forcefully rejected.

Among its ill-advised provisions, it would for the first time in our nation's history make felons out of immigrants who are in the country without proper authority.

Likewise, it would make it a felony to "assist" an undocumented alien, putting at risk members of the Catholic Church who assist immigrants every day, but do so now without regard of their immigration status.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this piece of legislation is that we do not believe it will fix the ills of our current immigration system.

If that bill were to become law and in a couple of years we continue to see a growing population entering the country illegally, the frustration level among Americans may well reach a breaking point and the backlash against immigrants, whether here legally or not, may become grave.

On May 25, the U.S. Senate passed its version of immigration reform.

That legislation, called "The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006," incorporates some of the provisions the bishops believe are important, such as a path to legal status, family visa backlog reductions, and a temporary workers program.

The bishops believe the bill could be improved and hope that when the House and Senate versions are reconciled, some improvements can be made. I am not overly optimistic about this outcome, though, with the hardened rhetoric coming from some members of Congress, who are calling for enforcement-only reforms.

In the weeks ahead, we should have a better indication of what approach will emerge from Congress -- a narrow, and ultimately ineffective, enforcement-only approach, or a comprehensive one that looks at all dimensions of this complex issue and addresses them holistically.

20+ Questions on Jesus Christ

From www.opusdei.org

In recent months readers - young and not so young - of the Da Vinci Code have found themselves asking a number of questions about Jesus, his message, and his Church. Here are some Questions & Answers.

1. What do we really know about Jesus?

2. What does Mary’s virginity imply?

3. Did St. Joseph marry a second time?

4. Was Jesus single, married or widower?

5. Current situation of historical research of Jesus

6. What sort of historical credibility does the Bible have?

7. Who were the evangelists?

8. How were the first gospels written?

9. What are the canonical and the apocryphal gospels? How many are there?

10. What is the difference between the canonical gospels and the apocryphal gospels?

11. What do the apocryphal gospels say?

12. Who are the Gnostics?

13. What do Roman and Jewish sources tell us about Jesus?

14. What do the Qumran manuscripts tell us?

15. What is the Nag Hammadi library?

16. Who was Mary Magdalene?

17. What was the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

18. What does the “Gospel according to Mary (Magdalene)” say?

19. What was the relationship between Peter and Mary Magdalene?

20. What went on at the Last Supper?

21. What does the gospel of Philip say?

22. Did Jesus really mean to found a Church?

23. What is the Holy Grail? How is it related to the Holy Chalice?

Also in PDF format from Opus Dei, local copy available here: Download opus_dei_catechesis.pdf

Pope Names Pittsburgh Bishop Donald W. Wuerl as the Archbishop of Washington

May 16, 2006

(The Archdiocese of Washington) Pope Benedict XVI today named Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh as the new Archbishop of Washington. He will succeed Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick. Cardinal McCarrick, who has served as Washington’s archbishop since January 2001, offered his resignation to the Holy Father in July 2005, when he turned 75 years old, in accord with canon law.

The Cardinal will remain as Apostolic Administrator until Archbishop-designate Wuerl’s installation on June 22, 2006.

“With humble heart I express my gratitude to our Holy Father for his confidence in assigning me to this important archdiocese which in its own right is a significant Catholic center, but is all the more distinguished as the location of the nation’s capital. Although I am greatly aware of my own limitations, I find strength in the Pope’s trust and also in the prayerful support I have always found from the Catholic faithful I have attempted to serve,” Archbishop-designate Wuerl said.

He continued, “I look forward to coming to know the priests, deacons, religious and lay faithful of this archdiocesan Church. It is a great privilege for me to become a part of this faith-filled and dynamic Church. With joy I anticipate visiting the many vibrant parishes. I am also aware of and look forward to experiencing its rich cultural diversity.”

“While I have a great deal to learn about this archdiocesan Church, I already have some strong ties to this community. I studied at Catholic University and have subsequently served on its board for many years. I have also visited this city many times in conjunction of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops where I have been a member for 20 years,” he said.

“Of the faithful of the Church of Washington, I would like to ask your support and most particularly your prayers. Undertaking an assignment of this magnitude can be daunting. Yet I recognize the power of prayer and what faith and God’s grace can accomplish in each of us. In all of my priestly and episcopal ministry I have always tried to do the very best I can with the collaboration and help of those around me and with reliance on God’s grace. I would like to pledge to all of the faithful of this Church my love and unstinting ministry as your shepherd,” Archbishop-designate Wuerl noted.

A native of Pittsburgh, the 65-year-old Archbishop-designate was born on November 12, 1940. Ordained a priest in 1966, he was ordained a bishop by Pope John Paul II 20 years later. His first assignment was as auxiliary bishop of Seattle. In 1988, he was installed as Bishop of Pittsburgh where he has been the spiritual leader to approximately 800,000 Catholics worshipping in 214 parishes in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Archbishop-designate Wuerl is widely known as a theologian, educator and author. He has been active in ecumenical and interfaith relations and in many organizations dedicated to serving the greater community.

Archbishop-designate Wuerl hosts the television program, "The Teaching of Christ," broadcast on CBS, the Christian Associates cable channel, and through national syndication. His best-selling adult catechism of the same name has been translated into more than 10 languages and is used throughout the world. His most recent publication, The Catholic Way, was published by Doubleday in September 2001.

He has served on numerous national and international boards and committees. He is chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Catechesis, chairman of the board of directors of the National Catholic Educational Association, and past chairman of the board of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. He serves as a board member of The Catholic University of America, the North American College in Rome and the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center. He is past chair of the USCCB’s Committee on Education.

The archbishop-designate received graduate degrees from The Catholic University of America, the Gregorian University in Rome and a doctorate in theology from the University of St. Thomas in Rome, in 1974.

“It is with a deep sense of gratitude to the Holy Father that I welcome Archbishop Donald Wuerl to Washington as our new shepherd and guide. He has been a wonderful friend to me over so many years and I have watched with delight and deep respect the great things that the Church of Pittsburgh has accomplished under his leadership. I truly cannot think of a better choice for Washington than Bishop Donald Wuerl,” Cardinal McCarrick said.

He continued, “I believe that his time with us will be a golden age in grace and progress, and I look forward to watching all the good things that you and he will do together. May God bless him on his journey with us as He certainly has blessed us in sending him to us as the sixth bishop of this holy Church of Washington.”

Founded in 1939, the Archdiocese of Washington is home to over 560,000 Catholics who worship in 140 parishes located in Washington, DC and Calvert, Charles, Montgomery, Prince George’s and St. Mary’s Counties in Maryland. Each year, the 112 Catholic schools in the Archdiocese educate nearly 33,000 students. The largest non-public social service organization in the region, the Archdiocese and its affiliated agencies, including Catholic Community Services and Victory Housing, provide shelter, food, counseling, medical care, legal assistance, employment training and more to over 120,000 people each year.

Contact:
Susan Gibbs
Director of Communications
301-853-4515
gibbss@adw.org

Opus Dei Response to Director Ron Howard

"Catholics Are Victims of an Offense"

ROME, MAY 15, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The press office of the Opus Dei Prelature sent this statement to ZENIT on Friday in response to comments by the director of the soon-to-be-released film "The Da Vinci Code."

* * *

On Thursday the Italian press published interviews with Ron Howard, director of "The Da Vinci Code" film. In statements attributed to him, Howard said that "to deny the right to see the film is a fascist act," and also "to tell someone not to go see the film is an act of militancy and militancy generates hatred and violence." The Opus Dei is mentioned several times in these interviews. The phrases seem to refer to recent statements by Church authorities.

I would ask Ron Howard to keep calm and express himself with respect.

It is not wise to lose sight of the reality of the situation: This film is offensive to Christians. Howard represents the aggressor, and Catholics are victims of an offense. The one offended cannot have his last right taken away, which is to express his point of view. It is not the statements of ecclesiastics or the respectful request of Opus Dei -- to include a notice at the beginning of the film that it is a work of fiction -- which generates violence. It is rather the odious, false and unjust portrayals that fuel hatred.

In his statements, Howard also repeats that it is simply a film, an invented story, and that it must not be taken too seriously. But it is not possible to deny the importance of the movies and literature. Fiction influences our way of seeing the world, especially among young people. It is not right not to take it seriously. Artistic creativity certainly needs a climate of freedom, but freedom cannot be separated from responsibility.

Imagine a film that says that Sony was behind the attacks on the Twin Towers, which it promoted because it wanted to destabilize the United States. Or a novel that reveals that Sony paid the gunman who shot the Pope in St. Peter's Square in 1981, because it was opposed to the Holy Father's moral leadership. They are only invented stories. I imagine that Sony, a respectable and serious company, would not be happy to see itself portrayed in this way on the screens, and that it would not be satisfied with an answer such as "Don't worry, it's only fiction, it mustn't be taken too seriously, freedom of expression is sacred."

In any case, those who have taken part in the film's project have no reason to be concerned. Christians will not react with hatred and violence, but with respect and charity, without insults or threats. They can continue to calculate tranquilly the money they will make on the film, because the freedom of financial profit seems to be in fact the only sacred freedom, the only one exempt from all responsibility. They will probably make a lot of money, but they are paying a high price by deteriorating their prestige and reputation.

I hope the controversy of these months will not be sterile but serve to reflect on the relative character of financial profit when high values are involved; on the importance of fiction; on responsibility, which always supports and protects freedom.

[The statement added:]

The plan of Opus Dei's Communication Office in regard to this case may be found on the Web page www.opusdei.org, which explains in detail its position over these months.

[From] Manuel Sánchez Hurtado, in charge of relations with the international press, at the Opus Dei's press office in Rome

A response to The Da Vinci Code from the Prelature of Opus Dei in the United States.

The Da Vinci Code, the Catholic Church and Opus Dei

(from www.opusdei.org)

May 11, 2006

Many people are intrigued by the claims about Christian history and theology presented in The Da Vinci Code. We would like to remind them that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, and it is not a reliable source of information on these matters.

The Da Vinci Code has raised public interest in the origins of the Bible and of central Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus Christ. These topics are important and valuable to study, and we hope that interested readers will be motivated to study some of the abundant scholarship on them that is available in the non-fiction section of the library.

Those who do further research and exercise critical judgment will discover that assertions made in The Da Vinci Code about Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, and Church history lack support among reputable scholars. By way of example, The Da Vinci Code popularizes the idea that the fourth century Roman emperor Constantine invented the doctrine of the divinity of Christ for political reasons. The historical evidence, however, clearly shows that the New Testament and the very earliest Christian writings manifest Christian belief in the divinity of Christ. Other examples of discredited claims presented in The Da Vinci Code can be found in this FAQ from Catholic Answers or at the US Bishops' website, www.jesusdecoded.com. For those who are willing to take the time to get to the bottom of the issues raised in The Da Vinci Code, we recommend reading The Da Vinci Deception, De-Coding Da Vinci, or The Da Vinci Hoax.

We also want to point out that The Da Vinci Code’s depiction of Opus Dei is inaccurate, both in the overall impression and in many details, and it would be irresponsible to form any opinion of Opus Dei based on The Da Vinci Code. Those interested in learning more about the real Opus Dei may wish to read What is Opus Dei?, by Dominique LeTourneau, or Uncommon Faith, by John Coverdale. For those interested in further information about the various false impressions The Da Vinci Code gives of Opus Dei, please continue reading.

Please let us know if you need someone to speak about Opus Dei for a panel or other event about The Da Vinci Code -- we may have a speaker available in your area.  Also, free resource downloads for study groups and parishes are available from the group, Da Vinci Outreach.


1. Opus Dei and monks


Throughout The Da Vinci Code, Opus Dei members are presented as monks (or, rather, caricatures of monks). Like all Catholics, Opus Dei members have great appreciation for monks, but in fact there are no monks in Opus Dei. Opus Dei is a Catholic institution for lay people and diocesan priests, not a monastic order.

Opus Dei’s approach to living the faith does not involve withdrawing from the world like those called to the monastic life. Rather, Opus Dei helps people grow closer to God in and through their ordinary secular activities.

“Numerary” members of Opus Dei – a minority – choose a vocation of celibacy in order to be available to organize the activities of Opus Dei. They do not, however, take vows, wear robes, sleep on straw mats, spend all their time in prayer and corporal mortification, or in any other way live like The Da Vinci Code’s depiction of its monk character. In contrast to those called to the monastic life, numeraries have regular secular professional work.

In fact, The Da Vinci Code gets Opus Dei’s nature 180 degrees backwards. Monastic orders are for people who have a vocation to seek holiness by withdrawing from the secular world; Opus Dei is for people who have a vocation to live their Christian faith in the middle of secular society.

Additional explanation from leading Catholic figures of Opus Dei’s focus on secular life.


2. Opus Dei and crime


In The Da Vinci Code, Opus Dei members are falsely depicted murdering, lying, drugging people, and otherwise acting unethically, thinking that it is justified for the sake of God, the Church, or Opus Dei.

Opus Dei is a Catholic institution and adheres to Catholic doctrine, which clearly condemns immoral behavior, including murder, lying, stealing, and generally injuring people. The Catholic Church teaches that one should never do evil, even for a good purpose.

Opus Dei’s mission is to help people integrate their faith and the activities of their daily life, and so its spiritual education and counseling help members to be more ethical rather than less so. Opus Dei members, like everyone else, sometimes do things wrong, but this is an aberration from what Opus Dei is promoting rather than a manifestation of it.

Besides attributing criminal activity to Opus Dei, The Da Vinci Code also falsely depicts Opus Dei as being focused on gaining wealth and power. Additional comment from leading Catholic sources on Opus Dei’s alleged wealth and power.


3. Opus Dei and corporal mortification


The Da Vinci Code makes it appear that Opus Dei members practice bloody mortifications. In fact, though history indicates that some Catholic saints have done so, Opus Dei members do not do this.

The Catholic Church advises people to practice mortification. The mystery of Jesus Christ’s Passion shows that voluntary sacrifice has a transcendent value and can bring spiritual benefits to others. Voluntary sacrifice also brings personal spiritual benefits, enabling one to resist the inclination to sin. For these reasons, the Church prescribes fasting on certain days and recommends that the faithful practice other sorts of mortification as well. Mortification is by no means the centerpiece of the Christian life, but nobody can grow closer to God without it: “There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2015).

In the area of mortification, Opus Dei emphasizes small sacrifices rather than extraordinary ones, in keeping with its spirit of integrating faith with secular life. For example, Opus Dei members try to make small sacrifices such as persevering at their work when tired, occasionally passing up some small pleasure, or giving help to those in need.

Some Opus Dei members also make limited use of the cilice and discipline, types of mortification that have always had a place in the Catholic tradition because of their symbolic reference to Christ’s Passion. Many well-known figures in Catholic history have used the cilice or discipline, such as St. Francis, St. Thomas More, St. Padre Pio and Blessed Mother Teresa.  The Church teaches that people should take reasonable care of their physical health, and anyone with experience in this matter knows that these practices do not injure one’s health in any way. The Da Vinci Code’s description of the cilice and discipline is greatly exaggerated and distorted: it is simply not possible to injure oneself with them as the book and film depict. 

Additional explanation from leading Catholic sources regarding Opus Dei and corporal mortification.


4. Opus Dei and cult allegations


In various places, The Da Vinci Code describes Opus Dei as a “sect” or a “cult.” The fact is that Opus Dei is a fully integrated part of the Catholic Church and has no doctrines or practices except those of the Church. There is no definition or theory – whether academic or popular – that provides a basis for applying the pejorative terms “sect” or “cult” to Opus Dei.

Opus Dei is a Catholic institution that seeks to help people integrate their faith and the activities of their daily life. As a personal prelature (an organizational structure of the Catholic Church), it complements the work of local Catholic parishes by providing people with additional spiritual education and guidance.

Opus Dei was founded in Spain in 1928 by a Catholic priest, St. Josemaría Escrivá, and began to grow with the support of the local bishops there. It received final approval from the Vatican in 1950 and began growing in many countries around the world. Today Opus Dei has roughly 83,000 lay members (over 3,000 in the United States) and 2,000 priests. Several million people around the world participate in its programs and activities, which are conducted in more than 60 countries.

The Da Vinci Code also makes melodramatic assertions that Opus Dei engages in “brainwashing,” “coercion,” and “aggressive recruiting," unfairly trying to tar Opus Dei with the same brush used against groups more deserving of such epithets.

Opus Dei proposes to people to give their lives to God, following a special path of service within the Catholic Church. One’s life can only be given freely, through a decision coming from the heart, not from external pressure: pressure is both wrong and ineffective. Opus Dei always respects the freedom of conscience of its members, prospective members, and everyone else it deals with.

As a manifestation of its beliefs about the importance of freedom, Opus Dei has specific safeguards to ensure that decisions to join are free and fully informed. For example, nobody can make a permanent membership commitment in Opus Dei without first having completed more than 6 years of systematic and comprehensive instruction as to what membership entails. Additionally, no one can make a temporary commitment before age 18, nor a commitment to permanent membership before age 23.

Additional explanation from leading Catholic figures on Opus Dei and cult allegations.


5. Opus Dei and women


The Da Vinci Code says about Opus Dei’s U.S. headquarters: “Men enter the building through the main doors on Lexington Avenue. Women enter through a side street.” This is inaccurate. People, whether male or female, use the doors leading to whichever section of the building they are visiting. The building is divided into separate sections, for the straightforward reason that one section includes a residence for celibate women and another for celibate men. But these sections are not sex-restricted, and it is the women’s not the men’s section that fronts on Lexington Avenue, the opposite of what is said in the book. (Note: The book sometimes also inaccurately calls the building Opus Dei’s “world headquarters”).

The Da Vinci Code also suggests that women Opus Dei members are “forced to clean the men’s residence halls for no pay” and are otherwise accorded lower status than men.

This is not true. Opus Dei, like the Church in general, teaches that women and men are of equal dignity and value, and all of its practices are in accord with that belief. Women members of Opus Dei can be found in all sorts of professions, those which society views as prestigious and those which society today tends to undervalue, such as homemaking or domestic work. Opus Dei teaches that any kind of honest work done with love of God is of equal value.

Some women numerary members of Opus Dei have freely chosen to make a profession of taking care of Opus Dei’s centers, both women’s and men’s. They also run conference centers where activities of cultural and spiritual formation are held. These women are professionally trained and are paid for their services, which include interior decorating, catering and other highly skilled work. The millions of people who attend retreats or other spiritual formation activities at Opus Dei centers can attest to their professionalism. The Da Vinci Code’s insinuation that their work lacks dignity and value is demeaning to these women.

Additional explanation from leading Catholic figures on Opus Dei and women.


6. Opus Dei and the Vatican Bank


The Da Vinci Code says that Opus Dei was made a personal prelature as a reward for “bailing out” the Vatican bank.

Neither Opus Dei nor any of its members helped “bail out” the Vatican bank. The Church’s authorities made Opus Dei a personal prelature in 1982 because they recognized that this new canonical category was a good fit for Opus Dei’s mission and structure.

In any event, the personal prelature status is nothing special: it is simply one of several canonical categories the Church has for designating an institution that carries out special pastoral activities. In contrast to the implication given by the book, personal prelature status in no way implies some special favor of the Pope or that Opus Dei members are not under the authority of their local bishops.


7. The canonization of Opus Dei’s founder


The Da Vinci Code suggests that the Church bent its canonization rules to put Opus Dei’s founder on the “fast track” to being named a saint.

The canonization of St. Josemaría Escrivá in 2002 came 27 years after his death (not 20, as the book says). It was one of the first to be processed after the Church streamlined the procedures for canonization, and so it moved more quickly than was typical before. Mother Teresa is on pace to be canonized even more quickly, having been beatified just 6 years after her death (Escrivá was beatified in 17 years). Even under the old procedures, the canonization of St. Therése of Lisieux made it through the process in 27 years, roughly the same as Escrivá’s.