Let clarity and compassion define sexual identity debates, bishops say

A team of nuns measures photographic plates for the Carte du Ciel project, circa early 1900s. / Credit: On Being, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, via Flickr

CNA Staff, Oct 4, 2024 / 15:45 pm (CNA).
Scientists recently named four asteroids after four Catholic … […]

Washington D.C., Jun 2, 2020 / 10:10 am (CNA).- Amid burgeoning conflict regarding the president’s response to riots across the country, President Donald Trump visited the Saint John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday morning.

While a shrine spokesman said the visit was initially planned as the signing of an international religious freedom executive order and had been scheduled some time ago, Washington’s archbishop called Trump’s visit to the shrine “reprehensible.”

According to the White House daily press guidance, Trump had a scheduled visit to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine in the city’s northeast at 11:20 a.m. on Tuesday.

The president’s visit now comes shortly before he will sign an executive order “to advance international religious freedom.”

A spokesperson for the shrine said on Tuesday that the White House “originally scheduled this as an event for the president to sign an executive order on international religious freedom.”

“This was fitting given St. John Paul II was a tireless advocate of religious liberty throughout his pontificate,” the shrine stated. “International religious freedom receives widespread bipartisan support, including unanimous passage of legislation in defense of persecuted Christians and religious minorities around the world.”

He added that “the shrine welcomes all people to come and pray and learn about the legacy of St. John Paul II.”

The revamped visit, following nights of civil unrest in Washington, was met with criticism from Washginton’s archbishop.

Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C. said on Tuesday morning: “I find it baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles, which call us to defend the rights of all people even those with whom we might disagree.”

.@WashArchbishop Gregory has released a statement on the president’s visit to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine.https://t.co/46g9Ac8Wy5 pic.twitter.com/d1wERIoLVp

— DC Archdiocese (@WashArchdiocese) June 2, 2020

“Saint Pope John Paul II was an ardent defender of the rights and dignity of human beings. His legacy bears vivid witness to that truth,” Archbishop Gregory stated: “He certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence, scatter or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.”

The shrine contains a first-class relic of Pope St. John Paul II’s blood, as well as an interactive exhibit on his life, accomplishments, and significant historical events. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops designated the shrine as a national shrine in 2014.

A group of around 200 protesters gathered on Tuesday morning down the street from the shrine. Some of the protesters chanted “black lives matter” and “no justice, no peace,” while a small group of the protesters prayed the rosary.

According to a senior administration official, the executive order on international religious freedom Trump is scheduled to sign on Tuesday would continue his previous call for other countries “to end religious persecution.” It would integrate this call into U.S. foreign policy.

On Monday evening, Trump had visited St. John’s Episcopal Church adjacent to the White House, which every sitting U.S. president, beginning with James Madison, has attended.

Trump stood outside the church in front of cameras holding a Bible in one hand in an apparent photo-op. The church had suffered fire damage during protests on Sunday night.

At the time Trump stood outside the church, Washington, D.C. was entering a 7 p.m. curfew. Crowds had stood across from Lafayette Square behind the White House, protesting the death of George Floyd and police brutality.

According to the Washington Examiner, police dispersed crowds with tear gas and other non-lethal weapons on H Street behind the park and next to the church, but not one block over on Vermont Avenue where protests continued past curfew; the dispersal of the crowds was apparently done to make room for Trump’s visit to St. John’s rather than enforcing the city’s curfew.

[…]

Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2019 / 02:45 pm (CNA).- The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will not hear a case regarding an Alabama law banning abortions by dismemberment, allowing a lower court ruling against the legislation to stand.  

On June 28, the court issued a series of decisions announcing which cases it will hear in the next judicial year. 

The rejected case, Harris v. West Alabama Women’s Center, concerned the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act, a 2016 law that banned the abortion procedure “dilation and evacuation.” The procedure involves the dismemberment of the unborn child while it is still alive, and is only used for abortions in the second-trimester of pregnancy or later. 

This case did not involve the law passed in Alabama earlier this year, which banned abortion altogether in the state of Alabama, except when needed to preserve the health of the mother. 

The 2016 law was struck down by a lower court before it could ever go into effect, finding that the legislation placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to access abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision to not grant certiorari means that the lower court decision will stand. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing a concurring opinion to not hear the case, said that the Supreme Court did need to consider an abortion case and revisit its existing precedents on the “undue burden” test, which he described as “out of control,” but that the Alabama case did not present the right fact pattern for doing so. 

“The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents States from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible,” wrote Thomas. 

“But under the ‘undue burden’ standard adopted by this Court, a restriction on abortion—even one limited to prohibiting gruesome methods—is unconstitutional if ‘the ‘purpose or effect’ of the provision ‘is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.’”

While agreeing that the case was “too risky” for the Court to consider, he wrote that “this case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control.” 

“None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution. Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous ‘undue burden’ standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought.”

The national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List released a statment condemning the court’s refusal to hear the case.

“Once again the Supreme Court has punted on abortion, this time refusing to take up Alabama’s humane law protecting unborn children from gruesome dismemberment abortions in which a child is torn apart, piece by piece,” the statement said. 

“Unborn children and mothers will continue to be victimized by the abortion industry while the Court does nothing.”

Among those cases accepted by the court were DHS v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and McAlleenan v. Vidal, which were consolidated into one case. 

All three cases concern President Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. 

In 2017, Trump announced that the program would be ending, but federal courts have repeatedly blocked his decision and the program has remained.

DACA was created by an executive order issued by then-President Barack Obama. It provides work permits and protection from deportation for some people who were brought to the United States illegally as children. 

Trump has previously urged Congress agree a bipartisan compromise bill that would codify parts of DACA into law and strengthen border protections – including providing funding for a border wall, but no agreement has been reached. 

The Supreme Court’s next judicial session begins in October.

[…]