Catholic University students vote to block porn

Denver Newsroom, Jan 23, 2021 / 02:00 am (CNA).- In the waning months of 2020, the United States watched as the Senate conducted hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven. President Donald Trump had nominated Barrett to fill the Supreme Court seat left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Among the observers was Father Pius Pietrzyk, OP, a canon lawyer and among the few Catholic priests to, like Barrett, hold a Senate-confirmed political appointment.

In late 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Pietrzyk to serve on the board of the Legal Services Corporation, a nonpartisan body that gives grants to local legal aid offices to provide free civil legal services for the poor.

“I never thought I’d like the work as much as I have. I’ve enjoyed it very much. And a big part of that is because I’ve seen the people who have been helped by it,” Pietrzyk told CNA.

“But I also see, in a much bigger way, the people who continue to need to be helped by it. And there’s far more need certainly than we have resources. But we keep trudging along doing our best and helping as many people as we can.”

Pietrzyk is a Dominican friar of the Province of St. Joseph, and chairs the Pastoral Studies department at St. Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California, where he also teaches canon law. 

Before being ordained to the priesthood in 2008, he practiced civil law for several years at a large firm in Chicago. 

Pietrzyk received the news of his appointment to the LSC’s board in early 2010. As a lawyer, he had heard of the Legal Services Corporation and was vaguely aware of what they did. But his appointment was still a big surprise. 

“It was completely out of the blue for me. I never saw this coming,” he said. 

‘Fundamental disparities’

The Legal Services Corporation is a 501(c)(3) corporation created in 1974 with bipartisan Congressional sponsorship. 

Congress appropriates money to the LSC each year— for 2021, some $465 million in funding is expected. The LSC does not itself provide legal services, but rather provides grants to 132 independent nonprofit legal aid programs throughout the country. 

People earning 125% or less of the federal poverty line are eligible for the services that the local legal aid agencies provide. Pietrzyk said some of the common civil law issues that the aid agencies deal with are issues of domestic violence, housing (such as landlord-tenant disputes), elder law, and veterans issues. 

In civil cases, many people living in poverty cannot afford lawyers, and often have to represent themselves, making them less likely to win their cases. 

“You look in the housing courts in the United States, and most of the landlords are represented by a lawyer, and almost none of the tenants are represented by a lawyer. And so you’ve got these fundamental disparities when it comes to as basic a human need and human right really as housing issues,” he said.

So how did a Dominican priest get picked for a political appointment like this?

Apart from Pietrzyk’s legal qualifications for the position, there was another reason his name came up as a possible candidate. 

By tradition, at least two members of the LSC’s board are “client-eligible,” meaning they themselves qualify for the free services that they oversee. 

Because Dominicans take a vow of poverty, Pietrzyk is technically poor. So when the Senate was looking for potential nominees to recommend to President Obama, a Senate staffer suggested looking for a nominee who had taken a vow of poverty. 

Pietrzyk is quick to point out that his Senate hearing was not the flashy, high-profile media affair that often accompanies hearings for Supreme Court nominees, such as Barrett. 

Instead, his hearing was conducted as a conference call with several Democratic staffers, away from the public eye. Pietrzyk described the room where it took place as little more than a “cloakroom.” 

Still, as you might expect, any nominee for a Senate-confirmed position has to be vetted by the FBI. The FBI conducted interviews with several people whose names Pietrzyk provided, as well as with several of Pietrzyk’s parishioners and neighbors. 

At one point during the vetting process, Pietrzyk was studying in Rome. Since the FBI lacks jurisdiction outside U.S. territorial boundaries, a retired State Department agent living in Europe met with Father Pietrzyk and conducted additional interviews in Rome. 

“I had really nothing to hide, nothing that’s going to cause a major objection,” Pietrzyk laughed.  

“I wasn’t a foreign agent. I wasn’t engaging in some sort of heavy illegal practices. That made it a lot easier. I had no complicated financial situations that would cause embarrassment to the President or anything like that.”

Although Pietrzyk says he is not aware of any major ideological objections to his appointment, he says there was some suspicion in the Senate that he fit the mold of a “client eligible” candidate. After all, he says, not many poor people have a University of Chicago law degree. 

“And while I live a vow of poverty, it wasn’t as if there was any danger of me being on the streets. I don’t think my religious community was going to throw me out on the street anytime soon,” he pointed out. 

“So that caused, I think, a little bit of grumbling from some people, but it never came back to me, and it never affected my nomination, and it never affected the vote in the Senate.”

The Senate confirmed Pietrzyk’s nomination on March 29, 2010. He said he regularly wears his religious habit to board meetings, and has earned the respect of his fellow board members. 

“My other board members have accepted me as a Catholic priest, as Catholic religious, and have received that whole-heartedly and have just been very professional to me,” Pietrzyk said. 

“We rarely have, if ever, ideological disputes. That camaraderie and friendship and professionalism has been part of what’s made this such a rewarding experience for me, in addition to the stories that we hear of the poor people who are helped by the services. And some of them are really quite compelling.”

In Dec. 2019, Pietrzyk was further elevated to Vice-Chairman of the LSC’s board. 

‘We haven’t seen the worst of the poverty’

Pietrzyk said the work of the Legal Services Corporation is particularly important today, as millions of Americans face eviction from their homes because of the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. 

A handful of states have made it illegal for landlords to evict tenants during the pandemic, but many have not. In a July 2020 survey done by the LSC, 95% of their grantees reported an increase in eviction cases. 

Late last year, Congress extended a moratorium on evictions nationwide until the end of this month, January 2021.

The federal moratorium applies when renters meet certain conditions, and data show that landlords in many states have ignored moratoria and have continued with evictions. The Eviction Lab, a research group at Princeton University, has tracked at least 200,000 evictions in the US since the pandemic began.

President Joe Biden has pledged to make an extension of the federal moratorium one of his top priorities, pledging to sign an executive order extending the moratorium until March on his first day in office. 

Unless that moratorium is later renewed, an estimated 30-40 million needy people are going to find themselves homeless. 

“We haven’t seen the worst of the poverty that has been a result of the COVID, and we’ll see it a lot worse once the evictions crisis really hits. And so being on the front lines and trying to ameliorate that as much as possible, I think, is something we all really need to be invested in,” Pietrzyk said. 

The need for affordable legal services for the poor has been highlighted recently as an important component of the country’s response to poverty, especially in light of the pandemic. 

Notably, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a Sept. 2020 op-ed calling for reform of the court system, noting that “even to accomplish the simplest task, hiring a lawyer is expensive — too expensive.” 

As one possible remedy, Gorsuch highlighted new programs in Utah and Arizona that will, beginning this year, permit “trained, non-lawyer legal professionals” to represent clients in some legal areas. 

Although the LSC is set to receive $465 million in funding this year, the largest dollar amount ever appropriated, the figure is significantly lower than what the LSC requested for 2021. The Trump administration recommended “zero funding” for the LSC every year that Trump was in office. 

Pietrzyk said he believes all Americans— regardless of income—  ought to be able to access the court system. 

“When you’re a poor person, you can barely have money to feed your family. When you become a victim of injustice in the civil realm, you often have no outlet at all, because you can’t hire a lawyer,” he said.  

“You oftentimes don’t have the resources to be able to navigate yourself through a very complicated court system. And so what’s left?…I do think that if you are committed to the rule of law and to justice for all Americans, that you have to be committed in some way to a program that provides civil legal services to the poor.”

The LSC’s grantees nationwide have seen a large increase in demand for their services during the pandemic. 

Guy Lescault, executive director of Legal Services Alabama, one of the LSC’s grantees, told CNA that at least 1.5 million Alabama residents cannot afford to hire lawyers when faced with civil issues like fighting an eviction. 

Alabama has long ranked near the bottom in terms of average income and racial disparities, Lescault said. Alabama does not have a state moratorium on evictions, and it is one of only two states nationwide— the other being Idaho— that has never appropriated any state money toward legal services for the poor. 

Typically, some 80% of their funding comes from the LSC, and last year they got some much-needed additional funding from the CARES Act and in the form of a grant from HHS. Legal Services Alabama is hoping to fill in gaps with their own fundraising. 

Legal Services Alabama operates a call center where people can call to get connected to free legal services, and they have seen a massive increase in demand since the pandemic started. 

Most calls they receive at the call center, Lescault says, are from needy people seeking information, such as asking about how to access SNAP (Food stamps). 

Lescault says they deal with many elderly people and children in their work. Moreover, the population served by LSA is about 70% female and nearly two-thirds black.

For serious situations, such as a poor person facing eviction or domestic violence, a call to the statewide call center often will be directed to one of their lawyers. 

“Domestic violence sort of goes hand in hand when you have lockdown orders, loss of employment, all of the other things. These issues, they’re not isolated, they’re all intertwined,” Lescault said. 

“What we should be doing is addressing some of this holistically. So we are trying as fast as our little feet can get us to apply for more domestic violence money from the Department of Justice that would give us additional staff to help address that issue around the state.”

‘Make your town and community a better place’

Father Pietrzyk’s status as a Senate-confirmed Catholic priest is fairly unique. 

In 2015— five years after Father Pietrzyk’s confirmation— the Senate confirmed Father Paul Hurley to be U.S. Army Chief of Chaplains. The record of whether there have been any other priests confirmed by the Senate is thin.

Most Catholics will never get the chance to help the poor by way of a national political appointment. But Father Pietrzyk encouraged all Catholics to seek out opportunities to help the poor in their neighborhoods and local communities. 

“Where you can have a great deal of influence is at the local level, getting involved in helping people who are in need in your own community, in your own town, in your own city,” he said. 

“I think that’s what Catholics need to be about— to try to avoid all of the political and ideological gamesmanship that goes on sometimes at the national level, and ask yourself what you can do to make your town and community a better place.”

This story originally aired on Catholic News Agency’s podcast, CNA Newsroom. It has been adapted for print. Listen to the segment below, beginning at 23:13. 

CNA Newsroom · Ep. 90: For God and Country

[…]

Removal of the remains of statues destroyed at the grotto of Nativity parish in Burke, Va., Jan. 25, 2022. / Diocese of Arlington

Arlington, Va., Jan 27, 2022 / 16:00 pm (CNA).
Police are investigating after a grotto at a Catholic parish in Bur… […]

CNA Staff, Dec 8, 2020 / 12:21 am (CNA).- Legislators have sent to the Massachusetts governor a $46.2 billion full-year budget plan that includes provisions to expand access to abortion, additions which have drawn strong pro-life criticism.

An amendment to the budget bill would allow 16-year-olds to obtain an abortion without parental consent, a change from the current age of 18 years. Minors under the age of 16 could obtain a judicial bypass waiver to get an abortion without parental consent. A waiver could be granted via teleconference, according to the bill’s sponsor, State House News Service reported.

The provisions would also allow abortions after 24 weeks into pregnancy, even to the point of birth, for diagnosed fatal anomalies. Under the proposed amendment, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives could perform abortions.

Despite Democratic leaders’ statements appearing to reject major policy riders, the budget bill includes these and other abortion provisions. Also included is some of the language of the “Roe Act,” a 2019 proposal to maintain legal abortion if Roe v. Wade and other pro-abortion precedents were to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The abortion proposals did not draw much comment in the Senate session, though Republican lawmakers were critical of it elsewhere, the news site MassLive reports.

House Minority Leader Brad Jones criticized the use of the budget process to pass an abortion amendment.

“I don’t care what side of the issue you’re on, this being done as part of the budget process in a lame duck session, under the cover of darkness, in the midst of a pandemic is wrong,” Jones said last month, according to State House News Service.

Democratic State Sen. Marc Pacheco, who opposed the budget bill, speculated that Republican Gov. Baker could return the bill to lawmakers with amendments and further extend debate on the bill, the Boston Globe reports.

Baker is a pro-abortion Republican. The Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund was neutral in the governor’s 2018 reelection campaign, and it is not clear whether he will run for a third term in 2022.

However, he voiced disapproval of the proposed Roe Act’s abortion expansion last year.

“I don’t support late-term abortions,” Baker said. “I support current law here in Massachusetts.”

In 2017 the governor pledged state funds would make up any shortfalls in cuts to Planned Parenthood’s federal funding. In 2018 he challenged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Protect Life Rule, which blocks recipients of Title X family planning funds from performing or making referrals for abortions. He also approved the repeal of a 19th century law that criminalized abortion.

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference had sought to rally voters to ask their senators to vote against the budget amendment. On Nov. 11 the conference said amendment would “expand abortion access in the Commonwealth well beyond what is enshrined in state law.” Under the changes, abortion “would remain an option under certain circumstances for the full term of the pregnancy.”

The conference stressed that “the Catholic Church teaches that life itself starts at conception and ends with natural death.”

The Catholic conference criticized the proposed changes to parental consent law, arguing that “a 16 or 17 year old girl would be deprived of the guidance and support of an adult at the time of making this life changing decision.”

While the measure does require “life-saving equipment” to be present in the room when an abortion is performed past 24 weeks, the conference suggested this is a toothless requirement. The amendment’s language is “nuanced enough that the physician would not be required to use the equipment” if a baby survived an abortion attempt.

In addition, the bill calls for life-saving equipment to be in the room when a doctor performs a legal late-term abortion, but only says the equipment is to “enable” the doctor to safe the life of a baby surviving an abortion. Pro-life groups have warned that the language allows “passive infanticide” by not specifically requiring a doctor to save the infant’s life.

The amendment to the larger budget bill was adopted by the state House by a 108-49 vote, State House News Service reported. A dozen Democrats voted against the amendment, while one Republican voted for it. On Nov. 18, the state Senate passed amendment 180 by a vote of 33-7.

Though the full budget bill passed the House, it did not have enough votes to prevent a veto.

Michael New, a visiting professor of political science and social research at The Catholic University of America, testified against the Roe Act’s proposal to reduce the age of consent. The current law, he estimated, has saved 10,000 to 44,000 lives from abortion.

In his review of 16 peer-reviewed studies, every one “finds that state-level parental involvement laws reduce the in-state abortion rate for minors,” he said in his testimony.

[…]