Realism about the Supreme Court and Abortion

July 7th, 2018

The President is about to announce his nominee to fill the newly vacant seat on the Supreme Court. That will set off a bruising confirmation battle that will stretch into September at least. The rhetoric will be heated and likely ugly, and may even include a large dose of religious intolerance. As this maelstrom kicks off, it’s important that we have realistic expectations about what this will mean for legalized abortion.

It is a clear sign of the debasement of our American political society that so much energy and effort are going to be devoted to a Supreme Court nomination. The loss of a proper understanding of natural law and the dominance of a sense of moral agnosticism have left our government and courts without a moral and legal compass to guide them in interpreting and making civil law. The centralization of power in Washington, which was never envisioned by the Founders of our nation, has given the federal government and especially the courts a disproportionate control over public policy, when compared to the states. One consequence of this has been the constitutionalization of what should be political questions, as we have seen in the issues of abortion and marriage. Another consequence has been the increasing intrusion of politics into areas that are rightly protected personal liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

The worst consequence has been that the Supreme Court — and particularly the “swing vote” that was exercised by the retiring Justice Kennedy — has become our de facto ruler when it comes to essential questions of the separation of powers between the branches of government and crucial social issues relating to life, family and religion. It is truly bizarre that the last few weeks in June is a time of great anticipation, as the Supreme Court’s term comes to an end and we citizens passively wait for rulings that will define our lives. This is why I often derisively refer to the Court as our “Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers” — a role that Washington, Hamilton and Madison would be horrified to see.

These trends are so deeply rooted that we have to have realistic expectations. None of the nominees to the Court will change this sorry situation. None will restore the correct separation of powers or the federalism that were built into our constitutional structure as a defense against the abuse of power. None will stop the trend of constitutionalizing political questions.

We particularly have to be realistic when it comes to the momentous issue of abortion. There is no question that Roe v. Wade decision was wrongly decided as a matter of morality and legal reasoning, and that it has had a corrupting effect on the law, the legal profession and the judicial confirmation process. It is imperative to see it and its progeny overruled (particularly Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which really is the controlling law now, not Roe), and for the constitutional rights of unborn children to be recognized and protected. But that isn’t going to happen any time soon, no matter who the President selects.

Regardless of who the nominee is, it is far from clear that that there would be enough votes on the Court to overrule Roe and Casey. Of the current judges on the Court, four are certainly never going to vote to overrule or even meaningfully limit abortion; only one, Justice Thomas, has ever said that he would vote to overrule; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch both called Roe “settled law” during their own confirmation hearings, and Justice Alito has said that it has added strength as a precedent because it has survived prior challenges and people have come to rely on it. So it’s not as if Roe and Casey are hanging by a thread and just need one more vote to be overruled.

It’s also important to understand that the “conservatism” of some of the Justices would suggest that they may actually shy away from overruling Roe and Casey, even if they believe that it was wrongly decided. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, and it would already appear Justice Gorsuch, have a strong tendency to minimalism in their rulings — deciding questions on the most narrow grounds available, and choosing, as Justice Alito once wrote, to “leave broader issues for another day.” You can see that trend in some of the major decisions of the last term, for example the Masterpiece Cakesdecision, where the “conservative” justices supported a narrow ruling and completely ducked the critical free speech issue.

This minimalism is particularly important when one realizes how deeply embedded Roe and Caseyare in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Roe didn’t spontaneously emerge fully formed from the brow of Justice Blackmun, nor did the infamous “mystery of life” passage in Casey come out of nowhere. They were the result of decades of prior decisions, reaching back to the 1920’s, in which the Court recognized or invented “privacy” and other rights that are nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, many of which have no basis in history, tradition or natural law. Some of these decisions were actually correct, but many were perverse (like the contraception decisions Griswold and Eisenstadt), and all of them laid the groundwork for Roe and Casey. They also stemmed from a theory of absolute personal autonomy that evolved from the political liberalism on which America was founded and that produced the culture of sexual libertinism and moral relativism that we currently inhabit.

Overruling Roe and Casey would thus mean that the “conservative” Justices would be repudiating an entire body of law and a political and moral philosophy that is so deeply entrenched in our society that most people find any alternative view virtually incomprehensible. They would also set off a political explosion that would undermine the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of a large number of Americans and many powerful elected officials. Such a momentous decision would be virtually unprecedented in American history, with the only prior examples that I can think of being Brown v. Board of Education and Roe itself.

Even if the Justices mustered the fortitude to overrule Roe and Casey, abortion would not suddenly be made illegal across the United States. The issue would then return to the states for regulation. A number of states already have laws on the books that would essentially permit abortion on demand for some, if not all of pregnancy. New York’s statute, for example, permits abortion on demand prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy. According to one expert on abortion law, if Roe and Casey were overruled, only eleven states have laws that would completely outlaw abortion, and over 80% of Americans would live in states where the situation would be essentially unchanged — abortion would still be legal for all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason and with little effective regulation.

It is also likely that state courts would step into the breach and declare a constitutional right to abortion. Iowa’s Supreme Court did so just last week, and as many as twelve other states had previously done so. We would also expect increased pressure in solid liberal states like New York to expand abortion rights through legislation.

This is not to say that we should expect that nothing will change for the better. I fully expect that the new Justice will be a legitimate constitutional originalist, which means that they would interpret the Constitution according to its actual original meaning. I also expect that they will show greater respect for the separation of powers and federalism. And I believe that at least in the short term they will vote to permit states to have greater leeway in regulating abortion, and to protect religious liberty and freedom of expression. Those would all be good developments, and may begin the process of rolling back Roe, Casey, and the terrible decisions that underlie them.

A new nominee to the Supreme Court will not be a magic bullet that will make all things new. Our challenge is to continue to press for social and legislative change that would increase respect for human life. We also have to work harder to create a social infrastructure that would replace the culture of contraception and abortion and promote a vision of women’s health that truly respects her fertility and genuine freedom. We still have a lot of work to do.

Cardinal McCarrick and the Integrity of the Church

July 2nd, 2018

The news about the sexual abuse allegations against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has produced a great deal of heat in secular and Catholic circles, and very little light. Several online pundits have used this news to bash the Church as thoroughly corrupt. One even claimed that “of all the institutions and societies that intersect with my life, the Church is by far the most corrupt, the most morally lax, the most disillusioning, and the most dangerous for my children”.

These are outrageous calumnies. They leave people with the false impression that the Church has done nothing to combat child sexual abuse. And they totally misunderstand the real significance of the Cardinal McCarrick story — as much as it is a tragedy and a crime, it is also in reality a success story.

It proves that nobody is above the law, and that the system in place to handle allegations of sexual abuse really works. It proves that people can rely on the Church to root out corruption and to protect everyone who comes to her. And it encourages other victims to come forward and tell the truth about what happened to them.

I am a lay person who loves the Church and wants to keep the Bride of Christ “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). If you look around the country, you will see hundreds of people like myself — safe environment directors, victim assistance coordinators, review board members, diocesan attorneys — who are doing the same thing in every diocese. The vast majority of them are lay people, and there is no question that they have the support of their bishops and clergy. I know that because I hear it all the time from my Archbishop and our priests.

Every diocese has elaborate procedures in place to handle complaints about sexual abuse of minors. I am part of the team in the Archdiocese that does that. In the Cardinal McCarrick case, as in all other cases involving allegations against clergy, we followed our process precisely, gathering all the relevant evidence and pursuing the truth wherever it led. (I should note that I was not an active part of that investigation, which was conducted by other members of our team.)

Our procedure is that whenever a complaint comes to our attention, we always refer it immediately to law enforcement. Every time. Always. We then step back and let law enforcement do their investigation. We cooperate 100% and let them do their jobs. In most cases, the allegations cannot be prosecuted because they took place too long ago. So law enforcement notifies us of their conclusions and we take over from there.

The Archdiocese then does our own investigation. We have hired an independent firm of private investigators who are former federal law enforcement agents, and they spearhead the investigation. They interview witnesses, gather documentary evidence, all the things that seasoned investigators do. Archdiocesan staff also assist in the investigation. Our diocesan attorney has a vast amount of legal experience and has conducted literally hundreds of investigations. I am a former Assistant United States Attorney and Assistant District Attorney and I have done hundreds of criminal investigations. We are professionals, we take this work very seriously, and we leave no stone unturned. We are given complete discretion in carrying out these investigations.

These cases are very, very difficult. The allegations usually involve events that took place decades ago. Many of the potential witnesses don’t remember any relevant details from so long ago or may even be dead. Very few of the incidents were reported to anyone at the time they occurred. Independent evidence that can corroborate or contradict the allegation is very hard to find. There is no physical evidence that can be examined forensically. Assessing the credibility of witnesses is a critical factor, and can be very challenging even to experienced professionals.

At a certain point in the investigation, the accused priest is interviewed. He is represented by an attorney and has been given access to all the results of the investigation. He has every opportunity to present his side of the story.

Once the investigation is complete, the case is presented to our Archdiocesan Advisory Review Board. This consists of several judges, a psychiatrist, a religious sister, a priest and several lawyers. They all have a great deal of experience and wisdom, and they are very engaged and proactive. If they think that more investigation is warranted, they ask for more information. In some cases (like the Cardinal McCarrick case), they ask the accuser and the accused priest to personally appear before them to give their testimony. They evaluate each case based on the hard facts, not on rumors or innuendo. If they find the evidence sufficient to substantiate the allegation, they say so. And they don’t hesitate to exonerate priests when there is insufficient evidence. They call them as they see them.

Backing all this up is an intensive program of child protection that is designed to minimize the risk of future incidents. We don’t do a good enough job letting people know about this. We background check everyone who works with minors, whether paid or volunteer – we’ve done almost 130,000 checks since our program began. We train everyone who works with minors in the signs and prevention of child sexual abuse, and we provide age-appropriate lessons to children too. We have a team of former police officers who conduct onsite visits to our parishes and schools to see if our policies are being implemented. We have detailed Codes of Conduct and policies to make our standards of behavior clear. And we are audited every year by an independent team that makes sure we’re doing our jobs. This involves a huge amount of labor and money, and it represents a major commitment by the Church.

There is also a separate and extensive process that takes place to determine if a cleric is has committed a crime of sexual abuse against a minor as defined by Canon Law. That process is initiated and conducted by officials here at our Tribunal Office. It can ultimately lead to a proceeding in Rome before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which can decide to dismiss the accused from the clerical state (i.e., “laicize” him). I am not a canon lawyer, so I am not qualified to explain that process and I have no idea how it will play out in the case of Cardinal McCarrick. But it is a vital part of the way that the Church addresses these terrible offenses.

So when people allege that the Church is not doing enough to police herself, that defames all of the people across the country who are doing everything they can to the best of their ability to make sure that justice is being done and that future crimes are prevented. When people claim that the Church doesn’t care, or that we haven’t improved, they are just showing their ignorance of the facts.

It is especially aggravating when people claim that the laity is somehow part of the problem for either not caring or not taking action. Every single person who was involved in the Cardinal McCarrick investigation was a lay person. With two exceptions, our Review Board consists entirely of lay people. Everyone who works in my Safe Environment Office is a lay person, and the vast majority of those who implement and enforce our policies in the parishes and schools are lay people acting under the leadership of their pastors. Here in the Archdiocese, lay people are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

It’s also not fair to accuse the bishops or the priests of not caring. Our Archbishop, and I believe the other bishops in the United States, are all sincerely trying their best. The priests of the Archdiocese have been very supportive of what we have been doing. We’re not perfect, and neither are our bishops or priests. But the number of priests who have been found guilty of sexual abuse is still minuscule and the vast majority of our clergy are good and holy men. Of course, we can always do better, and even one offense is a horrendous crime. But this isn’t the 1970’s anymore, and we’re never going back to those bad old days.

The ultimate lesson of the Cardinal McCarrick case is that nobody is immune to sin. And these sins are terrible. For those of us who are working in this area it’s like swimming through a sewer every day with your mouth open. It’s horrible work, and you can feel the presence of the Evil One, who would do anything to corrupt the Church and scandalize God’s faithful people.

Writing blog posts from the sidelines, repeating rumors and conspiracy theories, and publishing anonymous allegations and grievances are no help whatsoever in fighting this evil. We need more people to do what’s best for the church and God’s people – help us root out the corruption no matter where it is so that we can ensure the integrity of the bride of Christ.

Scripture Does Not Justify Injustice

June 16th, 2018

In response to criticism of the Administration’s policy of separating parents from their children at the border, the Attorney General has essentially demanded unquestioning obedience, referring to a verse from Paul’s letter to the Romans: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” (Romans 13:1)

This is a dangerous argument, one that implies that Christians and others should give blind obedience to the decrees of our rulers, regardless of whether they are just or not.

First of all, it grossly misreads St. Paul. Let’s look a the context in Romans itself.

In Romans 12, St. Paul exhorts his readers to live their lives purely, according to God’s will. He says, “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (12:2) and “love one another with brotherly affection” (12:10).

He then passes on to the question of how to live peacefully in his contemporary society. Remember that the government of Rome was a brutal military dictatorship, one that required its subjects to view the Emperor as a god and to make sacrifice to him. Rome had already murdered Jesus based on false testimony that he was claiming to be an earthly king, and had already taken Paul under a false arrest so he could face the likelihood of execution.

So Paul had no illusions about the rulers of the world — in fact, he knew well that the ruler of the world was the Evil One and his minions (see Ephesians 6:12). Paul would be the last man to encourage us to accept blindly the rules set down by earthly kings. What Paul was clearly doing was encouraging Christians to keep their heads down, obey the law as best they can, and avoid any conflicts with their earthly rulers.

But Paul was also doing something even more important, and in fact even more treasonous towards the Roman emperors. He was saying clearly and plainly that earthly rulers were not the real or final authority on earth — God is. He said “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (13:1) The Roman emperors would have no authority except that God permits them to exercise it — but not for any purpose, but for the common good of mankind by maintaining order. Our rulers are not God, but are subject to Him and to His law. Christ is the King, not Caesar or anyone else.

And what does God’s law entail? Read on in Romans for the short version:

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (13:8-10)

Now Paul is referring there specifically to the Mosaic Law, but his point applies more generally to all human law, and this brings up the Attorney General’s second major error. The only legitimate way to read and understand Sacred Scripture is to read it with the Church, not by my own personal interpretation. The Bible is the Church’s book — she wrote it, preserved it, and teaches it. And that means we need to listen to what the Church has always said about the meaning of Romans 13.

The Church has always taught that earthly rulers and laws must conform to the law of God, as made evident through revelation or the natural law and interpreted by the Church. If human law does not meet that standard, it is an abuse of authority and we are not bound to obey. This was clearly explained by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. This was the testimony of thousands of martyrs who disobeyed man so they could obey God — remember St. Thomas’ More’s famous saying, “I die the King’s good servant but God’s first”? Here is how the Catechism summarizes it:

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”: “A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.”

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

Our bishops have spoken clearly about the Administration’s policies to separate children from their parents at the border. The President of the US Bishops’ Conference plainly called it “immoral”. Cardinal Dolan, in a very powerful interview on CNN, has said that it is “wrong” and “goes against human dignity”, and stressed that “God’s law trumps man’s law”.

Yes, we are generally obliged to obey the law and legitimate authority. But the Attorney General is way off base when he calls for obedience to the law without regard to its justice. To make that demand is to elevate human law above God’s law, and that way lies disaster.

Stop the Cruelty at the Border

June 13th, 2018

The authority of nations to secure their borders and to regulate migration is undisputed as a matter both of civil and natural law. The Church’s social teaching has long affirmed that. This is a difficult area for governments, which have to balance many legal, moral and policy considerations. Some deference has to be given to the expertise and presumed good faith of governments as they work in this area.

But our government’s exercise of this power has now passed the bounds of decency and has descended into cruelty. We cannot stand by and allow this to continue.

The present Administration’s hostility to immigration is well-known to all. The unconstitutional travel bans, the unjustifiable limitations on refugees from certain countries, and the ignorant and nasty rhetoric about immigrants are also all well-known.

But things have become even worse than that, and they’re getting worse all the time. Beginning last year, the Administration began a policy of separating children from their parents when families cross the border either as undocumented migrants or when seeking asylum. Hundreds of children, some as young as infants, were taken from their parents without any legal due process, and moved to facilities far from where their parents were being held. Communication between parents and children were either not permitted or greatly delayed. The psychological impact on these young children is certain to be severe.

That injustice was bad enough. But in May, the Administration announced that the government would now prosecute all persons who cross the border with Mexico. Together with that, any parents would be assumed to be smuggling their child, who would be forcibly taken away without any judicial due process.  Even people who are seeking asylum from persecution and violence would be treated as common criminals and their children would be taken.

Crossing the border without authorization is illegal. But this policy is specifically designed to use the threat of loss of children to deter parents from coming across the border. In essence, our government has decided to use children as human shields against illegal immigration. That is not legitimate law enforcement, that is cruelty.

The callous way in which high government officials spoke about this situation shocks the conscience. The White House Chief of Staff John Kelly spoke dismissively about these immigrants as being poorly educated, overwhelmingly rural, and without skills — as if human dignity depended on those factors, and as if generations of prior immigrants were any different. Mr. Kelly then said, “a big name of the game is deterrence… The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever.” Hundreds of children, taken from their parents in a strange foreign nation and placed in group facilities or the homes of strangers — “whatever”.

But it gets even worse. The Attorney General, who oversees immigration enforcement, has issued a policy decision that domestic violence and gang violence will no longer be a ground for seeking asylum in the United States. This is outrageous. Women and children are subject to violence with impunity in many nations. Domestic violence and gangs are ubiquitous and they frequently go unpunished or are even facilitated by governments.

Our government will now separate mothers from children, incarcerate the mothers, and then send them back to their abusers. This decision overturns decades of humanitarian policies, under which our nation proudly offered protection to these most vulnerable people. This is a disgrace, and unworthy of a civilized nation and of a government that routinely brags about its Christian moral principles.

But it gets even worse. To handle the volume of people who have to be brought before courts as a result of these policies, the government has been holding mass court meetings. This practice began under the prior administration but its use has intensified due to the new policies. I cannot bring myself to call these “proceedings” or “hearings” — they are an appalling mockery of justice. Dozens of criminal defendants are herded into courtrooms, represented by one attorney who had minimal time to speak to the group and virtually none to speak to individuals, and then all plead guilty at once before a magistrate who is being held to a monthly quota of guilty pleas.

The Church has repeatedly raised her voice against these policies. Testimony has been given before Congress. The USCCB’s Justice for Immigrants Project has an action alert that everyone should use to contact Congress about it.

Yesterday, Cardinal DiNardo, the president of USCCB, issued a statement on behalf of all the bishops of the United States. It is worth quoting in full (emphasis mine):

“At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Unless overturned, the decision will erode the capacity of asylum to save lives, particularly in cases that involve asylum seekers who are persecuted by private actors. We urge courts and policy makers to respect and enhance, not erode, the potential of our asylum system to preserve and protect the right to life.

Additionally, I join Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB’s Committee on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border as an implementation of the Administration’s zero tolerance policy. Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.

There are lots of legitimate issues surrounding immigration that are worthy of debate. But this is not one of them. Our bishops have called us out — they have told us that our government is doing something that is immoral and that violates the fundamental right to life. We cannot stand idly by, no matter what we think about other immigration issues.

These policies are cruel and shameful and they must end.

Comments or reactions are welcome. Post to our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/archnypublicpolicy/

How Can We Even Be Talking About Legalizing Assisted Suicide

June 11th, 2018

The recent suicides of celebrities has caused a sensation. One of the valuable side-effects of this is that our nation is being forced to realize that there is a genuine public health crisis that has been happening, mostly below the radar.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, in 2016, 1 million U.S. adults made plans for death and attempted suicide. Read that again — 1 million adults. The Centers for Disease Control just put out a report highlighting the alarming incidence and increase in suicides. Some of the key conclusions:

  • Suicide rates have risen in every state but one.
  • In 2016, nearly 45,000 Americans age 10 or older died by suicide.
  • Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death and is one of just three leading causes that are on the rise.
  • The suicide rate has increased 25% in the US since 1999.
  • In half the states, the suicide rate increased over 30%. One state, North Dakota, saw a 57% increase.
  • New York’s suicide rate increased 28.8%.
  • 54% of people who died by suicide did not have a known diagnosed mental health condition at the time of death.

So how can we even be talking about legalizing physician assisted suicide?

The message sent by legalizing assisted suicide is precisely the message that is leading more and more people to kill themselves. According to one expert interviewed by the Chicago Tribune, there are “key variables” that make a person more vulnerable to suicide:

  • Perceived burdensomeness, “this idea that my death is more valuable than my life.”
  • Thwarted belongingness, “meaning I try to make meaningful connections, and they just don’t work out.”
  • Hopelessness, “OK, I have this, and it’s never going to get better.”
  • Acquired capability, the ability to set aside normal psychological and physical constraints and perform an act that may be painful or horrifying.

The first three key factors are precisely the messages that assisted suicide sends to people who are terminally ill or disabled. The last factor is what assisted suicide hands to that vulnerable person at their bedside — a deadly prescription from their doctor that will make the act seem easy.

The normalization of suicide is also a major factor here, no doubt fueled by celebrity suicides and prominent examples like Brittany Maynard, who has become the “poster girl” of the assisted suicide movement. Here’s what one expert said to the New York Times about the growing social acceptance of suicide:

“It’s a hard idea to test, but it’s possible that a cultural script may be developing among some segments of our population,” said Julie Phillips, a sociologist at Rutgers. Prohibitions are apparently loosening in some quarters, she said. Particularly among younger people, Dr. Phillips said, “We are seeing somewhat more tolerant attitudes toward suicide.” In surveys, younger respondents are more likely than older ones “to believe we have the right to die under certain circumstances, like incurable disease, bankruptcy, or being tired of living,” she said.

In other words, there is a growing culture of suicide, thanks to the same attitudes that lead to the demand for assisted suicide. Any rational person would realize that the current crisis would only be made worse by legalizing assisted suicide.

Our nation’s current response to the threat of suicide is woefully inadequate. Funding for prevention is stagnant and there is a dire shortage of mental health professionals and facilities, particularly for poor people who depend on Medicaid. The addiction crisis, which is largely the result of the mental health crisis, is also not being addressed adequately. It is also likely that suicides are seriously undercounted because many are seen as accidental overdoses.

There is a relentless push by advocates of assisted suicide to push legislation in the states, including in New York. They are facilitated by a compliant media, who regularly publish puff pieces about terminally ill people who kill themselves, and rarely allow opponents of assisted suicide — particularly people with disabilities — to voice their concerns. The medical profession is under particular pressure, as evidenced by the American Medical Association’s consideration of a resolution to go “neutral” about legalization. There is no such thing as neutrality on this issue — if you don’t oppose it, you’re de facto in favor of it.

The tragic suicides of prominent people have been a wake-up call to our nation about the suicide crisis. This is no time to be talking about legalizing suicide for anyone.

A Limited Victory for Religious Freedom

June 4th, 2018

The Supreme Court ruled today, by a wide majority of 7 to 2, in one of its most anticipated cases of the session, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The result was a victory for the particular religious liberty claim raised by the owner of the shop, Jack Philips. But this victory was limited by the Court’s very fact-specific ruling, and it’s explicit statement that there is no guarantee that future cases will be handled the same way.

The facts are fairly simple. In 2012, prior to the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Colorado and the United States in general, two men approached Mr. Phillips and asked him to create a cake for their upcoming “wedding”. Mr. Phillips declined, saying that he did not create cakes for same-sex weddings, even though he would serve same-sex couples for other occasions. It’s important to note that Mr. Phillips views his business not just a profit-making venture. Rather, he says that his “main goal in life is to be obedient to” Jesus Christ and Christ’s “teachings in all aspects of his life” and he seeks to “honor God through his work at Masterpiece Cakeshop.” So his refusal to participate and celebrate the same-sex “wedding” was an expression of his deeply-held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

A complaint was brought against Mr. Phillips, claiming that he was violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation. The case went before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for decision. The Commission ruled against Mr. Phillips, as did the Colorado Court of Appeals. That’s what brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court paid very close attention to what happened before the Commission. The Court noted,

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

In fact, the Commission had also heard three other cases recently that were relevant to Mr. Phillips’ case. In each of those cases, the Commission had ruled that bakers could refuse to create cakes with religious statements against homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” because the bakers found those statements “offensive”. The Court found this disparate treatment to be explicable only by the Commission’s hostility to Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs. The Court concluded,

The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.

If there is anything that the First Amendment religion clauses stand for, it’s that government cannot favor certain viewpoints or punish others because the government officials have particular preferences. The Constitution demands that everyone be treated even-handedly, even if certain powerful people find the religious views involved to be “offensive”. The Court found that the Commission had not treated Mr. Phillips fairly because it disapproved of his religious views.

It is also important that, as the Court noted, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” This directly rejected the Colorado courts’ finding that his creation of wedding cakes did not qualify as “speech” because it was “not sufficiently expressive”. In a strong concurrence, Justice Thomas explained this error in detail.

While it is certainly a significant legal victory for Mr. Phillips (and for Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented him), the significance of this case is muted by the Court’s fact-based analysis and their specific caveat that future cases may come out differently. It is unfortunate that the Court did not explicitly adopt Justice Thomas’ broader view of religiously-motivated expressive conduct as a form of protected free speech. And it is also regrettable that the Court did not repudiate the position, taken by some state courts, that whenever there is a conflict between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, religion will always lose.

This decision does not mean, as some critics will undoubtedly argue, that religious people have a “license to discriminate”. But it does affirm that religious people are entitled to a fair hearing by a neutral decision-maker, and that overt hostility to religious belief is still forbidden. And that is clearly a victory for religious freedom.

What Do You See In This Picture?

May 22nd, 2018

Last year, my Public Policy Office started a Facebook page, in hopes of spreading the Church’s position on important public issues and to encourage people to be better informed and more active citizens. Over the last nine months, our following has grown substantially — we are closing in on 3,200 “Likes” and our postings regularly reach well over 10,000 people each week. If you’re reading this and you’re not one of them, please visit our Facebook page and “like” us.

The reason for this growth has been a series of ads that consists of a slide show of photos, along with a message about an important issue, like abortion, assisted suicide, human trafficking, and so on. We choose photos because we think they’ll attract people to the ad and we also hope that they will make an important point that’s relevant to the issue.

We have repeatedly run ads on religious liberty. This is one of the most important issues facing the Church and all people of faith. Anyone who has read this blog, followed the US bishops’ statements, listened to the Cardinal, or just read the paper over the past few years should understand how serious the threat is.

Which brings me to our latest ad. The text of the ad says this:

Around the world, people are persecuted for their faith; even an ally, France, has banned personal expressions of faith from public spaces. The U.S. still upholds the value of religious freedom, though it’s under threat – especially conscience protections. Join us for live and social media discussions of religious liberty.

Here’s the first picture of the slide show:

What do you see in this picture?

The comments to our ad showed me that there were some people who didn’t see what I saw. I was astonished at the number of negative comments about Muslim people and Islam, and by  uninformed accusations that the Church does not defend our own religious liberty. I deleted many of the comments because they either used foul language or were so insulting that they had no place on a religious organization’s page. Just as an example of the ones I can repeat, there were blanket accusations that Muslims “hate us”, Islam was called a “demonic religion”, and we were laughably accused of being “politically correct”.

Is that what you see in this picture?

I see a young woman who, as an outward expression of her Muslim faith, has decided to wear the headscarf known as a hijab. She looks to me like a college student that I might see anywhere in America, or a young lady working in an office or store I might visit. I see someone who is proud of her faith, and unafraid to show it. I see someone who is admirable for that.

I also see Malala Yousafzai. She’s the youngest-ever recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, a young Muslim woman who was shot by Taliban fanatics because of her advocacy for the education of women. Fortunately, she survived and in all her appearances to speak up for women’s rights, she always wears a hijab as a statement of her faith. She is a tremendous witness to religious liberty and has received dozens of awards and honors, including the annual Mother Teresa Award.

I also see Samantha Elauf. She was the young woman who applied for a job at Abercrombie and Fitch but was denied employment solely because she wore the hijab as an expression of her faith. Her case went up to the Supreme Court in 2015 and thankfully, a unanimous Court upheld her right to wear religious clothing in public without being discriminated against. She is another witness to religious liberty.

I also see Suha Elqutt. She is a Muslim woman who wears a hijab according to her faith. She was going to court recently in Oklahoma to finalize her divorce from an abusive husband. But when she rang the metal detector, the court security officials refused her request to remove her headscarf in private and only in the presence of female officers. Instead they humiliated her by forcing her to uncover her head while crouching between cars in the parking lot where any man could have seen her at any time. Her religious liberty was violated and we all should stand up and defend her.

I also see people of faith in France and elsewhere in Europe. Those nations have been passing laws for over a decade that restrict the ability of people of faith — not just Muslims but anyone — to wear religious garb. Just last year the European Court of Justice (sic) ruled that employers can ban employees from wearing any outward signs of their faith. The specific case involved the hijab, but it would apply equally to a Jewish kippah, the veil of a religious sister or even just a crucifix. That is a frightening state of affairs.

Don’t get me wrong here — I’m not saying that all religions have equal value. I believe our Christian faith is the one true faith and that nobody is saved except by the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). While I respect Muslims as fellow worshipers of the One True God, I believe they have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the nature of God and are laboring under a false revelation. I also know very well that there are some Muslims who are violent and who persecute Christians and Westerners. And I absolutely believe that anyone who breaks the law or commits acts of violence in the name of any religion must be held accountable.

But that’s not what I see in this picture.

The trend in Europe shows why we have to defend the religious liberty of everyone. If it’s denied to anyone, it’s a threat to everyone, and the defense of religious freedom for everyone is in the finest tradition of our American history. It has never been said better than by George Washington, in his famous letter to the Jewish people of Rhode Island:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

I think that’s what everyone should see in this picture.

Intolerance in Philadelphia

May 18th, 2018

The City of Philadelphia plays a central role in the story of American freedom. It was the location of the writing of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the colony of Pennsylvania was notable for its religious toleration. It’s too bad that the current city government is now ignoring that legacy by violating the religious liberty of the Catholic Church.

The basic facts are very simple. There is a crisis in the foster care system in the City of Philadelphia. You recall that foster care serves some of the most vulnerable children in our society — victims of abuse or neglect, frequently with very serious medical and psychological challenges. There are approximately 6,000 children in Philadelphia’s foster care system, awaiting placement in a foster home. The City issued a call for new foster families, but then banned one of the oldest and most successful agencies, Catholic Social Services, from placing any children into foster homes.

The reason? The City of Philadelphia disapproves of the Catholic Church’s belief and teaching that the best place for a child to be raised is in a home with a married mother and father, and thus the refusal of Catholic agencies to place foster children with same-sex couples.

There are some important things to note. CCS does not discriminate against any child based on their sexual orientation. CCS will refer same-sex couples to one of the 26 other agencies that place children in foster homes. There are foster families, certified through CCS, who are ready and able to foster right now, but the City won’t allow the placement. Nobody has ever filed a complaint against CCS based on its religious mission, and its religious beliefs have never prevented a child from being placed in a home. And there is a history of bias against the Church — powerful city officials, including the mayor, have made numerous bitterly critical statements against the Church and the Archbishop of Philadelphia because of our religious beliefs about marriage and human sexuality.

The Church’s teaching on this is quite clear:

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality… As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood… This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 7)

And the duty of Catholic organizations not to cooperate with this is also quite clear:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. (5)

Becket, the stalwart defenders of religious liberty, has filed suit against the City of Philadelphia. This should be a fairly easy case, considering that just last year the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government cannot deny generally-available public benefits to a religious organization purely because of their religious beliefs. In that case, the Court said plainly, “[A] law targeting religious beliefs as such is never permissible.” This is not a new doctrine. Fifty years ago, the Court said “The State may not adopt programs or practices . . . which ‘aid or oppose’ any religion. . . . This prohibition is absolute.” Apparently these decisions were not read by the government of the City of Philadelphia.

Yet the usual voices from the forces of intolerance are being heard, with all the usual false accusations and incorrect statements of fact, law and principle. Some examples:

  • “This is just bare hatred of gay couples.”
This is a strange argument, since the whole purpose of the foster care system is to consider the best interests of the child, not the interests or desires of prospective foster parents. The Church’s position is based on love of the child, and concern for the best way to assure their welfare and development.
  • “If they don’t want to follow the government’s rules, they should get out of the foster care business.”
As we noted above, there is such a thing as the First Amendment, which guarantees both the free exercise of religion and protection from the establishment of religion. This means that the government cannot reward or penalize a church — no playing favorites based on preferred doctrines. By directly penalizing the Catholic Church for our religious beliefs, the City has, in effect, established a definition of acceptable religious beliefs — and those that they will not tolerate. That’s totally out of bounds under the First Amendment.
  • “The agency isn’t being asked to do anything other than implement the rules set down by the government.”
Private organizations aren’t mindless puppets of the state. A foster care agency has to evaluate individual cases for the suitability of placement of individual children into individual homes. This takes discretion and adherence to particular principles, including the teachings of the Church mentioned above on the best interests of children. If the agency feels it cannot do that, it will refer the children and parents to another agency. Plus, we again have to remember the existence of the First Amendment, which says that churches are not mere instruments of the state. They are independent, and their internal affairs cannot be interfered with by the government.
  • “They’d rather the children suffer in orphanages than allow gay couples to foster them.”
No child is living in an orphanage, a la Oliver Twist, and there are 26 other agencies that are perfectly free to certify gay couples and place children with them. Since there are so many alternatives, why must the City insist on ideological submission by CCS?
  • “Haven’t Christian adoption agencies shut down just to prevent gay people from adopting?”
Catholic adoption agencies have been forced out of business in a number of places (Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Illinois) — state agencies denied them licenses because they disapproved of Catholic beliefs. What Philadelphia is doing is another example of the same kind of intolerance. Catholic Charities wants to conduct its affairs in keeping with our faith, while other agencies can operate according to their principles and place children with same-sex couples.
  • “Isn’t this the same as refusing to place kids in interracial homes?”
Race is completely different from sexual orientation — it has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature and structure of a family and the right of a child to have a mother and father to raise them. It’s interesting that in some states, like New York, agencies are required to give preference to placing children with adoptive parents of the same religion. Some people have argued that race and ethnicity  should also be considered. If it’s okay to consider those factors, why can’t Catholic agencies consider a religion-based factor that we consider important for the well-being of a child?
  • This is just another example of the Church trying to impose their morality on others.
Who’s using political and financial power to push forward an agenda? Who’s doing that based on a moral and political judgment about human sexuality and marriage? Answer — it’s the City of Philadelphia that’s using its political power to impose its morality. They’re the ones who have decided that CCS is morally unfit to place foster children. The Church is just asking to be left alone to operate our foster care agency according to our religious beliefs, which puts a burden on absolutely nobody.

The point here isn’t whether people think that children should be placed in foster homes with same-sex couples. It also isn’t whether people agree with the Church on this issue or not — in fact, I imagine that the vast majority of Americans don’t agree. The point here is that an intolerant government is using its political power to enforce ideological conformity upon a religious organization that dares to dissent from current sexual orthodoxy. All Americans, regardless of what they think about the underlying issues, should be appalled by this abuse of power.

It’s an interesting irony that this is happening in Philadelphia. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence in that city later became President. While serving in that office, he received a letter from some Catholic nuns in New Orleans who were worried that they would lose title to their property after the United States bought the Louisiana Purchase territory. The letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote to them is worth quoting in full:

I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution by the former governments of Louisiana. The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority. Whatever diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under. Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.

How far we have come from those days, when the “inalienable right” of freedom of religion was assured by such generous and liberal words – and by a man who was not a religious believer himself. Too bad that the city government of Philadelphia hasn’t learned that lesson.

A Time of Decision in Ireland

May 15th, 2018

A momentous decision is looming in Ireland. They have a choice between life and death. Once made, there will likely be no going back.

At issue is a referendum on May 25th that would repeal the 8th Amendment to the Irish Constitution.  The amendment currently guarantees the right to life for the unborn child and ensures equal legal protection to both the mother and the unborn child. It reads: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.” This is a humane and sensible expression of the natural moral law that every human life deserves to be protected in law, and that no life is more valuable than another.

The amendment was originally adopted by referendum in 1983, with an approval vote of almost 67%. One would have thought that the matter was settled, but that wouldn’t account for the relentless pressure of pro-abortion organizations in Europe and elsewhere. Ireland has been consistently targeted by pro-abortion groups, who cannot stand the notion that a nation in the supposedly enlightened West could possibly believe that an unborn human being has human rights and deserves legal protection.

They have pushed forward other referenda that have weakened the 8th Amendment by guaranteeing the right to travel for an abortion (which primarily means to the UK, which has very liberal laws) and the right to receive information about foreign abortions. Other referenda to expand abortion were defeated. Advocates have turned to the courts, and won decisions that guaranteed the right to an abortion if the mother’s life was in danger — but the court included the notion of a risk of suicide, which just invites cynical manipulation by the amoral abortion industry to create a de facto right to abortion on demand.

They have now pressed the issue with this referendum, which would repeal the 8th amendment and permit the government to enact legislation regulating abortion.

This point is essential to remember. The referendum isn’t the only thing at stake here. The pending legislation is what ultimately matters the most, because it shows what repeal will really mean  to unborn Irish children. The government has released the bill that it proposes to enact if the 8th Amendment is repealed. It is a radical bill that would give Ireland among the most liberal abortion laws in Europe, and arguably as liberal as the United States. The bill would allow abortion:

  • Prior to 12 weeks for any reason;
  • Prior to viability “when there is a risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant woman”;
  • At any time when “there is an immediate risk to the life of, or of serious harm to the health of, the pregnant woman”; and
  • At any time when “there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth”.

The bill defines “health” as “physical or mental health”, without any further specificity. The courts in Ireland, or subsequent legislation, could easily interpret “mental health” as broadly as our Supreme Court has interpreted the term “health”. This means that the bill could legalize abortion on demand at least prior to viability and it could also open the door to abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy. And nobody could possibly believe that the pro-abortion advocates will ultimately be satisfied with any limits — as we’ve seen here in the US, they countenance no limits on abortion, no matter how reasonable.

The campaign to repeal the 8th Amendment is supported by the Irish Prime Minister, most of the major political parties, and major Irish and international abortion rights organizations (such as Amnesty International). Prominent celebrities such as Liam Neeson and U2 have come out in favor of repeal. The traditional media (print, television and radio) are very heavily in favor of repeal — they have been notably biased against the opponents and have even frozen them out of advertising and news coverage. None of this should surprise us here in the United States, since we face the same monolithic opposition of our supposed betters in the media and government.

The pro-life effort opposing repeal is a real David v. Goliath battle. It is led by the major pro-life organizations, particularly the Pro-Life Campaign (using the slogan “Love Both”) and the Life Institute ( “Save the 8th”). The Irish Bishops’ Conference, as well as dozens of individual bishops, have issued strong and eloquent statements urging a “no” vote, but their influence has been badly damaged by past scandals. No major political party has come out in opposition to repeal. That is a truly remarkable and tragic state of affairs — not a single major Irish political organization is willing to defend unborn children.

The campaign for repeal is generally considered to be far better funded than the anti-repeal campaign. Both Google and Facebook have suspended any advertisements about the referendum, which will unduly hurt the pro-life side. The lack of any outrage over this effort by powerful American corporations to interfere in a foreign election to remove legal protections for human life should be noted any time anyone suggests that corporations aren’t legal “persons” or that they are forces for social good. This is the kind of thing that the Holy Father is referring to when he speaks of “ideological colonialism”.

There is little that American pro-lifers can do to impact this election, since Irish law bans foreign money from their political campaigns. Of course, that’s only because we respect the law, and it hasn’t stopped pro-abortion groups like Amnesty International from pouring money in.

But we can and should certainly pray for wisdom for the Irish voters, that they will uphold their nation’s honorable and admirable protection for all human lives. Since the vote is on the 25th, perhaps people could join me in praying a special Novena to Our Lady of Knock, the Queen of Ireland, beginning on May 17th. Here is the prayer:

Our Lady of Knock, Queen of Ireland, you gave hope to your people in a time of distress and comforted them in sorrow. You have inspired countless pilgrims to pray with confidence to your divine Son, remembering His promise, “Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find”. Help me to remember that we are all pilgrims on the road to Heaven. Fill me with love and concern for my brothers and sisters in Christ, especially those who live with me. Comfort me when I am sick, lonely or depressed. Teach me how to take part ever more reverently in the Holy Mass. Give me a greater love of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Pray for me now and at the end of my death. Amen.

Hope and Assisted Suicide

May 11th, 2018

Yesterday was the Solemnity of the Ascension. That naturally should lead Christians to contemplate the virtue of Hope. The Catechism summarizes the basic principles: “Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, precedes us into the Father’s glorious kingdom so that we, the members of his Body, may live in the hope of one day being with him forever.” (CCC 666) And again, “Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 1817)

I am particularly struck by the importance of this virtue because of recent experience. Last week, I gave testimony on behalf of the Archdiocese and the Catholic Conference at a hearing held by the Assembly Health Committee in Manhattan. The legislation at issue was the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

It was a very long hearing. I sat in the hearing room for over eight hours before I testified, and the hearing went on for at least another hour and a half. By the end, almost 50 people testified – the majority in favor of the bill. I had also attended a previous hearing in Albany on the legislation, which lasted about three hours. So I’ve heard a lot of arguments in favor of legalizing assisted suicide.

Most of the witnesses who favored the legislation spoke of their desire to avoid suffering at the end of life, particularly the loss of autonomy, the effects of diminished capacity to perform basic tasks and enjoy favored pleasures, the fear of unbearable pain, and the desire to “end life on my own terms”. The tales of sadness and suffering were very heart-felt, and I deeply respect them for their sincerity.

But what made the stories most sad was that they lacked any sense of hope.

The subtext of their testimony was the bleak meaningless of suffering and even of life itself, the sense of loneliness and abandonment  of so many people with grave illnesses, the illusion that one can control one’s life though an exercise of will, and a utilitarian view of life that equated value with usefulness or function. I remarked to a colleague afterwards that the view of life of so many of the witnesses was flat and  almost two-dimensional – as if this visible life is all that there is. If that’s the case, then it makes a certain kind of sense to favor suicide as an answer to suffering.

In contrast, the testimony by many of those who opposed the bill showed a richer, deeper sense of the inherent dignity of life. The best exemplars of this were the persons with disabilities who gave inspiring accounts of the meaning and value of their lives, despite their daily difficulties. Particularly impressive was the poignant testimony of Kristen Hanson, the widow of J.J. Hanson, who was such a warrior against his own deadly cancer and against the legalization of assisted suicide.

What made these opposition testimonies so powerful, I think, was the virtue of hope. That makes perfect sense. If you believe that there is a higher dimension to life, and particularly if you trust that Jesus is good to his word and that we have a chance for eternal life with God, you will look at sickness, pain and suffering in a different light. You will see it as a transitional stage in our lives, unpleasant to be sure, but part of a long continuum that we all have to travel and that can actually have a happy ending.

Hope rejects the idea that our loved ones are annihilated by death, but instead believes that they have entered into a new and glorious life – and that we hope to join them there. It helps us to see that suffering can have a kind of power, as St. Paul pointed out – “For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Cor 12:10). It can also lead us to understand that a death infused with hope can be a beautiful experience for those left behind.

The depressing testimonies by the proponents of assisted suicide stand in such bold contrast to the confidence that the virtue of hope offers us. I couldn’t help but think of the strong exhortations by St. Paul in Romans 6 and 1 Corinthians 15 to reject the view that death is the end, and understand the significance of the victory of Christ over death and the joyful hope that it gives us.

The fight against assisted suicide, as with all the other incursions of the Culture of Death, is long and difficult. It can be tiring to battle for so long against so many opponents and with so few allies. But we have one great advantage on our side – the virtue of hope that comes from our faith in the power and glory of God. With that, we can take to heart St. Paul’s advice: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” (1 Cor 15:58)