News Feed

Browsing News Entries

Divorce, Annulment & the Petrine Privilege

Posted on 04/10/2024 12:36 PM (Commonweal Magazine)

Divorce, Annulment & the Petrine Privilege

My divorce was final fifteen years ago. But the Catholic Church, to which I’m a recent convert, considers me still married.

My ex-husband (or am I still supposed to call him my husband?) and I exchanged vows in 1982 at the Madison Avenue Baptist Church in Manhattan. My grandfather, a Southern Baptist minister, presided. I was Baptist. My ex-husband was (then) a nonobservant Jew. We had two daughters. Motherhood changed my life, and I wanted to spend as much time with my children as I could during their short childhood. And so, after financing the down payment on our home, I left the practice of law and became a full-time stay-at-home mom.

A few years later, my ex-husband had an affair and served me with divorce papers at our front door. In front of our little girl, whom I was about to walk to school. I opposed the lawsuit. God help me, I loved him. I wanted to save my marriage and our beautiful family. At the time of the lawsuit, New York was the only state that hadn’t yet adopted no-fault divorce. That meant that unless I’d breached the marital contract—by committing domestic violence, adultery, cruelty, for example—he couldn’t divorce me against my will. For years, the Catholic Church in New York had successfully persuaded state legislators not to adopt no-fault divorce, my lawyer said. I was impressed. It was one of many reasons I would come to admire the Church.

But judges and lawyers who represented my ex-husband pressed me to give up my right to defend myself and my choice to remain married. If anybody had the right to sue, it was me; after all, he was the one having the affair. But I knew in my bones that I had to stand up and speak the truth. The stress of doing so nearly took me down. I even contemplated suicide. I didn’t dare tell anyone about this—not my friends, not my shrink, not my lawyer. My ex had threatened to seek sole custody of the children. By then, he was the one who earned the hefty paycheck, while I took care of the kids. So I lived in fear.

Several years after the lawsuit started, the third of seven judges dismissed all the charges against me. There would be no divorce, at least not then. I hoped my ex-husband’s girlfriend would finally disappear, but she didn’t. So he moved to New Jersey, which had adopted no-fault divorce, giving him the power to end our marriage. I had no choice but to give in. We settled custody, and a second trial ensued over property division. The new judge—a woman—pressured me to accept my ex-husband’s settlement demands and warned that my future hung in the balance. She shamed me for being a stay-at-home mom. She told me I needed a boyfriend. Although I’d once practiced law, nothing prepared me for the horrors of divorce court. The divorce was final in March 2009. My ex remarried a few days later.

I temped, became a landlord, and paid bills on ever-dwindling savings and child support. In 2010, New York adopted no-fault divorce as the other forty-nine states already had. Somehow the Church had lost its influence. I began writing about my experiences. I cofounded a volunteer bipartisan organization to advocate for divorce reform. Meanwhile, my children grew up. When I could no longer afford the mortgage, I sold my house, moved, and started over.

In December 2018, I converted to Catholicism. When a Catholic college friend heard the news, she texted to say I’d need an annulment to marry again. After years of heartache and hardship, I hoped a faithful midlife partner would come along. No one had. Still, my friend’s revelation stunned me. Surely, Church teachings about the permanency of marriage didn’t apply to me retroactively. My ex and I weren’t Catholic. I was a Baptist when I married my Jewish ex-husband, an Episcopalian when we divorced. We exchanged vows in a Protestant church. Catholicism came decades later.

My parish priest confirmed what my Catholic friend had told me. He handed me a twenty-five-page questionnaire to initiate the annulment process. It included questions about our marriage, divorce, and children. It asked specifics about our formative years, relationships with parents and siblings, and what we’d been taught about marriage, family, alcohol, and drugs. It sought details about our courtship, engagement, and wedding, down to the frequency of dates, nature of our disagreements, and sexual activity. Ironically, as the “petitioner” in an annulment case, this time I’d be the plaintiff. Annulment wouldn’t render my children illegitimate, the priest said. That made no sense to me. But okay. Despite prevailing myths, the cost of the annulment would be negligible. (My divorce lawyer had handed me a legal bill for six figures.) The “defect” required to invalidate our marriage must have existed at the time of the ceremony—four decades ago—thus preventing the necessary marital consent.

I began researching possible grounds. Had my ex-husband been intoxicated with alcohol during the ceremony? No. Impotent? No. Had he married not intending that the marriage exist forever? Not that I knew of. No homosexuality. No epilepsy. We weren’t blood relatives. Had my ex-husband suffered from an underlying psychological disorder preventing fulfillment of his marital promises? From impairments not initially obvious, like mental illness, addictions, or narcissistic and sociopathic personalities that became evident only during the marriage? If so, I’d need affidavits from corroborating witnesses. My family had never lived close by. They’d be no help, and I couldn’t envision most of them wanting to get involved in such a mess anyway. My parents would have rushed to my aid, but they were both dead. Most of my ex-husband’s family members were dead, too, and one lived abroad. Was I really expected to track down his old friends and pressure them to sign an affidavit against him?

The inquiry was becoming uncomfortable. My ex-husband would also be entitled to receive copies of all papers and could oppose the annulment. Having sued me for divorce and already remarried, maybe he couldn’t care less. But then again, we’d been through the War of the Roses. I was petrified that anything questioning his character—even for the sake of an annulment—might renew his wrath. For years, therapists and friends had warned me not to contact him. I’d ignored them early on, wanting to save my marriage. Finally, I’d listened, and it was only then that I was able to recover.

There was another problem. A declaration of nullity would mean that my marriage would be technically erased. How could that be? I had loved my husband and still loved the family we’d created. How could I accept the fact that the union I’d fought to preserve had never been a real marriage in the first place? Granted, I married in my twenties. Caught up in the whirlwind of a nine-month courtship, had I even known what “forever” meant? It’s hard to remember that far back, but I believe I did. At the time, there had never been a divorce in my family. I’d watched the ups and downs in the marriages of parents, grandparents, and aunts and uncles, and their reliance on God to see them through. They’d been my role models. If my ex-husband hadn’t left, we’d still be married in the eyes of the law and the Church. Annulment felt like getting off on some technicality. That felt wrong. It cheapened my marriage, even if the Church believed I was entitled to an annulment.

I spoke with my parish priest again. There was no rush, he said. I was headed for surgery that fall, so why not take some time to think it over, he suggested. “What about the Petrine privilege?” I asked. I’d stumbled across the reference during my research. Codified in the Church’s Canon Law 1150, it applies to marriages between Christians and non-Christians. “It’s called a petition in favor of the faith,” the priest said. A rarely used avenue, it takes longer than an annulment. That didn’t bother me. The petition must be presented in Rome to Pope Francis himself or someone acting on his behalf. Such petitions go back to the time of St. Peter, hence the name, and they have been granted by popes throughout history. The early Church believed that only two baptized persons could form a sacramental union. I was baptized; my husband wasn’t. Dissolving a marriage like ours had been seen as a way of preserving the faith of a new convert like me. It would also allow my marriage to remain recognized.

Instead of an annulment, I’d essentially receive a Catholic “divorce.” Having done what I could to preserve my marriage, I liked thinking that its dissolution would have been blessed by the early Church and could be administered by Peter’s own successor. I’m not a canon lawyer or scholar, but I’d also come across a reference to a statement made by Pope Pius XII to the Roman Rota in 1941 that seemed to support my view. He’d quoted Matthew 19:6: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” And then he added, “that is to say, not man but God can put asunder.” Didn’t the pope often act in persona Christi? Didn’t Christ tell his disciples, “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”? It seemed to me that if my union wouldn’t have been considered sacramental in the early Church, then its dissolution shouldn’t violate Catholic doctrine either. This was closure I could accept. I wanted to get started as soon as possible. My priest sent me an application.

I went home and opened my Catechism, eager to read more about marriage. The Catechism describes two aspects of marriage: the mutual and exclusive love and affection of spouses, and the transmission of life, through which marriage “finds its crowning glory.” I definitely considered my daughters “supreme gifts.” Perhaps my ex-husband and I got that part right.

I had always thought of marriage as sacred, but I began to view it in a deeper way. God had created marriage for my good, for the fulfillment of my highest potential. I’d never experienced this spiritual communion in which the Divine Creator was present, where spouses committed themselves “totally.” I can’t say I’d ever given myself totally to anyone like that. And what would it feel like to receive the exquisite gift of someone giving themselves completely and absolutely to me in the presence of the Holy Spirit? This biblical call to love one another was something else entirely, a “mystery,” as the Catechism put it, mirroring God’s own irrevocable love for me. This was mind-blowing. I wept. Perhaps I, too, would have another chance to experience this kind of marriage, but not unless the Church granted my petition.

But before I’d even finished filling out the petition, my parish priest phoned to say that the privilege wasn’t available to me after all—not until I, a woman the Church still considered married, got engaged first. It instantly reminded me of that last judge, the one who’d advised me to find myself a boyfriend. My ex-husband had betrayed our marriage and gotten engaged well before we divorced. I had to do what he’d done in order to apply for the Petrine privilege.

Why do Church rules seem to dovetail with the advice of family-court judges and the example of adulterers? Where is the fairness or mercy in that? And if the purpose of the Petrine privilege is to preserve my faith, why do the rules now seem to threaten it? As a convert, I struggle with these rules; they seem perverse, senseless, and cruel.

In 2022, my ex-husband and I would have celebrated our fortieth wedding anniversary. We’ve been apart now as long as we were together. Accepting the Church’s view that I’m still married feels like being forced to live a lie after years of mustering the courage to finally start over.

Beverly Willett April 10, 2024

College sports association bans biological men from women’s sports

Posted on 04/9/2024 20:00 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

Penn University transgender swimmer Lia Thomas celebrates taking first place in the 500-yard freestyle race with a time of 4.37.32 during the championship final race in heat three during the Women's Ivy League Swimming & Diving Championships at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Feb. 17, 2022. / Credit: JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

CNA Staff, Apr 9, 2024 / 17:00 pm (CNA).

The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) approved a policy on Monday that stated that biological men cannot compete in women’s sports in NAIA-sponsored college sports.

The NAIA includes 249 schools across the U.S. and Canada, most of which are small, private colleges.

Catholic colleges such as Benedictine College in Kansas, Ave Maria University in Florida, Loyola University in New Orleans, and Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College in Indiana are members of the league. Texas A&M University-San Antonio is also a member.

The decision, in a 20-0 vote, followed a December survey that found widespread support for the proposed rule among the association’s members. Of the 68 schools that responded to the survey, 58 were in favor of the policy change, according to a CBS report.

“We believed our first responsibility was to create fairness and competition in the NAIA,” NAIA president Jim Carr told CBS Sports. “We also think it aligns with the reasons Title IX was created.”

The new policy requires that students who participate in NAIA-sponsored women’s sports must be biologically female and not under the influence of any masculinizing hormone therapy.

Female athletes who take masculinizing hormones cannot compete in NAIA-sponsored women’s sports but may participate in internal activities such as workouts, practices, and teams, according to the individual college’s discretion, the policy stated.

The NAIA’s policy does not specify sex for NAIA-sponsored male sports, meaning that women taking masculinizing hormones may participate in male sports if they wish.

The policy will go into effect Aug. 1.

The decision follows recent controversy over University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, a biological male, winning an NCAA Division I Championship.

Riley Gaines, who competed against Thomas, has been outspoken about her opposition to allowing male athletes to compete in women’s sports.

Gaines and more than a dozen other female athletes filed a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) in March. The suit alleged that allowing men to compete in women’s competitions denies women protections promised under Title IX and that the decision “subject[ed] women to a loss of their constitutional right to bodily privacy.”

“Title IX was enacted by Congress to increase women’s opportunities; therefore, no policy which authorizes males to take the place of women on women’s college sports teams or in women’s college sports locker rooms is permissible under Title IX,” the complaint read.

Gaines applauded the NAIA’s move in a post on X, noting that the NAIA “becomes the first national college governing body to mandate athletes compete with their sex.”

A recent Vatican document released Monday affirmed the Catholic Church’s teaching on human dignity and addressed a variety of modern issues including transgenderism.

The Vatican declaration noted that “all attempts to obscure reference to the ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman are to be rejected” while also condemning any violence or aggression toward individuals based on sexual orientation.

Arizona Supreme Court upholds law protecting life throughout pregnancy

Posted on 04/9/2024 18:45 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

The State Supreme Court building in Phoenix. / Credit: Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Apr 9, 2024 / 15:45 pm (CNA).

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that a law protecting unborn life from abortion beginning at conception can soon take effect.

The court ruled that state law does not guarantee a right to an abortion and that an 1864 law prohibiting all abortions can take effect in 14 days, pending any further constitutional challenges.

The 1864 law allows for exceptions in cases in which the mother’s life is in danger but does not grant exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

The 4-2 decision issued Tuesday found that the Arizona Constitution “does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority” for abortion and that any guarantees to a right to abortion in the state were predicated on the now overturned Roe v. Wade precedent.

“To date, our Legislature has never affirmatively created a right to, or independently authorized, elective abortion. We defer, as we are constitutionally obligated to do, to the Legislature’s judgment, which is accountable to, and thus reflects, the mutable will of our citizens,” the ruling said.

“The Legislature has demonstrated its consistent design to restrict elective abortion to the degree permitted by the Supremacy Clause and an unwavering intent since 1864 to proscribe elective abortions absent a federal constitutional right.”

The decision negates a lower court’s ruling that a 15-week abortion limit passed by the Legislature in 2022 voided the 1864 law.

There is a 14-day stay on the enforcement of the law.

This means that the law protecting life from conception remains blocked for now but could go into effect in a few weeks.

A new constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion will likely be on the ballot in Arizona this November. Arizona for Abortion Access PAC has filed language with the Secretary of State that could result in a vote on abortion in 2024. On April 3, the group surpassed the required number of signatures to get their initiative on the November ballot. The secretary of state’s office has yet to verify the signatures which must happen before the initiative will officially be on the ballot.

If this abortion amendment passes it would likely overrule today’s decision, invalidating most of the state’s pro-life laws.

Missouri governor denies clemency to death row inmate despite Catholic protests

Posted on 04/9/2024 17:15 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signs a bill in 2020. / Credit: Office of Missouri Governor/Wikimedia, CC BY 2.0

St. Louis, Mo., Apr 9, 2024 / 14:15 pm (CNA).

Republican Gov. Mike Parson of Missouri on Monday denied a request for clemency brought by convicted murderer Brian Dorsey, who is scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection the evening of April 9 in the state’s first execution of 2024.

Dorsey, 52, was arrested in 2006 and later convicted of shooting and killing his cousin Sarah Bonnie and her husband Ben. Dorsey’s lawyers argued that he was in a drug-induced psychosis, as he was suffering from chronic depression and addicted to crack cocaine at the time of the killings.

The Catholic bishops of Missouri had strongly urged the faithful to contact Parson and ask him to stay Dorsey’s execution, citing Catholic teaching on the inadmissability of the death penalty. Had Parson granted Dorsey clemency, it would have been his first time granting clemency to a death row inmate during his six-year governorship. Missouri is among the most prolific of all U.S. states when it comes to the death penalty, having carried out four executions in 2023 alone and being one of only five states to carry out executions last year.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflecting an update promulgated by Pope Francis in 2018, describes the death penalty as “inadmissible” and an “attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (No. 2267). The change reflects a development of Catholic doctrine in recent years. St. John Paul II, calling the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary,” encouraged Christians to be “unconditionally pro-life” and said that “the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil.”

Dorsey’s death sentence has garnered scrutiny. During more than 17 years spent on death row, Dorsey incurred zero infractions and served as a barber for other prisoners and wardens, staff, and chaplains — trusted using potentially deadly instruments. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, a group of 72 current and former Missouri correctional officers submitted and signed a letter vouching for his character and asking Parson to grant Dorsey clemency and commute his death sentence.

Additionally, Dorsey’s attorneys have argued that the Missouri Department of Corrections’ execution protocols, which include the practice of “cut down,” or cutting into the person to set an IV line, will prevent Dorsey “from having any meaningful spiritual discussion or participation in his last religious rites with his spiritual adviser,” the Kansas City Star reported.

Despite his apparent rehabilitation, the Missouri Supreme Court scheduled Dorsey’s execution last December. Dorsey has appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could still halt his execution despite Parson’s denial of clemency.

The Missouri Catholic Conference, which advocates for public policy on behalf of the state’s five bishops, said that in addition to the fact that Dorsey “endured substantial mental and physical childhood trauma,” he also has claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, as his attorneys at the time — who were being paid a small flat fee to defend him — entered him into a plea deal without contesting the possibility of capital punishment.

In addition to submitting a clemency request to Parson, the Missouri Catholic Conference hosted a “respectful protest” outside the governor’s office at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City from noon to 1 p.m. on Tuesday. The conference had urged the public to attend the protest and to contact the governor to express their support for clemency.

“The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to the death penalty because it disregards the sanctity and dignity of human life,” the conference noted.

Idaho teen arrested for plot to attack churches, kill Christians for ISIS

Posted on 04/9/2024 16:30 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

The Department of Justice announced the arrest of Alexander Scott Mercurio, 18, after he allegedly plotted to kill Christians and burn down churches in his town to further the mission of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). / Credit: U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Apr 9, 2024 / 13:30 pm (CNA).

The Department of Justice (DOJ) arrested an 18-year-old man from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, who allegedly planned to kill Christians and burn down churches in his town to further the mission of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The DOJ’s criminal complaint alleges that Alexander Scott Mercurio intended to kill Christians in the nearest church, burn the building to the ground, then hijack a car and do the same at other nearby churches. He planned to handcuff his father and tape his father’s mouth shut so he could steal his guns to commit the attacks, according to the DOJ allegations.

According to the DOJ, Mercurio landed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) radar when he tried to provide financial support to foreign terrorist organizations, including ISIS, when he was 17 years old. He later communicated with individuals whom he believed were affiliated with ISIS but were actually confidential FBI sources, the complaint alleges.

Mercurio allegedly told these sources he planned to attack the churches on April 8, which was two days before the end of Ramadan and the celebration of Eid al-Fitr. The DOJ also alleges that he swore an oath to ISIS and purchased materials with which he planned to carry out the attack, including butane canisters.

Mercurio was charged with attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization and faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted.

“Thanks to the investigative efforts of the FBI, the defendant was taken into custody before he could act, and he is now charged with attempting to support ISIS’s mission of terror and violence,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “The Justice Department will continue to relentlessly pursue, disrupt, and hold accountable those who would commit acts of terrorism against the people and interests of the United States.”

According to messages allegedly sent by Mercurio to an encrypted group chat that sought to facilitate funds for Islamic terrorist organizations, the then-17-year-old said he had “very Christian and conservative parents.” He allegedly told an FBI source that his family “oppresses” him by discouraging him from being Muslim.

In December 2023, when he was expressing doubts about committing an act of terror, Mercurio allegedly told one of the FBI sources that he “just want[ed] to die and have all my problems go away.” On April 3, he allegedly met with one of the FBI sources and expressed his intent to go through with the attacks. He also allegedly told sources he wanted to be a martyr for Islam.

“This case should be an eye-opener to the dangers of self-radicalization, which is a real threat to our communities,” Special Agent Shohini Sinha of the Salt Lake City FBI said in a statement.

Seton Hall University names priest president following resignation of previous president

Posted on 04/9/2024 16:00 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

President's Hall, Seton Hall University. / Credit: Wikimedia/cc by sa 3.0

CNA Staff, Apr 9, 2024 / 13:00 pm (CNA).

A Catholic university in New Jersey returned to its historic tradition of naming a “priest-president” following the previous president’s abrupt resignation and lawsuit against the school.

Seton Hall University, one of the oldest diocesan-run universities in the nation, on April 2 announced Monsignor Joseph Reilly as the 22nd president of the university. Reilly is an alumnus of the university and the current vice provost of academics and Catholic identity.

The 168-year-old university had a “priest-president” for 146 years of its history, and Reilly’s appointment marks a “return” to the tradition, the university press release noted.

Reilly will take over from interim president Katia Passerini, who took up the role after former Seton Hall president Joseph Nyre’s resignation in July 2023.

Nyre and his wife, Kelli, filed a lawsuit alleging that the former chairman of the university’s board of regents, Kevin Marino, had intimidated Nyre and sexually harassed his wife by kissing and touching her.

The suit alleged that the university violated New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act. Nyre also alleged that Seton Hall engaged in discrimination and retaliation, and breach of the separation and general release agreement.

Laurie Pine, a spokeswoman for the school, said the allegations were “completely without merit” in a February statement.

An independent financial review uncovered a series of embezzlement schemes by a “small number of trusted, longtime employees of Seton Hall Law,” Marino and Nyre announced in a joint email to the university in December 2022.

The university, which is home to Immaculate Conception Seminary and St. Andrew’s Hall seminary, also suffered under the leadership of the disgraced former cardinal and former archbishop of Newark Theodore McCarrick.

McCarrick “used his position of power as then-archbishop of Newark to sexually harass seminarians,” according to a university statement in 2019.

Seton Hall has about 10,000 students, including 6,000 undergraduates. Cardinal Joseph Tobin, the archbishop of Newark and chair of the board of trustees, and president of the board of regents, said in an April 2 statement that he is “confident” that Reilly will be “an outstanding president.”

“In my service with Monsignor Reilly on the board of trustees, he impressed me with his abiding faith, keen intellect, and genuine care for the entire university,” he said.

The current chair of the board of regents and the presidential search committee, Hank D’Alessandro, said that Reilly “was the ideal choice.”

“He possesses a deep faith in God and a demonstrable commitment to nurturing our students to greatness as we advance among the nation’s foremost Catholic universities,” D’Alessandro said in the statement.

“There is no one better suited to leading the university at this moment — a time when Seton Hall stands at the cusp of extraordinary progress,” he said.

Reilly attended Seton Hall Prep and graduated from Seton Hall University in 1987. After he was ordained a priest in 1991, he returned as rector of the college seminary in 2002.

Reilly served as dean of the Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology from 2012 to 2022 and most recently served as vice provost of academics and Catholic identity.

Reilly said he is both “profoundly grateful” and “exceedingly energized” to take on the role.

“Seton Hall is the place where I have come to know the truth about God, about who I am before God, and about what contribution to society that God is inviting me to make,” he said.

In 2005, St. John Paul II named Reilly as a chaplain to his holiness, and in 2015 Pope Francis appointed him as a missionary of mercy.

Reilly has a bachelor’s degree in sacred theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, a licentiate in sacred theology from Pontificio Istituto Teresianum in Rome, and a doctorate in educational administration from Fordham University.

Reilly also served on the Faithful Citizenship Strategy Committee and the Catholic Social Teaching Task Force for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“I cannot wait to engage our community as together we strive to bring new life to the timeless Catholic mission that makes Seton Hall unique among American universities,” Reilly said.

Baltimore archbishop attends bankruptcy hearing, listens to testimony from abuse victims

Posted on 04/9/2024 15:30 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

null / orgarashu / Shutterstock.

CNA Staff, Apr 9, 2024 / 12:30 pm (CNA).

Baltimore Archbishop William Lori on Monday attended a hearing at a U.S. bankruptcy court in which several witnesses testified on the abuse they endured at the hands of Church officials.

The archdiocese said in a release on Monday that the archbishop “attended [the hearing] in which victim-survivors of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church offered statements as part of the proceedings associated with the archdiocese’s filing for Chapter 11 reorganization.”

The archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in September of last year in response to a looming wave of sex-abuse-related lawsuits. Lori at the time said filing for bankruptcy ensured that “victim-survivors will be equitably compensated” and the Church would be able to “continue its mission and ministries.”

After the sealed hearing on Monday at U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, Lori said he was “deeply grateful to the victim-survivors for their courage today [and] moved by their heartrending experience.”

“To the victim-survivors who long to hear that someone is sorry for the trauma they endured and for its life-altering consequences — I am deeply sorry,” the archbishop said.

“I offer my sincerest apology on behalf of the archdiocese for the terrible harm caused to them by representatives of the Church. What happened to them never should have occurred. No child should ever, ever suffer such harm.”

The archbishop in his statement urged that “the focus today be on the courage and bravery of the women and men who offered their statements and to those they represent.”

The archdiocese said on Monday that meeting with abuse victims is “part of the Church’s pastoral response to those who have courageously reported their abuse.”

“That response also includes comprehensive policies that seek to root out abuse from the life of the Church and support victim-survivors in ways that contribute to their healing,” the statement said.

Pope Francis appoints new bishop of Charlotte, North Carolina

Posted on 04/9/2024 13:40 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Diocese of Charlotte Bishop Peter Jugis (left) and appointed Monsignor Michael Martin, OFM Conv, to take his place, the Vatican announced April 9, 2024. / Credit: Diocese of Charlotte

CNA Staff, Apr 9, 2024 / 10:40 am (CNA).

Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, Bishop Peter Jugis and appointed a new prelate to take his place, the Vatican announced on Tuesday.

The Holy Father “has accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the diocese of Charlotte, United States of America, presented by Bishop Peter Joseph Jugis,” the Holy See Press Office said in an announcement.

Jugis, 67, had served as the bishop there since 2003. The Charlotte bishopric encompasses about 20,000 square miles and includes more than 500,000 Catholics.

The Vatican said 63-year-old Monsignor Michael Martin, OFM Conv, had been appointed to replace Jugis as the leader of the southern U.S. diocese. Martin, a Baltimore native, was ordained a priest in 1989 and has served at a variety of roles in New York, Maryland, and North Carolina, including as the director of the Duke University Catholic Center.

He was most recently a parish priest of St. Philip Benizi in Jonesboro, Georgia.

The Catholic News Herald, the official newspaper of the Charlotte Diocese, said in an announcement that Jugis had retired “due to health limitations.”

“Bishop Jugis submitted his request for retirement to Rome last June, saying a chronic but non-life-threatening kidney condition made it difficult for him to preside over lengthy liturgies and travel across the 46 counties of the expansive diocese,” the News Herald said.

Jugis “will serve as administrator of the diocese until May when Bishop-elect Martin is installed,” the newspaper said, after which he “will continue to assist the diocese as bishop emeritus.”

Martin told the newspaper that he was “amazed and humbled that the Holy Father has faith in me to call me to serve the people of western North Carolina.”

“I am excited to get to know you and to listen to the ways in which together we can respond to the call of the Holy Spirit to be disciples of Jesus,” he said.

Jugis, meanwhile, said in the report that “as difficult as it is for me to leave this position that I love, I am confident that God has a plan in bringing us Bishop-elect Martin, and I will do everything I can to support his ministry.”

“It has truly been the joy of a lifetime to serve as bishop for the people of our diocese, and I believe Bishop-elect Martin will find that to be true for him as he gets to know the faithful of our diocese and sees firsthand our many ministries that are dedicated to sharing the love of Christ in our communities,” Jugis said.

The News Herald said last year that the diocese has witnessed “unprecedented growth” over the last few decades.

In 2019, confirmations in the diocese topped 5,000 for the first time. In 2023, meanwhile, diocesan schools posted record enrollment of more than 8,000 students.

Over the course of Jugins’ bishopric, the number of Catholics in the diocese “more than doubled to an estimated 530,000,” the News Herald reported.

The diocese recently announced, meanwhile, that it would build a new cathedral in Charlotte, having outgrown the original cathedral built in 1939.

Biden campaign: Trump ‘scrambling’ on abortion amid policy announcement

Posted on 04/8/2024 19:50 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

President Joe Biden speaks at Madison Area Technical College in Madison, Wisconsin, April 8, 2024. / Credit: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Apr 8, 2024 / 16:50 pm (CNA).

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign accused the presumptive Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump of “scrambling” on the issue of abortion after Trump announced that he supports states making their own abortion laws.

“Trump is scrambling,” Biden said, according to the campaign statement. “He’s worried that since he’s the one responsible for overturning Roe, the voters will hold him accountable in 2024.”

“Well, I have news for Donald: They will,” the statement continued. “America was built on personal freedom and liberty. So, there is nothing more un-American than having our personal freedoms taken away. And that is what Donald Trump has done.”

These comments from the Biden campaign came shortly after Trump posted a video on Truth Social in which he said “the states will determine [abortion policies] by vote or legislation” and “this is all about the will of the people.” The former president said “now it’s up to the states to do the right thing.”

“Many states will be different,” Trump said. “Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative [policies] than others, and that’s what they will be.”

Trump’s statement also accused the Democratic Party of being extreme on abortion: “[They] are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month.”

Biden calls for legal abortion nationwide

Biden’s statement reaffirmed his administration’s support for codifying into law the abortion rules that were in place under the now-defunct Roe v. Wade ruling. Such a law would prohibit states from enacting most pro-life policies and mandate legal abortion nationwide.

“As a fundamental right, it didn’t matter where you lived,” Biden said. “It was granted to you as an American, not as a resident of any state. Generations of women had come to rely on that right.”

Although Trump has never publicly backed a nationwide ban on abortion, the Biden campaign claimed that Republicans would pass “a national abortion ban” and that “Trump will sign it into law.”

Biden has become a staunch supporter of taxpayer-funded abortion nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In his 2025 budget proposal, Biden asked Congress to enshrine the former abortion standards into law and to repeal the law that prohibits federal agencies from directly funding abortion. He also requested more money for a program that has funneled millions of dollars into Planned Parenthood abortion facilities.

The Biden campaign has run several pro-abortion advertisements during the election that criticized Trump for appointing three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. The campaign also promotes federal laws that would block states from enacting pro-life laws.

Religious broadcasters ask Supreme Court to strike down ‘discriminatory’ fees

Posted on 04/8/2024 18:45 PM (CNA Daily News - US)

null / Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Apr 8, 2024 / 15:45 pm (CNA).

Religious broadcasters, with the support of Catholic media groups, are asking the Supreme Court to rule whether government officials charged them unfairly high rates in violation of their constitutional rights.

The Catholic Radio Association (CRA) and CatholicVote.org Education Fund have both filed amicus briefs in the case National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board.

The committee is arguing that the Copyright Royalty Board is subjecting religious broadcasters to a discriminatory royalty fee that violates U.S. religious freedom law.

The Copyright Royalty Board consists of three judges who “oversee the copyright law’s statutory licenses,” according to the board’s website. Those licenses “permit qualified parties to use multiple copyrighted works without obtaining separate licenses from each copyright owner.”

The legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which forms part of the committee’s legal team, says that the Copyright Royalty Board in its 2021 rate adjustment “set [music streaming] rates that are 18 times higher for religious noncommercial webcasters with an audience above a modest 218-listener threshold than the average rate for secular NPR stations.”

John Bursch, the vice president of appellate advocacy at ADF, told CNA that the royalty board offered “no real justification” for the higher rates it mandated in 2021.

“They didn’t justify it other than to say there are some noncommercial nonreligious broadcasters who have to pay the same rates,” Bursch said. The Copyright Royalty Board did not respond to CNA’s requests for comment over the dispute.

Bursch gave an example of what he said was the stark fee disparities mandated by the 2021 rates.

“Let’s say you had a Christian station webcasting 15 Christian songs per hour,” he said.
“They’d have to pay $257,000 to play those annually, but an NPR station would have to pay $18,000.”

Religious stations “need to keep their audience intentionally low to not hit those fees,” Bursch said.

In its amicus filing, the CRA said the rule “threatens hundreds of Catholic webcasters.”

The 2021 rate adjustment “discourages Catholic webcasters from reaching more than 218 listeners a month on average — less than the size of a typical university lecture course,” the CRA said.

The group argued that stations “without substantial funding from underwriting or donations may be forced to stop webcasting.”

The CatholicVote.org Education Fund, meanwhile, argued that religious broadcasters “face the threat of discriminatory practices” under the existing rate regime.

The copyright committee’s 2021 rate schedule “imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religious broadcasters,” theCatholicVote filing said, arguing that the Supreme Court is “the only court that can protect the free exercise rights of religious webcasters.”

The Supreme Court has not yet said if it will hear the case. Bursch told CNA the petitioners are ultimately “just asking to be treated as well as NPR.” The lawsuit argues that the fee rates violate both the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First Amendment.

“The bottom line is you can’t discriminate against religious broadcasters vis-à-vis secular, public-run National Public Radio,” Bursch said.

The Copyright Royalty Board, meanwhile, last month waived its right to respond to the challengers in their Supreme Court petition, a sign that the board likely feels confident in securing a favorable outcome in the case.