Bishop Lori Defends Religious Liberty In Front Of House Judiciary Committee

Here is Bishop Lori's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. 

 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, allow me to 

thank you for the invitation and opportunity to be with you today to offer testimony 

on religious liberty.  Let me also express my appreciation to you for calling this 

hearing on a topic of fundamental importance to our Church and to our Nation.

I am here today representing the United States Conference of Catholic 

Bishops (USCCB).  I serve as Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport, and as the 

newly appointed Chair of the USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. 

I will summarize my remarks and ask that my full written testimony be entered into 

the record.

I hope to address three topics today.  First, I would like to offer a few brief 

reflections on the Catholic vision of religious freedom for all, as rooted in the 

inherent dignity of every human person, and this vision’s deep resonance with the 

American experiment.  Second, I would like to identify certain threats to religious 

liberty that have emerged with particular urgency in America today.  And third, I 

would urge you to action in support of particular legislative measures that would 

secure religious liberty against these threats.

I.

Religious liberty is not merely one right among others, but enjoys a certain 

primacy.  As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI recently explained: “It is indeed 

the first of human rights, not only because it was historically the first to be recognized 

but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, his relation with his 

Creator.”   (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 10 Jan. 2011.)   The 

late Pope John Paul II taught that “the most fundamental human freedom [is] that 

of practicing one’s faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.”  

(Pope John Paul II, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 13 Jan. 1996, No. 9.)   Not 

coincidentally, religious liberty is first on the list in the Bill of Rights, the charter of 

our Nation’s most cherished and fundamental freedoms.   The First Amendment 

begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 

prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”   It is commonly, and with justice, called our 

“First Freedom.”

Religious liberty is also prior to the state itself.  It is not merely a privilege 

that the government grants us and so may take away at will.  Instead, religious 

liberty is inherent in our very humanity, hard-wired into each and every one of us by 

our Creator.  Thus government has a perennial obligation to acknowledge and 

protect religious liberty as fundamental, no matter the moral and political trends of 

the moment.   This insight as well is reflected in the laws and traditions of our

country from its very inception.  The Declaration of Independence boldly 

proclaimed as a self-evident truth that our inalienable rights are “endowed by our 

Creator”—not by the State.

Religious freedom is most commonly understood as an individual right, and it 

certainly is that.  Religious freedom proceeds from the dignity of each person, and 

so protects each person individually.   “[T]he exercise of religion, of its very nature, 

consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the 

course of his life directly toward God” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis 

Humanae, No. 3).   Therefore individuals are “not to be forced to act in manner 

contrary to [their] conscience,” nor “restrained from acting in accordance with [their] 

conscience.”   (Ibid.)   Congress has shown special vigilance in protecting these 

individual rights of conscience, for example, in the form of the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act (RFRA), which forbids the federal government from imposing any 

“substantial burdens” on religious exercise absent the most compelling reasons.

But religious freedom also belongs to churches and other religious 

institutions, comprised of citizens who are believers and who seek, not to create a 

theocracy, but rather to influence their culture from within.  The distinction 

between Church and State, between God and Caesar, remains “fundamental to 

Christianity” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, No. 28).  We look to the State 

not to impose religion but to guarantee religious freedom, and to promote harmony 

among followers of different religions.  The Church has “a proper independence 

and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community the State must recognize”

(Ibid.).   An indispensable element of this independence is the right of churches

“not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part 

of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own 

ministers” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 4).  We are grateful 

that federal courts in the United States—at least to date—have uniformly 

recognized this core protection under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Finally, the Church teaches that these rights of religious freedom—prior to all 

other rights and even to the State, and protecting both individuals and 

institutions—are held not just by Catholics, but by all people, by virtue of their 

common humanity.   Government has the duty “to assume the safeguard of the 

religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other 

appropriate means” (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 6 (emphasis 

added)).  Even in societies where one particular religion predominates, it is 

“imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious 

freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice” (Ibid.).   The United

States stands strongly for the principle that these rights of freedom are also rights of 

equality—that government should not impose any special civil disadvantages or 

otherwise discriminate against its citizens based on religion.  And although it may 

not have always lived up to this or other religious freedom principles in practice, our 

country’s unique capacity for self-correction has always provided avenues to repair 

to these principles that have made it a great nation.

II.

Regrettably, now is the time for such self-correction and repair.  In the 

recent past, the Bishops of the United States have watched with increasing alarm as 

this great national legacy of religious liberty, so profoundly in harmony with our 

own teachings, has been subject to ever more frequent assault and ever more rapid 

erosion.

As I mentioned previously, I am the Chair of the USCCB’s new Ad Hoc 

Committee for Religious Liberty, which was instituted precisely to help resist these 

assaults and reverse this erosion.  The Bishops of the United States decided in 

principle to institute a committee like this in June of this year, based on 

developments over the months and years preceding that date.   That I am already 

appointed as Chair represents action at near light-speed in Church time, and attests 

to the urgency of the matter from the Bishops’ perspective.

Although the Bishops’ decision was based on facts arising before June, I am 

here today to call to your attention grave threats to religious liberty that have 

emerged even since June—grim validations of the Bishops’ recognition of the need 

for urgent and concerted action in this area.   I focus on these because most of them 

arise under federal law, and so may well be the subject of corrective action by 

Congress.

· In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued 

regulations to mandate the coverage of contraception (including 

abortifacients) and sterilization as “preventive services” in almost all private 

health insurance plans.  There is an exception for certain religious 

employers; but to borrow from Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health 

Association, it is so incredibly narrow that it would cover only the “parish 

housekeeper.”  And the exception does nothing to protect insurers or 

individuals with religious or moral objections to the mandate.   The 

“preventive services” mandate is but the first instance of conscience 

problems arising from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

enacted in March 2010 – an act whose goal of greater access to health care the 

Bishops have long supported, but that we had persistently warned during the 

legislative process did not include sufficient protections for rights of 

conscience.

· In May, HHS added a new requirement to its cooperative agreements and 

government contracts for services to victims of human trafficking and to 

refugees who are unaccompanied minors, so that otherwise highly qualified 

service providers, such as USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), 

will be barred from participation in the program because they cannot in 

conscience provide the “full range” of reproductive services—namely, 

abortion and contraception.   This requirement is exactly what the American 

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has urged HHS to adopt in a lawsuit 

challenging the constitutionality of MRS’s longstanding contract with HHS

to serve victims of human trafficking.  Ironically, ACLU has attacked the 

Church’s exemplary service to these victims as a violation of religious 

liberty.   Already, HHS has taken its major program for serving trafficking 

victims away from MRS and transferred it to several smaller organizations 

that frankly may not be equipped to assume this burden.

· The State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) is increasingly requiring contractors, such as Catholic Relief 

Services (CRS), to provide comprehensive HIV prevention activities 

(including condom distribution), as well as full integration of its programs 

with reproductive health activities (including provision of artificial 

contraception) in a range of international relief and development programs.  

Under this new requirement, of course, some of the most effective providers 

helping to prevent and treat AIDS in Africa and other developing nations will 

be excluded.

· The federal Department of Justice (DoJ) has ratcheted up its attack on the 

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by mischaracterizing it as an act of 

bigotry.  As you may know, in March, DoJ stopped defending DOMA 

against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that 

decision.  But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking 

DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only 

have been motivated by bias and prejudice.  If the label of “bigot” sticks to 

our Church and many other churches—especially in court, under the 

Constitution—because of their teaching on marriage, the result will be 

church-state conflicts for many years to come.

· DoJ has also undermined religious liberty in the critically important 

“ministerial exception” case now pending before the Supreme Court, 

Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC.   DoJ could have taken the position that the 

“ministerial exception,” though generally providing strong protection for the 

right of religious groups to choose their ministers without government 

interference, didn’t apply in the case before the court.   This would be 

consistent with the uniform judgment of the federal Courts of Appeals for 

decades, as well the DoJ itself until now.   Instead, DoJ needlessly attacked 

the very existence of the exception, in opposition to a vast coalition of 

religious groups urging its preservation through their amicus curiae briefs.

· At the state level, religious liberty protections associated with the redefinition 

of marriage have fallen far short of what is necessary.  In New York, county 

clerks face legal action for refusing to participate in same-sex unions, and gay 

rights advocates boast how little religious freedom protection individuals and 

groups will enjoy under the new law.   In Illinois, Catholic Charities has been 

driven out of the adoption and foster care business, because it recognizes the 

unique value of man-woman marriage for the well-being of children.

III.

These are serious threats to religious liberty, and as I noted previously they 

represent only the most recent instances in a broader trend of erosion of religious 

liberty in the United States.   The ultimate root causes of these threats are profound, 

and lie beyond the scope of this hearing or even this august body to fix—they are 

fundamentally philosophical and cultural problems that the bishops, and other 

participants in civil society, must address apart from government action.  But we 

can—and must—also treat the symptoms immediately, lest the disease spread so 

quickly that the patient is overcome before the ultimate cure can be formulated and 

delivered.

As to the “preventive services” mandate, and related problems under the 

health care reform law, there are three important bipartisan bills currently in the 

Congress:  the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act 

(H.R. 361), and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179).  All three go 

a long way toward guaranteeing religious liberty and freedom of conscience for 

religious employers, health insurers, and health care providers.   United with my 

brother bishops, and in the name of religious liberty, I urge these three bills be 

swiftly passed by Congress so they may be signed into law.   We welcome the fact 

that H.R. 358 was recently approved by the House in a bipartisan vote, and that the 6

text of H.R. 361 has been included in the House subcommittee draft of the 

Labor/HHS appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012.

As to the illegal conditions that HHS and USAID are placing on religious 

providers of human services, this may call for a Congressional hearing or other form 

of investigation to ensure compliance with the applicable conscience laws, as well as 

to identify how these new requirements came to be imposed.  Additional statutes 

may be appropriate, possibly to create new conscience protections, but more likely 

to create private rights of action for those whose rights under the existing protections 

have been violated.  Unfortunately, the authority to enforce the applicable 

conscience protections now lies principally with the very federal agencies that may 

be violating the protections.

As to the attack on DOMA, this body should resist legislative efforts to repeal 

the law, including the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 1116).  We also applaud the 

decision of the House to take up the defense of DOMA in court after DoJ abandoned 

it, and we urge you to sustain that effort for as long as necessary to obtain definitive 

confirmation of its constitutionality.  Moreover, DoJ’s decisions to abandon both 

DOMA and the “ministerial exception” seem to warrant congressional inquiry.

The religious freedom threats to marriage at the state level may fall beyond 

the scope of authority of Congress to control—except to the extent that state 

adoption and foster care services are federally funded.  We believe this avenue for

protecting the religious liberty of faith-based service providers should be explored 

more fully.

Thank you for your attention, and again, for your willingness to give religious 

freedom the priority it is due.  

Obamacare Effects: Three Catholic Hospitals Closing in Scranton & the Power of a Social Justice Nun

There has been much controversy surrounding the closing and sale of three Catholic hospitals in Scranton, Pa. The controversy includes: Kevin Cook - Mercy Health Partners CEO, three different statements, two Catholic Representatives, the Affordable Care Act - A.K.A. - Obamacare, and Obama’s nun.


- In Review

Sr. Carol Keehan, Obama’s nun, is the nun who dissented from Bishops and threw her weight to support Obamacare. She is the nun who used her clout as head of the CHA, falsely claimed that abortion wasn’t covered in Obamacare, and provided “legitimacy” for Bart Stupak and the rest of the so called pro-life Democrats to support and vote for Obamacare even though there were and still are no safeguards protecting against abortion coverage and federal funding in Obamacare.  The Congressional Research Report Confirms this. She wanted us, as Catholics to trust our government over our Bishops’ prudential judgment on a matter related to morals. That sounds so nonsensical. Misplaced trust?

For anyone to think that our government is going to do the right thing in matters of faith and morals, look out for you and me, is complete and utter naivete when our government has sanctioned the murders of countless innocents since Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973.

When Sr. Carol Keehan became a religious sister she took a vow of obedience and in fact has more of an obligation than ordinary laity to heed the Bishops’ prudential judgment with relation to abortion and Obamacare. Since the Church Teaching is that abortion is an intrinsic evil is Catholic Dogma has Sr. Keehan broken her vow of obedience by dissenting from the Bishops in order to support Obamacare?

The common good must not be pursued at the expense of the morally reprehensible murders of innocent human lives.

In his first statement Kevin Cook stated, "Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely."

Notice that Cook stated “absolutely” twice.

48 hours later Cook said, sale discussions were happening "long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The decision was due to many factors."

Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?

That same day Sr. Carol Keehan made this statement, "Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation."

Okay… Like she isn’t politically motivated to ensure her support for Obamacare isn’t for naught.

Then about a couple days later Cook announced: “Mercy Health Partners recently announced our intention to explore the sale of our facilities in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain politicized media outlets and severely distorted by some special interest groups.”

Coincidental? Or Coordinated?

Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?

Would a social justice political activist nun misuse her power as CEO of the CHA to silence the truth in both instances, with Obamacare and with Obamacare playing a pivotal role in the closings of three Catholic hospitals? Did this Left wing activist nun “lower the boom” on Kevin Cook and force him to change his tune in those last two statements? Well, it kinda looks that way.

Oh - how could one forget? Since she bucked both the Bishops and the Catholic faith and instead staunchly supported Obama and his health care bill she was rewarded with one of the 21 pens that Obama used to signed the health care law. What a trade -- fidelity to Church teaching and to her vows sacrificed for fame, power, recognition, and on top of all that, a pen.

From The American Spectator - “One doctor in Scranton -- who was deeply disturbed by the announcement -- is certain he knows the answer. That answer? Mr. Cook was absolutely right the very first time he spoke to WNEP on camera. Hospitals, said this doctor -- frequently run a debt. "What's different? Why now?" he said in terms of the rationale for selling the Mercy hospitals. The reason is exactly as CEO Cook originally said it was. ObamaCare cuts in Medicare reimbursement have changed the rules so drastically for hospitals "you [Mercy Health Partners] are in an untenable situation," said this physician. Most hospitals have accumulating debt because of capital investments, says the doctor. But they can't deal with that debt if in fact their ability to earn money is cut off or drastically reduced over time.

Alarmingly, the doctor, with a lifetime of practice in hand, says that "hospitals close in clusters where there is decreased income in terms of relatively low Medicare reimbursement…because they are the most vulnerable." He adds that what is happening in Scranton, Nanticoke, and Tunkhannock with the Mercy hospitals "is just the beginning. It will happen everywhere because reimbursements will be reduced" under ObamaCare. Particularly, he adds, in areas where you have a high elderly population.”

‘The explosion, all recent with its implications of White House pressure and lost Catholic hospitals, is about to bring in media ads from CatholicVote.org. Says Communications Director Joshua Mercer: "Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney are Catholic and they both voted for ObamaCare." Citing the sale of the three Mercy hospitals, Mercer says that the pro-ObamaCare votes of the two "has had a real impact on the community." Mercer added a sentiment voiced as well by the Scranton doctor: "There are a lot of Kevin Cooks across the country…the CEO's of small Catholic hospitals are all facing the same realities of more [ObamaCare] mandates and regulations.”’


Seems like there is something fishy going on. I live in Pennsylvania, but unfortunately I don’t live in either of their districts, otherwise I would vote for the opposition.

Here is the political ad that CatholicVote.org has put out.




Cross Posted at Tu ne cede malis

Obamacare: Betrayal by Unprincipled Catholic Nuns & USCCB Paves Way For Abortion Funding

It has come to light that Obama's executive order banning fundng of abortions isn't worth a darn.  Thanks to CHA, other "Catholic" nuns and the USCCB many more unborn babies will be murdered.  Under Obamacare, Obama will give $160 million to Pennsyvania to set up new "high-risk" insurance pools that will fund abortions.  Many of our Catholic hierarchy in the United States have lost their way.  This has got to stop!  I sure hope Pope Benedict continues clearing the filth that is rampant among certain Bishops and nuns in the U.S.

Related Post:  From Chicago Ray-- Obama OK's First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law.

Liberal CHA & Liberal Nuns Lead Catholic Flock Astray

The Senate Bill does not contain the anti-abortion language that the House Bill contains in it. The House Bill makes it crystal clear-100% guaranteed that no federal funds or taxpayer monies would be used for abortions- and the Senate version does not and leaves wiggle room for Democrats to sneak in federal funding of abortion. R. Keehan, CHA, and nuns. The flock must be more attentive, and faithful in its adhering to the Church’s Magisterium and its teachings instead of being blind followers of “Catholic” organizations and “Catholic” nuns that may or may not have there best interests at heart and seem to be leading their flock astray. There continues to be a Holy War of words within the Catholic Community as to whether the language in the Senate Health Care Bill allows for the federal funding of abortions or not.


“The White House has touted the support of a group of liberal Catholic nuns in an effort to win over conservative House Democrats who believe the final health care bill they will vote on contains restrictions on abortion funding that they and Catholic bishops say don't go far enough.

“On Saturday, the chief executive of the Catholic Health Association, which represents more than 600 hospitals that do not provide abortions as a matter of conscience, wrote on the group's Web site that although the legislation isn't perfect, it represents a "major first step" toward covering all Americans and would make "great improvements" for millions of people.”

But on Monday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops took issue with the hospital association's belief that defects to the bill will be fixed after passage.

"Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seemed little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke," Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference said on the group's Web site. This Bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde Amendment which excludes federal funding of abortions. He explains that by supporting this bill the Cost is Too High; The Loss is Too Great.

The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director for Priests of Life, blasted the liberal nuns, saying their statement in support of the bill "does not represent 59,000 nuns; it represents approximately 59 nuns who signed it."

"It is absurd to advocate social justice while risking the expansion of a holocaust," he said. "The right to life is at the heart of social justice. We can't pursue one by sacrificing the other."

In this article, Professor Jost claims that this bill is Pro-Life. The CCBC have spoken out against the Senate Health care Bill on two counts. The Bishops take issue with the Senate’s Bill primarily due to its serious flaws on abortion and conscience rights. Here is the Bishops response to Timothy Jost’s article.




Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Bishop William Murphy, and Bishop John Wester have spoken up and stated the reasons here as to why this health care bill does indeed extend abortion coverage.

“The three-- who chair the bishops’ committees on pro-life activities, justice and human development, and migration respectively-- note that “the Senate bill extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions.”

“The House bill provides that no one has to pay for other people's abortions, while the Senate bill does not,” they continue. “While the Senate provides for one plan without abortion coverage in each exchange, those who select another plan in an exchange to better meet the special needs of their family will be required to pay a separate monthly fee into a fund exclusively for abortions. This new federal requirement … is a far more direct imposition on the consciences of those who do not wish to pay for the destruction of unborn human life than anything currently in federal law.”

“Those who would expand federal participation in abortion, require people to pay for other people's abortions, and refuse to incorporate essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context) are threatening genuine reform,” they add. “With conscience protection as with abortion funding, the [bishops’] goal is to preserve the status quo.”

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) in adherence with its fidelity of the Magisterium have come out against the health care bill and stated: “Protection of life and freedom of conscience are central to morally responsible judgment,” the CMSWR statement concluded. “We join the bishops in seeking ethically sound legislation.”


The Bishops are also complaining about the rights of illegal immigrants.


In my opinion, the rights of illegal immigrants is irrelevant with relation to health care reform because IMO the Catholic Church and its Bishops have no right to demand that the United States gives up its sovereignty rights with regards to its National Security and its States’ rights in demanding that immigrants come here the proper way- legally- and be able to enforce the laws of the land.


The CHA, Sr. Keehan, and those little old nuns that think they know best, don’t. They are for the “greater good” and are leading their sheeple, their flock, astray since they are promoting a warped version of social justice at the expense of unborn lives. ALL Catholic persons and agencies and have a moral duty to stand up and denounce any form of moral relativism that promotes the “greater good” which involves wording that violates the teachings of the Magisterium. If one more innocent unborn human life results in death because these “Catholics” support this bill then the blood of that child will be on their hands. This is about standing up for the most vulnerable in our society that aren’t able to speak for themselves. The poor are able to speak up and while it is worthy to stand up for the poor and do good deeds, it must not be done while allowing the Federal funding for abortion-wording of the bill-to stay in place. As Catholics and Christians, we may not stand by and do nothing, or accept this unacceptable abortion language in the Bill that promotes intrinsic evil, authorizes the holocaust of innocents and allows abortion funding. We must call out these so-called Catholic agencies and Orders that our leading our Catholic or Christian flock astray.

DON'T BE SHEEPLE!!!

U.S. Catholic Bishops Pro PelosiCare: USCCB Anti-Liberty??? & Anti-Freedom???

The USCCB(United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) was NEVER AGAINST this health care bill. As a Catholic, I am appalled at the way the Catholic Bishops are perverting Catholicism and promoting liberal propaganda. The Catholic Church endorses tyranny upon the people as long as it ends up benefiting them. This is disgraceful. This is despicable. They only care about putting the tax burdens on the people so that they (the CHURCH) do not have to pay for it. The liberals only care about separation of church and state when it DOES NOT benefit them. The Church stood up for the sanctity of human life. I am happy about that. But, in all actuality the USCCB needs to stay the heck out of the health care debate. They need to focus on being good leaders. Maybe, they need to take a leap backward and go back to the seminaries, so that they can learn how to become good leaders who promote good traditional Catholic values, instead of this liberal garbage that they have given into spreading and ruining the mnds in churches. OUR CATHOLIC BISHOPS HAVE GIVEN INTO MORAL RELATIVISM and the powers of EVIL. There was NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!! Every person should be outraged at this fact. The Catholic Bishops want to force us to provide for illegal immigrants who came here ILLEGALLY. I do think that these LEGAL MEXICANS should be helped, but in the proper venue. The proper venue is NOT HERE IN THE U.S., but rather in Mexico. Both America and Americans should help Mexico so that Mexico can help its own citizens. But, over in Mexico, where they belong, until they are willing to come to the United States the proper way. The Bishops should be getting on Mexico's case and strongly urging them to take care of their people. But, oh no. According to them, its acceptable for everybody to BREAK THE LAW and just come sneaking across the border into America as they please. I tell you what Bishops. Here's a challenge, because I am utterly fed up with you arrogant son of a guns. Bishops: You start walking the walk and not just talking the talk. I challenge our Bishops to actually spend some time in Mexico and help the country rebuild the infrastructure in Mexico. Call on businesses fom all over the World to start businesses and employ the citizens of Mexico. Call on the Mexican government to build and repair its infrastructure. Call on the government to help its poor. Please USCCB, actually do something, take responsibility, and take action for the lives in Mexico, instead of just pushing off that responsibility to one country in particular (United States) which wants to be able to secure its borders so that it can prevent another terrorist attack from occurring. Please be for our laws of governence and encourage ALL IMMIGRANTS TO COME HERE LEGALLY!!!!


In Cliif Kincaid  article he explains further how Catholic Bishops helped to pass Pelosicare.