HHS Exec Rivals Nixon With Line: 'I am Not Trying to Get Anyone Off the Hook

The most memorable line since Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook” has just come out of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Ta da: “ I’m not trying to get anyone off the hook here.”

That telling quote comes from George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary for HHS’s Administration for Children and Families. Sheldon offered his defense to Washington Post writer Jerry Markon for a front page story in the Post November 1.

Markon’s story investigated how the grant process at HHS was manipulated to keep an office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) from receiving an award to serve victims of human trafficking. USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) had scored high enough to be awarded a federal grant to continue its very successful anti-trafficking program. But the decision was “overturned,” so to speak, when Sharon Parrott, a top adviser to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, stepped in to “have a dialogue” (her words) in the process because the award would go through a Catholic agency. Their problem?: the Catholic Church—though providing food, shelter, and legal and other medical services for trafficking victims more effectively than any other—is forbidden by conscience from referring those victims for abortion, sterilization or contraceptives. So much for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal legislation that protects conscience—not to mention ordinary fair-play in picking grant recipients.

According to the first version of Markon’s article, which appeared on the Washington Post website October 31, the decision caused controversy within HHS. The Post web article stated that “HHS policies spell out that career officials usually oversee grant competitions and select the winners, giving priority consideration the review board’s judgment. The policies do not prohibit political appointees from getting involved, through current and former employees said it is unusual, especially for high-level officials.”

Sheldon, who in the spirit of political loyalty apparently was willing to fall on his paperclip for higher-ups, told Markon: “I don’t think there was any undue influence exerted to make this grant go one way or the other.” He added, “Ultimately I felt it was my responsibility – and I’m not trying to get anyone off the hook here – to do what I thought was in the best interest of these victims.”

Surely Sharon Parrott, who according to the HHS Website is one of three counselors to Secretary Sebelius and advises on human services policy, and Secretary Sibelius herself, must be grateful for such fealty as they promote abortion politics over real care for trafficking victims. They opted for far weaker agencies, according to the grant scoring process, and awarded grants to USCRI and Tapestri, which “scored significantly below” MRS, the Post reported. And Sheldon wants us to believe this is “in the best interests of the victims”? Now that is loyalty!

Such political interference could irk career people at HHS who know what they are doing and want to avoid the political mire. Their concerns were reported to the Inspector General, according to the Post.

The original story on the web, which was later scrubbed of some quotes for whatever reason, was even more telling than what appeared in print.

Said the Washington Post original online version (still available on yahoo here):

“But some HHS staffers objected to the involvement of the secretary’s office, saying the goal was to exclude the Catholic bishops, individuals familiar with the matter said.

“It was so clearly and blatantly trying to come up with a certain outcome,” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak to the media. “That’s very distasteful to people.”

To say the least. Unfairness is distasteful; re-victimizing trafficking victims is abhorrent.

One also wonders if it can be legal. Not that anyone’s trying to put anyone on the hook.

The ABC Factor at HHS - Anybody But Catholics

There seems to be a new unwritten reg at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It’s the ABC Rule, Anybody But Catholics.

It showed up in a letter from HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to advise the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Office of Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) that it would not receive a grant to continue its services for victims of human trafficking.

The USCCB program excelled because of its anytime-anywhere approach. It had extraordinary reach, something valued by people who work to free men, women and children from slavery. Because of USCCB’s organizational capacity, MRS could respond immediately. Should an Immigration Enforcement official find a vulnerable child, for example, a call to the MRS program got safe housing immediately. There was not the delay of weeks that one associates with programs that lack such a network.

The program worked well on the ground. but not so well for distant administrators promoting the abortion and contraceptive agenda, who bristle at the fact that in accord with church teaching, USCCB won’t facilitate taking innocent life, sterilization and artificial contraception. MRS anti-trafficking programs ran successfully for six years in harmony with these moral convictions until the American Civil Liberties Union brought suit against the government for not forcing the USCCB program to provide these services as a part of the program. The suit’s outcome is pending, but ORR apparently has made its own decision apart from any judgment of the court. So much for the Administration’s guarantee of conscience protection.

That’s the climate which allowed ORR to dismiss the USCCB proposal and instead award grant money to the United States Committee on Refugees and Immigrants, (USCRI), Heartland and Tapestri. ORR even awarded more money than it said it would in the original proposal.

ORR earmarked most of the money for USCRI. Eskinder Negash, current director of the ORR, had been vice-president and chief operating officer at USCRI before joining ORR in 2009.

The ORR’s request for proposals had stated that agencies receiving the money were to be fully operational ten days after being awarded the grant. That would have been October 10. One wonders how that could have happened since USCRI and Heartland reportedly were posting ads seeking to hire staff just a few days before that date. None of the three organizations has much depth of experience in monitoring and providing services. USCCB staff were given a number to call for a smooth transition for the people served by the anti-trafficking program. Those who called it found no one could answer their questions.

Trafficking of human beings is one of the great modern-day scandals, but at least until now, the U.S. government sought to sincerely address the issue. It asked USCCB for help when regional programs weren’t reaching victims outside the usual hotspots for trafficking. USCCB created an extraordinary program in conjunction with several partners, Christian and secular, including Lutheran Family Services, Jewish Family Services, Salvation Army, YMCA affiliates, domestic violence shelters, World Relief and others. Only one-third of its subcontractors were Catholic-affiliated, but with the USCCB infrastructure they reached virtually everywhere in the USA.

Now ORR seems to have yielded to abortion politics. It has undercut a worthy program, limiting the numbers served, while increasing the time and money it will take to serve them.

Apparently HHS rules about the benefits of experience and cost effectiveness can be waived. So can rules about being fully operational by a certain date. What can’t be waived is the new, albeit unwritten rule of HHS, the ABC rule – Anybody But Catholics.

Church Social Media Rule: Let’s Talk

The social media phenomenon offers both challenge and opportunity for the church. Social media reaches people – millions are on Facebook and Twitter every day. The church cannot ignore them. They are interactive, however, and don’t work when conversations are one-way. They involve dialogue, something not always welcome by clergy, teachers and other leaders.

“Because I said so” doesn’t cut it in social media, a fact regretted by parents and leaders who for ages have resorted to the phrase when exasperated with the petulant “But …” and plaintive “Why?”

For oldsters, such dialogue takes getting used to. A few years ago I took a course in church social teaching. It was to be an intellectual treat – until I got into the classroom with students who sought to debate the prof. The lecturer loved the interactivity, but I groaned inwardly at each sidestep. A former teacher, I appreciated the back-and-forth that helps minds expand, but I wanted the teaching clear-cut and wanted to soak up all the renowned prof had to offer. It may have been my inner dinosaur peeking out.

The church has a solid history of such top-down didacticism. It has libraries of tomes that explore theological truths. But that is only one part of the church.

Another side of the church – the pastoral side – is open to dialogue. It has validated such conversations as far back as the Gospels (see woman conversing with Jesus at the well). On the one-on-one level, the dialogue that ensues after a “Can we talk?” encounter has been an integral part of the church for years, a comfort to worried parents, frustrated spouses, abused workers and confused children.

Perhaps social media can help the church engage more in such dialogue. It is not easy. It takes energy, especially emotional energy. Talk – or dialogue – is work.

Many business leaders boast they have a web presence, but don’t take questions and avoid interactivity, though they might send an auto-reply: “Thanks for your message.” Better they post comments on a billboard, with the honest implication that they don’t want feedback. To be genuine on social media you have to answer questions. You have to discuss. You have to accept and even embrace being challenged.

At the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, we have Facebook and Twitter accounts. They offer opportunities to share, but also give rise to points of contention inherent in all dialogues. Some people agree with you, some don’t. Some want to fight. All of them, however, belong to our virtual community and so deserve respect. Some people who post ask the community to share in their sorrow, perhaps over the death of a spouse. Others muse on the feast or Scripture reading of the day, giving others a new twist on a moment in the church. Some are ready for a fight and evoke the urge to push “delete.” We try not to do that since the whole point of the virtual community is dialogue. If a virtual scrimmage breaks out, we hope all, including virtual bystanders, come away more enlightened. It is a risk worth taking. Virtual conversations grow in importance as church attendance decreases and fewer have relationships with a parish to which to tether themselves in life’s storms.

The Internet, of course, cannot replace the community at Mass, where you know strangers by the pew they choose and as their children grow. There’s nurturing warmth even in the nodding acquaintance with those with whom you pray every week.

Social media has a place in the 21^st century church, though some oldsters may have to be drawn into it, collars, veils, rosaries and lapel crosses askew. Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be worthy instruments of the Gospel to nurture our faith life, though some are just warming up.

The Church's Noblest at Ground Zero

There are times when the church makes you feel proud. Priests' responses to 9/11, 10 years ago, is one of them.

This became evident as the U.S. Bishops' Office of Media Relations interviewed and sought reflections from a few persons for The Catholic Church Remembers.

Cardinal Edward Egan, retired archbishop of New York, was one of the first responders that fateful morning. He headed for Ground Zero when he heard of the attack. As he was on the way, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani called and asked him to go instead to await the injured at St. Vincent's Hospital. Thus began the cardinal's critical service to a city in need.

The first person he met at St. Vincent's was a woman, burned from head to foot. The second was one of his priests, a fire department chaplain.

By rank, a cardinal is like a U.S. senator or a general, a big-time leader you don't expect to find on the front of any war. Cardinal Egan didn't see himself that way.

"I kept saying to myself, 'I'm not a fireman, a fire person, a firefighter,'" he recalled on video. "'I'm not a police officer. I'm not an emergency worker. I'm a priest and I'm going to do everything that a priest can do under these circumstances.'"

Afterwards, he worked at Ground Zero, a site so contaminated that officials told him to discard all his clothes when he returned home. He anointed bodies, listened to rescuers, and consoled both the disconsolate and their consolers. He celebrated funeral Masses at St. Patrick's Cathedral and led prayers when President George W. Bush arrive at Ground Zero and at an ecumenical service he organized Yankee Stadium.

Other priests sprang into action too. Msgr. Kevin Sullivan, head of Catholic Charities of the New York Archdiocese, saw that it was not just Wall Street people with significant finances who were affected. It was also those who live on the edge, such as the wait staff at Windows on the World, the restaurant atop one of the Twin Towers. Msgr. Sullivan contacted the unions and said Catholic Charities would pay the salaries for six months for restaurant workers there who were suddenly out of work -- enough time, he thought, for them to find another job.

Other priests made their way to the scene, most notably the fire department chaplain Franciscan Father Mychal Judge, the first officially recorded fatality of the attack. When rescuers found his body, firemen carried it from the rubble, not to a mortuary van but to the sanctuary of a nearby church.

Other clergy responded as priests too. The city established a site for those looking for missing family members, a place with counselors and social workers. The line went on for blocks and priests walked alongside it and helped people accept the inevitable: a loss of someone only to be found again in heaven. A veteran psychiatrist told Cardinal Egan that he was amazed when he interviewed families and saw how deeply they had been touched by their sidewalk conversations with priests.

The church knows the importance of chaplains and designates priests to help emergency workers such as police, firefighters and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents. These public servants need one of their own in crises and at 9/11 their own priests responded.

9/11's own, however, also turned out to be not just official chaplains but also priests in other ministries, like Msgr. Anthony Sherman, a Brooklyn pastor who counseled strangers and led funeral Masses for the dead from his parish, some whose bodies were never found. And Jesuit Father James Martin, an editor at America magazine, who worked with rescuers in the aftermath. And other unnamed and unrecognized priests who offered the sacraments, encouragement and human consolation. They rose to the heights of their calling in the depths of that tragedy.

Cardinal Egan calls Ground Zero, "Ground Hero." He speaks of a medical intern who stayed on duty though his father worked high in one of the twin towers, of a widow with babe in arms in the front pew of St. Patrick's for her husband's funeral, of the police who demanded for five days that the cardinal wear a gas mask to protect him from the contaminated air at the site but didn't wear their own because the masks impaired visibility.

New York's fire department, which lost 343 members, is known as "New York's Bravest," and the police department is known as "New York's Finest." Looking at the church's response to 9/11, the priests who responded would say they were "just priests," but surely they were "the Church's Noblest" too.

Truth be told?

I had a boss once who always told me he didn’t want any “spin” on his messages. “If I tell the truth, I don’t have to remember what I said,” he explained. His honesty served both him and the organization he served well.

It appears that Catholic News Agency would benefit from a similar strategy. To put it plain and simple, the quotes they attribute to Cardinal Francis George in their story (also posted on EWTN) are just wrong. I was in the room, as a member of the USCCB staff, for the presentation. And the official audio file that recorded the session for USCCB archives confirms my memory.

While the cardinal did present a sequence of events to the bishops, he never used the phrase “so-called Catholic,” accused the Catholic Health Association of creating a “parallel magisterium” or said the meeting of the three bishops with Sr. Keehan had “frustrating results.” And that’s just three examples. Not to mention that the reporting of the events is just plain wrong: for an example, the Stupak Amendment was not defeated in the Senate in December 2009, as the article states.

The one hour session was executive, without media present, because Cardinal George felt it was important to report personally to the bishops how he and the three committee chairmen directed the staff to represent the Conference's position with both the CHA and the Congress in the final days of the debate on healthcare reform. He asked the bishops to provide honest appraisal of those efforts.

To honor the bishops’ privacy and confidentiality, we will not be releasing the transcript. It’s unfortunate if someone breached that confidentiality; also unfortunate if CNA tried to take an educated guess at what the cardinal might have said and cobbled together its own fabrication of the session.

For CNN to elaborate even more on what CNA said in error is even more disturbing. If CNN had tried to verify the citations, it would have learned that CNA fabricated quotes. It also would not have made its huge and erroneous assumption that the issue in question was an example of the bishops at odds with the sisters.

There’s certainly plenty of disagreement between the bishops and the Catholic health care organizations regarding the implications of the health care legislation. But to confuse the situation with quotes that aren’t true is just plain dishonest.

George and the Latter-Day Saints: One Approach to Dialogue

When Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, addressed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including two of its top officials, at Utah's Brigham Young University on February 23, he became the first cardinal to address that student body. But that wasn't the only cutting edge aspect of the event. His call for more cooperation between Catholics and Latter-day Saints was not a dialogue in the traditional sense of relationships between Catholics and other religious bodies. It relied heavily on culture.

Around the time of the Second Vatican Council, breakthroughs in ecumenical and interreligious relationships came as a result of extensive dialogue and self-examination by the parties participating in the dialogue.

For instance, when centuries of cultural anti-Semitism boiled over in the horrors of the Holocaust, the Catholic Church did some self-examination as to how Christian anti-Judaism may have helped create the conditions that allowed the Holocaust to occur. Exploring our relationship with Judaism more closely ultimately led to the groundbreaking Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, which rejected the idea that the Jewish people are somehow responsible for the death of Jesus and that God has rejected them. Today, when the Catholic Church engages the Jewish people, it does so from a paradigm that recognizes them as "our older brother in faith" and "the first people to hear the Word of God."

Another example is dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans, which saw over 40 years of work come to fruition in 1999, when the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The document, in effect, cleared up over four centuries of division on the issue of how people are justified before God. Cardinal George himself does a fine job of explaining this ecumenical breakthrough here:



But the content of Cardinal George's address to Brigham Young University didn't reflect a theological dialogue or other internal matters. It instead focused on two issues in U.S. culture -- abortion and same-sex marriage. Cardinal George made the case that Catholics and Latter-day Saints can stand united on these issues because, whether through funding of abortion through health care reform or mandates to recognize same-sex marriage, both issues threaten religious liberty.

Cardinal George isn't the first high-ranking Catholic to take this approach -- Pope Benedict XVI has been a pioneer, reaching out to the Russian Orthodox Church (whose relations with the Vatican have tended toward the frosty at times) and insisting that Catholics and Orthodox should work together to combat secularism in Europe. Russian Orthodox Church leaders have been receptive.

In another instance, when Pope Benedict visited Jordan, a predominantly Muslim country, in 2009, he condemned religious extremism and violence in the name of religion. With radical Islam threatening the lives of countless people, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, around the world, this was a particularly powerful topic to bring to the table.

It's probably no accident that Pope Benedict has taken this approach. Going back to his days as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he expressed skepticism that a purely interreligious dialogue was even possible, that an element of intercultural dialogue would always be present in the mix. Fittingly then, his major dialogue endeavors as pope have had a cultural emphasis.

It also works on a practical level. The conventional wisdom is that the best way to unify people is to give them a common challenge, some injustice to correct. Whether its secularism, violence or threats to religious liberty, the same principle applies.

Even before Pope Benedict was showing the way, the U.S. Church took this approach on certain issues. For instance, great strides in Catholic-Evangelical relations have come through collaboration within the Pro-Life movement. Now Cardinal George is acknowledging that such collaboration should extend to Latter-day Saints and go beyond abortion to all issues that might hinder the free expression of religion in the U.S.

As recent developments with Catholic Charities of Washington DC have shown, this approach of standing with other people of faith to address the culture with a unified voice may prove timely indeed.

BISHOPS URGE PASSAGE OF STUPAK-ELLSWORTH ANTI-ABORTION AMENDMENT FOR HEALTH REFORM BILL

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops November 7 urged members of the House of Representatives to vote for the Stupak-Ellsworth Amendment to the health care reform.

“The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections in the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962),” they said.

The letter was signed by Cardinal Justin Rigali, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-life Activities, and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chair of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development

The letter follows.

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we strongly urge you to vote for the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment and to support a fair process in the House of Representatives to consider this essential improvement in health care reform legislation. The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections in the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962).

Despite some claims to the contrary, H.R. 3962 does not reflect the status quo on abortion. It fails to explicitly and clearly include the longstanding policy prohibiting federal funding of elective abortion and plans which include elective abortion (Hyde Amendment). Medicaid, Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other federal health legislation include this provision. Currently H.R. 3962 has some helpful provisions on conscience protection and non- preemption of state laws, but it utterly fails to maintain current prohibitions on abortion mandates and abortion funding. Instead it creates elaborate measures requiring people to pay for other people’s abortions with their taxes, private premiums or federal subsidies. Significantly, the Federal Employee Heath Benefit Program, which covers all members of Congress and their families, has long been governed by the Hyde amendment in all its aspects and is widely seen as a model for reform.

Additionally, H.R. 3962 allows the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate that the “public option” will include unlimited abortions. Millions of purchasers will be forced to pay an “abortion surcharge,” which requires purchasers of many plans to pay directly and explicitly for abortion coverage. This is unprecedented in federal law.

The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws.

If the Motion to Recommit focuses on denying immigrants needed health care, as reported, we strongly urge Members to oppose the Motion to Recommit.

Our Bishops’ conference has been working for many years to support health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. Adopting this amendment will help move us move toward this essential national priority and moral imperative.

Sincerely,

Bishop William Murphy Cardinal Justin Rigali

Diocese of Rockville Centre Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Chairman Chairman

Committee on Domestic Justice and Committee on Pro-life Activities

Human Development

New Numbers Among the Bishops

It's that time of year again -- preparing the official U.S. bishops statistics, this time for the media's consumption at the 2009 Fall General Assembly (Nov. 16-19) in Baltimore.

Given the "circle of life" equilibrium that follows the usual trickle of new appointments, reassignments, promotions, retirements and deaths, these numbers don't really fluctuate that much. But they did it enough to matter. And they've done it recently.

To review, there are currently 429 active and retired bishops in the United States.

Of these 258 are active bishops:
-- 5 Cardinal Archbishops
-- 29 Archbishops
-- 1 Coadjutor Archbishop
-- 153 Diocesan Bishops
-- 70 Auxiliary Bishops

And 171 are retired bishops:
-- 8 retired Cardinal Archbishops
-- 19 retired Archbishops
-- 94 retired Diocesan Bishops
-- 50 retired Auxiliary Bishops

The recent fluctuation in these figures has come almost entirely from the spate of bishops' appointments that have rolled out of Rome since early October.

To recap, on October 7, the pope accepted the retirement of Gaylord, Mich. Bishop Patrick Cooney and named Msgr. Bernard Hebda as his successor. This meant one new retired diocesan bishop, one new bishop overall and a net of zero in the number of active diocesan bishops.

On October 15, the pope named three brand new bishops, sending one to the vacant Diocese of Duluth, Minnesota, a second to replace retired Bishop Arthur Tafoya in Pueblo, Colorado, and a third to be auxiliary of Providence, Rhode Island. The end was result was one more retired bishop, one new auxiliary bishop, a net of one new diocesan bishop, and -- as said before -- three new bishops overall.

On October 19, the pope named Indianapolis pastor Father Paul Etienne the new bishop of Cheyenne, Wyoming, which has been vacant for some time. This was a gain of one active diocesan bishop and one bishop overall.

On October 21, the pope accepted the retirement of Boston auxiliary Bishop Francis Irwin, meaning one less active auxiliary and one more retired auxiliary overall.

On October 28, the pope named Joliet pastor Father Joseph Siegel an auxiliary bishop of his diocese, bringing the number of active auxiliaries back up by one and the total number of bishops up by one.

With the dust settled somewhat, this means that in the month of October, the U.S. bishops gained a whopping six new members. The U.S. bishops also mourned the loss of retired Wilmington Bishop Michael Saltarelli in October, meaning their total membership increased by five. Given the three retirements in October, it means their active membership went up by three.

Even though a number of these newly-appointees aren't even slated to be ordained bishops till after the new year, the prospect of six new bishops in just a month is an exciting sign of life in the U.S. Church.