THE CONFERENCE:

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

NCC Statements & Current Issues

Campaign to End the Death Penalty (USCCB) www.ccedp.org

Federal Marriage Amendment : Bishop Gregory Urges Support (6/25/2004) and Nebraska Bishops Urge Support (7/9/2004)

Initiative 416 Marriage Definition Petition Drive -- Bishops' Statement (9/15/2000)

Medical Treatment Decision-making (Revised 1/06) or downloadable pdf file

Rural Life, Economic Hardships Affecting (or full Bishops' Statement)

Same-Sex Marriage, The Debate About; USCCB Statements (6/2004)

Supreme Court Decision-Carhart v. Stenberg (Partial Birth Abortion Ruling, 6/28/2000)

UNMC Fetal Tissue Research Press Release (12/2/1999) (or full Bishops' Statement)

Bishop Gregory Urges Support For The Federal Marriage Amendment

WASHINGTON (June 25, 2004) — Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has written to all Catholic bishops asking them to personally urge their Senators to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.

The first vote on the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which has become popularly known as the Federal Marriage Amendment, is expected to occur in the Senate as early as mid-July.

The measure, introduced as S.J. Res. 30 by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), reads as follows:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In the letter (June 24), Bishop Gregory noted that while the proposed amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it leaves legislative decisions on civil unions or domestic partnerships up to the state legislatures, which already have this authority.

Since opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are expected to mount a filibuster against it, the key vote in the Senate will likely occur on a motion to bring debate to a close (i.e., invoke “cloture”). Under these circumstances, cloture is a necessary step before the Senate can vote on the substance of the Federal Marriage

Amendment, Bishop Gregory said. “Your message should also strongly support any effort to stop a ‘filibuster’ and allow the Senate to vote on this vitally important matter,” he wrote.

In his letter to the bishops, Bishop Gregory recalled that the USCCB has been working on the marriage issue for many years, supporting state efforts to preserve marriage as a union of a man and a woman. “As the U.S. Bishops have previously written, marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage,” Bishop Gregory said.

“However, a growing movement today favors making those relationships commonly called same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage,” he continued. “This situation challenges Catholics-and all who seek the truth-to think deeply about the meaning of marriage, its purposes, and its value to individuals, families and society.”

Bishop Gregory said that since last September, when the USCCB Administrative Committee issued a formal statement calling for efforts at all levels of government, including support for a federal constitutional amendment, the Conference has been engaged in educational activities in dioceses across the nation. The USCCB also submitted testimony to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees earlier this year.

Bishop Gregory asked the bishops to generate additional support through their pastors from the larger Catholic community. He also noted that he has asked Conference staff to send out this appeal to all their diocesan counterparts urging them to seek support at the parish level. Bishop Gregory said the Conference statement Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers about Marriage and Same-sex Unions will serve as a good educational resource on this issue.

The statement can be found through the Conference Web site at www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexunions.htm.

Nebraska Bishops Urge Support of Federal Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 9, 2004

The Catholic Bishops serving in Nebraska have written to the state’s U.S. Senators urging them to vote in favor of S.J. Res. 30 (subsequently re-introduced procedurally as S.J. Res. 40), the Federal Marriage Amendment, and also to support any effort to stop a filibuster that could prevent that important vote from taking place.

In their jointly signed letters faxed to Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss of Omaha, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop Lawrence J. McNamara of Grand Island emphasized the fundamental nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and the need for a federal constitutional amendment to affirm and preserve that traditional definition in the face of a growing movement and federal judicial rulings that threaten to abandon it.

"We have become convinced that proposing a federal constitutional amendment for ratification is a matter of significant necessity and increasing urgency," the Bishops wrote. "The traditionally understood and heretofore legally honored definition of marriage is now subject to almost certain upheaval as the result of judicial rulings, fueled by a growing movement and premised upon federal constitutional law….We join the many who say that the American people, not the judiciary, should determine the legal definition of marriage in the United States and that a constitutional amendment proposal is urgently needed for decision in a truly democratic manner."

The Bishops cited Nebraska’s own state constitution as an example of the anticipated effect of judicial decisions. In 2000, the Bishops actively supported Initiative Measure 416, which proposed to add a marriage amendment to the Constitution of the State of Nebraska. That amendment was added when 70 percent of the voters at the General Election approved it. Now, that provision of the Nebraska Constitution is in serious jeopardy of being struck down by a federal district court.

S.J. Res. 30 (40) would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman. It would leave public-policy decisions regarding civil unions or domestic partnerships up to the states. As introduced it reads as follows: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Recently, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops announced its strong support for S.J. Res. 30 (40).

Initiative Measure 416 Regarding Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 15, 2000

Catholic Bishops Support Initiative Measure 416

The Catholic Bishops serving in Nebraska have announced their support for Initiative Measure 416, the proposed constitutional amendment regarding marriage. A joint statement by Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss of Omaha, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop Lawrence J. McNamara of Grand Island was published Friday in the three Catholic diocesan newspapers.

In their statement, the bishops say that Initiative Measure 416 provides Nebraskans with an opportunity to affirm in public policy that marriage is a union of a man and a woman that holds a unique position in culture and law. They urge that this uniqueness be upheld, retained and perpetuated.

"It is our firm conviction," the bishops say, "that no other legal relationship between individuals should be defined as marriage or treated as the legal equivalent of marriage."

The bishops call on Catholic Nebraskans and all their fellow citizens to join them in supporting and voting for Initiative Measure 416.

A copy of the statement follows:

IN SUPPORT OF MARRIAGE

Statement of Most Rev. Elden Francis Curtiss - Archbishop of Omaha

Most Rev. Fabian W. Bruskewitz -Bishop of Lincoln

Most Rev. Lawrence J. McNamara - Bishop of Grand Island

As teachers, pastors and citizens, we, the Catholic Bishops of Nebraska, support the proposed amendment to Nebraska’s Constitution regarding marriage.

Initiative Measure 416 provides the opportunity for Nebraskans to affirm in public policy what has been presumed or taken for granted for generations in all of Western society, here in the United States and in the great state of Nebraska: that marriage is a union of a man and a woman, and holds a unique position in our culture and in our laws.

In reality, one is either married or unmarried. It is our firm conviction, therefore, that no other relationship between individuals should be defined as a marriage, or treated as the legal equivalent of marriage.

We urge that the uniqueness of marriage be upheld, retained and perpetuated. We believe that this end will be served by passage of the proposed constitutional amendment. We call on Catholic Nebraskans and all our fellow citizens to join us in supporting Initiative Measure 416 and voting for it on Election Day.

MEDICAL TREATMENT DECISION-MAKING:

MORAL GUIDANCE AND CONSIDERATIONS FROM CATHOLIC TEACHING

Nebraska Catholic Conference

Revised January 2006

INTRODUCTION

    The Catholic Church affirms the sanctity and dignity of every human life as a precious gift of a loving God. All men and women must respect the lives of others while accepting the duties of responsible stewardship for their own lives and for the lives in their care.

    At the same time, however, faith in the resurrection and hope for eternal life have enabled the Catholic tradition to accept death as the inevitable end to temporal life and to believe that death is the gateway to eternal life. It is for this reason that there is no obligation to utilize all possible medical interventions, all possible means of prolonging life. Death need not be avoided at all costs.

    Although Catholic teaching does not look upon biological life as an absolute value, nevertheless it rejects suicide, assisted suicide and mercy killing because they are intrinsically opposed to the reverence for life that Christians are called upon to manifest and express. Compassion and care for dying and seriously ill or disabled persons must never include the willingness to assist in the direct ending of their lives.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR DECISIONMAKING

	It is consistent with Catholic teaching that each person has a right to make his or her own health-care decisions, always in accord with responsible stewardship for the gift of life and other Catholic moral principles.
	When a person is incapable of making health-care decisions, his or her family members or others must assume that responsibility. As a responsible steward for the life of another, anyone in the position of surrogate decision-maker must make decisions according to the wishes, values and beliefs of the patient, but always within the framework of Catholic moral principles.
	It is morally permissible and recommended that one designate another (or others), whether by written instrument or otherwise, to make future health-care decisions in the event one would become incapable of making his or her own decisions. For Catholics, directives which accompany such designations must reflect Catholic teaching.

MORAL PRINCIPLES AND CATHOLIC TEACHING

While responsible stewardship for one’s own life and for lives in one’s care is morally obligatory, this does not mean that all possible medical interventions must be used in all circumstances.

If a particular medical intervention is necessary or useful for the preservation of life or restoration of health, it is ethically ordinary and there is a moral obligation to use it. If, however, a particular medical interventions is analyzed and judged by the patient to be useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or excessively burdensome, it is ethically extraordinary and therefore morally optional.

[NOTE: An important distinction exists between medically ordinary/extraordinary and ethically ordinary/extraordinary. Medical treatment that can be viewed as medically ordinary, that is, of common usage, could be judged ethically extraordinary under certain circumstances and proper analysis.

Determining whether a medical intervention is ethically ordinary or extraordinary involves comparing the burdens that the intervention introduces when used and the benefits it is expected to achieve, within the totality of the circumstances. The burdens of the intervention might include severe physical pain, psychological repugnance, intense anxiety or fear, excessive expense, severely disabling effects, and excessive risks caused by or associated with it. First and foremost, the extent of burdens of a medical intervention should be analyzed and judged from the perspective of the particular patient. Secondarily, such analysis and judgment may also consider burdens experienced by family members and by the community as a whole e.g., excessive expense.

To choose to withhold or withdraw ethically extraordinary medical interventions is not suicide or euthanasia. “Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.” (Evangelium vitae, #65) “Euthanasia in all forms is forbidden.” (Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia)

There is an inherent human right to be free from inappropriate interference with one’s dying process. However, the idea of a "right to die" is

invalid.

No category of individuals, having certain confirmed symptoms, can be classified as not suitable for treatments, procedures or interventions which extend life. “[T]he intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a ‘vegetable’ or an ‘animal’. Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a ‘vegetative state’ retain their human dignity in all its fullness.”(1) Likewise, it is not possible to identify a given treatment, procedure or intervention and classify it as always, and in all circumstances, ordinary or extraordinary, that is, morally obligatory or non-obligatory.

A medical intervention judged to be ethically ordinary, and therefore morally obligatory, may subsequently become ethically extraordinary, and therefore morally optional, as a result of changes in circumstances that cause the patient to reconsider the usefulness or burdensomeness of the intervention. Just because an intervention is initiated does not mean that it cannot morally be withdrawn or discontinued at a later time.

The final decision as to whether or not to withhold or withdraw a particular medical intervention rests, after due consideration, with the conscience of the patient, or those authorized to speak on behalf of the patient. A morally appropriate decision can occur only after there has been sufficient deliberation based upon the best medical and personal information and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

The withholding or withdrawing of a medical intervention must not be an occasion for neglecting the patient. Normal care, that is, basic personal services every patient rightfully can expect, such as bed rest, hygiene, room temperature and appropriate pain medication, must always be administered. No surrogate, agent or attorney-in-fact can be authorized to deny such care.

Respect for unborn human life requires that life-sustaining treatment must be provided and maintained for a pregnant patient whenever such treatment can benefit the child.

Suffering is a fact of human life; one that has special significance for Christians as an opportunity to share in the redemptive suffering of Christ. Nevertheless, there is nothing morally wrong in seeking to relieve suffering so long as this does not interfere with other moral and religious duties. It is morally permissible in the case of terminal illness to use pain medication which carries the risk of shortening life, so long as the intent is to relieve pain effectively and not to cause death.

Applying the Principles to Nutrition and Hydration

	Nutrition and hydration should be provided as part of any patient’s normal care, even when the assistance of medical intervention is necessary. However, the circumstances of a patient’s condition may affect his or her moral obligation to accept nutrition and hydration provided in this artificial way, that is, non-orally, by means of an intravenous line, nasogastric tube, hyperalimentation or a tube inserted directly into the stomach. For example, if the provision of artificially administered nutrition and hydration is clinically useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or causes excessive burdens it may be rejected as ethically extraordinary (morally optional). In addition to previously stated burdens, factors to be weighed include the patient’s ability to assimilate the nutrition and hydration and the imminence of death. [NOTE: Imminence of death means whether or not the patient is in the active process of dying.
	If there is doubt about whether utilizing artificially administered nutrition and hydration is ordinary (obligatory) or extraordinary (optional), the presumption must be in favor of utilizing it, unless the patient can no longer assimilate the nutrition and hydration or the patient’s death is imminent. Moreover, it is extremely important that the basis of judgment cannot be that the patient’s life is useless or devoid of value, (for this would be to reject life itself); rather, the decision must be based on whether utilizing artificially administered nutrition and hydration is useless or creates burdens that are excessive in relation to the benefits it provides. Decisions regarding human life must respect the demands of justice, avoiding all discrimination based on age or dependency. “Considerations about the ‘quality of life’, often actually dictated by psychological, social and economic pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles.” (2)
	In the case of a patient in a persistent vegetative state, there is common agreement among Catholic theologians that artificially-administered nutrition and hydration may be withheld or withdrawn if the patient can no longer assimilate the nutrition and hydration or if the patient’s death is imminent.
	With regard to patients in a persistent vegetative state who are able to assimilate nutrition and hydration, and for whom death is not imminent, there has been some disagreement among Catholic theologians as to whether or not artificially administered nutrition and hydration may be withdrawn. Pope John Paul II addressed this subject in a speech on March 20, 2004:

“…I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering. The obligation to provide the ‘normal care due to the sick in such cases’…includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration.” (3)

In any case, before withdrawing or withholding, there must be clear evidence that receiving nutrition and hydration through artificial means is in fact clinically useless or excessively burdensome. Being in a persistent vegetative state, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for withholding or withdrawing artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

Conclusion

It will not always be easy to make a judgment concerning medical interventions. The circumstances, including the assessment of benefits and burdens, may be so complex as to cause doubts about the way in which moral principles should be applied. However, sound judgments are possible by studying the type of medical intervention, its degree of complexity and risk, its cost and availability, and comparing these factors with the results that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical, emotional and moral resources. Factors must be weighed carefully, for each individual person, on a case-by-case basis.

In cases in which it is not immediately clear that a medical intervention is or has become ethically extraordinary, the benefit of doubt must be for the preservation of life.

Because health-care decisions, especially those having to do with life-sustaining treatment, have important values at stake and are often complex, difficult and emotionally taxing, frequent, honest discussions of one’s convictions and feelings about medical interventions with loved ones, caregivers and clergy are to be encouraged. Those who desire clarification on Catholic teaching and the Church’s concerns should consult with a priest or other spiritual advisor for guidance. The office of the Diocesan Bishop or his delegate for medical-moral issues is the recommended source of Catholic teaching. Also, additional information about a Catholic teaching on medical-treatment decision-making and relevant Nebraska law may be obtained by contacting this office at (402)477-7517.

(1), (2), (3): Address of Pope John Paul II to the participants in the International Congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas”, March 20, 2001.

Catholic Bishops Issue Pastoral on Farm Crisis

Joint Statement Addresses Economic Hardships and Defends Family Farms and Ranches

Nebraska’s Catholic Bishops have issued a pastoral statement addressing the crisis in agriculture. In "A Joint Statement on Economic Hardships Affecting Rural Life", Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop Lawrence J. McNamara of Grand Island strongly defend family farms and ranches.

The pastoral statement is being distributed to all parishes in the Archdiocese of Omaha and the Dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island, with a letter encouraging that it be used for discussion and adult education. The pastoral was published in its entirety in the July 9 issue of The Catholic Voice, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Omaha, and in the July 16 issues of the Southern Nebraska Register and the West Nebraska Register, the newspapers of the Dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island.

In their statement, the Bishops express their mutual, deeply-felt concern regarding the economic losses and hardships being experienced by many family-based, owner-operated agricultural producers in Nebraska. The Catholic leaders point out that these difficulties exact a human toll, on personal relationships, marriages and family life, and that the impact is felt as well by rural communities and the communities of faith within them.

Much of what is affecting the current state of affairs, the Bishops say, are economic forces beyond the control of family-based, owner-operated producers. The pastoral statement identifies some of these forces as: the trend toward corporate farming and ranching; the shift from small and moderate-sized family farms and ranches to industrial-scale production systems; the increase in concentrated ownership; the vertical integration of production, processing, marketing and retailing; and the global dimension of most factors. The Bishops say these forces are today adversely affecting family farmers and ranchers by controlling markets and making it difficult, if not impossible, for family farmers and ranchers to compete.

Backed by a rich background of Catholic social teaching, which is cited in the statement, the Bishops express their support for family farming and ranching as a way of life and a suitable means of food production.

"As pastors and teachers, we endorse and defend family farms and ranches as a viable way of life. We remain steadfast in our belief that small and moderate-sized farms and ranches operated by families on a full-time basis constitute the most sustainable, efficient and morally responsible method for connecting with the land and providing food for the world."

The Bishops also reiterate their support for Initiative 300, "The Family Farm Preservation Act", added to the Nebraska Constitution by voters in 1982. It restricts ownership of agricultural land and involvement in agriculture by non-family-farm corporations.

"We hereby reaffirm our support for this public policy," the Bishops say. "It upholds a just hierarchy of values and a view toward the common good. We urge that it be conscientiously and effectively enforced."

While acknowledging that they do not have quick and easy answers and solutions for overcoming the current rural crisis, the Bishops emphasize the importance of cooperation rather than competition. They encourage family farmers and ranchers to cooperatively and aggressively pursue new marketing strategies and opportunities. Correspondingly, they encourage those not involved with agriculture to participate as consumers in direct-marketing efforts and to engage in advocacy for public policies that will help family-based producers gain greater access to competitive markets and a fairer share of each food dollar.

The Bishops also emphasize prayer and worship as effective ways of dealing with the human struggles that are part of the current crisis. And, they encourage local parishes to assist farm and ranch families that are struggling with the burdens of the crisis.

Work on the pastoral statement was coordinated through the Nebraska Catholic Conference, the Bishops’ jointly-operated agency which focuses on public-policy issues. The Rural Life Directors for the three dioceses were directly involved in assisting on the statement. They are:: Rev. Frank Baumert, pastor of St. Michael Church in Albion, representing the Archdiocese of Omaha; Rev. David Bourek, pastor of St. Michael Church in Hastings, representing the Diocese of Lincoln; and Rev. Neal Nollette, pastor of Immaculate Conception Church in Elm Creek, representing the Diocese of Grand Island. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference, in Des Moines, IA, also was a resource.

"The Bishops, as teachers and pastors, felt a very real need to say something about the current crisis being faced by family farmers and ranchers," said Jim Cunningham, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference. "Rural pastors especially have been telling of the serious economic hardships many of the families in their parishes are facing and their struggles to survive in agriculture."

UNMC Fetal Tissue Research Press Release

December 2, 1999 (or full Bishops' Statement)

The Catholic Bishops serving in Nebraska have jointly issued a statement expressing their conclusion that the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s involvement in biomedical research and experimentation using fetal tissue derived from induced abortions is immoral and ethically illicit and urging that this specific practice be ended.

Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss of Omaha, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop Lawrence J. McNamara of Grand Island acknowledge that UNMC may be motivated by praiseworthy objectives, but say that because of the association between its research and induced abortions UNMC has an inevitable moral complicity with an evil act. The alliance with induced abortion is unmistakable.

"While UNMC would want everyone to presume and understand that it does not have causative responsibility for the performance of abortions, this does not disengage it from moral complicity with the evil of abortion."

The Bishops point out that using fetal tissue for purposes of biomedical research and experimentation is not per se immoral and that there are meritorious objectives and benefits associated with such activity, including advancements in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Pursuant to proper ethical conditions, biomedical use of fetal tissue derived from miscarriages, for example, can be morally and ethically licit. "Nevertheless," the Bishops say, "under the circumstances as they exist at UNMC, involving an inevitable moral complicity with induced abortions, the benefits, no matter how desirable and significant they are, do not and cannot justify the means, which are intrinsically evil."