Tag: Supreme Court

On
Mary C. Uhler, Catholic Herald Staff

Court ruling is step in the right direction

In my Editor’s View column in the March 3 issue of the Catholic Herald, I encouraged people to join a prayer campaign to support the Little Sisters of the Poor.

These Sisters — who primarily care for the elderly — were involved in fighting for their religious beliefs. They refused to go along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring them to provide contraceptive services for their employees.

Many people have been praying for the Little Sisters of the Poor and others involved in the Zubik v. Burwell case being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Their prayers seem to have been answered.

Read More
On
Mary C. Uhler, Catholic Herald Staff

Join prayer campaign to support Sisters

An order of Sisters has been quietly caring for the elderly for many years. Founded by Sr. Jeanne Jugan in 1839 in France, the Little Sisters of the Poor now serve in over 30 countries of the world.

The Sisters’ website describes their mission “to offer the neediest elderly of every race and religion a home where they will be welcomed as Christ, cared for as family, and accompanied with dignity until God calls them to himself.”

Read More
On
Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madison

Reflecting upon Word of God and Natural Law

Dear Friends,

Prior to launching into a reflection upon our readings from this past Sunday, I find myself desiring to reflect for a moment upon the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, of our United States Supreme Court.

I only met Justice Scalia twice, very briefly, and so my reflections are not necessarily drawn from personal experience. But they are certainly from the reliable and personally related experience of his family and of friends, who were very close to the Justice.

Read More
On
Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madison

The sacred plan for marriage

This column is the bishop’s communication with the faithful of the Diocese of Madison. Any wider circulation reaches beyond the intention of the bishop.

Dear Friends,

I cannot help but comment on the events of last week, namely the Supreme Court’s hearing of arguments with regard to a number of consolidated cases about the definition of marriage.

Now, in the first place, I must take a moment to remind you that when Christians speak of such things, we must be very clear about separating acts done from the individuals doing them.

We can speak of the inherent goodness of marriage, as it’s been understood from time immemorial, and we can even speak of the sin which is committed in same-sex physical unions (just as we can speak of the sin which is committed in adulterous acts, or even in “contracepted” marital acts) without condemning the individuals who may think it possible to make marriage something other than what it is, or those who undertake sexual acts that are far less than what sex is made to be — truly unitive and open to new life.

We can and we do hate the sin, while loving the sinner. It is a very important distinction and one that is sometimes forgotten by Christians, and sometimes glossed over and even rejected by those who wish to paint any attempt to preach the truth of marriage as a judgement of individuals.

What’s at stake

That being said, let us discuss what’s at stake in the cases that are being considered by the Supreme Court.

The case, of course, will have an impact on whether or not it is deemed constitutionally valid for us, as a society, to provide a certain designation for an institution that has been respected as necessary for the good of humankind since the beginning: that being the joining of one man and one woman, for one lifetime, with openness to children.

That institution, the stable formation of a micro-community with two individuals designed to be complementary, providing a united basis for the procreation and loving raising of children, has always been the most stable building block for society. As such, society has a vested interest in supporting and protecting it.

Read More
On
Mary C. Uhler, Catholic Herald Staff

Pray for wisdom for the Supreme Court

On April 28, the Supreme Court of the United States began taking up the issue of same-sex marriage.

We’ve been hearing plenty of comments from people on this issue, from those who support the marriage of one man and one woman and states’ rights to define marriage to those who want same-sex marriage approved across the country.

People often react emotionally when talking about marriage, but I think we need to take time to study the issues before the Supreme Court and what they mean.

We also should consider what the Catholic Church teaches and be able to talk about our beliefs calmly in conversations about marriage.

Read More
On
Trudi Jenny

Knowing difference between just and unjust laws

To the editor:

What is a just law? In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had passed in the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and in the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down a major portion of DOMA, which has led to an onslaught of federal judges striking down DOMA laws in many states, including Wisconsin. Which action was just?

In 1963, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote a letter from his Birmingham jail cell in which he talked about just and unjust laws. The great civil rights leader quoted from St. Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Read More
On
Mary C. Uhler, Catholic Herald Staff

Get rid of buffer zone: City of Madison should listen to the Supreme Court

Editor's View by Mary C. Uhler

On February 25 of this year, the Madison city council passed a new ordinance requiring a 160-foot “buffer zone” around any healthcare clinic in the city.

A modified version of the ordinance was passed in March, narrowing the zone to 100 feet from a medical facility’s entrance and 30 feet from its driveway.

This ordinance was proposed primarily in response to the presence of pro-life “sidewalk counselors” who have kept up a regular presence outside the Planned Parenthood Clinic on Madison’s east side for 10 years.

Supreme Court rules against buffer zones

The Madison ordinance could now be in jeopardy after the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on June 26 that struck down buffer zones at abortion clinics. The Supreme Court decision reversed an appellate court decision upholding a 2007 Massachusetts law that made it a crime for anyone other than clinic workers to stand within 35 feet from the entrances of Planned Parenthood clinics in Boston, Springfield, and Worcester, Mass.

Read More
On
Mary C. Uhler, Catholic Herald Staff

Same-sex marriage: Why it should not be considered a ‘civil right’

Editor's View by Mary C. Uhler

In 2006, citizens in Wisconsin approved a “Marriage Protection Amendment” to the state Constitution by a “yes” vote of 59.4 percent of the voters.

Wisconsin voters upheld the definition of marriage as “one man and one woman.” The state’s Catholic bishops had encouraged citizens to protect this definition of marriage.  John Huebscher, executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, commented in 2006, “In their votes . . . the people of Wisconsin reaffirmed their intention to preserve the one man, one woman institution of marriage in our state.”

Same-sex couples bring lawsuits

Now, over seven years later, there are four same-sex couples suing our governor and other public officials in an attempt to overturn Wisconsin’s amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage.

Read More
On
Mary C. Uhler, Catholic Herald Staff

Crucial cases: Pray for justices to support freedom of conscience

Editor's View by Mary C. Uhler

This week the United State Supreme Court will be taking up some crucial cases involving freedom of conscience of employers in our country.

As Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, points out in his guest column in this week’s Catholic Herald, the court’s justices will be considering whether employers must provide health insurance for drugs and services they find morally objectionable under the Affordable Care Act.

Read More