South Texas Catholic (Corpus Christi, Tex.), Vol. 19, No. 68, Ed. 1 Friday, November 23, 1984 Page: 4 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 19 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Columns
November 23,1984 ■ 4
By William G. Bilton
STC executive editor
The world has suddenly become aware that hundreds of
thousands of men, women and children in Ethiopia and Chad
are dying from starvation in the worst drought in a decade. Ac-
cording to a Catholic Relief Services report, more than six
million people face starvation as a result of the famine.
Even when food and water are available in sufficient quan-
tities, much of it never reaches the people in need. In Chad,
there is no rail system nor any paved roads, making the
transportation of food to those who need it difficult. In
Ethiopia, civil war and governmental corruption make distribu-
tion even more difficult.
Catholic Relief Services has been woiking with local Church
groups and the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission of the
Ethiopian government to coordinate six feeding centers in the
stricken area. By the end of 1984, CRS will have distributed
39,000 tons of food to 650,000 people.
The number of Ethiopians arriving at these feeding
centers—often after walking several days—has far exceeded the
available supplies of food.
Out of impending tragedy, the spirit
of the human family is being kindled
anew.
The U.S, government has announced a decision to provide
$45 million in food aid to the country. Such aid—and more—is
urgently needed.
Unfortunately, assistance to the starving people in Ethiopia is
aggravated by its Marxist regime. The pro-Soviet government
has squandered many millions of dollars to celebrate Marxism,
while ignoring the immediate needs of a desperate population.
Neither our government nor any of us wish to stand by while
millions die in agony from starvation and thirst. However, get-
ting the aid to the people despite a greedy and corrupt of-
ficialdom is, in itself, an enormous task.
Here, as so often in the past, our government has determin-
ed that U.S. aid will provide private relief organizations with
goods to distribute throughout the stricken area. Catholic Relief
Services has undertaken the monumental tasks of delivering the
supplies to those in need.
Can any of us view the television footage of human suffering
now in progress in Ethiopia and Chad and be unmoved? Accor-
ding to CRS spokesman Ken Hackett, “the situation is going to
get worse before it gets better; we’re only scratching the sur-
face.”
The death toll is mounting, but the concern and generosity of
men and women around the globe is able to overcome existing
obstacles and save most of those now suffering so terribly.
Donations from men, women and children in the U.S. and
Europe have already demonstrated profound compassion. Out
of impending tragedy, the spirit of the human family is being
kindled anew. (Should you wish to assist, you may contact
Catholic Relief Services, PO Box 2045, Church Street Station,
New York, NY 10008.)
nr.: Catholic © -/ TU
Official nrwxpaprr of ihc Dnarxc of Corpus Chnsti. Published
wi-rUy St-pl, 1-jum- I. cxicpt lor ilic
Friday following Christmas, bi-wrrkly junr 1-Scpi t
Bishop Thomas J. Drury
Salo Otero
Publisher Emeritus
Staff 11 rt tori Laredo
Bishop Rene H. Gracida
Mary Turner
Publisher
Administrative Assistant
William G. Billon
Lana Laurel
Exeeutive Editor and General Manager
Production Manager
Rachcllc Parry
Tina Garcia
Staff Writer f Corpus Christi
Advertising Manager
Office Address: 1200 Lantana St., Corpus Christi, TX 78407
Mailing Address: P.O Box 4983, Corpus Christi, TX 78469
M2/889-6S01
Second class postage paid at Corpus Christi, TX (USPS-540-8601)
Washington Letter
A look at ERA, part I
By Liz Armstrong
NC News Service
WASHINGTON—The agenda at the Na-
tional Conference of Catholic Bishops’ general
meeting in Washington made the prelates once
again confront a complex moral-legal-pastoral
question: assessing the proposed Equal Rights
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The bishops took no action but heard a recom-
mendation from Archbishop John L. May of^.
Louis that they, while emphasizing the need for
clarification of the ERA’s potential impact on
abortion rights, for now maintain their previous
position of neutrality on the ERA.
“Denial of tax-exempt
status to churches because
of the manner in which
they select clergy, would
raise important constitu-
tional questions, requiring
a balancing of the religion
freedom protected by the
First Amendment with the
policy against sex
discrimination declared in
FRA ”
Ep
Archbishop May, who chairs an ad hoc
bishops’ committee studying the ERA, also pro-
vided the bishops with two documents—his own
report containing his recommendation and
background material, and a detailed legal
analysis by Wilfred R. Caron, the NCCB’s chief
attorney.
Bishop James W. Malone of Youngstown,
Ohio, NCCB president, advised the bishops to
bring the Caron study to the attention of other
attorneys.
Caron’s report—27 pages and 199 foot-
notes—covers both anticipated positive and
negative ramifications of the ERA if it would be
ratified.
Catholics interested in the anti-abortion or
women’s ordination movements will look closely
at what Caron says about two controversial ques-
tions: whether the ERA would support abortion
rights or end Catholic institutions’ tax exemp-
tions because the Church refuses to ordain
women.
On abortion:
“There is no explicit indication in the text or
legislative history that Congress intends ERA to
reinforce a right of abortion,” Caron stated.
That notwithstanding, “it is reasonable to con-
sider ERA as possessing the potential to buttress
the substantive right of abortion,” he added.
“Under ERA, the court would likely view
abortion as a type of medical treatment, although
not identical to other types,” he wrote. “Accor-
dingly, there is legitimate concern that ERA
could lead to the invalidation of laws which deny
to women a right not denied to men, namely, ac-
cess to forms of medical ‘treatment* needed to
protect health, including abortion. In this way,
ERA could buttress the Roe v. Wade right of
abortion,** he added.
Furthermore, “there is presendy no federal
constitutional right to public financing of abor-
tion,” Caron stated. “However, under ERA, it
is likely that funding restrictions1 would be in-
validated if certain established1 principles are ap-
plied.**
Because the ERA probably would raise suspi-
cions about sex-based classifications, exclusion of
abortion from government-sponsored, com-
prehensive medical programs would be subject to
strict judicial scrutiny, he said.
He noted that a Pennsylvania state appellate
court recently protected a state abortion funding
exclusion from claims that the ban violated the
state ERA. However, he said, the decision has
been appealed and one decision in a state in-
termediate appellate court is of “slight preceden-
tial value.
The alleged ERA-abortion link raises another
question, as well: Is it possible that the ERA
would indeed demand medical treatment for
women with a condition peculiar to
women—pregnancy—but not mandate that
every pregnancy* related medical pro-
cedure—that is, abortion—be provided?
Caron was not immediately available for com-
ment.
His report, though, indica^ that the Penn-
sylvania decision “confirms the difficulties of
predicting results under ERA. ’
Abortion aside, the ERA might also pose pro-
blems for the Catholic Church because of the
women’s ordination issue, in part because of the
Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bob Jones
University case.
In that case, the high court held that a private
educational institution which follows policies of
racial discrimination based on religious beliefs
can be denied tax-exempt status.
“Under the Bob Jones rationale, it could be
argued that a church which limits its clergy to
men violates ERA’s fundamental national policy
against discrimination on account of sex, thereby
negating any benefits the Church might other-
wise confer on the public,” Caron wrote. “If the
argument succeeded, forfeiture of tax-exempt
status would result—at least until the allegedly
discriminatory practice is terminated.
“Denial of tax-exempt status to churches,
because of the manner in which they select
clergy, would raise important constitutional
questions, requiring a balancing of the religious
freedom protected by the First Amendment with
the policy against sex discrimination declared in
ERA,” Caron added.
“...there is legitimate con-
cern that ERA could lead to
the invalidation of laws
which deny to women a
right not denied to men,
namely, access to forms of
medical ‘treatment’ needed
to protect health, including
abortion.”
Despite Archbishop May’s recommendation
and the detailed information offered by Caron’s
report, the bishops are not likely to have heard
the last of the ERA debate. As Bishop Malone
told the press Nov. 15, “the attorney’s report is
not the policy of our conference.” The bishops
themselves set NCCB policy and if the ERA
becomes a heated issue again they may be called
upon to say more in the future.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Bilton, William G. South Texas Catholic (Corpus Christi, Tex.), Vol. 19, No. 68, Ed. 1 Friday, November 23, 1984, newspaper, November 23, 1984; Corpus Christi, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth840813/m1/4/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; .