PC No-Nos: Religious Liberty and Relgious Freedom

The United States Commission on Civil Rights in its latest report castigates those who dare to use such expressions as "religious liberty" or "religious freedom." Indeed, according to the report these phrases, in themselves, are discriminatory. The report, entitled Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties is a remarkable document that seems completely unaware of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United State.

Martin Castro, the chairman of the commission and presumably no relation to the Cuban dictator, stated: 

"The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.” 

Ah, yes, we must suppress the speech of those who use those evil "code words." My questions to Mr. Castro are many: What words may I use to describe the persecution of Christians simply because they are Christians? Since Islam, like orthodox Christianity, also considers homosexual activity to be sinful, are Muslims guilty of homophobia? And if so, if one accuses Muslims of being homophobic, is he then Islamophobic? It's all very confusing, Mr. Castro, but I'm sure an intelligent man like yourself can clear it up for us intolerant Christian supremacists.

Interestingly, the commission's report, while accusing Christians of discrimination because they don't accept as good the behavior of everyone and anyone (excect, of course other Christians), goes on to do to Christians exactly what they accuse Christians of doing. Yes, indeed, it's all extremely confusing. For example, in the report's executive summary, the commission stated:

“The appropriate balance between religious liberty and nondiscrimination principles in some conflicts arises as a concern when religious institutions and organizations claim the freedom under constitutional and statutory law to choose leaders, members or employees according to the tenets of their faith, even if the choice would violate employment, disability, or other laws. It arises also when individuals claim the freedom to adhere to religious principles regardless of otherwise applicable law governing their conduct.”

Wow! Can you imagine? Let's punish those pesky Christians. After all, they expect their leadership and membership to accept the "tenets of their faith." It's simply outrageous that all those bishops and priests in the Catholic Church have to be Catholic. Does this mean that laws in direct conflict with the rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution supersede those rights? According to the commission, it would seem so.

The commissioners went on to question religious exemptions -- you know, those rights  that stem from the First Amendment -- as infringing on a person's civil rights. They endorse the protection of one's religious beliefs, but not religious conduct, the ability to act on those beliefs or, in Constitutional language, to freely exercise those beliefs. And to make sure we understand what this means they listed several conclusions (see the Report, p. 20-21):

• schools must be allowed to insist on inclusive values,
• throughout history, religious doctrines accepted at one time later become viewed as discriminatory, with religions changing accordingly, 
• without exemptions, groups would not use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate, 
• a doctrine that distinguishes between beliefs (which should be protected) and conduct (which should conform to the law) is fairer and easier to apply, 
• third parties, such as employees, should not be forced to live under the religious doctrines of their employers, 
• a basic right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs, and 
• even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties.

When one reads the entire report it becomes clear that the commission believes federal and state governments should interpret the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) as narrowly as possible. In other words, religious freedom may be claimed only by individuals and churches, and even then only in the most limited sense. According to the commission, other religious-based or sponsored organizations should not be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs freely. This, the commission believes, will ensure those intolerant religious folks can't discriminate against those who don't accept the tenets of their faith.

It's all very Orwellian, and I can assume it will only get worse. 

By the way, just a point of interest: when one searches the commission's extensive website for the word, "sharia", there are no results.

Freedom to Choose the Good

The Obama administration's unconstitutional mandate that the health insurance offered by Catholic institutions must include contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients forces the Church either to compromise it's firmly held religious beliefs or to pay crippling fines and penalties. This attack on the religious freedom guaranteed by our Constitution has roused the Catholic community in the U. S. from what had seemed to be a near permanent lethargy. Indeed, from the reactions of the past week or so, one might conclude that President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, have awakened a sleeping tiger. Catholics of every political stripe have responded in disbelief and anger to the President's decision, and have been joined by members of many other religious groups who realize correctly that something similar could and likely will happen to them.

We Catholics understand freedom as something other than unrestrained license; for as Christians we recall the words of Jesus: “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" [Jn 8:31-32] We are, therefore, called to the truth and are not free to choose a lie. Making such a choice is to opt for evil, to choose sin over goodness. Instead we are called to act freely in choosing the good. In other words, we are free to choose that which will lead us to live the virtuous life. This is true freedom. The Obama administration, by demanding that we Catholics choose something we consider morally abhorrent, something we firmly believe to be an evil, attacks the very basis of religious freedom by denying us the freedom to choose the good. This is something we can not accept.

The following letter by Bishop John Noonan of Orlando was posted on our diocesan website this week and will be read in our parish this Sunday at all Masses. 

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be "of, by, and for the people," has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people—the Catholic population—and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees' health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those "services" in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration's sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America's cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration's decision.

Most Rev. John Noonan
Bishop of Orlando

Echoing my bishop, I ask all who read this to call, write and email the president and your U. S. representative and senators to express your displeasure with this overt attack on religious freedom by an administration that has chosen to trample on the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Archbishop Dolan on Religious Freedom

Responding to recent initiatives by the Obama administration and a number of state governments that threaten the religious freedom of American citizens, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has formed an ad hoc Committee on Religious Liberty designed to secure and promote the religious freedom of all. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the bishops' conference, has led the charge to awaken Catholics to the threats to their religious liberty and to enlist them in the battle to defend the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

At the U. S. bishops' semi-annual meeting in Baltimore, Archbishop Dolan clearly defined the nature of the struggle for religious freedom in our increasingly secular culture:

"Our world would often have us believe that culture is light years ahead of a languishing, moribund Church. But, of course, we realize the opposite case: The Church invites the world to a fresh, original place, not a musty or outdated one.

"It is always a risk for the world to hear the Church, for she dares the world to 'cast out into the deep,' to foster and protect the inviolable dignity of the human person and human life; to acknowledge the truth about life ingrained in reason and nature; to protect marriage and family; to embrace those suffering and struggling; to prefer service to selfishness; and never to stifle the liberty to quench deep down for the divine that the poets, philosophers and peasants of the earth know to be what makes us genuinely human."

Archbishop Dolan wasn't alone in this effort to defend religious freedom, and stated that he was impressed by the unanimity of support expressed by his brother bishops. Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, chairman of the Committee on Religious Liberty, argued that by defending religious liberty the bishops will protect the many Catholic social services that do so much good in our society. Bishop Lori stated that, "In the dioceses that we serve, the Church is the largest non-governmental source of education, social, charitable, and health-care services."

Summing up the bishops' position, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia threw down the gauntlet by stating that religious freedom "should become an election-year issue, because our identity as Catholics is under threat."

Pray for our nation...

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Catholics and Freedom - George Weigel - National Review Online

Here's a link to a fascinating and very timely essay by Catholic historian, George Weigel. It's well worth reading.

Catholics and Freedom - George Weigel

Freedom of Religion Threatened...in the U.S.

I usually don't get political here -- well, not  too often and not too political -- but I'm making an exception today. Actually, what I'm going to address is political only to those who want the Church to remain on the sidelines, far outside the public square, and who believe religion should be practiced only behind closed doors. They don't like it when the Church speaks out on moral issues affecting the country and the world, believing that the Church crosses some ill-defined line between the religious and the political. But when politicians wander or stumble into the moral sphere, the Church has both a right and an obligation to speak. By denying the Church's right to do so, these folks ignore a few thousand years of human history during which political action has always been influenced by the religious values of a society, the values that define its culture. Indeed, once the "cult" is removed from a culture, the society inevitably begins its decline. Of course, it's no surprise that these same people will be profuse in their support of the Church's right to speak and act so long as the Church's position on a particular issue supports the preferred political agenda.

A few years ago, when Diane and I joined tens of thousands of others to take part in the annual March for Life in Washington, I heard a bystander shout out to us, "Just shut up and don't force your bleeping religion on us." I surprised myself by ignoring him, and just marched on holding my "Choose Life" sign a bit higher. But I found it interesting that an American would make such a comment. By demanding that a fellow citizen -- and from a political perspective the Church is certainly an assembly of citizens -- keep quiet about things religious, this man and others like him openly reject the clear language of the U. S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion to all Americans. Too many, including some of our federal justices, ignore that little "free exercise" phrase in the first sentence of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". That bystander in Washington was, therefore, doubly guilty. He not only wanted to deny me the right to exercise my religion freely, but he also wanted to limit my speech to subjects of which he approved.

How sad that the clear language of the Constitution has been so strangely interpreted. After two-hundred plus years, one thing is clear: our Constitution is too important a document to place in the hands of constitutional lawyers. After all, it was written in the name of and ratified by "We the People". I can't help but recall Jesus' words,

“I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will." [Mt 11:25-26]

I have no problem being numbered among the "childlike". This is why theologians with all their degrees and all their knowledge do not represent the Church's teaching authority, its Magisterium. That authority remains with the apostles and their successors, the pope and the bishops...something that seems to drive more than a few theologians to distraction. But I'm drifting off the subject...

Our bishops are beginning to take notice of the fact that some in positions of political power in this country take a rather narrow view of religious liberty. The Church -- and here I mean the Catholic Church -- because of its positions in support of life and against the culture of death, has been singled out by government agencies who are trying to prohibit it from taking part in any government sponsored programs from adoption services to refugee assistance. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is also mandating that all health insurance programs offer coverage of "reproductive" services to include contraception (including abortifacients) and sterilization. Such services are completely contrary to the Church's teaching for the past 2,000 years. The intent, of course, is to present the Church with a lose-lose situation. It can either cave in to these threats by agreeing to ignore the truth of its teachings for the sake of participation in government programs, or it can further isolate itself from an increasingly government-heavy society and lose the funding on which it has come to rely.

Of course, this tactic completely ignores the Constitutional guarantees that prohibit our government from denying us the right to exercise our religion freely. If a Catholic college, for example, is forced to offer its employees health insurance that contains coverage directly contrary to Church teaching, such a requirement is in obvious violation of the First Amendment. Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina is one such Catholic school that has been singled out by the federal government. The college is engaged in a legal challenge to the HHS mandate. To read more about its struggle, click here.

As I mentioned above, the U.S. bishops are responding to this threat to our religious liberty. Here, for example, is a brief video by  the Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, in which he encourages the faithful to pray, to become informed, and to act in defense of religious liberty in the United States [Hint: this last means to vote only for those who will defend religious freedom.]

For more information see this article on the bishops' latest efforts in defense of religious liberty: US Bishops' Committee on Religious Liberty. The U.S. bishops are also in the midst of a three-day assembly in Baltimore at which they are discussing such issues as religious liberty, the sanctity of marriage, and the Church's call to be a force for good by bringing God's love to a sinful world. Here's a link: Bishops' Assembly in Baltimore.

I am truly pleased that such an effort is underway. My only suggestion is that the Church back away from government-funded programs whenever possible. Perhaps in the future, instead of trying to ensure a place at the federal funding table, the bishops should devote more time convincing the faithful to provide the funds necessary to carry out the Gospel mandate to care for those in need. I'm going to be cynical here and suggest that those in the government who create the programs to feed the hungry or care for the poor do not do so in response to the Gospel mandate. They do it to create dependency, to ensure votes, and to dampen any potential unrest. (I told you I was cynical.)

Sadly, some of our Christian charities are no better. A few years ago, during a local weather emergency, the head of one religious-based charitable organization called me to ask if our soup kitchen could use some ready-to-serve meals. When I told him we had plenty of food on hand to deal with the current emergency, and really had no place to store any more, he said, "Oh, that's too bad. If I can get rid of this stuff and document that it went for emergency use, I can get a bunch more federal funding." From this and subsequent comments it was obvious he cared less about helping those in need than in maintaining his government funding. I eventually suggested he call the Red Cross.

Our Wildwood Soup Kitchen is actually a very good example. Diane and I spend some time working there every week and truly enjoy it, as do over 200 other volunteers from almost 40 local churches. We do this because as Christians we take seriously the Gospel mandate to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and welcome the stranger [see Mt 25]. We do it because Jesus in His overwhelming love for us commanded us to love God and neighbor. And after experiencing His love, we can do nothing else. We don't do it to achieve any political ends or to guarantee sources of funding. Our soup kitchen has maintained its independence from government by relying solely on donations from individuals, churches, businesses, and civic organizations. Such sources of funding are generally more reliable, and certainly less intrusive, than government.

Yes, I realize it's just a little soup kitchen that serves about 250 free meals each day, six days a week, but I suspect those first deacons in Jerusalem [see Acts 6] served only a few widows and orphans at the start; and look how we've progressed since then.

Pray for our country, and pray for our bishops, that they have the courage and wisdom to do what is right and just.

Pax et bonum...