URGENT: Religious Liberty of the Church in Jeopardy!

6 Responses

Manuel Redondo, on February 10, 2012 at 10:41 pm said:

Hi F. Joe

I totally agree with the Catholic Church in its stand for religious freedom, not just in the USA but around the world. As soon as the governments take that away from us they will take away all of our rights. Its time for the people of different denominations to stand together on this issue, if it happens in the USA all other countries will follow suit. Our right to worship who we please will be taken away. The people who are ultimately responsible are those who control the governments of this planet (that being the World Bank). I will be bringing this issue to the attention of all denominations that I have contact with in Australia, and hopefully rally support to your cause. Cant the Pope do something about this?

All the Best and God Bless

Manuel
Contra, on February 10, 2012 at 10:39 pm said:

It seems as though they are trying a new tactic of chipping away at religious freedom a piece at a time and dividing us against one another.
Sam B, on February 9, 2012 at 1:07 am said:

It was interesting that the issue of slavery did not come up. I remember some in the South before the civil war used to quote the Bible as allowing slavery. I talked to a Mormon about polygamy and they said that some who practiced polygamy took the case all the way to the Supreme court on the first amendment. Might be the case of Reynolds vs. U.S.

FATHER JOE: Popes had spoken out against slavery even back in the 1600’s. Catholic dissenters in the U.S. did not listen any more than dissenters do today on abortion and sexual morality. Slavery was an institution in the time of Christ and throughout much of history. While we find the very idea offensive, American slavery was of an order of repugnancy beyond much of what was practiced in Europe or in the ancient world. Generational slavery and racism, treating the slave as property or as an animal or as subhuman violated the heart of the Gospel. People were blind yesterday and today to the truth. The new slave is the child in the womb and the immigrant laborer. He is stripped of rights and is vulnerable to ill treatment that we would never inflict upon citizens. Mormon polygamy was stopped by the federal government. Such a view of marriage did not fit the accepted definition, and rightly so, just as there is presently a conflict over same sex unions. The issues are interesting, but there is a “disconnect” with the current crisis. The Church was not compelled by the state to help pay for slaves. Neither should the Church be compelled to pay for artificial contraception, sterilization and abortifacients.

Seems like separation of church and state might not be as black and white as everyone is led to believe.

FATHER JOE: The separation of Church and state was never meant to be absolute. Religious liberty was not the spurning of religion or of God but rather of a state Church or mandatory sectarianism. What we are facing today is the imposition of a humanistic religion, or anti-religion, where a liberal secular humanism is given primal place and veto authority over the religious beliefs and sentiments of others, including Catholic Christians.

I suppose that slavery s completely different that marrying a woman when you are already married, even if all parties are aware of this. King Solomon is in a lot of trouble I guess.

FATHER JOE: Jesus was critical of the Mosaic writ of divorce and said that God tolerated it because of their hardness of heart. However, from Genesis, this was not the way it was supposed to be. By extension, this criticism can also be applied to the polygamy of the ancient patriarchs.

Well, I guess the Catholic church stood up against slavery in the South, there is no way they would tolerate treating another human as personal property or without dignity and intrinsic value. Like they feel about the unborn. I’m guessing there weren’t any Catholic churches in the Southern states until 1865 or at least there must of been a lot of civil disobedience back then from the Catholic Church, so much so, that no one dared practice slavery even if it made your life easy or made you wealthy and secure. One set of values always trumps the other. It’s easy to tell what is morally right and just. Right?

FATHER JOE: Actually, there were very few Catholics in the South, except for places like Louisiana. Slavery was tolerated in the 1600’s and 1700’s in the colonies, although there had been a censure from the Pope. There are a number of Catholic voices who opposed it. However, the vast number of Catholics would come with later immigrations, as with the Irish. A number of Protestant churchmen tried to rationalize American slavery from the Bible, but the institutions were not identical. The Spanish explorers were guilty for the wrongful enslavement of peoples, however, many voices argued that such should only be temporary until they were civilized and understood the faith. Generational racist slavery was a whole new “ugly” affair. Even whites came to the New World originally as slaves or indentured servants (with a time limit on their servitude). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an insightful paper where he used natural law and history, equating the situation of American slavery with the current crisis with abortion.
Christa, on February 8, 2012 at 2:48 pm said:

Thank you for the thorough response, Father J. Personally, I have libertarian leanings, so I take seriously anything that would infringe upon our freedoms.

I do have a few thoughts about all of this. We seem to be transitioning into a society modeled upon the Western European one. As the size and scope of the government is expanded, some freedoms are going to go by the way-side. Don’t expect the Constitution to protect against this. It is in the way of those who want an overhaul of our society, an old out-dated document written by old guys in powdered wigs.

An expanded centralized government (welfare state) = less freedom. That’s just the way it is.

Seems to me that the Bishops in general have been in favor of expanding government (social spending/programs) as a way to help the poor. However, the way politics works today it’s very difficult to separate out economic liberalism from social liberalism.

You can correct me if I’m wrong (I am often out of town and too busy to follow the news closely), but church leadership in the U.S. is mostly in favor of universal health care If the Bishops or anyone else thought that they could expand the power of the government in one area but not the other, they sorely miscalculated. They should have seen this one coming. All you have to do is look to Western Europe or Canada to see that as the governments grow in power, religious influence recedes. In some of these places, clergy can get in trouble for preaching certain things if they run afoul of the political correctness police. Lots of topics can fall under the category of “hate speech”–in general whatever the statists decide. In general, statist societies aren’t generally compatible with heavy church influence/freedom. It’s just the nature of the beast. I’m not sure why the religious “left” (for lack of better reference) is surprised by any of this. It’s just following the natural linear progression.

I guess many were banking on Constitutional protections; however, like I said, for some in power today this is just an old, outdated document that stands in the way of the end game. Heck, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg (SCOTUS Justice) thinks there are much better documents upon which new governments should model themselves. I’m only in my early 20s, so I don’t claim to be an expert in this or to know how things were years ago. But, I am really uncomfortable with the way I see things going and wonder how life will be here decades from now.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in the next few years, several Supreme Court justices will most likely be retiring. If they are replaced by those who are ideologically in favor of a more statist society, you can best believe that the Church and religion in general will be relegated to an even smaller role in society. But we will have a nice welfare state, if we don’t go bankrupt in the meantime.

These certainly are interesting times in which to live.
Christa, on February 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm said:

This all got me to thinking (watch out now!)…where would plural marriage fall in this whole issue?

FATHER JOE: While the Catholic Church would oppose polygamy just as it would cohabitation and fornication; the issue here is forcing the Church to become an accomplice in the sin of others (as in paying for sterilization, contraception and abortifacients). The Church cannot be party to any causality, even secondary. It would make the Church guilty of mortal sin.

Splinter Mormon groups or Muslims all hold plural marriage to be allowable and even encouraged in their religions. Are our laws against it interfering with their religious beliefs?

FATHER JOE: While bigamy is still regarded as a crime, I suspect that the trend for toleration will also open up that can of worms as well. The Mormons were once classified as a “cult” (without the more recent sinister overtones) and many legislators and jurists subscribed to a view of natural law and the good of society that would forbid polygamy, sodomy and an assortment of other aberrations. Same-sex unions are now eroding the traditional view of marriage and a string of successive marriages and divorces has ravaged the notion of a single couple, until death do they part.

How about women-only swimming pools for Muslim women? Are we in violation of their religious beliefs if we do not provide them? Or how about requiring a Muslim woman to unveil for a driver’s license?

FATHER JOE: There may very well be violations of the religious rights of others. Would we make a professed nun in habit remove her veil? Single-sex pools might be a very good idea for Muslims and Christians.

I’m just trying to look beyond the immediate issue to the unintended consequences. Unlike perhaps 100+ years ago, or even 50 years ago, we live in a highly pluralistic society with various groups holding religious beliefs which might conflict to a high degree with what has been traditionally held in this nation.

FATHER JOE: The issue here is that the government is seeking to impose a secular morality upon the Church. The Church is being forced from the public forum.

How would an increasingly secular nation affect the actual practice of
all of these various belief systems? Would adopting a more secular outlook reduce conflicts in the future? Or would it bring about more problems and conflicts?

FATHER JOE:

There are a number of important issues involved.

First, ours was a Christian culture, albeit with many denominations and Judaism thrown into the mix. That is now being challenged by Islam as well as by Eastern religions, cults, secular humanism and a militant atheism. Separation of Church and State insures that no one denomination is given preference over another; however, it is hard to argue historically that the founders intended a secular perspective where God was removed from the scenario.

Second, while we are safeguarded religious liberty, such a right has faced challenges before, particularly in the effort to maintain a cohesive society. For instance, an exception had to be made for the use of wine at Mass by Catholics during Prohibition. (Along similar lines, the Church wants the restoration of a conscience clause regarding health benefits deemed immoral: artificial contraception, sterilization and abortion). There was an issue with Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions which they association with the ancient Hebrew law against the consumption or contamination by blood. Similarly, there was the question of pacifism among the Quakers and Mennonites. Our society has prized itself, as much as it could bend, to accommodate those with religious reservations. Why not now?

Third, while the Church has certainly advocated a more embracive healthcare, the new provisions from the Department of Health and Human Services would equate a healthy reproductive faculty (fertility) and pregnancy itself with disease. Unlike other true health benefits, we would be paying for the impairment of reproductive health and the possible destruction (murder) of unborn human beings. No matter whether one agrees with the Church or not, this is entirely a different matter.

Fourth, while people are going to do what people are going to do; the dilemma here is that offering such new benefits would make the Church herself an accomplice in what she views as mortal sin. This is something that we cannot do. There can be no accommodation. Secondary causality would still implicate the Church and its leadership, even though the so-called treatments would be enacted by clients.

Fifth, the current exception is too narrow to allow the Church to function and would force us out of the public forum. We would have to fire all non-Catholic workers and only cater to Catholics. Non-Catholics would be expelled from our schools. Non-Catholic staff and patients would not be able to enter a Catholic hospital. One critic remarked that Catholics Charities would not be able to give a beggar a sandwich without first making sure that he was a baptized Catholic. This is insanely ridiculous! What was the administration thinking when it came up with this policy? It is evident that war has been declared against the Catholic Church!

Sixth, we have a neglected issue involved here that is now biting us in the butt. That is the problem of dissent. Liberal and dissenting Catholics are intimately involved with this measure. I suspect that they see this as their chance for payback and to force the Church to their way of seeing things. What they could not win by argument, they will try to do with legal force. Passivity to law-makers was a questionable activity before but now I think the bishops are waking up to how it has made the current situation far worse. These people are not our friends. No one is going to tell them what to do. Given scandals and so much else, they feel the Church is now vulnerable. The bishops are making appeals to her people to take up arms for religious liberty. But it may be too late. There is a fifth column in the Church that has been growing over the years. They go to Church when they feel like it. They fornicate and cohabitate. They mock the Holy Father. They routinely practice artificial contraception and even abortion. They have no problem with same-sex marriage. They believe that one religion is as good as another as long as no serious demands are made. Jesus is remade into their own image as one who tolerates anything and everything, except maybe those who oppose their secular humanism and hedonism. Truth is relative and tolerance is the one great virtue. They have heard silence from the pulpit about artificial contraception and presumed that the Church had already capitulated on this issue. They are quick to identify themselves as Catholic but there is little about them that would reflect such a reality. Their numbers are legion. They are the 75% of Catholics in America who rarely attend Mass. The bishops speak of the Church and yet this force for dissent laughs in our faces and says, no, “We are the Church!” They laugh because they regard the bishops as little kings who do not see that their armies have run off and they are largely disserted.

Seventh, despite all this, the administration has made a serious miscalculation. The bishops are still the shepherds of Christ and God is on our side. Further, even those who have defected might yet be moved by grace to return to the ranks of the fold. While passivity has ruled too long and is a failed strategy, it was wrong for secular authorities to interpret this as cowardice. If necessary, bishops and priests will face the prison cell before collaborating in mortal sin and the murder of children. We will witness to the truth, if need be, as a new generation of martyrs.

I understand the inherent problem with forcing a Catholic institution to provide services contrary to their teachings/beliefs. I’m just wondering how other religious groups could argue that their religious freedoms are being infringed upon by not being allowed to follow certain edicts central to their faith, particularly in the area of Sharia Law.

FATHER JOE: The Church also has its law. Canon law binds Catholics. For instance, even though couples get married by judges and justices of the peace, Catholic law requires a marriage be conducted before a bishop, priest or deacon with two witnesses. As much as it can be accommodated, without violating the nation’s criminal laws, we should respect the faith of others. The full satisfaction of Sharia law implies a homogeneous Islamic society, which we do not have.

While Catholic institutions might have to provide these options, Catholics are in no way being forced to take advantage of any of them. Or maybe I’m mixing apples and oranges here. Just some thoughts that are going through my head.

FATHER JOE: A person becomes implicated in the sin of another in many ways: through counsel and material cooperation. Paying for immoral treatments in a health plan would still make the Church guilty. For instance, if you drive a woman to an abortion clinic and even stay outside, you are still implicated and are guilty of the sin of abortion and incur automatic excommunication. If you counsel and pay for it, the same applies.
Sam B, on January 28, 2012 at 3:33 pm said:

the Romans fed Christians to the lions,… talk about not being recognized by the government…yet the Catholics of that day still tried to do as God wanted… they must have ignored the Roman government to end up getting in so much trouble.

Did priests follow prohibition in the 1920’s during each mass…. before the wine was changed into the blood of Christ?

FATHER JOE: There was an exemption from the government for religious worship.

Hmmm… where did I hear this before?…. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

FATHER JOE: Many churches would be harmed by this new measure. We have no state church, that is true. But we are also guaranteed religious liberty without “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”