Religious Liberty Archives - Page 2 of 2

January 2, 2012June 10, 2015

A Critical Issue to Be Watchful of And Active About in this New Year

It is the first day back to work for many of us after some delightful holy days, during which we have been able to reflect on eternal and heavenly realities.

And in this New Year we are going to have many blessings but also some important challenges. Among the challenges we will continue to face and must battle are significant and persistent threats to religious liberty. These issues affect not only Catholics, but people of many religious backgrounds. However, the Catholic Church is particularly targeted and threatened because we have stood so vocally and firmly in opposition to many cultural problems in America such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, the gay rights agenda, gay “marriage,” and so forth.

As the wider American culture continues to move away from biblical teachings and norms, our Catholic adherence to this age-old wisdom has come to be seen by many as obnoxious, and we are considered to be an influence that must be strongly resisted. Rather than understand our concerns as a principled stance rooted in biblical norms that we cannot simply set aside, many in the wider culture, have chosen to describe our stance as bigoted, reactionary, hateful, and broadly intolerant.

As such, many see the repudiation of our religious rights and liberty as righteous and as a vindication of their cultural agenda. But the rejoicing in some circles and the active attempt by some to suppress our religious liberty is short-sighted. For if the government can deny the liberty of one group, all are threatened. If the government can attempt to legally force a large segment of the U.S. population to act contrary to their conscience, no other segment is safe either.

As we have discussed before, the threat to religious liberty is both real and growing. This New Year of 2012 will be a critical year for religious liberty issues since a number of important issues are on the table.

Over the Christmas Octave, all priests in the Archdiocese received a letter of concern from Cardinal Wuerl, which stated in part,

We have all heard much over the past few years about the cause of reforming health care in the United States. Until now, federal law has never prevented Catholic institutions like the Archdiocese of Washington from providing for the needs of their employees with a health plan that is consistent with Catholic moral teachings. However, the Department of Health and Human Services is currently considering adopting regulations that would threaten that freedom.

Under the proposed HHS regulations, virtually all Catholic hospitals, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and charitable organizations would be required to provide coverage for sterilization procedures and contraception, including drugs that may induce abortions, unless they stop hiring and stop serving non-Catholics.

The letter goes on to reference A Letter from Catholic Leaders and Health Care Professionals, which expresses grave concern that the HHS mandates in the new healthcare legislation are too sweeping and contain no real religious exemption. The letter states, in part,

As written, the [HHS] rule will force Catholic organizations that play a vital role in providing health care and other needed services either to violate their conscience or severely curtail those services. This would harm both religious freedom and access to health care.

The HHS mandate puts many faith-based organizations and individuals in an untenable position. But it also harms society as a whole by undermining a long American tradition of respect for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In a pluralistic society, our health care system should respect the religious and ethical convictions of all. We ask Congress, the Administration, and our fellow Americans to acknowledge this truth and work with us to reform the law accordingly.

Real and subtle – Please understand that the threats to our religious liberty are very real, but also at times subtle. For much of it is carried out in incremental ways, hidden in the deeper details of legislation and emerging from the interpretations of various judges. As such, it requires the Church and other religious organizations to fight on multiple fronts in a wearying number of often arcane (but very significant) legal minutia.

At some level, the erosion of religious liberty is happening simply due to the repeated quality of the multiple legal maneuvers. The Church and other religious entities may win an individual battle in one case only to face multiple appeals and/or similar battles in other jurisdictions.

Keeping the faithful organized and alert and having the legal and financial resources in place to meet every challenge is difficult, and this is part of the erosive technique of the extreme secularists.

Here are just some recent examples of the kinds of cases and issues that emerge:

In 2009 the Baltimore City Council passed a bill regulating the speech of pro-life pregnancy centers by requiring them to post a sign listing services they do not provide (abortion and contraception) or face a daily fine. Abortion clinics and other such pro-choice centers faced no similar requirement. (Montgomery County soon approved a similar regulation.) The ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court, but even though the courts may overturn these sorts of laws, such legal actions place a huge time and financial burden on these charitable organizations and are a distraction from their mission.
600 Catholic hospitals are finding themselves under increased scrutiny since they provide care in accordance with Catholic religious beliefs. The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the federal government to investigate Catholic hospitals for declining to provide abortion and emergency contraception. The ACLU alleges that Catholic hospitals are violating federal laws by adhering to their religious beliefs.
The District of Columbia government informed Catholic Charities that it would no longer be an eligible foster care and adoption partner, since as a Catholic organization Catholic Charities was devoted to placing children in homes with both a mother and a father. Moreover, when district residents filed an appeal to bring the issue of marriage before voters so that they could have a voice in the debate, their request was repeatedly denied by the D.C. Board of Elections.
Last November the same thing happened in Illinois. The Church there would have been required to provide adoption services to same-sex couples, based on a civil union law that had been passed. “The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois made it financially impossible for Catholic agencies to continue to provide these services due to the legal cost of continuing the battle.”
There has also been a growing trend of government intrusion into the institutional and administrative life of the Church. One of the most disturbing examples of this was in 2009 when a bill was introduced in the Connecticut legislature that would have allowed the state of Connecticut to mandate the structure and organization of Catholic parishes (and only Catholic parishes—it applied to no other denominations). The measure, which ultimately failed, would have removed many administrative and pastoral responsibilities from the pastor and placed them instead in the hands of committees whose membership was defined by the state legislature. Here, too, though we won, that such an intrusive principle could see the light of day was disturbing and fighting it cost the Church and Catholics a huge amount of time and money.
Christians cannot speak of their values publicly? Medina Valley Independent School District allows the class valedictorian to deliver a graduation address. The speech is written by the student and delivered in his or her own name and is a means to provide a personal reflection on what has helped him or her attain success, and to give an encouraging word to fellow students. Last year, valedictorian Angela Hildenbrand, a Bible-believing Christian, was valedictorian. Many knew that Angela would give thanks to God for blessing her work as a student, and that she might offer a prayer. Alleging that hearing a prayer would cause serious and irreparable harm, lawyers at “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State” (AUSCS) filed suit for an agnostic family. A federal judge … issued an order that no prayers could be offered, and also that Angela could not utter certain words in her speech, including the phrase “bow your heads” or the specific words “prayer” or “amen.” The reality is, the judge’s order, not a prayer Angela might offer in her speech, violated the First Amendment. A student is given the stage to speak about her values and priorities and to thank whomever she wishes for helping her succeed in school. Because she’s a private citizen (not a government agent), her speech is protected by the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. For the government (including a judge) to censor her private speech is unconstitutional. On June 4, the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals granted an emergency motion to reverse the district judge’s ruling.
Grants denied on Religious Grounds – In 2008 the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts brought suit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops seeking to eliminate a grant to programs that aid victims of human trafficking. Because Catholic programs don’t refer for abortions, the ACLU alleged that public support amounts to the establishment of religion. The Obama Justice Department defended the grant in court. But last month, HHS abruptly ended the funding.
And again – It is now standard procedure in the Obama administration to deny funding to some Catholic programs based solely on their pro-life beliefs. [4]
The latest and most pervasive threat is the new HHS law described above.

As we begin the new year, please take these threats seriously. The extreme secularists presume they can simply wear us down by their repeated and numerous legal maneuverings. And, frankly, they may be right—unless people like you and me are vigilant and unflinching in supporting the Church as she battles these attacks.

And don’t be too sanguine about how we should be willing to endure persecution. We should, but that does not mean we should simply surrender our constitutional rights at the door and let secularists and proponents of the cultural revolution isolate us. We have every constitutional right that any American does and we cannot simply let the Church be silenced by either ignoring the problem or minimizing it.

Are you ready for 2012? There is an important battle underway. Where do you stand? What will you do? To quote Martin Luther King Jr., “My daddy always said, ‘If you find a good fight, get in it.'” Well this is a good fight, a necessary fight. Get in it.

Please go to the Bishop’s website and find more ways you can become informed and join the struggle to protect religious liberty: The USCCB Website on Conscience and Religious Liberty.

December 1, 2011June 10, 2015

Who is a Threat to Whom? More Attacks to Religious Freedom and the Real Purpose of the First Amendment

A couple of items have appeared in the news which, when juxtaposed, go a long way to show just who the real threat is in the Church/State debate of recent decades. I’d like to excerpt these stories and make some comments. But first, we do well to recall the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

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.

The part that concerns us here are the first two clauses, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

It will be noted that the oft repeated phrase, “separation of church and state” does not occur here and it occurs nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Such a phrase is an interpretation of the First Amendment and is used by most moderns increasingly to mean that religious expression has no place in the public square or in any Government sponsored or affiliated setting. Of course this is a novel idea and any reading of history up until the most recent of times finds such a radical notion almost wholly lacking in public discourse.

Clearly the “establishment clause” forbids the State to endorse as its own official Church any particular faith, or sectarian denomination. But the same amendment forbids the State to act in such a way as to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

As written the Amendment seems more aimed at protecting the church and citizens from the power of the State to either pressure a particular religious observance, or forbid the same.

Many moderns however see the First Amendment as protecting the State and citizens from religious influence of any sort. Historically this represents a shift and, I would argue, a misinterpretation of the purpose of the First Amendment. Ultimately it is not the State that needs protection, it is the Church and the religiously observant who need freedom, both from coercion, and forbiddence.

Some also misuse and, I would argue, misinterpret the First Amendment to mean that the Church and faith should have absolutely no influence in open society, and that the government should somehow protect them from having to experience the annoyance of any public religious expression, or practice. Further, that the religiously observant have no right to be active in the political process and that government should utterly ignore all religious points of view, simply because they are religious.

But the religiously observant have just as much a right to free speech and to petition the Government as any other group. That some find our presence annoying or objectionable is quite beside the point. I, as everyone, find many points of view annoying and objectionable. But that does not give me a basis to demand that they be ejected from the public square simply for that. And neither do the religiously observant lose their First Amendment rights merely because some find us an annoyance to their secular views.

In the end, the First Amendment exists to enhance and protect free speech and religious expression, not hinder it. Further the amendment is an action on the State and a limit to its power to act. It is the Church, and the religiously observant, who are protected. To the degree that there can be no establishment of a State Religion, secularists are also protected, but they are not and cannot be protected from any religious influence in the public square.

And this background leads to a couple of stories in the news recently that illustrate the debate and what the real threat ultimately is. (My remarks are in red).

Here is an excerpt from an MSNBC and AP story

Rhode Island’s governor said Tuesday that lawmakers upset with his decision to call the blue spruce erected in the Statehouse a “holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas tree” should focus their energy on feeding the poor.

The Governor’s comment on feeding the poor is insulting, and sidesteps the fact that the Legislature had voted last year, when a similar controversy came up, that the tree should be termed by its traditional name: “Christmas Tree.” Hence the Governor is ignoring the directive of the duly elected and empowered to Legislature. So there is more to the story than his response indicates.

According to Gov. Lincoln Chafee, calling the tree a “holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas tree” is in keeping with Rhode Island’s founding in 1636 by religious dissident Roger Williams as a haven for tolerance, where government and religion were kept separate.

Tolerance it would seem, for the Governor, is for everyone but Christians who had better shut up about Christ at Christmas time.

Chafee insists he’s just respecting the state’s history as a place respectful of all religions. The colony’s hands-off policy toward religion quickly attracted sects that had been persecuted elsewhere. Rhode Island boasts both the nation’s first Baptist church and the oldest surviving Jewish synagogue.

Fine, but the usual way of handling such things is to allow various expressions. For example, even here in crazy Washington, the display at the ellipse features a Christmas tree, a Nativity set, a large Jewish Menorah (Chanukah lights), a Yule Log, I have even seen some commemorations of the Winter Solstice (Druids?).

As a Christian, I do not insist that the Menorah be renamed a “Holiday Lampstand” or that the Yule Log (with its roots in European paganism) be called a holiday log, or that those who celebrate a solstice event must call it a “Holiday Sundown Hoedown” That would all be silly. And the Governor is also being silly and selective.

I can understand (though not agree with) secularists who would like any and all religious displays to disappear from government buildings. But let them engage the political process like any other group. Most High Court decisions do not agree that displays on Government lawns and public squares amount to an establishment of religion. But let the secularists get politically active if they want to try an influence public policy and work their wishes through the legislatures. We too will do the same.

But Meanwhile, a Christmas tree, so called and ordered so named by the elected legislators is no real threat to anyone, especially when other displays are allowed. It may annoy some, but freedom from annoyance is not a constitutional right or something the Government can or should protect everyone from.

But here IS a real threat to the first Amendment and summarized in an article at the Cardinal Newman Society

The monks of Belmont Abbey College sued (HHS) because the government left them no choice. The government is forcing these devout monks to purchase certain drugs for their students and employees, in violation of their religious convictions. For example, the government now requires the college to purchase Plan B (the “morning-after pill”) and ella (the “week-after pill”) for their students. These drugs likely cause abortions, which is a grave sin to the monks. It is one thing for the government to decide it should distribute these drugs itself, which of course is not part of this new law. But it is quite another for the government to mandate that religious Americans with conscientious objection purchase these drugs and participate in their distribution.

The law also forces the college to pay for “related education and counseling” about these drugs. The monks may preach to their students against abortion and contraception on Sunday morning, but on Monday the feds will make the college pay for a counselor to send the exact opposite message to its students. The First Amendment forbids this type of forced speech and burden on religious exercise.

We have detailed here before the mounting threats to Religious Freedom in this country (Just click in the “religious liberty” tag below). For all the talk in recent decades about what a terrible threat religious expression is to the so called “separation of Church and State,” the real threat comes from the government, not the Church. For the government has the power to coerce by fining, penalizing, disqualifying and decertifying Church and religious run institutions who do not tow the line in some of the government’s favorite social stances such as abortion, gay “marriage” and so forth. As can be seen, once again, the Church must go to court to defend our right not to be coerced to pay for and endorse things we consider immoral.

Such threats are mounting and, even should we win some of these cases, we will not win them all. Religious freedom will gradually erode. And even when we do win, the sheer number and complexity of these cases presents an enormous financial and legal burden on the Church, which is having to fight on dozens of fronts in jurisdictions across the country at the Federal, State and local level.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

November 15, 2011June 10, 2015

As the Erosion of Religious Liberty Continues, the Bishops Speak Out

The Bishops of the Maryland Catholic Conference recently issued a a document: The Most Sacred of All Property: Religious Freedom and the People of Maryland. The Catholic Bishops of the United States are also discussing the erosion of Religious Liberty at their meeting. The matter is becoming increasingly serious, not only for Catholics, but for peoples of all faith, especially other Christians.

When I have discussed this matter here on the blog before I am surprised a bit a the reaction. While a few accept the invitation to be alert and concerned, many have commented that such notions are alarmist and exaggerated, arguing that Constitutional Law is clear and there is no real threat. While I expect this sort of response from more secular readers here, I do not expect it of Catholic readers and find it surprising.

The Church is already spending increasing time and money battling many attacks on religious liberty, as we or the programs we run are sued for not complying to secular and neopagan civil norms demanding we provide abortions services and contraception, in our hospitals and health plans, and facilitate Gay adoptions, etc. We win some the suits and lose others.

But here is the point, our religious liberty is steadily eroding. Religious exemptions to newly imposed secular norms are being taken away, or interpreted so narrowly that no one can comply. This is becoming a serious matter and will have a larger effect on our ability to evangelize as well as care for the poor, run school, hospitals and even staff parishes. Pay attention. This is becoming a serious problem.

Before giving a few excerpts from the Bishop’s Document, lets review a few things that were in the news just this week.

1. CNA Reports Illinois Dioceses Must End Adoption Services: Bishops in three Illinois dioceses announced Nov. 14 that they have dropped their lawsuit against the state and will shut down their adoption and foster care programs, after a civil union law required them to provide their services to same-sex couples.

“The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Bishop Edward K. Braxton of Belleville, and Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Joliet. …

[This demonstrates that] legislators promising ‘religious protection’ in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises.

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Conference, summarized what he believes to be the underlying problem in remarks to CNA on Nov. 11. What “you’re seeing at the state level in Illinois, what you’re seeing at the national level in Washington, D.C., is a consistent promulgation of policies and laws that are making it very difficult for faith-based agencies that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Gilligan said…..[1]

2. Michael Gerson Writing in the Washington Post Yesterday in the Opinion Pages [President] Obama Turns his Back on Catholics notes that Catholics no longer need apply for grants to serve the poor:

….The conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

[In 2008] The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts brought suit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), seeking to eliminate a grant to programs that aid victims of human trafficking. Because Catholic programs don’t refer for abortions, the ACLU alleged that public support amounts to the establishment of religion.

The Obama Justice Department defended the grant in court. But last month, HHS abruptly ended the funding.

The main victims of this assault are not bishops but the poor and vulnerable. USCCB-sponsored human trafficking programs, for example, provide employment assistance, legal services, child care and medical screening. [2]

But because case managers won’t refer for abortions, HHS would rather see these programs shut down in favor of less effective alternatives. This form of anti-religious extremism counts casualties. [3]

3. Gerson also reports in the same article that pro-lifers need not apply:

It is now standard procedure in the Obama administration to deny funding to some Catholic programs based solely on their pro-life beliefs. [4]

4. In terms of the Obama Healthcare Legislation Gerson writes:

Broadly applied, the [new] HHS [Healthcare] policy would amount to systemic anti-Catholic bias in government programs…..HHS has drawn conscience protections so narrowly that Catholic colleges, universities and hospitals — any Catholic institution that employs and serves non-Catholics — will be required to offer health coverage that includes contraception and drugs that cause abortion. [5]

In global health grants, new language is appearing that requires the integration of family planning and “reproductive health” services, effectively barring the participation of Catholic institutions. [6]

Gerson goes on to wonder: How will the White House respond? More specifically, how will the Catholic chief of staff and America’s first Catholic vice president respond? They gave up their own adherence to Catholic teaching on abortion long ago. But are they really prepared to betray their co-religionists who still hold these beliefs? [7]

Drip, drip, drip.

The pro-abortion lobby, the homosexual rights activists and the secularists in general had all marched into town under the banner of tolerance, freedom of conscience, and “choice.” It is clear enough that they and/or their advocates in the Government have no interest in any of these supposed values, and the lie of their “tolerance” is on full display.

The message is increasingly clear: Comply or leave the public square. And if we do not succeed in forcing you to comply the first time, we will continue to sue you and hail you into court with our well funded legal teams, and make you spend all your money and time defending our attacks until you have to leave, simply from financial exhaustion.

Some Catholics argue with me, “We shouldn’t depend on any government money.” Perhaps, but that is beside the point. We are no less deserving of grants because of our faith than some secular or pro-abortion group, or some pro-homosexual group. Further, this erosion is not simply about obtaining grants. It is about Government, Federal, State and local, trying to force us to provide healthcare plans with anti-life, anti-traditional family agenda. There are also increasing attempts to insist on who we must hire and what we must fund and recognize and even how we structure our parishes.

Pay careful attention: drip, drip, drip. You may say, “It’s just a drip” but the water is collecting and getting deeper.

More recent threats to religious liberty are listed in the document just below.

To conclude, here are some excerpts from the Maryland Bishop’s Conference document The Most Sacred of All Property: Religious Freedom and the People of Maryland.

Religious freedom is not merely a civil right afforded us by our government, but, more fundamentally, it is a natural right due each person because of his or her human dignity….Each person is made in the image and likeness of God….Christ came to convince, not to compel. He offers us His love but He does not force us to accept it. The Lord respects our freedom to accept Him or to reject Him; so too must government and society.
Religious freedom…is also integral to the establishment of a good and just society. Individuals who are free to exercise religious liberty are free to live out their faith in service to others and to build up the common good. For example, faith groups and religious organizations often are the largest providers of private social services, including hospitals and health clinics, schools and universities, shelters and food pantries….. Workers’ rights have long been a concern of the religious community in the United States….But perhaps the most striking example of the good fruits of religious liberty was the civil rights movement. In many ways, the civil rights movement was a religious movement.
Rev. King also explained the proper role of churches in society: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. . . . It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”
Threats: In November 2009 the Baltimore City Council passed a bill regulating the speech of pro-life centers by requiring them to post a sign listing services they do not provide (abortion and contraception) or face a daily fine. The Montgomery County Council soon approved a similar regulation. The Baltimore ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court…[but] Even as courts overturn these laws, they place a huge time and financial burden on these charitable organizations and are a distraction from their mission.
Threats: 600 Catholic hospitals are finding themselves under increased scrutiny for providing care in accordance with their – our – religious beliefs. The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the federal government to investigate Catholic hospitals for declining to provide abortion and emergency contraception. The ACLU alleges that Catholic hospitals are violating federal law by adhering to their religious beliefs.
Threats: the [DC City Government] informed Catholic Charities that it would no longer be an eligible foster care and adoption partner. The reason? Because, as a Catholic organization, Catholic Charities was devoted to placing children in homes with both a mother and a father. Moreover, when District residents appealed to bring the issue of marriage before voters so that they could have a voice in the debate, their request was repeatedly denied by the D.C. Board of Elections.
Threats: Sadly, there has been a growing trend of government intrusion into the institutional and administrative life of the Church. One of the most alarming illustrations of this trend occurred in 2009, when a bill was introduced in the Connecticut legislature that would have allowed the state of Connecticut to mandate the structure and organization of Catholic parishes (and only Catholic parishes; it applied to no other denominations). The measure, which ultimately failed, would have removed many administrative and pastoral responsibilities from the pastor and placed them instead in the hands of committees whose membership was defined by the state legislature.
In closing… Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief. No one should be subject to coercion because of those beliefs…..Society as a whole benefits when all citizens in our pluralistic democracy – including religious citizens and institutions – remain free to participate in public life and to do so in accordance with their sincerely held beliefs.