As the recent battle for a proper understanding of religious liberty shows, our culture and many of our government leaders and organizations are becoming increasingly secularized and hostile to religion and religious practice.
Yet another example of this is a recent rule change in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). According to this program, a person who has been engaged in Public Service employment for ten years, can have the remainder of their Student Loan form the government forgiven, presuming they have faithfully been paying it up till then.
However, a recent rule change now excludes those who are involved in any work of a religious nature. In the Washington Post “On Faith” section Brad Hirschfield writes the following to explain the change:
What counts as public service?
Until the end of January, the government definition was clear and inclusive. It read as follows: “Qualifying employment is any employment with a federal, state, or local government agency, entity, or organization or a non-profit organization that has been designated as tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
Now though, the rules have changed. At the end of the description of who qualifies for this program, a new paragraph appears and it’s striking not only in that it re-defines things, but that it does so in a way that seems purposefully disingenuous.
“Generally, the type or nature of employment with the organization does not matter for PSLF purposes. However, if you work for a non-profit organization, your employment will not qualify for PSLF if your job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing.” [1]
Thus, the new policy explicitly goes out of its way to exclude religious work. In effect it implies that such work is NOT public service, merely because it is exercised through a religious organization for a religious purpose.
Consider that the PSLF program exists because work for a tax exempt organization is generally considered to be of special value to the community. Many tax exempt organizations (like the Church), and those who work them provide care for the poor, special outreach to immigrants, pro-bono or lower cost legal assistance, and the like. The Church, in particular, runs shelters, soup kitchens, schools, hospitals, dental clinics, and so forth.
And, further, there was a traditional appreciation for the fact that religious instruction, and the care of souls, was something that benefited the entire community, since such care helps to instill personal stability, generosity, commitment, respect for law, strong families and other civic values.
In recognition of the value of such work, and in order to encourage others to undertake it, programs like the Public Service Loan Forgiveness are offered, and churches, non-profits and other 401-C3 organizations have been granted tax exempt status.
Again, note the reason, they are tax-exempt and receive certain other benefits in recognition of the fact that they provide a valuable service to the the community.
The new wording of the law says, in effect, that offering religious benefits and services, the care of the soul, is no longer to be considered worthy of the benefit, that is, such work is no longer to be considered valuable enough that such workers will qualify.
Endless arguments will likely ensue as to the Church/State debate. But note that this is a CHANGE in the law. Those involved in religious work have always been included until now. Mr Hirschfield in his article asks,
Are clergy and teachers of religious faith/thought public servants? Is their work on par with that of others who work for 501c3 non-for-profit groups and for government agencies? It used to be, but as of January 31st, the federal government has changed its mind about that….[2]
He adds,
While religion can be abused in the most horrendous ways, it remains a source of enormous social good and unprecedented public service. The new regulation seems to uphold only one of those truths, and in doing so, is actually taking a position on faith (dare I say, “establishing” one?) – a hostile one. [3]
Yes, hostile would seem to be the word. And that, in a word, is increasingly what secularization is coming to mean: Hostility to religion. In the recent past we who are believers considered secularization to be an unfortunate forgetfulness of God or a disregarding of things spiritual and Godly. But in recent years secularization has increasingly taken on a direct hostility to religious faith, to its existence in the public square, and to its practice anywhere outside the four walls of a Church.
The new PSLF wording illustrates and proceeds from just that kind of growing and “accepted” cultural hostility. Mr. Hirschfield concludes:
…While church-[state] separation is a wise and necessary policy, separation is not about discrimination against, or hostility towards, religion. The regulation, as newly reformulated is clumsy at best, insensitive for certain, and may even be illegally hostile to religion. This one needs to change. [4]
Here’s a video on the well known and related matter of Religious Liberty in case you missed it:
What political party is the Catholic Church? Neither of course. But depending on what is in the news you can count on labels being applied. If the issue is abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual “marriage” detractors will say the Church and bishops are “in bed” with the Republicans. But if the issue is immigration reform, capital punishment, concerns about war, or care for the poor, then they’re all “just a bunch of Democrats.”
The move by the Bishops to inform the Catholic Faithful on the Mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that all organizations, including religious ones, must pay for contraceptives, abortion-inducing “medicine” such as the morning after pill, and sterilizations, has been interpreted by some as a raw political move. To be fair, this move by the Administration is so egregious that many political liberals and conservatives stand largely together in calling for the HHS Mandate to restore the historical religious exemptions that have always marked such policies.
Anti-Obama? But there remain some in this country who see the move by the Bishops as merely “anti-President Obama” and “another example” of the conservative Catholic Church showing itself a mere outpost of the Republican Party. Others, like Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sibelius, though Catholic, stand, it would seem both politically AND religiously against the Church.
And thus, this may be a moment to ask, what party is the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps Republican!? Really? A lot of Republican readers of this other blogs would beg to differ, and have often written here with annoyance to described the Bishops as “liberal” and have indicated disgust at how many Catholics vote Democrat. And Catholic Democrats too take annoyance at the Bishops for being too “conservative” on many issues and not bold enough in matters of Social Justice and the Social teachings of the Church. The fact is, as a huge Church of 70 million, Catholics are as diverse as America. Much to the chagrin of many Catholics themselves who often see their differences as a serious departure from the Gospel on the part of their opponents.
The fact is that the real goal for the Church is to be Catholic, across the board: vigorously pro-life and clear on the sexual and life issues, working to strengthen marriage and the family, vigorously advocating for the poor and immigrants, aware of and advocating all the social teachings, fully embracing subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, standing fore-square against the violence that so permeates our culture, generous, merciful and forgiving; and willing to work in communion with those who authentically advocate these Catholic Principles, even if they focus on some of them in particular. Pro-life Catholics should rejoice that others work for and advocate for the poor, and advocates for the poor should rejoice that some fight for life and to end abortion. Together we can cover all the bases.
The goal is for every Catholic to learn the Catholic faith and be a principled adherent to the faith prior to any political allegiance, or worldview. Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He is God and He does not fit into our little categories. Neither does the Church. And hence we are to some extent an “equal opportunity annoyer.” And while we may align with the views of certain political parties and groups in certain matters, we are just as likely to stand opposed to other views of the very same party in other matters.
Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:
I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!…Dye in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”
Hmm, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party as currently defined.
True Catholicism cannot be tamed by any political party or interest group. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It will annoy both the right and the left, and will also affirm them, it has no permanent allies or opponents. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate the Church, and some will come to love the her. We are destined to be, with Christ, a sign of contradiction (Luke 2:34) that will often be opposed, for we do not simply fit into any on world agenda or party.
In the end we are called to be those who are “simply Catholic.” Every other party affiliation, membership, alliance, or connection must yield to the Faith and be judged by it. No worldly thought should ever trump the Faith which God has revealed through the Church. And, even in some matters (e.g. how best to care for the poor) that are prudential in nature, our alliance to the Church founded by Jesus Christ ought to win the day when it comes giving the benefit of any doubt. And while staying in a dialogue with our Bishops, we must also accept their leadership and respect their insights as those designated to teach, govern and sanctify. In the end we should be simply, plainly and essentially Catholic.
Thus, in this case, when the Bishops speak out against the HHS Mandate they are well able to appeal to a principled stance of Catholicism that has not changed, no matter what the culture or the politics of abortion or the sexual revolution have demanded. Who, even among our worst opponents can really claim that the Catholic church has not been consistent on matters of abortion and contraception? And while our culture has shifted its views and allegiances in these matters, the Church has not. Our views are principled and consistent in this regard. Call us conservative today, but tomorrow when another issue like immigration comes up, we who strive to be simply Catholic, will not purely line up with the conservative or Republican party line. Again, our source must be, and is, a consistent reference to the biblical message and the social teachings of the Church that insists, in this case, that the foreigner among us must be treated with respect and justice. And while border security is essential, so is generosity and justice for those who, like our own ancestors, seek opportunity in this land. Not conservative enough? Perhaps not, but Catholic and biblical.
Frankly the Catholic Church is just too big and diverse, our teachings too ancient, biblical and Catholic to fit into a narrow little label like liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. Long after the West as we know it may be gone (pray not), and surely long after political positions have drifted and morphed into other combinations, the Church will still be here articulating and trying to live to the best of her ability the Gospel as set forth by a higher and more lasting authority. We should do and be nothing less than being Simply Catholic.
Please note this is the second in the series of articles responding to some of the criticism of the Church’s opposition to the HHS Mandate. The first article was yesterday and can be read here: Why the Church Won’t Pay for Contraceptives
In this video, Cardinal George and the Chicago Archdiocese are making a similar point very about being Catholic First, creatively:
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
This week is the Archdiocese of Washington is participating in the Summer of Mercy 2.0 initiative. It could not be a more perfect response to decisions being made by the Health and Human Services Department. This posting has been written by Sr. Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB Communications Office and really gets at the heart of the matter.
Health and Human Services must think Catholics and other religious groups are fools.
That’s all you can think when you read HHS’s recent announcement that it may exempt the church from having to pay for contraceptive services, counseling to use them and sterilizations under the new health reform in certain circumstances. As planned now, HHS would limit the right of the church not to pay for such services in limited instances, such as when the employees involved are teaching religion and in cases where the people served are primarily Catholic.
HHS’s reg conveniently ignores the underlying principle of Catholic charitable actions: we help people because we are Catholic, not because our clients are. There’s no need to show your baptismal certificate in the hospital emergency room, the parish food pantry, or the diocesan drug rehab program. Or any place else the church offers help, either.
With its new regulation, HHS seeks to force church institutions to buy contraceptives, including drugs that can disrupt an existing pregnancy, through insurance they offer their own employees. This is part of HHS’s anticipated list of preventive services for women that private insurance programs must provide under the new health reform law.
The exemption is limited, to say the least. The pastor in the Catholic parish doesn’t have to buy the Pill for his employees, but the religious order that runs a Catholic hospital has to foot the bill for surgical sterilizations. And diocesan Catholic Charities agencies have to use money that would be better spent on feeding the poor to underwrite services that violate church teachings.
Whatever you think of artificial birth control, HHS’s command that everyone, including churches, must pay for it exalts ideology over conscience and common sense.
Perhaps HHS is unduly influenced by lobbyists. No surprise there. Certainly a major lobbyist is Planned Parenthood, the nation’s chief proponent of contraceptive services. Contraceptive services make a lot of money for Planned Parenthood clinics, which (again no surprise) provide the “services” HHS has mandated.
HHS and Planned Parenthood are narrow in focus. Respect for religious rights isn’t likely a key concern for them. However, it ought to be a key concern for President Obama, who last year promised to respect religious rights as he garnered support from the church community to pass the health care reform act. To assuage concerns, President Obama went so far as to issue an executive order promising that the health care reform act would not fund abortion or force people and institutions to violate their consciences. HHS is on its way to violating that promise. For the sake of basic integrity – the President’s keeping his word and for the protection of the right to religious freedom – President Obama needs to speak up now.
Some years ago I read a humorous but poignant story about public prayer at a school graduation. It took place during the time when tide had just begun to turn against religious displays etc. in the public square, somewhere in the late 1980s. Up until that time prayer by a local minister, priest or rabbi was part of graduation, almost without exception. We certainly had it at my public high school graduation in 1979.
–
But by the early 1980s the ACLU and other organizations began to insist that prayer of any sort at a public gathering was wrong and violated the (so-called) “separation of Church and State,” (a phrase that does NOT occur in the US Constitution). And here is where the story picks up:
–
The class valedictorian of a local Virginia high school (I forget which) was a committed Christian, and also something of a class clown. He was told that, under no circumstances was he to invite his classmates to pray or to mention God in a prayerful way and that, if he did, the microphone would be turned down. Annoyed but not without plans, he “conspired” with five of his classmates to edge prayer into the talk in a creative way. He went to the podium, looked at the crowd, looked at his notes, and looked up again. The atmosphere was tense for others had heard of the forbidding of prayer, and the community was quite divided. Would he do it? Suddenly, he sniffed, as if to sneeze. “Ah……Ah…..Ah Chooo!” came the loud and rather staged sneeze. At once, five of his classmates rose to their feet and said loudly together: “God Bless you!” And the valedictorian said, “Amen!” Yes, there was prayer at graduation that year, and most of the crowd rose to their feet in tribute to the brief but powerful prayer that had been forbidden.
–
Last week the priests of our Archdiocese gathered to study the slow, but steady erosion of religious liberty in our American culture. We were presented with a broad range of incidents, court decisions, and examples from the medical world which painted the picture for us. Cardinal Wuerl well summarized the day in saying, We take for granted our religious freedom, but today it is under substantive while subtle challenge….We are in the midst of a sea change. We are being told that religion has no place in the marketplace, in the public forum.
–
It is one thing to request that the State, in its official capacity, refrain from sponsoring sectarian prayer. But it is another to tell believers that they are not allowed to make religious expression, refer to God, or pray in any sort of public way. Further, religious exemptions, traditionally granted in matters where moral matters and State policy collide, are gradually being removed, never included, or interpreted so strictly that they can never apply. Catholic institutions are gradually being pressured to provide contraceptives in medical plans, cooperate in adoptions to gay couples, or single parents, provide spousal benefits to gay couples, and indirectly cooperate in providing abortion coverage by not being able to opt out of plans that provide such coverage.
–
But as the Cardinal points out, much of the erosion of religious liberty is subtle, carried out in incremental ways, hidden in the deep details of legislation, and strict interpretations of various judges. It requires the Church and other religious organizations to fight on multiple fronts in a wearying number of, often arcane but 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 have to face multiple appeals and similar battles in other jurisdictions. Keeping the faithful organized and alert, and having the legal resources in place to meet every challenge is difficult and this is part of the erosive technique.
–
Consider the following story from the Washington Examiner Op-Ed page reported and commented on by Ken Klukowski:
Like most high schools, Medina Valley Independent School District allows the class valedictorian to deliver a graduation address. This year’s valedictorian, Angela Hildenbrand, is a Bible-believing Christian. 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, one of Barry Lynn’s lawyers at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) filed suit for the 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.”
In other words, suppose Angela said, “As long as students have to take final exams, there will be prayer in schools. Can I hear an ‘amen’?” She would have violated the judge’s order twice, and could be thrown in jail.
The reality is, the judge’s order, not a prayer Angela might offer in her speech, violated the First Amendment. In 1992, the Supreme Court (wrongly) held 5-4 that high school graduation prayers violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Even then, though, the court’s holding was merely that a school could not organize the prayer or invite a clergyman to lead the prayer. In that moment, the clergyman is speaking for the government.
In this case, a student is given the stage not specifically to pray, but 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 government (including a judge) to censor her private speech is unconstitutional.
On June 4, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court granted an emergency motion to reverse the district judge. So Angela’s speech proceeded as planned, including the now-controversial word “amen.” But don’t get your hopes up that sanity is making a comeback. [Story from the Washington Examiner]
So here, in the end, religious liberty won the day. So did free speech. But these sorts of suits and legal motions are increasingly widespread and the legal landscape is often shifting. And it is this steady, drip, drip, drip that is helping to erode religious liberty, and free speech related to religion.
The article rightly points out, the public school district is not officially mandating or even arranging for prayer to take place. What AUSCS argues is that the mere public mention of God by a private citizen of faith should be forbidden, that a religious person, asked to speak to a public gathering, cannot indicate that God was part of her success, or give public thanks and acknowledgment to God. It is indeed sad that any judge would agree with this, but increasingly this is the case. This case was won on appeal, but not every similar case has won or will be won in the future.
It is essential that we remain vigilant in matters such as these. It is the wish of some to exclude Christians, indeed all believers, from the public marketplace of ideas. There are increasing numbers of strident secularists who insist that the only legal place for religious expression, be inside a church building, or on church-owned property. This is not right or Constitutional:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).
Christians and other religious individuals have no less a right to free speech, to assemble peaceably, or petition the government than any other group, or individual. Yet it is increasingly argued by many that, simply the fact that a religious perspective is involved, should exclude religious people altogether from having a place in the public setting. And thus we have the strange reality that in public schools, our children can be exposed to almost any philosophy, some of them aberrant and little supported by the general populace. Yet, even to refer to the Bible as an historical factor in this nation’s history is considered forbidden and may trigger a lawsuit. Condoms are freely distributed in most schools but the mere presence of a Bible is often greeted with hostility from school administrators.
There are legitimate debates to be had about the limits of interaction between the religious institutions and the State, about when and how citizens acting in a state sponsored role can speak of, or reference, religious matters. But no private citizen, such as Angela Hildenbrand, reference above should have their right to speech abridged by the government in the manner attempted by the judge. Christians have every right that other citizens do to speak to their values publicly, and seek to influence the public discussion.
We need to be alert in these matters and stay thirsty for justice.
Earlier today, January 11, 2011, the federal government continued its assault on the religious liberty of Catholic institutions when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Manhattan College could not prevent faculty from unionizing on the basis that it is a religious institution. Despite acknowledging that the College is recognized as Catholic by the New York Archdiocese, the NLRB reviewed College statements and course content, finding “that the purpose of the College is secular and not the ‘propagation of a religious faith’.”
We have a very important moral tale here.
By way of a disclaimer I want to say that I know nothing of Manhattan College in New York and thus I do not direct my remarks specifically to the College. It may well be that the judges in this case was unfair. But, generally speaking, it’s pretty bad when Caesar (i.e. the State) has to tell a Catholic College it’s not Catholic. This of course is really more the role of a bishop, but it would seem that the bishops have largely avoided making such declarations. In this case a government agency gave the college the “come to Jesus” talk.
Another example – Again I am not sure if the “non-Catholic” assessment was fair to this college or not, since I know nothing of it. I am more aware of the situation of another Catholic college in the US, (not in DC), which had a similar problem years ago. The accrediting agency did its five year evaluation of this certain Catholic college and returned the verdict that while the academics were adequate, the Catholic identity advertised by the college was a sham. They gave only a provisional accreditation and required the “Catholic” college to do a self study about how to make it’s Catholic identity a true fact or to be prepared to drop claims to being Catholic. The college in question was, at the time, on Playboy’s top ten list of “party” schools. Drugs, alcohol and sexually transmitted diseases were epidemic. Jello-wrestling and R Rated movies were common in the Student Union. Just about every year students were killed in drunk driving incidents near the campus. The moral life of most students was, thus, in the sewer and campus ministry was ineffective at best. The theology department was also riddled with dissent. Sadly, it took a secular accreditation agency to blow the whistle and demand reform.
Yet another example – About seven years ago a Catholic Charities Agency California was informed by a California judge that they would have to provide contraceptives in their medical benefits plan for employees. He refused to accept a claim of religious exemption and ruled that there was nothing “Catholic” about this agency of Catholic Charities since they took primarily government money and gave it to the poor. Further, none of their literature mentioned Jesus Christ or sought to promote the Catholic Faith. Hence, they were secular, not Catholic, and thus had no claim to religious exemptions. Here too, I cannot say if the Judge was fair since I have no direct knowledge of Catholic Charities in the particular diocese in question.
It is of course possible to see these matters only in terms of religious liberty. But I want to suggest to you that we have some serious reflection as a Church to make. Perhaps a couple of Biblical examples will set the stage.
1. Abram – In the Book of Genesis we are taught how God chose Abram (later Abraham) and called him to set forth to a new land as the Patriarch of chosen people, (Gen 12). In great faith Abram set out and God led him to Canaan where he eventually settled in Bethel (a name which means “House of God”) (Gen 12:8). But there was a famine in the land and, instead of staying and trusting God, he left Bethel and went to Egypt (Gen 12:10), though God had said no such thing. Now Egypt is a symbol of the world and is distinct from Bethel which is a symbol of the “House of God.” And while in Egypt Abram prospered, but sinned mightily by prostituting his wife Sarai, placing her in Pharaoh’s harem so as to secure his own safety and prosperity (Gen 12:11-15).
Now Abram is chosen by God, he is God’s man and God gave him an inheritance. But Abram forsook his glory from heaven and preferred worldly glories and comforts. God would have to shame Abram back to his senses. The biblical text says:
But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” (Gen 12:17-19)
So it took Pharaoh to compel Abram to leave Egypt (the world) and return to Bethel (House of God). Frankly it is a rather embarrassing moment in salvation history.
2. Another example is Jonah. Jonah was God’s chosen man and designated prophet to go to the east to Nineveh and proclaim a word of repentance to them. But Jonah fled to the west on a ship. A storm blew up that so threatened the ship that the experienced sailors began to pray to their gods. But the chosen man of the one, True God, Jonah remained asleep! Finally, after casting lots, the sailors discovered Jonah was the source of their problem and roused him from his sleep to rebuke him:
What have you done?” (They knew he was running away from the LORD, because he had already told them so). The sea was getting rougher and rougher. So they asked him, “What should we do to you to make the sea calm down for us?” “Pick me up and throw me into the sea,” he replied, “and it will become calm. I know that it is my fault that this great storm has come upon you.” Instead, the men did their best to row back to land. But they could not, for the sea grew even wilder than before. Then they cried out to the LORD, “Please, LORD, do not let us die for taking this man’s life. Do not hold us accountable for killing an innocent man, for you, LORD, have done as you pleased.” Then they took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm. At this the men greatly feared the LORD, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows to him (Jonah 1:11ff)
And thus it was that pagan sailors were more repentant and moral than God’s chosen prophet. Another great embarrassment to be sure.
The fact is that the Church is to be a light to the world, but it sometimes happens that we fall short and God must allow the world itself to rebuke us. The Christian community is supposed to be self-correcting. It is an embarrassing truth that it sometimes takes Caesar to tell us to give to God what is God’s, to be more serious about our Christian walk, and to be true in our claims to be Catholic.
Another example – More widely known than the cases above, is the recent sexual abuse scandal. The actual abuse was terrible enough but was then compounded by the credible accusations of a lack of action evident in certain dioceses, which meant abuse in those places was often unaddressed and even, in some cases, covered up. It really took serious legal penalties to end the problem. The judicial branch of government (which had long been lenient in this matter as well) had to awaken the proper level of outrage. This is perhaps the most lasting disappointment on the part of many towards the Church in this matter.
From the Newman Society blog comes this advice for Catholic Colleges and universities:
It must be noted….that any available exemptions for religious institutions will not apply if a college that was founded as a religious institution has become largely secular. It is therefore vital that Catholic colleges and universities maintain their Catholic identity in all of their programs in order to best protect their religious character and mission.”
For decades since the infamous Land O’Lakes declaration, too many Catholic colleges and universities have straddled the line between Catholic and secular. While the Vatican and bishops have patiently encouraged the renewal of Catholic identity, state and federal regulators are increasingly demanding that Catholic colleges justify their claims to be religious. For all but a handful of faithful Catholic colleges, this is a difficult if not impossible task. … the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic…..it should be noted that a college that does not faithfully adhere to and apply the Catholic Church’s own law might find it difficult if not impossible to convince a secular court that it is a Catholic institution deserving protection.” [1]
It shouldn’t take Pharaoh to tell Abram to go back to Bethel. It shouldn’t take pagan sailors to rouse Jonah to obey God. And it shouldn’t take the Federal Government to tell Catholic Colleges to actually be Catholic. But if that’s what it takes, if God has to shame them into it, so be it . God has a history of drawing Israel to repentance by making use of the nations around them to provoke, shame, and punish them. As Scripture says,
The LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance….[Yet] you deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth….[The Lord says], for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful. They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. [So] I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding. (Deut 32: varia)
Religious Liberty Threatened – To be clear, there are very serious threats today looming over religious liberty. An increasingly intrusive government and menacing new laws are seeking to unreasonably restrict the Church, and her work of evangelizing the culture. We ought to resist any such attempts to limit religious liberty in this age of highly selective “tolerance.” We have discussed such threats on the blog before.
But the moral lesson in these cases seems to be that we had better get our own house in order. Certain “Catholic” Colleges may go on for a while gleefully dissenting and ignoring Church mandates, but in the end they are going to be called to account by Caesar who will say, “Either give God what God is due, or stop pretending and pay the taxes that every other secular organization pays and observe the requirements every other secular entity does.” In other words, decide what you really are and do so quickly.
For the state to respect the rights of Catholics, Catholicism has to be intelligible. Hence these dissenters also endanger the religious freedoms of those who are faithful. Yes, we need to get our house in order.
One may argue that bishops could have been more forceful, Rome more demanding, or that the Catholic faithful should have voted with their feet long ago and stopped frequenting and supporting fake Catholic institutions . But in the end, God may well be allowing a secular authority, which has no understanding of things religious to insist upon truth-telling. In so doing it may well be that God is following an old pattern where Pharaoh had to give Abram a good swift kick in the pants, and where God used nations like Babylon and Assyria to purge and prune Israel.
Catholic or Consequences – Like it or not, the world demands of Catholics what they seldom demand of other denominations: that what it means to be a Catholic should be clear and that it be lived to deserve the title. The secular government may mean harm in this, but God can use it for good. (cf Gen 50:20)
What do you think? Remember, if this post feels edgy, I am doing that to provoke conversation.
