Catholic services forbidden on military base, Protestant services continue; priest sues

The Reverend Ray Leonard, a Roman Catholic priest, was recently contracted to provide pastoral care at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base.  However, he has been forbidden to provide pastoral care during the partial government shutdown though he wishes to do so completely free, though others have not been so forbidden, as CNN reports:

Leonard also claims "members of religions, other than the Roman Catholic religion, have been afforded access to the chapel to engage in religious exercise in conformity with their respective faiths."

The notice from chapel staff says, "Protestant services will continue to be held in the Subase chapel Sundays @ 1030. We apologize for the inconvenience" [more].

Frankly, this is simply outrageous.  The headline should have read: "Catholic services forbidden, Protestant services allowed".  To those who deny my claims that there is an coming persecution of Catholics in the United States of America, how do you explain this?  It cannot be simply an oversight.  Why this important piece of information comes at the bottom of the article and not at the top is beyond my understanding.


Because the free exercise of Father Leonard's religious liberty has clearly been violated, he has filed a law suit with the assistance of the Thomas More Law Society.

In his affidavit, Father Leonard provides what might be termed a "money quote":

In China, I was disallowed from performing public religious services due to the lack of religious freedom in China. I never imagined that when I returned home to the United States, that I would be forbidden from practicing my religious beliefs as I am called to do, and would be forbidden from helping and serving my faith community.

Ministry of military chaplains still a legal question

Following Friday's vote by the United States Senate to strengthen a resolution from the United States House of Representatives that allows Catholic priests and others to minister to the spiritual needs of the members of the military on military bases during the partial government shutdown, the Archdiocese for the Military Services issued a statement that said, in part:

The amended resolution has been sent back to the House for further consideration and possible final passage. The congressional action follows publication of an op-ed by Mr. Schlageter bringing public attention to the shutdown’s impact on the Catholic military population. Pending final action, the contract priests remain on furlough.

The same statement included a quote from His Excellency the Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio, Archbishop for the Military Services:

It seems beyond the pale of belief that elected officials are taking so long to resolve this denial of constitutional rights to the men and women in uniform.  It is not a controversial issue, but merely a lacuna in an old law that could be fixed to respond to current situations.  I continue to hope for the good will of those in Congress and the Administration.

It took the Senate a week to vote on the resolution, though I cannot imagine why it should have taken so long to vote after the House had already approved it 400-1.  Please encourage your Representative to call for a swift vote on this amended resolution, so important for the free exercise of religion in our nation.

If you are yet unaware of this situation, please follow the links above.

Senate passes and strengthens resolution protecting religious freedom of Catholic priests

The United States Senate voted on Friday to allow priests contracted with the United States military to celebrate the Sacraments on military bases during the partial government shutdown without fear of fines or imprisonment.  The vote, much to my surprise, passed without objection and strengthened the the resolution of the United States House of Representatives:

The Senate measure, approved by voice vote, includes minor changes by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who sought to clarify the House-passed bill. Levin added provisions stating that the availability of religious services and clergy were "important to the morale and well-being of many members of the armed forces and their families."

He also included a provision that said it was Congress' hope that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel determines "that contractor clergy provide necessary support to military personnel and would therefore be covered under the appropriations made available" under a law that pays the troops despite the shutdown.

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., welcomed the vote, saying on Friday that "all service members should have the opportunity to worship, and no one should make that more difficult" [more].

This is excellent news and is an encouraging sign in the face of mounting threats to the freedom of religion in the United States.

However, one troubling situation remains in a comment made by the Associated Press' Donna Cassata in the above cited article:

Democrats repeatedly have argued that if House Republicans would allow a vote on a Senate-passed bill to reopen the government, suspension of military death benefits and any obstacles for military chaplains would be resolved.

While this claim may well be true, what it ignores is the simple that never before have Catholic priests - or other chaplains - been so threatened during a partial government shutdown.  As such, this is not simply - regardless of the spin - about a Republican refusal to fully fund the government; it is much deeper and more complicated than that and suggests a tightening of the governmental arm on the American people, which is not simply a grave threat to religious liberty but to the general liberty once enjoyed in the United States of America.

 

Representative Enyart: Resolution allowing military to exercise freedom of religion "did nothing for the troops"

Many of you asked an excellent question following yesterday's vote of the United States House of Representatives on a resolution introduced by Mr. Doug Collins (R-Georgia) that would allow military chaplains to minister on military bases during the partial government shut down (have you noticed how the designation keeps changing?) without fear of fines or imprisonment, namely, why did Mr. William Enyart (D-Illinois) vote against it?

It is a question I wondered when I first learned that only member of the House of Representatives voted against the resolution, in effect voting against the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The Representative has posted the following answer to his web site (with my emphasis):

Day care centers on military bases are closed.  Commissaries on military bases are closed. Military support workers are furloughed. Of course I want chapels open, but what about our military families who have no place to send their children and are forced to buy family essentials off base?  

The bill I voted against is a prime example of the hypocrisy we see every day in Washington DC.  This bill did nothing for the troops. All it does is provide political cover for people who won’t do their jobs.  And that’s the Congress.

I was elected and sent to Washington DC to get a job done. Standing idly by while our government is shut down and Southern Illinoisans are being hurt, is NOT leadership.

The resolution did nothing for the troops?! Representative Enyart clearly does not understood the fundamental importance of religious liberty.

As His Holiness Benedict XVI reminded us in his Message for the 44th World Day of Peace:

Without the acknowledgement of his spiritual being, without openness to the transcendent, the human person withdraws within himself, fails to find answers to the heart's deepest questions about life's meaning, fails to appropriate lasting ethical values and principles, and fails even to experience authentic freedom and to build a just society.

What is more:

...the laws and institutions of a society cannot be shaped in such a way as to ignore the religious dimension of its citizens or to prescind completely from it.  Through the democratic activities of citizens conscious of their lofty calling, those laws and institutions must adequately effect the authentic nature of the person and support its religious dimension.  Since the latter is not a creation of the state, it cannot be manipulated by the state, but must rather be acknowledged and respected by it.