The new Kulturkampf

Just over a year ago when the Attorney General of the State of Illinois first moved to force Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoptions, His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, made reference to the Kulturkampf of Otto von Bismarck.  Writing in his column in the Catholic Times, he said:

I write all this because we are seeing a different but very virulent form of Kulturkampf gaining ground here in the United States. In our American context, this has been referred to as the “Culture Wars,” which, like Germany in the 19th century, promotes a secular view of the world and seeks to diminish the role of religion and restrict the influence of Christians in general and Catholics in particular. Prominent in this secular agenda are the promotion of abortion and assaults on the traditional understanding of marriage and family life [more].

Bishop Paprocki is not the only one to make this connection.

A couple of weeks ago, His Excellency the Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, Bishop of Peoria, said, in a homily that has been very much taken out of context:

Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.

In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his "Kulturkampf," a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

Clemenceau, nicknamed "the priest eater," tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.

Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama - with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.

Now things have come to such a pass in America that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgement seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.

This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings - could easily be shut down. Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the instrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb [more].

On the Square, Leroy Huizinga recently wrote of The White House's Contraceptive Kulturkampf.  In this new culture war, he sees a difference:

Unlike the war waged against Catholics in the nineteenth century by Germany’s Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, a devout pietist Christian, our battle has been joined not only by many of our Evangelical brothers and sisters but also by many Mormons, Jews, and others of good will [more].

Does Sebelius understand religious liberty? No.

On April 26, 2012, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) questioned Secretary Sebelius regarding certain aspects of religious liberty.  Please, watch this five minute interchange and pay very close attention:

Remember, Secretary Sebelius has been tasked with creating most of the regulations that come from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, yet she does not understand religious liberty in this nation.

There are difficult days ahead.

Paul VI was right on government interference

Back in 1968 (two years before the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America approved "the pill"), His Holiness Pope Paul VI published his prophetic - and so-called "controversial" - encyclical Humanae Vitae on the regulation of birth.

Why did he choose at that time to speak on such an issue?  Precisely because, as he said, the questions being raised about the regulation of human birth "concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings" (1) and because they concern marriage, the Church's teachings on which are "based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation" (4).  Because marriage is found in the natural moral law, it "declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation" (4).

None of these teachings, of course, that he expounded in Humanae Vitae were new and should have not have caused any surprise or anger in anyone.

What should have alarmed people, however, were the things Pope Paul VI foresaw as the natural and dire consequences of a worldview built upon the sandy foundation of contraception:

1. infidelity within marriage and a weakening of moral values (17);
2. men would lose respect for women and use them only as objects for pleasure (17);
3. and government interference within the marital act (17);

Clearly and without doubt, his first two predictions took hold rather quickly.  And now, in recent days, we are seeing all too clearly the fulfillment of his third prediction, which he expressed in these words (with my emphases):

careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

If you have not yet read Humane Vitae, do so today.  It is neither long nor difficult.  If it has been some time since you read Humane Vitae, read it again today.

Senate votes against religious freedom

The Senate of the United States of American voted this morning on the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act introduced by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO).  Regrettably, but perhaps not unexpectedly, the bill failed by a vote of 51-48.

Among those who voted against the legislation were 13 Catholics, even though the Act would have allowed Catholic institutions to continue their operations without violating their faith.

The Catholic Advocate has a list of the 24 Catholic Senators and how they voted.

Cardinal George: "We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack"

Writing in his column in the Catholic New World, His Emincence Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, recently considered the implications of the mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services, if it is not rescinded:

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

None of these four options are helpful, but they do achieve the Administration's aim to remove faithful Catholics from public life.

As part of his considerations, Cardinal George distinguishes between the freedom of religion - as guaranteed by the First Ammendment - and the incorrect interpretation of that freedom as simply the freedom of worship:

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

The Constitution does not guarantee a freedom of worship, but of religion, which encompasses the living of a moral life; religion, if it is authentic, shapes every aspect of an adherent's life.  It cannot simply be compartmentalized.

His Eminence also considers the charge that the Bishops are not respecting the so-called separation of Church and State:

The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church.

In the end, it should be remembered that "the bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack."

Fr. Leo on the HHS mandate

Let your voice be heard - today!

Today is the final day to voice  your concerns and opinions to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the mandate that will require all private health plans to cover surgical sterilizations and all FDA-approve contraceptive devices and pills, even if these are contrary to a person's conscience.

The only exemption allowed is so narrowly defined that even Jesus himself could not qualify for the exemption.

Please, let your voice be known!  Contact the HHS today and let your opposition to this mandate - which violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment - be known.

CCI: HHS exemption threatens religious freedom

In a Letter to the Editor in the State Journal-Register, Zach Wichmann, Director of Government Relations of the Illinois Catholic Conference, addresses forthcoming changes in health care regulations, about which I posted earlier.

His letter follows, with my emphases and comments:

Headlines declared “free birth control for all” when the federal government recently issued an interim rule mandating health-care plans to cover sterilization and prescription contraceptives, including the abortifacient drug Ella. But an under-reported provision of the same rule proposed an incredibly narrow definition of religious employer for exemption from the mandate.

The Catholic Church’s teaching on the immorality of contraception and sterilization as a rejection of God’s life-giving design may lack popular support. However, our nation’s commitment to protecting the free-exercise of religion has led to long-standing conscience exemptions from mandates concerning abortion, contraception and sterilization in both federal and state law for health-care professionals, insurers and purchasers. President Barack Obama’s health-care plan, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and the exemption of “church plans” in various federal laws are just a few examples.

But the newly defined exemption for religious belief is stricter than anything found in current federal law. Exemptions may now be unavailable to individuals or insurers and apply only to religious employers that meet the extremely narrow criteria of 1.) having the purpose of teaching religious values, 2.) primarily hiring persons who share the organizations’ religious tenets, 3.) primarily serving people who share those tenets and 4.) being a nonprofit as described in the Internal Revenue Code.

Under this proposal, an organization would not be “religious enough” if it served people of different faiths, failed to hire based on religion or did not restrict its mission to the teaching of religious values. As organizations striving to serve all people in need, Catholic hospitals, Catholic universities and Catholic social service agencies would be denied the exemption.

Astonishingly, Jesus Christ and the early Church could not qualify for the exemption. His ministry was not confined to members of the Church, nor did it consist only of preaching.

By ignoring individual conscience and attempting to determine which ministries of the Church are not “religious enough,” the federal government abrogates existing law and undermines the free-exercise protections of the First Amendment. Left unchanged, the final implementation of this provision will present an impossible dilemma: forcing the Catholic Church to either withdraw from public ministry or violate deeply held religious belief through the compelled provision of health insurance coverage for contraceptives and sterilization [which is precisely the goal of the newly defined criteria].

Illinois residents surely cannot accept this threat to religious freedom.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh: HHS is trying to define what a religion is and does

Sister Mary Ann Walsh has a great post at the Media Blog of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the present course of action for the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (with my emphases and comments):

When it comes to church-state relations, both church and government historically have watched to keep the government out of church business. The U.S. Constitution acknowledged the significance of the role of the First Estate, when it declared that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It is a clear message that government must not stick its proverbial camel's nose under the church tent [this is the real meaning of the separation of Church and State]. Now, however, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has gone beyond nuzzling its nose where it does not belong. It has plunked itself right in the middle of the sanctuary. It is trying to define what a religion does and does not do [well said!].

This misguided move comes with a proposed HHS regulation to guide implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The regulation for the new health care reform bill demands that all health plans pay for contraceptives, sterilizations and education to use both.

In a tacit acknowledgement that this violates the Constitution's cherished respect for religious liberty, HHS provides an exemption for religious employers -- but with a catch. The church agency can only claim exemption if it primarily serves people of its own faith [which contradicts the very nature and mission of a church; what the exemption describes is more of a sect or cult than a church]. It also must meet other requirements, such as employing mostly people of its own faith.

This means HHS is setting itself up to determine what constitutes church ministry and who Jesus meant when he referred to serving "the least of my brethren."

Catholic hospitals, charities and educational institutions provide about $30 billion worth of service annually in this country. No one presents a baptismal certificate at the emergency room. The hungry do not recite the Creed to get groceries at the food pantry. Students can pursue learning at The Catholic University of America, Villanova or any other Catholic college without passing a catechism admissions test. The commitment to serve those in need, the sick, the hungry, the uneducated, is intrinsic to Catholicism. No federal rule (except now HHS's) says the church must limit its service to Catholics if it is to be true to its teaching. HHS doesn't get the parable of the Good Samaritan, who helped the stranger simply because he was in need.

Look at the numbers. Catholic hospitals admit about 5.6 million people annually. That's one out of every six persons seeking hospital care in the United States. Catholic Charities serves more than 9 million people annually. Catholic colleges and universities teach 850,000 students annually. Among those served are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics and members of any other religious or irreligious group you can name.

For the time being HHS has given itself wiggle room, saying that the public in the next two months can suggest an "alternative" definition of a "religious employer." That's good because health care reform ought to increase access to basic care, not push religious groups to either violate their principles or abandon service to those in need whatever their religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, the sanctuary is getting crowded. It is time for HHS to remove itself.

Many of us warned that this was coming, but few people listened.

Goverment seeks to forbid charity

The Department of Health and Human Services, under the leadership of Kathleen Sibelius (who claims to be a Catholic) clearly does not understand the purpose and mission of any Christian community, let alone the mission of the Catholic Church.
The Department, in seeking to require all medical insurance programs to provide contraception and abortifacients has sought to describe the make-up of a Church and if a religious group does not mean these narrow criteria that are actually contrary to the faith such a group will not meet the exemption requirements.
The General Counsel of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops summarized these criteria:

Religious employers that do not meet HHS’s narrow definition will also be subject to the mandate. “HHS has concluded, for example, that a church is not a religious employer if it (a) serves those who are not already members of the church, (b) fails to hire based on religion, or (c) does not restrict its charitable and missionary purposes to the inculcation of religious values. Under such inexplicably narrow criteria—criteria bearing no reasonable relation to any legitimate (let alone compelling) government purpose—even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would not qualify as ‘religious,’ because they did not confine their ministry to their co-religionists or engage only in a preaching ministry. In effect, the exemption is directly at odds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus teaches concern and assistance for those in need, regardless of faith differences.”

What sort of a religious community is not allowed to practice charity and meet the needs of the poor?  What sort of a religious community is not allowed to reach out to others and invite them to share their faith?

Please, contact the Department of Health and Human Services and your elected officials and urge to them put an end to this bizarre set of requirements that forbid charity.

Unless we act soon and put an end to this nonsense, the persecution of Christians in this country will soon be here.

A challenge to coming persecution

As the tide of secularism rises in this country, the signs of a coming persecution are beginning to appear all the more clearly.  In the State of Illinois we see it in the State's challenge over Catholic Charities' policies regarding adoptions and foster care.  In the nation as a whole we see it in the Department of Health Human Services' requirement for all medical insurance plans to provide contraception and abortifacients.
But while most people in this country seem content to ignore such assaults on the free exercise of religion, there are a few who are standing up in defense of First Amendment rights.
From Life Site News, with my emphases:

WASHINGTON, August 31, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) — The general counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has called on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to rescind its mandate forcing private insurance plans to cover contraception—including abortifacients—and sterilization, calling the mandate “unprecedented in federal law and more radical than any state contraceptive mandate.”

The USCCB also criticized the narrow “religious employer” exception to the mandate, explaining that it provides “no protection at all for individuals or insurers with a moral or religious objection to contraceptives or sterilization,” instead covering only “a very small subset of religious employers.”

In their August 31 comment to the HHS, Anthony Picarello, USCCB general counsel, and Michael Moses, associate general counsel, noted that the mandate to cover “all FDA-approved contraceptives” and “emergency contraceptives,” including at least one drug called Ella that can cause abortions, entails “nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker or purchases ‘services’ to which they have a moral or religious objection.” This represents “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty,” they wrote.

As to the exemption, Picarello and Moses detail how it “is narrower than any conscience clause ever enacted in federal law, and narrower than the vast majority of religious exemptions from state contraceptive mandates.”

“By failing to protect insurers, individuals, most employers, or any other stakeholders with a religious objection to such items and procedures, the HHS exemption, like the mandate itself, violates” the U.S. Constitution and various federal statutes, they argue.

According to Picarello and Moses, the mandate violates the Weldon amendment and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, commonly known as the health care reform law), as well as the Administration’s own stated policy to exclude from the mandate any drug that can cause an abortion. Both the mandate and the narrow exception violate various protections of religious freedom under the First Amendment.

“Until now, no federal law has prevented private insurers from accommodating purchasers and plan sponsors with moral or religious objections to certain services,” they wrote. “Plans were free under federal law to accommodate those objections by allowing purchasers to choose not to buy coverage for gender change surgery, contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, or other procedures that the purchaser or sponsor found religiously or morally problematic. Likewise, federal law did not forbid any insurer, such as a religiously-affiliated insurer, to exclude from its plans any services to which the insurer itself had a moral or religious objection. Indeed, the freedom to exclude morally objectionable services has sometimes been stated affirmatively in federal law.”

Under the mandate, they wrote, this will end. “Individuals with a moral or religious objection to these items and procedures will now be affirmatively barred by the HHS mandate from purchasing a plan that excludes [contraception and sterilization]. Religiously-affiliated insurers with a moral or religious objection likewise will be affirmatively barred from offering a plan that excludes them to the public, even to members of their own religion. Secular organizations (insurers, employers, and other plan sponsors) with a moral or religious objection to coverage of contraceptives or sterilization will be ineligible for the exemption.”

Religious employers that do not meet HHS’s narrow definition will also be subject to the mandate. “HHS has concluded, for example, that a church is not a religious employer if it (a) serves those who are not already members of the church, (b) fails to hire based on religion, or (c) does not restrict its charitable and missionary purposes to the inculcation of religious values. Under such inexplicably narrow criteria—criteria bearing no reasonable relation to any legitimate (let alone compelling) government purpose—even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would not qualify as ‘religious,’ because they did not confine their ministry to their co-religionists or engage only in a preaching ministry. In effect, the exemption is directly at odds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus teaches concern and assistance for those in need, regardless of faith differences.”

Though the problems with this exemption are serious and need to be addressed, the comments emphasize that the fundamental problem lies in the mandate itself, which must be rescinded: “Only rescission will eliminate all of the serious moral problems the mandate creates; only rescission will correct HHS’s legally flawed interpretation of the term ‘preventive services.’”

The full comments can be found online here.