It's just a simple sign right?

A new piece of legislation - HB1371, the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act - has been introduced by Representative Chuck Strom (R-Ok) concerning "any marriage ceremony, celebration, or other related activity" and those persons who might not wish to participate in them.

Representative Emily Virgin (D-Ok) has introduced this proposed legislation that would require

Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.

At first glance, one might think this amendment a step in the right direction because - at least on the surface - it would maintain the right to refuse service requiring the violation of religious beliefs so long as the existence of an objection was publicly stated. This is a further protection of religious freedom, right? It's just a simple sign, right? Not exactly.

Notice that this amendment allows a business to refuse service based even on the "race of either party," which, unless I am mistaken, would be a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act. Representative Virgin's amendment - probably unintentionally - justifies and protects racism, which is morally evil and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, is "incompatible with God's design" (1935).

The posting of a sign, though, isn't so much about making the lives of same-sex couples easier by saving them time shopping around - the law suits brought against such businesses thus far seem to have purposefully sought out those already known to be opposed - as it is about singling out those who oppose the redefinition of marriage. By publicly singling them out, they will be able to be more easily targeted, intimidated, silenced, and shut down. That is, of course, the end goal, and anyone who says differently isn't paying close enough attention to what is happening.

In fact, it's already very recently happened to Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in the state of Washington, who was labeled a homophobe even though she provided service to people she knew to have a same-sex attraction; she simply would not provide flowers for what she believes is not an actual marriage (and which, in fact, is not, even if the government decides to say it is) and in which it would be immoral for her to participate.

As I consider this proposed requirement to post a sign, I cannot help but think back to Hitler's Germany, in which Jewish businesses were required to post a sign that they were owned and staffed by Jews. It was a simple and public declaration that made it easier for those who did not wish to conduct business with Jews. But it quickly became an easy means to target the Jews and remove them. Do we have any real reason to think the same cannot happen with a requirement that Christians post a sign on their storefronts?

Some will object that the Nazis targeted Jews because they hated Jews and that it did not concern whom they decided to serve. This is true as far as it goes, but to suggest that there are not those in the United States of America who hate Christians not because of whom they chose to serve but simply because they are Christians is to plunge one's head deep into the sand.

Barronelle Stutzman refused to service a same-sex "marriage" because she knew that - as a Christian - she simply could not do so. She knows that her religious beliefs are who she is and that they cannot be separated from what she does. She is not alone in this right conviction, even if most Americans who claim the name of Christian do not understand such an integrity of faith and life stemming from their baptism into Christ Jesus. What is more, those who hate Christians - and their number is not dwindling - know this, too. And they are looking for ways to target them.

I very much hope my fears are unfounded but, if history teaches us anything, they are all too possible.

City of Houston subpoenas pastors' sermons, speeches, etc.

We are learning from a report by the Houston Chronicle that, in a move which clearly violates the freedom of religion, the City of Houston has subpoenaed "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO [the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you [pastors] or in your possession."

The Religion News Service offers a helpful background to explain the reason for the subpoena (links original, emphases mine):

Houston has subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose an equal rights ordinance, it was revealed Tuesday (Oct. 14).

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who drew headlines for becoming the first openly lesbian mayor of a major American city, has led support for the ordinance. The measure bans discrimination among businesses that serve the public, private employers, in housing and in city employment and city contracting.

Under the ordinance, transgender people barred access to a restroom would be able to file a discrimination complaint, one of the hotly contested parts of the ordinance.
The ordinance, which exempted religious institutions, was passed in June, though its implementation has been delayed due to legal complaints.

Opponents were hoping to repeal the ordinance through a repeal initiative, claiming the city’s attorney determined wrongly they had not gathered enough signatures to qualify for a ballot. The ordinance’s opponents reportedly gathered 50,000 signatures, well over the 17,269 needed for a November vote to repeal the measure, though proponents of the measure have questioned the validity of the signatures.

Let's presume that some of the signatures were invalid; that should be easy enough to determine. To invalidate the repeal,though, would require that more than 32,000 of the collected signatures were invalid. Is this at all likely?

When Mayor Parker first announced her anti-discrimination legislation last April, the Houston Chronicle reported her as saying:

"The Houston I know doesn't discriminate. It really doesn't matter in Houston, and it shouldn't matter in Houston, your place of origin, your gender, your age, what physical limitations you may have or who you choose to love," said Parker, the first openly gay mayor of a major American city. "It's time to codify in ordinance that position."

One might well - and rightly ask- if Houston doesn't discriminate in the first place, why is such legislation even necessary at all?

At the same time, one might well - and, again, rightly ask - isn't the City of Houston discriminating against "conservative Christian activists"? Shouldn't there be a law to protect them if the city of Houston doesn't discriminate?

News round up - 8 July 2014

The news you may have missed:

• It may seem a piece out of a George Orwell or Aldous Huxley novel, but scientists in Massachusetts have developed a contraceptive computer chip. This, it seems to me, is a clear case of science not asking if it should do what it can do. The chip can be activated by remote control, which might make one wonder what would stop a government from deciding who can and cannot have children (or how many children a woman may have, not that we've seen governments do this before [note the sarcasm]). "The ability to turn the device on and off provides a certain convenience factor for those who are planning their family," said Dr Robert Farra. I wonder if he knows that are easier ways to do so. One might also wonder about the possibility of hacking into the computer chip.

• A Florentine (New Jersey) man was arrested for disorderly conduct and interfering with traffic by running football plays on a highway.

• After she posted a photo of herself holding a Chick-Fil-A cup in front of Hobby Lobby store, Holly Fisher has received death threats directed at herself and at her children. Oh, she was also wearing a pro-life t-shirt. And this from people crying for tolerance and for an end to hate. If only they could recognize their hypocrisy.

• In Illinois, Governor Quinn (D) recently signed SB 3434 into law, which allows the government to confiscate watercraft belonging to those caught boating under the influence. The new law takes effect July 1, 2015.

• The Louisiana Supreme Court may compel a Roman Catholic priest to reveal under oath what he has learned in the Sacrament of Penance. We have been warning you for years now about the growing threats to religious liberty in the United States of America. Here is yet another clear threat. And it won't stop here, you can sure. The case at hand involves sexual abuse, but if the court can force a priest to reveal what he may or may not have learned about such abuse, what is to stop the court from requiring a priest to reveal other things he may have learned from confessions. One might also wonder what impact such a decision might have on doctor-patient privilege.

• After being mocked for falling asleep during a baseball game (it is one of the most boring things anyone can watch), a man is suing for $10,000,000 because he claims his reputation was harmed and he suffered mental anguish. All that's needed next is for him to declare he was bullied. 

• A Kentucky woman has been fired for saying to her customers, "Have a blessed day." Personally, I find the phrase rather meaningless (a person cannot simply decided to have a blessed day; their day has to be blessed), but I understand what she means with the phrase. I wonder if a person might also be fired for saying to customers, "Have a cursed day."

News round up - April 23rd

The news you may have missed:

• The Internal Revenue Service, between October 2010 and December 2012 awarded some $2.8 million in bonuses to 1,150 employees of the IRS who owe still owed taxes. It was bad enough when the man appointed to head the IRS himself had not paid his taxes. To make it worse yet, in 2011 3.2% of federal employees owed back taxes.

•  In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill allowing unannounced inspections of abortion clinics, thereby making them subject to the same requirements as other medical facilities in the state. Naturally, Planned Parenthood opposes the law. If Planned Parenthood really is concerned about keeping women safe, one wonders why they would oppose such inspections for abortion clinics but not for other facilities.

• During a "read to myself" session, a teacher in Texas took a Bible away from a second reader, even though the school's library has Bibles on its shelves. 

• The Supreme Court of Alabama has ruled that the term "child" applies to unborn babies. According to the ruling, laws prohibiting exposing children to drugs and/or drug paraphernalia also applies to the unborn.

A news round up - March 3rd

•  Bypassing the Congress, President Obama has eased U.S.A. immigration laws regarding foreigners linked to terrorism while closing borders to those fleeing from terrorism.

• A self-styled "gay conservative woman" has written an excellent op-ed in The Washington Times in which she explains her support for the legislation Governor Brewer vetoed last week in Arizona. She notes that "Of all the people in the world who should understand the scourge of living under constant threat of losing life, liberty or the ability to make a living because of who you are, it’s gays. It has been disgusting to watch supposed gay “leadership” drag young gays and lesbians through an indoctrination that insists that in order to have equality, you must force other people to do your will, make them betray who they are, and punish them if they offend you." Please, read the entire piece.

• Just over two years ago, a gay hair stylist refused to cut the hair of one of his clients because she opposes same-sex "marriage" requiring her to find a new stylist. As the "LGBT community" rejoices over Governor Brewer's veto because of claims of discrimination, they acknowledge no discrimination in this case - there are likely others - and so betray a serious logical disconnect. We've not seen stories of bakers or others refusing to serve a homosexual couple because they were homosexual, but only those who refused service for the wedding; there is a great difference and this is not what happened with the hairstylist. This cries of bigotry and hypocrisy.

• Medicare is telling some people that they can stay in their homes to receive needed treatment, whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) requires them to go into a nursing home.

•  The Walt Disney Company will no longer help fund the Boy Scouts of America.

•  Hundreds of thousands of Jews gathered in Jerusalem to protest new legislation in Israel that would remove an exemption from mandatory military service.

•  Illinoisans have saved some $37 billion since electricity deregulation laws took effect in Illinois in 1998. One wonders what would happen in other industries were deregulated.

•  On Sunday, Pope Francis accidentally uttered an obscenity while speaking in Italian. The mistake he made - and immediately corrected - is an easy one to make given the laws of Italian pronunciation. The media has largely given him a pass on the error; one wonders what would have happened had Benedict XVI made the same mistake.

•  The Islamic terrorist organization Boko Haram killed at least 70 people in attacks over the weekend in Nigeria.

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.

BREAKING: House approves resolution to allow chaplains to minister during shut down

N.B.: This post has been updated since the initial posting.

The United States House of Representatives voted today to allow military chaplains to minister to the members of the armed forces on military during the government "shut down."

Representative Doug Collins (R-George) introduced the resolution which was approved by a vote of 400-1, with 30 no votes; Representative Bill Enyart (D-Illinois) - a retired General - was the only member to vote against the resolution.  Of those not voting, 16 are Republicans and 14 are Democrats.

If your Representative voted in favor of the resolution, please be certain to thank him or her and be sure to encourage your Senators to also vote in favor of it!

Now we will see what the United States Senate will do with the legislation.

Update:

His Excellency the Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio, Archbishop for the Military Services, upon hearing of the vote of the House, issued the followed statement:

Military personnel enjoy, like all Americans, the First Amendment guarantee of the ‘Free Exercise’ of religion. In the current political climate, however, nothing can be taken for granted. I am grateful to Representative Collins and the many other House members who recognized the importance of passing this resolution, which reflects the seriousness with which the American people take their Free Exercise rights. It can only be hoped that the members of the US Senate will act decisively in order to favor the same First Amendment rights.

U.S. House of Reps to vote on religious liberty

I came across this morning the Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for the 44th World Day of Peace in which he wrote on the subject of religious freedom, both what it is and what it requires.

If you follow the work of John L. Allen, Jr., you already know how religious freedom is at stake throughout the world with the increasing persecution of Christians globally.  Yet even in the United States of America, there are signs of movement - slow and deliberate - toward an ever greater restriction on religious liberty that could well, if not halted, lead to a persecution of Christians.

Though it has largely been forgotten, such a state was once common for Catholics in the early days of the American Colonies (there is a reason why Maryland was established as a colony where Catholics could - mostly - practice their faith in freedom) and continued into the twentieth century.  The history of anti-Catholicism in the United States, from the days of the founding until now, are well explored in Anti-Catholicism in America: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Mark S. Massa, S.J., which everyone should read.

Today, the religious liberty in the United States of America enters a new chapter with the government "shut down."  With the actions of the federal government in barricading national monuments and memorials that are otherwise wide open (which were never closed during previous government shut downs) and threatening visitors - even World War II veterans - with arrest, it is not out of the realm of possibility to think a priest would be arrested for celebrating Mass on a military base, as Steve Skojac pointed out yesterday at Catholic Vote:

But now there’s a story just coming to light that takes things even further. According the Archdiocese for Military Services, GS and contract priests (who are paid by the federal government as independent contractors in places where there aren’t enough active-duty priests to meet the needs of Catholics in military service) are being forbidden from celebrating Mass, even on a volunteer basis [more].

As one might expect, his claim was quickly challenged by those who said priests either would not or could be arrested for celebrating the Sacraments on military bases during the shut down, so he continued with his investigation and found the answer to be yes, according to the law itself:

So the short answer is yes, these priests can be arrested if they defy the furlough and say Mass on base. They can be charged, imprisoned, and fined. Will they be? Let’s hope not. But the threat alone is enough to cause sufficient concern [more].

Thankfully a few legislators picked up on this grave possibility and recognized the blatant threat to religious liberty it posed, and the likelihood that it could well happen under this administration (never before has it been a concern, but never before have the monuments and memorials been closed and barricaded during a shutdown, either, or sites that do not belong to the government).  Anything is possible, especially given this administration's history of changing even settled law to suit its own purpose. If the Administration is willing to arrest 90 year-old veterans who visit their memorial, it will certainly give serious thought to arresting priests who celebrate the Sacraments.

Today, Saturday, October 5th, the United States House of Representatives will vote to allow military chaplains - including Catholic priests - to minister to the members of the military on bases without threat of fines or imprisonment.  In effect, the House will vote to grant religious liberty to the members of the armed forces.

On this vote rests much of the future of the nation; today we will see if the House of Representatives values, honors, respects, and protects the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

If the Representatives do and prove it by approving the legislation, we will see if the United States Senate values, honors, respects, and protects the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

If the Senators do and prove it by approving the legislation, we see if the President of the United States values, honors, respects, and protects the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Ammendment.

If the bill fails in the House or in the Senate, or if it is vetoed by the President, the United States of America will not be the same country I left in the middle of July.

Please, contact your Representative and Senators immediately and urge them to vote "yes" on this important and historic vote.

Religious freedom is of vital importance to the health and stability of a nation because, as Benedict XVI said, it "expresses what is unique about the human person, for it allows us to direct our personal and social life to God, in whose light the identity, meaning and purpose of the person are fully understood.  To deny or arbitrarily restrict this freedom is to foster a reductive vision of the human person; to eclipse the public role of religion is to create a society which is unjust, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the true nature of the human person; it is to stifle the grown of the authentic and lasting peace of the human family (emphasis in original).

What is more, "respect for essential elements of human dignity, such as the right to life and the right to religious freedom, is a condition for the moral legitimacy of ever social and legal norm."

Homily - 30 September 2012

The Twenty-sixth Sunday of the Year (B)

Dear brothers and sisters,

On April 23, 1886, Cardinal Simeoni said to then Deacon Augustus Tolton: “America has been called the most enlightened nation on earth.  We will see if it deserves that honor.  If the United States has never before seen a black priest, it must see one now.”  The next morning Deacon Tolton was ordained a priest of Jesus Christ and sent back to his home here in Quincy.

The most enlightened nation on earth?  I wonder, what did Father Gus think of that phrase?  Born in slavery, he only became free after his mother made a harrowing escape with her three children when Gus was seven.  Does an enlightened nation enslave people simply on the basis of the color of their skin?

When he enrolled at St. Boniface school in Quincy, many of the parents of the white children threatened to withdraw their children; young Gus – then ten years old – was the first black student there and withdrew himself.  Does an enlightened nation discriminate against others because of the color of their skin?  When he later enrolled in St. Peter school – at the insistence of the pastor, Gus found that, “As long as I was in that school, I was safe.  Everyone was kind to me.”[1]

Here, perhaps, we see something of an enlightened nation, but then we remember why Father Tolton left Quincy: the jealousy of Father Weiss, who told the first black priest in these United States that he could only minister to blacks and not to whites.  Even so, writing to Cardinal Gibbons, Father Tolton wrote, “The white people in this little Gem City of Quincy, Ills are really good hearted charitable and nonprejudicial, no feelings of bitterness at all against a man on account of complexion.”[2]  Following his death in 1897 and, in keeping with his wishes, Father Tolton was buried here in Quincy where his body remains today.

History will judge whether or not the America of Father Tolton’s day was indeed an enlightened nation, but I wonder: Will history judge the America of our day to be enlightened?

Is a nation that would require people of faith to violate their consciences and provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs an enlightened nation?  The recent federal mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services requires precisely this, in clear contradiction of our first amendment right of the free exercise of religion.

Is a nation that makes it illegal for a priest to baptize an illegal immigrant or even hear his confession an enlightened nation?  Such a law was been passed in Alabama last year.

Is a nation that seeks to alter the very structure and organization of the Church and to determine who is and who is not a “religious minister” an enlightened nation?  Such a restructuring was attempted in Connecticut in 2009.

Is a nation that tells student religious groups that people of a different faith must be able to be leaders of their religious groups an enlightened nation?  This happened at the University Of California Hastings College Of Law in 2009 and at Vanderbilt University this year.

Is a nation that forces Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoptions simply because their faith tells them they cannot place children with same-sex or unmarried couples an enlightened nation?  This happened this year in Illinois, in the District of Columbia in 2010, and in Boston and in San Francisco in 2006.

Is a nation that refuses to allow Christians to use public buildings but allows other groups to use the same buildings an enlightened nation?  This happens routinely in New York City and elsewhere.

Is a nation that refuses contracts to the best organization helping with human trafficking because it will not provide abortions and contraception an enlightened nation?  The federal government this year refused to renew contracts with the U.S. Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services for this very reason.

Is a nation that kills more than one million babies each year in their mother’s wombs an enlightened nation?  Blessed Teresa of Calcutta shed light on the horror of abortion when she reminded us that “It is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

Is a nation that thinks more about its economic standing than even the right to life when deciding its future an enlightened nation?  I dare say it is not.  What good is a robust economy if few people may enjoy it?

Our Bishop wrote to us last week, saying, “you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”[3]  Many people have reacted strongly against the Bishop’s reminder, but the truth of his words remains.

Thinking ourselves more enlightened than our ancestors, we like to think that either Hell does not exist or that no one will go there.  The teaching of Jesus today stands starkly against such a notion.  “It is better for you to enter into life maimed,” he says, “than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43).  Those who make their way to Hell do so by their own choice, by their free rejection of Jesus Christ and the truth of his Gospel.  Just as the Lord does not force us to be with him in this life, neither will he force anyone to be with him in eternity.

Those who make their way to eternal life, to heaven, to the presence of God, are those know that “the law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul,” that “the decree of the Lord is trustworthy, giving wisdom to the simple” (Psalm 19:8, 10).

In their recent document highlighting the increasing threats against our religious freedom, Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, our Bishops said:

As bishops we seek to bring the light of the Gospel to our public life, but the work of politics is properly that of committed and courageous lay Catholics. We exhort them to be both engaged and articulate in insisting that as Catholics and as Americans we do not have to choose between the two.[4]

Society today is telling us that the most important issues of the upcoming election are jobs and the economy; this is simply not true.  The most important issues of the upcoming election are the right to life and religious liberty.  Without life, no other right matters.  Without religious freedom, every other freedom will be taken away.  “What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society – or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it.”[5]

On the day of our Baptism, each of us was entrusted with the light of Christ and was told to keep it burning brightly.  Each of us must bring this light to the public square so that the warmth of the Light of Word and the truth of his words may bring light to a world and a society darkened by sin.

Some will undoubtedly say, “Father, you’re crossing the line of separation of Church and State.” Such is not the case for what we are discussing is not a matter of Church and State but of faith and politics.  “This ought not to be a partisan issue.  The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or Independents.  It is for all of us.”[6]  We must remember that we are neither Republicans or Democrats or Independents; we are Catholics.  No political party fully supports the truth of the Gospel or the mandate Jesus Christ has given us, though some parties are in greater alignment with it than others.

Faith requires something of us. It requires that we love both God and neighbor and that every decision we make, every word we speak, and every action we perform, be in keeping with the love of God and of neighbor, even in the voting booth. Faith can never be laid aside, for we are servants of the Lord at all times and in every place.  If we remember this and live accordingly, America will truly be an enlightened nation.

In speaking these words some will praise me and others condemn me, but I speak these for neither praise nor condemnation; I speak them because they are true. I know that “the precepts of the Lord give joy to the heart” and I want you and every person to know this, as well (Psalm 19:9).  Because these words are true I must speak them, for at the end of my life I want to say to the Divine Master, with honesty and sincerity, “I am an unprofitable servant; I have done what I was obliged to do” (cf. Luke 17:10). Amen.

---

[1] Roy Bauer, They Called Him Father Gus: The Life and Times of Augustine Tolton, First Black Priest in the U.S.A., Part Eight.

[2] Augustus Tolton, Letter to Cardinal Gibbons, July 24, 1888.

[3] Thomas John Paprocki, “Think and pray about your vote in upcoming election,” Catholic Times, September 23, 2012.

[4] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Our First, Most Cherished Liberty: A Statement on Religious Liberty, 9.

[5] Ibid., 4-5.

[6] Ibid., 10.

I hope you'll join us

The Fortnight Begins

Today "a great hymn of prayer for our country" will rise to heaven as Catholics across these United States of America pray for religious freedom in union with their Bishops.

Reflecting on this great Fortnight for Freedom I cannot help but recall the famous words of Saint Ignatius Antioch:

Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, you may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that you are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus you may always enjoy communion with God (Letter to the Ephesians, 3).

Tomorrow evening, the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki will celebrate Mass in the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, both to mark the second anniversary of his installation as the Bishop of Springfield in Illinois and to "kick-off," if you will, the Fortnight for Freedom in his Diocese. I am happy to say that he will be joined by many of his priests, some of whom will come from the far reaches of the Diocese.  I hope the laity will also join him to unite their voices to this great hymn of prayer for our country.

In his June 3rd column in the Catholic Times, Bishop Paprock acknowledged, "Unfortunately too many people, including many Catholics, are just shrugging this off because they mistakenly see this as a fight about contraception."  He went on to ask:

So how can I light a fire under you? Perhaps you don't care about contraception despite the church's teaching. But consider this: The 1965 contraception decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Griswold v. Connecticut, provided the legal rationale for abortion on demand just eight years later in Roe v. Wade. If the HHS mandate is allowed to stand, I guarantee that it will not take eight years for some politicians to begin calling for the government to require Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. When that happens, Catholics will demand that bishops do something about that, but it will be too late if Catholic voters do not start to make their voices heard now. You can do so by contacting the White House at www.whitehouse.gov/contact.

I urge you, if you have not yet read Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, do so as an important and integral part of your participation in this Fortnight for Freedom.  In it, the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops clearly sets out the reasons for their mustering of Catholics:

Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day, both here at home and overseas.

What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.

To those who claim the Bishops are involving themselves in partisan politics, the Bishops remind us that "the Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected representatives to ensure that it remains so."

If you are looking for ways that you can participate in this Fortnight for Freedom, the Bishops have written a Prayer for the Protection of Religious Liberty:

O God our Creator,
Through the power and working of your Holy Spirit,
you call us to live out our faith in the midst of the world,
bringing the light and the saving truth of the Gospel
to every corner of society.
We ask you to bless us
in our vigilance for the gift of religious liberty.
Give us the strength of mind and heart
to readily defend our freedoms when they are threatened;
give us courage in making our voices heard
on behalf of the rights of your Church
and the freedom of conscience of all people of faith.
Grant, we pray, O heavenly Father,
a clear and united voice to all your sons and daughters
gathered in your Church
in this decisive hour in the history of our nation,
so that, with every trial withstood
and every danger overcome—
for the sake of our children, our grandchildren,
and all who come after us—
this great land will always be "one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

Pray it each day of this Fortnight and consider also praying the Litany for Liberty with your family and friends.  And certainly don't forget the Litany of St. Thomas More.

Hypocrsy for the National Day of Prayer?

In keeping with a proclamation of the President of the United States of America given May 1, 2012, we were to have observed a National Day of Prayer on May 3, 2012.  Maybe you missed it; I know I did.

The proclamation of President Obama read as follows:

Prayer has always been a part of the American story, and today countless Americans rely on prayer for comfort, direction, and strength, praying not only for themselves, but for their communities, their country, and the world.

On this National Day of Prayer, we give thanks for our democracy that respects the beliefs and protects the religious freedom of all people to pray, worship, or abstain according to the dictates of their conscience. Let us pray for all the citizens of our great Nation, particularly those who are sick, mourning, or without hope, and ask God for the sustenance to meet the challenges we face as a Nation. May we embrace the responsibility we have to each other, and rely on the better angels of our nature in service to one another. Let us be humble in our convictions, and courageous in our virtue. Let us pray for those who are suffering around the world, and let us be open to opportunities to ease that suffering.

Let us also pay tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces who have answered our country’s call to serve with honor in the pursuit of peace. Our grateful Nation is humbled by the sacrifices made to protect and defend our security and freedom. Let us pray for the continued strength and safety of our service members and their families. While we pause to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending liberty, let us remember and lend our voices to the principles for which they fought — unity, human dignity, and the pursuit of justice.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 3, 2012, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I call upon individuals of all faiths to pray for guidance, grace, and protection for our great Nation as we address the challenges of our time.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

The reference to religious freedom the President makes, given the current move of the Administration to force Catholics and their institutions to violate their consciences, is particularly curious:

On this National Day of Prayer, we give thanks for our democracy that respects the beliefs and protects the religious freedom of all people to pray, worship, or abstain according to the dictates of their conscience.

In a second reference to religious freedom, President Obama invited the citizes of these united States to join him in thanking God "as their own faith directs them.

Why is it, then, that the Department of Health and Human Services, following the dictates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, refuse to allow Catholics the freedom "to pray, worship, or abstain according to the dictates of their conscience."

It's time for the present Administration to be more honest.

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