A compromise found for Kim Davis

If you think back to the controversy spun in the media last September regarding Kim Davis, you might recall that she proposed a way for her to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples without violating her conscience. As I wrote at the time:

Davis has herself has put forward several suggestions as to how marriage licenses might be issued in Kentucky - including removing the name of the county clerk from the license - while also accommodating religious beliefs. As Terry Mattingly of Get Religion observed - and helpfully documented and explained - yesterday, state law in Kentucky does not presently allow such accommodations, but such a change to the state's laws would be, as House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg) said, "an easy fix."

Why, then, has this easy fix not be done to respect both Davis' legal right to the free exercise of religion and the legal right of homosexual couples to what the law deems as marriage not yet been done? It should not be difficult to accommodate both rights. The reason why this has not been done is simple: Governor Steve Beshear (D) refuses to call a special session of the state legislature to resolve the situation.

This solution had already been enacted in other states, but the Governor of Kentucky refused to allow it at the time.

Now, however, where the executive and the legislative branches of government would not bring about this simple solution, the judicial branch has done so. Reuters provides this background:

The federal judge who threw Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis into jail last year for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples said she had not interfered with the process since her release and that licenses with her name removed should still be valid.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ruled late on Tuesday that Rowan County's Davis, who spent five days in jail last September for her stand on marriage licenses for gay couples, had not interfered with her deputies' issuing the licenses.

When she returned to work, Davis removed her name, title and personal authorization from the licenses.

Lawyers with the ACLU argued that the altered licenses were invalid; Judge Bunning disagreed.

See, that wasn't so hard.

New Kentucky governor accepts a proposal made by Kim Davis

When Kim Davis, the now famous County Clerk of Rowan County in the state of Kentucky, stopped signing and issuing marriage licenses many people told her to resign her office if she insisted on discriminating against homosexual couples. I suggested then that the situation might not be quite what it seemed, as, in fact, it wasn't (because she was not issuing marriage licenses at all, even for heterosexual couples).

Davis herself had put forth several suggestions as to how she could issue marriage licenses without violating her conscience, including the simple removal of her name from the marriage license, as was done in other states. However, the then-Governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear (D) refused to do so by calling for a special session of the state legislature even though the House Speaker, Greg Stumbo (D), called for such a session to consider Davis' requests and find a simple and civil way to reach a compromise.

How we can finally see an end to this conflict.

The new Governor-elect of the state of Kentucky, Matt Bevin (R), announced this past Friday that "one thing I will take care of right away is we will remove the names of the county clerks from the marriage form." As soon as this is done, Kim Davis' objections to the issuing of marriage licenses in Rowan County will no longer exist and she will be able to perform the functions for which she was elected to her office without violating her conscience.

This is how a civilized people works together to find a reasonable compromise and a resolution of differences. It really is not too difficult.

The Situation of Kim Davis May Not Be What You Think

The current situation of Kim Davis, the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, who has been jailed for not signing marriage licenses (two other county clerks in Kentucky are also not issuing marriage licenses, though they apparently have not received the attention of the courts or the media) in the wake of the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, highlights the difficulties of a person of religious conviction taking a role in the public life of these United States of America, so entrenched have we become in secular attitudes.

The more I consider Father Dwight Longenecker's suggestion that she should, following the example of Saint Thomas More, resign her post because she cannot in conscience fulfill the duties required of her, seems to me correct. He is right, after all, when he notes:

A resignation is not a compromise and it is not condoning something the religious person cannot condone.

Neither is a resignation an escape. It is a clear public statement which requires considerable sacrifice.

It is “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”.

Still, I cannot help but doubt this suggestion, even as I agree with it. It should be remembered that the king still claimed the head of resigned Chancellor.

A number of arguments have been raised as to why Davis should either be removed from office or jailed, none of which seem sufficient, as R.R. Reno succinctly and calmly pointed out yesterday at First Things:

Some might say that her refusal to sign marriage licenses disqualifies her from holding her position as county clerk. She should resign or be removed. People are certainly entitled to that opinion. But Davis does not think she must resign. The county clerks in Kentucky are elected, so she can’t be fired. She could be impeached, but that’s for the legislators of the State of Kentucky to decide. And the citizens of Rowan County can vote against her in the next election. Conscience, properly exercised in civil disobedience that otherwise respects the law, isn’t always easy to dislodge.

I can imagine some harrumphing about the notion that Davis respects the law. After all, isn’t she refusing to act in accord with it?! I find this worry rather rich when expressed by progressives. For decades, elite colleges and universities run by progressives have made arrangements with local police that allow students to use drugs and drink while underage, free from the worry of arrest. These sorts of special arrangements, which are widespread in elite institutions, are not criticized for the obvious ways in which they undermine the rule of law.

Under the circumstances, Kim Davis poses little threat to the rule of law. Her actions have done nothing to prevent gay couples from getting marriage licenses throughout Kentucky. The couples that present themselves for her signature can easily go to the next county, as I’m sure heterosexual couples in Rowan County have done over the last two months.

Davis has herself has put forward several suggestions as to how marriage licenses might be issued in Kentucky - including removing the name of the county clerk from the license - while also accommodating religious beliefs. As Terry Mattingly of Get Religion observed - and helpfully documented and explained - yesterday, state law in Kentucky does not presently allow such accommodations, but such a change to the state's laws would be, as House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg) said, "an easy fix."

Why, then, has this easy fix not be done to respect both Davis' legal right to the free exercise of religion and the legal right of homosexual couples to what the law deems as marriage not yet been done? It should not be difficult to accommodate both rights. The reason why this has not been done is simple: Governor Steve Beshear (D) refuses to call a special session of the state legislature to resolve the situation.

The current argument, then, in Rowan County, Kentucky - despite the continued and widely accepted framing of the media - is not so much about a county clerk who refuses to do her job but about an executive who refuses to allow a religious accommodation for an government functionary. And this is why the jailing of Kim Davis should be a concern for all people of good will.

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.

A news round up - 10 February 2015

The news you may have missed:

• Two new pieces of legislation passed by the city council of Washington, D.C. would force Catholic organizations - such as universities and hospitals - to recognize groups contrary to their mission or to provide abortions, sterilization, artificial contraception, and even in vitro fertilization.

• By overturning a law aimed at protecting people from physician 'assisted' suicide, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it legal for doctors to prescribe death for any Canadian who has "a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition." This would include even those with mental illnesses. What could possibly go wrong with this?

• The Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes have now recorded its 69th recognized miraculous healing.

• Abortion clinics in New York are inspected less frequently than pizzerias.

• Over the course of just two days, 5 churches were desecrated in the Diocese of Bellay-Ars in France.

• I've long known the Church in northern Europe has been struggling for years. It is apparently particularly bad in the Diocese of Groningen-Leeuwarden, which will close 75% of its parishes over the next three years.

• Legislators in Wyoming hope to pass legislation bringing back execution by firing squad. This is surely entirely unnecessary.

• The statue in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall of Blessed - and soon-to-be Saint - Junipero Serra, the founder of California, may soon be released because he is, according to some, a "controversial" figure, even though none of the charges brought against him can be historically substantiated. 

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."

A deeply troubling set of answers in the U.S. Naturalization Self-Test

This morning Father Zuhlsdorf directs our attention to the Naturalization Self-Test 1 as found on the web site of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that posits the following four possible answers to the question, "What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?":

1. freedom of speech and freedom to run for president
2. freedom of speech and freedom of worship
3. freedom of worship and freedom to make treaties with other countries
4. freedom to petition the government and freedom to disobey traffic laws

There is one very large problem with this set of possible answers, which, if you know your history and your rights, if glaringly obvious and deeply troubling: none of the possible choices is correct.

Under the First Amendment, we enjoy both the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, which is not the same as the freedom of worship. The freedom of worship, as was enjoyed during Communist Russia, only pertains within a building designated for worship, but does not extend beyond the walls of such a building. On the other hand, the freedom of religion extends wherever a person is because it recognizes that religious faith must, of its very nature, influence and direct every aspect of life, from work to play to study to life in the home.

If the freedom of religion can be taken away, then every other freedom can also be taken away. This is the warning the U.S. Bishops have been declaring for the past several years through the Fortnight for Freedom campaign. It is a warning we would do well to heed.

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.

The end of religious liberty in the Land of Lincoln

Several people have repeatedly told me that with the passage of the so-called Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act in Illinois, which redefines marriage and strips away religious liberty, that ministers and churches will not be required to officiate at such "weddings" or rent buildings to the couples, as if religious liberty entailed nothing more.

In answer to this oft-repeated notion, the executive director of the Illinois Catholic Conference has warned now of what Real Clear Religion calls "the end of religious liberty in the Land of Lincoln" since both the Senate and the House of Representatives have approved the legislation:

We know better this time. We know our religious freedom is not protected. And when we asked for more protection, our pleas for fairness were rebuffed and spurned.

Senate Bill 10 offers no specific protection regarding employment practices. If a current church employee chooses to "marry" a same-sex partner, the legislation offers no specific protection regarding the church being forced to pay -- from funds collected every Sunday from faithful church-goers in the pews -- for benefits for the "spouse."

The legislation offers no conscience protections to health-care facilities, educational facilities, or social service agencies. So, faith-based hospitals, colleges, and universities that own and operate venues for rent are not protected.

Individuals and independent business owners whose religious beliefs do not condone same-sex marriage are also left in the dust. There are the stories about the photographers, bakers, florists, and bed-and-breakfast owners who have come under fire for refusing to serve same-sex weddings. What about the county judge asked to perform a same-sex wedding, or a public school teacher forced to teach about a family with two moms, two dads, or some other permutation?

They get nada.

Is this fairness, or tolerance?

Be sure to read the entire piece.

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.

Illinois legislators to vote on same-sex "marriage"

On December 1, 2010, the Illinois House of Representatives approved SB 1716, the so-called Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act even though all of the "protections" granted to civil unions were already legally available to those who sought them; all that was needed to obtain them was a little simple paperwork.

The next day the Illinois Senate approved the same legislation, which Governor Quinn signed into law on January 31, 2011.

When the law passed we were told it would not impact religious organizations, yet it was the same legislation that forced Catholic Charities our of their work with foster care and adoptions.

If you recall, the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act - which has not actually granted any religious freedom but took it away - was passed in a "lame duck" session, with at least once Senator (Deanna Demuzio) changing her mind the morning of the vote, from against the bill to support of it; she had already lost her bid for re-election and so had nothing to lose (this was the only way the bill would pass).

Now, rather quietly and quickly (just as before) the Illinois House of Representatives is preparing to vote on HR 5170 - sponsored by two democrats from Chicago - which aims to legalize same-sex "marriage".  The vote is likely to take place in another lame duck session, January 2-8, 2013.

If the sponsors and supporters of this legislation are so convinced of the moral rightness - as they no doubt claim - why do they not propose the legislation when their re-election is at stake?

HR 5170 is called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.  As before, if you think the legislation will actually grant any freedom of religion, you are foolish and blind to the lessons of the past.

The Catholic Conference of Illinois has created a web site to help people of good will oppose the proposed legislation and to defend the reality of marriage.

What must be remembered is that marriage existed before the Catholic Church and before any State.  Therefore the State has no right or authority to change or alter the definition of marriage.  It really is that simple.

Yesterday the Chicago Tribune ran a story noting that more than 250 clergy - mostly from Chicago - support the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.  The article quotes a statement from these clergy that reads, in part, "We believe all Illinois couples should have the same civil protections and urge our public officials to support measures to achieve equality."  This statement alone shows the ignorance of these clergy when it comes to the law.  The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act has already granted the same civil protections now demanded.  

What the article does not say is how many clergy oppose the legislation.

Please, contact your Illinois Representative and Senator and ask them to oppose the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, or any similar legislation.

Homily - 14 October 2012

The homily that follows is similar to the homily I preached September 30th, 2012.  Parts of the homily have been edited to make reference to the Year of Faith and to the readings of the Twentieth-eighth Sunday of the year.

The Twenty-eighth Sunday of the Year (B)

Dear brothers and sisters,

On April 23, 1886, Cardinal Simeoni said to then Deacon Augustus Tolton (whose cause for beatification and canonization is underway): “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 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 ultimately left Quincy for Chicago: 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 back 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 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 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 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.”  What would Father Gus say of those who might claim, “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I can’t force my morals on anyone else”?

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 a few weeks ago, 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.

Too often we forget the words of Jesus himself: “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:24)!  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.  Those who arrive in heaven do so by preferring Jesus Christ to everything else.  To inherit eternal life, we must live continual in “self-abandonment, in a continuous crescendo, into the hands of a love that seems to grow constantly because it has its origin in God.”[4]

In his Apostolic Letter, Porta Fidei, in which he announced this Year of Faith, the Holy Father reminded us that “faith, precisely because it is a free act, also demands social responsibility for what one believes (10).”  This social responsibility must be lived be outside and inside the voting booth.

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.[5]

Our faith does not need to be – and cannot be – put aside.

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.”[6]

On the day of our Baptism, on the day when faith was given to us, 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 the World 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.”[7]  We must remember that we are not 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; that is not our fault, but theirs.  Our allegiance must not be to one political party or another, but to Jesus Christ.

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, if it is to gain us eternal life, requires a full adherence to Jesus Christ.  Faith can never be laid aside, for we are servants of the Lord at all times and in every place.  We must remember that “no creature is concealed from [the Lord], but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account” (Hebrews 4:13).  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 do not speak these words for praise or condemnation; I speak them because they are true. 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” (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] Pope Benedict XVI, Porta Fidei, 7.

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

[6] Ibid., 4-5.

[7] Ibid., 10.

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.

Don't forget to join us!

I know it will likely be hot and humid today at noon in the Capital City, but don't forget to join us today:

It will be a good penance to stand in the heat of the day praying for the protection and restoration of our religious liberty.

N.B.: As I understand it, the ceiling of the Hall of Flags fell in last week.  Now, in case of rain, we will congregate in the rotunda itself.

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.