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. 

A news round up - 15 October 2014

Here are few items of news you might have missed:

• Police in Utah are searching for a woman who robbed a Super 8 motel while, according to witnesses, dressed like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle costume. Though she apparently wore a black mask over her face, my guess is she had Raphael in mind; this seems like something he might do when angry.

• The U.S. Department of Justice created a Facebook page under the name of a woman and with pictures taken from her cell phone  - without her knowledge or permission - to help, they say, in criminal investigations. She is now suing the government for a breach of privacy and is seeking more than $250,000 in damages.

• The budget deficit of the U.S. federal government has now fallen to just $486,000.000,000. This is down from a budget deficit of more than $1,000,000,000,000 in President Obama's first term and after hitting a record $1,400,000,000,000 in 2009. This fall of the budget deficit is, I suppose, good news. Still, I wouldn't mind a personal budget like this.

• After studying data collected from the temperature of the oceans at various depths, the National Aeronautics and Space and Administration reports that it is unable to explain why global warming (even in the waters) has slowed over the last ten years, in clear contradiction to the projections of the computer models.

• As further proof that saints are just like us, Saint John Paul II was a fan of the classic movie, The Princess Bride. According to Cary Elwes, the late Pope called the movie, "Very good film. Very funny." That's a good enough endorsement for me.

• A petition on the web site of the White House to "Investigate Jehovah's Witness' [sic] Leaders for Child Abuse Cover Up and Protecting Child Abusers" has 191 signatures since being posted on Monday. 

• I'm not sure how I managed to miss this one until today, but a prisoner in Santa Fe is suing the state of New Mexico because his First Amendment freedom to practice Satanism is not being respected.

• The tallest cow in the world - standing at 6'4" - lives in Orangeville, Illinois (I didn't know where it was, either).

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."

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.

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.

 

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."

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.