Global focus shifting to religious freedom

Over the past several months I have tried to help you keep you informed about threats against the religious freedom of Christians both in the United States of America and throughout the world.  It seems very clear to me that our religious freedom is resting uncomfortably, as it were, in the balance.

John Allen has recently suggested that 2011 will be the year when threats against religious freedom becomes a key social and political discussion.

His text follows, with my emphases:

Predictions are always hazardous, but here's one I feel pretty good about: 2011 will be remembered as the year when religious freedom came into focus as the premier social and political concern of the Catholic church in the early 21st century.

Ferment is everywhere. Across the Middle East, fear about the aftermath of the Arab Spring grips the small but symbolically important Christian community. In the United States, the Catholic bishops have launched a new ad-hoc committee on religious freedom, girding up for a highly litigious season of church/state conflicts around matters such as conscience rights and the ability of religious organizations to hire and fire in keeping with their beliefs. From the Vatican, Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch has proposed "ecumenism of the martyrs" as a new basis for Christian unity, reflecting the realities of anti-Christian persecution around the world.

The common denominator in each case is that, in some form, Christians believe their religious freedom to be at risk.

Given all that, it may seem like an exercise in stating the obvious to ask why defending religious freedom has reached the top of the church's to-do list. The simple answer: Because that's where the threat lies. (After all, nobody is really confused as to why the North was concerned with the Confederacy during the Civil War, or why the Americans were hung up on the Soviets during the Cold War.)

All the same, it's useful to identify some of the deep forces underlying today's concern with religious freedom -- if only to make the point that it's the result of long-term historic transitions, and thus unlikely to be a here-today, gone-tomorrow affair.

I see at least three such deep historical movements at work. (This week I gave a couple of lectures on religious freedom at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, under the aegis of its Center for Faith and Culture, where I was grateful for the chance to try out some of these ideas.)

The first such force is the transition in the West, meaning Europe and portions of North America, from Christianity as a culture-shaping majority to Christianity as a subculture. That shift has been underway for a long time, tied to the process of secularization, and has been memorably captured by Pope Benedict XVI in the idea that Christianity in the West today is destined to live as a "creative minority."

As a subculture, Christianity can no longer take the basic benevolence of the state, or the larger culture, for granted. In Catholic terms, this erosion of the traditional deference the church once enjoyed -- from politicians, the courts, the media, and other shapers of culture -- has been turbo-charged by the sexual abuse crisis.

Sociologically speaking, subcultures tend to be preoccupied, and not irrationally, with preserving their distinctive identity. They become vigilant about possible encroachments on that identity, especially by the state. That pretty much describes what's happening these days at the leadership level of the Catholic church, with the mounting concern with religious freedom as the tip of the spear.

Naturally, one can debate the particular issues flagged by the American bishops as religious freedom concerns, or the strategies they might pursue in addressing them. But at a purely descriptive level, there's little question they're right in assuming that serious legal and political battles are ahead. (As proof of the point, one of the first tasks of their new committee is to hire lawyers.)

A second force underlying today's ferment around religious freedom is the emergence of a truly global church, one in which two-thirds of the world's Catholic population lives in the southern hemisphere, a share that will reach three-quarters by mid-century.

As that demographic shift unfolds, it drives home the realization that a growing share of Catholics live in neighborhoods where they can't take religious freedom for granted.

In such locales, threats to religious freedom aren't about insurance mandates, or a "ministerial exception" to federal laws on hiring and firing. They're instead about direct threats to life and limb, as believers take their lives in their hands every time they go to worship, or open their businesses, or for that matter just walk down the street.

The most harrowing such case these days is probably Iraq, which has lost an estimated two-thirds of its Christian population since the first Gulf War in 1991 -- in other words, in the arc of just two decades. Much of that collapse is due to the violence and instability that afflicts all Iraqis, but there's no denying that the proliferation of radical Islamic groups and their repeated assaults on Christian churches, businesses and individuals is also a powerful force underlying the exodus.

Iraq is hardly the only example. From the Middle East to the Indian subcontinent, from parts of sub-Saharan Africa to regions of East Asia, millions of Christians are under threat, and thousands have already paid in blood for their refusal to part company with the faith -- a whole "new generation of martyrs," as Koch recently put it.

In a Catholic church in which intellectual vision, political momentum, and pastoral priorities increasingly bubble up from the global south, religious freedom will be set in cement as a top-shelf concern.

A third force driving the emergence of religious freedom is the historic shift underway in Catholicism from Judaism to Islam as the church's paradigmatic, or defining, interreligious relationship.

In the decades following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the relationship with Judaism clearly was Catholicism's touchstone inter-faith dialogue -- meaning the one which drew the greatest share of time and treasure, and set the tone for all the rest. Today that pride of place is increasingly being claimed by Islam, a shift which is clear both at the top of the church, in terms of where the Vatican invests its inter-faith capital, and at the bottom, in the wide ferment over Islam in Catholic circles.

One implication is a sea change in Catholic psychology vis-à-vis inter-faith dialogue. As long as Judaism was the prism, the Catholic inclination was to begin every dialogue with an examination of conscience: What's wrong in Christian thought or practice, what needs to be reformed or removed, in order to make this relationship work? In light of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Shoah, obviously, that self-critical impulse made eminent sense.

As Islam becomes the paradigmatic relationship, however, Catholic psychology has begun to shift. Today, Catholics are less inclined to assume that the problem lies on their side of any inter-faith dialogue; they've become more inclined to point to distortions and excesses on the other side as well. That's a prescription for a more balanced and substantive, but also more combustible, form of dialogue.

By far, the most common area where one sees this new Catholic willingness to push back is religious freedom, and not just in the relationship with Islam. It also surfaces, for instance, in the dialogue with Hinduism, given the alarming spread of Hindu nationalism and radicalism in some regions of India. The worry is that violent anti-Christian pogroms that broke out in the state of Orissa in 2008 may be a preview of coming attractions.

No matter what else happens, there's little reason to believe that these three root forces -- secularization in the West, the north-south shift in Catholic demography, or the global preoccupation with Islam -- are likely to reverse course anytime soon.
If so, then religious freedom as a Catholic idée fixe is here to stay.

Paprocki running for pro-life causes

One week from today His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, will run his eighteenth marathon in Kansas City with the Life Runners, a network of runners who raise funds for pro-life causes.



Bishop Paprocki will run to raise funds for pro-life activities in his Diocese:

• youth scholarships for the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.
• multimedia resources to educate youth
• advertising campaigns about post-abortion assistance

If you are able, please make a donation online as Bishop Paprocki runs for this most worthy of causes.

When ideology clouds faith

Writing for the Gatehouse News Service, Tom Ehrich, an Episcopal priest, asks the poignant question: "What if America truly were a Christian nation?"  The question is good but his presuppositions are not.

Some of what he says is true, but much of it is clouded by the hermeneutic through which he looks upon the world; he lenses do not seem to see neither nuance nor distinction.

He first contends:

Not a Southern Baptist nation, or an Episcopal nation, or a Roman Catholic nation. Not grounded in the doctrinal and ecclesiastical isms that have grown up over the centuries. But a Christian nation, doing what Jesus did.

 Here he ignores the reality that Jesus did, in fact, found one Church, built upon the Apostle Peter.  The Southern Baptist and Episcopal ecclesial communities are not that Church; the Catholic Church is.  It is a simple fact of history.

But be that as it may, his second contention - one which might well be expected from an Episcopalian - is the one that troubles me most:

Well, we wouldn’t be arguing about sex, that’s for sure. Jesus devoted no time to matters of sexuality.

Has he read the Gospels?  If he has, I'm not sure how could possibly make that claim unless his ideology greatly clouded his reading.  Or unless he has a very specific narrow meaning of sexuality.

The present situation

Over at Adam's Ale, Father Valencheck has a concise summary of the present situation facing Catholics in this country and a good quote from Cardinal George that is seeming more prophetic every day:

What is at stake? Men and women in the medical field who want to live out their Catholic faith run the risk of losing their jobs because they refuse to perform procedures or administer drugs that the government wants to mandate ridding us of our conscience clauses. Institutions come closer every year to being in direct conflict with new government regulations in hiring and in practices that go against Catholic teaching such as supplying medical coverage for abortions (just one example.) As same sex marriages are made legal the Church runs the risk of having to recognize such marriages or face sanctions. If you do not believe this take a look at what Archbishop Broglio is facing as archbishop of the military.

Faith is not safe. If you are safe it is only because such things have not yet directly affected your life. All of this prompted Francis Cardinal George to comment, “"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square".

A double standard with religious freedom

Here in Illinois it is becoming illegal for Catholics to practice their faith when it comes to foster care and contraception, and it soon may be so across the country when it comes to surgical sterilization and contraceptive devices and pills.

But in Ohio Muslims are allowed the freedom to practice their religion when it comes to pork.

Why the double standard?  It's a curious thing: to meet the religious practices of one Muslim, no prisoners can eat pork.  But when it comes to Catholics meeting their religious practices, they only ones having things taken away are the Catholics.

There is such a thing as a stupid question

People often ask me questions with the most obvious of answers, such as this one:

Sometimes I try not to give a sarcastic answer, and other times I just can't help it.  I may have to use this answer sometime and see what happens.

On bending the knee

In the ancient world the knee symbolized the strength of a man.  Why?  Take a stick and whack a man on the knee and see what happens.

To genuflect, then, - to literally "bend the knee" - is bend one's strength to God.  To genuflect before God serves both to place oneself at his service and to honor his authority.

Too many Catholics genuflect far too lightly, both exteriorly and interiorly.  Sometimes I wonder - without judging individuals - if too many of the elderly too lightly opt to bow instead of genuflecting.

This morning at the altar of God the importance of genuflecting hit me, as it were, in a particular way.

After the consecration of the host and then of the chalice the priest is instructed to make a genuflection.  With my arthritis, genuflecting in the morning is not always a simple effort and this morning I had to muster additional strength to place myself back at a standing position (the weather forecast, by the way, seems to be missing something).

As I worked my way back up, I said offered a little prayer: "What strength I have, Lord, little as it is, I give to you."

It seems to me this is not a bad way to start a day, if the reminder of weakness is not always welcome.

Tibow and Christophobia

Writing On the Square, George Weigel takes a look at the polarizing figure of Tim Tebow and considers what makes him so polarizing:

Two weeks into the NFL season, ESPN ran a Sunday morning special exploring why the third-string quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Tim Tebow, had become the most polarizing figure in American sports—more polarizing than trash-talking NBA behemoths; more polarizing than foul-mouthed Serena Williams; more polarizing than NFL all-stars who father numerous children by numerous women, all out of wedlock [or Michael Vick and his dog fights].  Why does Tebow, and Tebow alone, arouse such passions? Why is Tebow the one whom “comedians” say they would like to shoot?

It's an excellent question.  As to the answer to the question, Weigel suggests:

Tim Tebow is a target of irrational hatred, not because he’s an iffy quarterback at the NFL level, or a creep personally, or an obnoxious, in-your-face, self-righteous proselytizer. He draws hatred because he is an unabashed Christian, whose calmness and decency in the face of his Christophobic detractors drives them crazy. Tim Tebow, in other words, is a prime example of why Christophobia—a neologism first coined by a world-class comparative constitutional law scholar, J.H.H. Weiler, himself an Orthodox Jew—is a serious cultural problem in these United States.

It is simply unimaginable that any prominent Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh quarterback, should such a fantasy of anthropology exist, would be subjected to the vileness that is publicly dumped on Tim Tebow. Tolerance, that supreme virtue of the culture of radical relativism, does not extend to evangelical Christians, it seems. And if it does not extend to evangelicals who unapologetically proclaim their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior and who live their commitment to the dignity of human life from conception and natural death, it will not extend to Catholics who make that same profession of faith and that same moral commitment. Whatever we think of Tim Tebow’s theology of salvation, Tim Tebow and serious Catholics are both fated to be targets of the Christophobes.

Wherever the Gospel is proclaimed with fervor, it draws opposition. The ultimate source of that opposition is the Evil One, but we know what his fate will be. What we don’t know is how democracy can survive widespread, radical Christophobia.

Are you ready for the persecution that is coming and is already here?

In politics, Christians need not apply?

Writing for The Catholic Thing, George Marlin sees a disturbing trend in elite political circles that suggest in not-so subtle that "Christians need not apply".  Marlin says, in part:

Secularists have moved beyond dismissing Christians as anti-intellectual and anti-rational. They are now publicly ridiculing them and questioning their fitness to participate in public life. They portray religious beliefs as nothing more than superstitions, old wives’ tales, or legends, and claim anyone who believes such drivel is balmy.

You should read his entire piece.

Happy Francis Day!

This evening I had the sincere pleasure of assisting Bishop Paprocki at the celebration of the Holy Mass offered in the Convent of St. Michael of the Sisters of St. Francis of the Martyr St. George.  Following the Mass, Bishop Paprocki and I joined the three Sisters for dinner on this their Solemnity.

To honor Holy Father Francis, to thank him for his guidance and to seek his continued intercession, I thought I might offer you the lyrics of the opening song we sang at the Mass to the tune of Ode to Joy:

Blessed Francis, holy father,
Now our hearts to you we raise,
As we gather 'round your altar,
Pouring forth our hymns of praise.
Bless your children, holy Francis,
Who your mighty help implore,
For in Heaven you remainest,
Still the father of the poor.

By your love so deep and burning,
For your Savior crucified,
By your tokens which He gave you
On your hands and feet and side.
Bless your children, holy Francis
With those wounded hands of yours,
From your glorious throne in Heaven
Where resplendently they shine

.

Supreme Court upholds religious freedom

Over at First Thoughts, Joseph Knippenburg points our attention to a bright spot on the battlefield for religious freedom:

By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court let stand a 9th Circuit ruling that affirmed World Vision’s right to fire employees who didn’t share the organization’s religious views. For my money, this is an important tea leaf to read before the Court takes up the Hosanna-Tabor case. Consider, for example, this point from the 9th Circuit’s decision:

The majority opinion refused to address certain thorny questions, such as whether or not World Vision’s humanitarian work is an inherently religious activity. Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion said that it would be “constitutionally troublesome” for the court to attempt to decide what sort of activity is religious and what is not. When the employees alleged that World Vision is not a religious group because it offers aid to people regardless of their own religion, O’Scannalin chose to accept World Vision’s own assertion that “providing humanitarian aid to all in need, regardless of religious belief, is a tenet of its faith.”

To be sure, there’s a difference between refusing to question an organization’s understanding of its mission and refusing to question an organization’s characterization of a job; at the very least, the laws at issue are different. But, nonetheless, there is some indication here that some members of the Court will respect, as they should, a religious organization’s employment decisions.

Now if only the Obama Administration would demonstrate a similar respect for religious freedom.

Just in case you forgot

The Crescat wants you to know, in case you happened to forget, that Saint Francis of Assisi "was not a hippie."

Diappointment

Both yesterday and today I have been anxiously awaiting the arrival of my copy of the new Roman Missal.

As I sat down to lunch this afternoon at the Cathedral rectory I was told that a package was waiting for me at the secretary's desk.  Naturally, I presumed it was the new Missal.  Imagine my disappointment when I discovered it was not.

When will it arrive?

Pope right, New York Times wrong

The New York Times today has an article - "Contraceptive Used in Africa May Double Risk of H.I.V." - proving that Pope Benedict XVI was correct when he claimed the distribution of contraception increases the spread of AIDS, a claim for which the New York Times rebuked him severely.  While the Pope spoke of condoms, the same proves true for other forms of contraception.

I note with some disappoint, but no surprise, that nowhere in the article does the Times apologize for previously condemning the Pope for speaking the truth.

Persecution Watch: Iraq, and a sign of hope

As Christians flee persecution in much of Iraq they are journeying in large numbers to the northern region of the country.

From Aid to the Church in Need:

Christians in one corner of Iraq have tripled in number over the past 15 years according to a leading bishop who is grappling with an influx of people escaping persecution and oppression.

Christians in Ankawa, a suburb of the Kurdish capital Erbil, have increased from more than 8,500 in the mid-1990s to more than 25,500 today.

Of those, up to 1,500 have arrived within the last year alone.

Many of them fled after the October 31st, 2010, siege of the Syrian Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad where 58 people were killed and more than 70 were injured in an attack during Sunday evening Mass.

Christians arriving in Ankawa have fled not only from the Iraqi capital but from all across the country: Mosul in the north, Kirkuk in the north-east, and even Basra, hundreds of miles away in the extreme south.

Giving this assessment of the displacement of Christians in Iraq, Archbishop Bashar Warda of Erbil told Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) about the huge challenge of helping people arriving in Ankawa.

He added, “Many Christians arrive in Ankawa very poor. They need jobs, they need decent healthcare and they need good homes.”

The archbishop said many were attracted by the relative safety of the Kurdish north and had come to Ankawa because of its high proportion of Christians.

Underlining the need to support Christians, Archbishop Warda said that this week alone a Catholic primary school had opened its doors for the first time.

Back in January, Archbishop Warda got local government support for a plan to secure two plots of land to build a 100-bed hospital and a university.

But the archbishop said there was still a huge amount of work ahead.

“The people demand a great deal from the Church. We are doing our best to help them” [more].

If you are able, please consider making a donation to Aid to the Church in Need to help support our persecuted brothers and sisters.

Persecution Watch: Egypt

Some 100,000 Christians have left Egypt since March 2011 as fears of persecution continue to rise amid the so-called Arab Spring.  If such a spring has indeed come, it seems not to be a happy one for every Arab.

Persecution Watch: Nebraska

As one school in Nebraska has forbidden a 12-year old girl from wearing a necklace resembling a rosary the American Civil Liberties Union is coming to her defence.

That's right, the ACLU is finally taking a stand in defense of religious liberty.  Perhaps there is hope that this will continue and will stop standing against Christians.

The school has told the girl she cannot wear the rosary-like necklace because some gangs have adopted the rosary as a symbol of their gangs.

The girl, Elizabeth Carey, said, "I'm deciding to stand up for Jesus and do whatever I can to stop this."  She has both courage and conviction.  Would that more adults had the same.

Persecution Watch: Iraq

From Catholic World News:

Two more Iraqi Christians have been murdered in the northern city of Kirkuk, as the campaign of intimidation against the nation’s religious minority continues.

Christians in Kirkuk expressed their bitterness to the AsiaNews service, noting that as the attacks continue, “the world remains totally silent” [more].

 Speak up!  Let your voice be heard in defence of our brothers and sisters suffering under persecution!

Marriage term limits, an absurd proposal

A new assault on marriage entered the fray today in Mexico.

From Catholic World News:

Lawmakers in Mexico City have proposed requiring prenuptial agreements, which could include an estimate of how long the bridge and groom expect their marriage to last.

The proposed agreements—which would allow for marriages of a term as short as 2 years—drew immediate fire from Catholic Church leaders. Msgr. Hugo Vlademar, the spokesman for the Mexico City archdiocese, said that proposal was “absurd,” and “denigrates the concept of family.”

The proposal has been advertised as a way to cut back the costs of contested divorces [more].

Persecution Watch: Australia

The persecution of the Church in Australia has been underway for some time now and the Church may soon be forced out of marriages because of her inability to recognize so-called same-sex "marriages."

From Catholic World News:

The Catholic Church will cease witnessing legal marriages if the government insists on equal treatment for same-sex couples, an Australian archbishop has warned.

“We might be back to the ghetto,” Archbishop Barry Hickey of Perth told parishioners. “We can’t do those marriages at all. And if the law forces us to, we cancel our registration as marriage celebrants” [more]. 

It may soon happen here, too.  There are those already here who have been calling for the ousting of the Church from the institution of marriage.