Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, delivered the keynote address at the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s National Religious Freedom Gala Reception and Award Dinner in Washington May 24.
The Register obtained a copy of the address.
It has now been just over a week since I became the archbishop of Baltimore, and I find myself surrounded by history there. I live near the Basilica of the Assumption, the oldest cathedral in the U.S. The cornerstone was laid in 1806. The nation’s first bishop, John Carroll, is buried beneath the basilica, as are many of my predecessors.
John Carroll was a cousin of Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Charles Carroll’s story — and indeed Maryland’s early history — teaches us about the fragility of religious liberty and the importance of exercising vigilance in protecting it.
Maryland was founded in the mid-17th century by the Catholic Lord Baltimore as a society where people of different faiths could live together peacefully. This vision was soon codified in Maryland’s 1649 Act Concerning Religion (also called the “Toleration Act”), which was the first law in our nation’s history to protect an individual’s right to freedom of conscience.
Maryland’s experiment in religious toleration, however, ended within a few decades. Around the turn of the 18th century, the colony was placed under royal control, and the Church of England became the established religion. Discriminatory laws, including the loss of political rights, were enacted against those who refused to conform. Catholic chapels were closed, and Catholics were restricted to practicing their faith in their homes. The Catholic community lived under these conditions until the American Revolution.
Both Charles Carroll and his father, although wealthy landowners, were barred from active participation in politics because of their Roman Catholic faith. Despite this legal restriction, in the early 1770s, Charles Carroll became a powerful voice for independence from British rule.
He eventually was elected to represent the colony of Maryland in various committees and was selected as a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1776.
Carroll then signed the Declaration of Independence and was the only Catholic to do so.
Just a few years later, our Founding Fathers included protection of the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment to our Constitution. In reflecting on his time in the Constitutional Convention, George Washington stated in 1789: “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it” [Letter to the United Baptist churches in Virginia, 1789].
Washington went on to state, “f I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution” [Ibid.].
Twenty years later, in 1809, another of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, emphasized the value of freedom of conscience when he stated that “no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority” [Letter to New London Methodist, 1809].
Current Challenges
Thus, we can be confident that our Founding Fathers understood the foundational value of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. But today, we are reminded of the lesson of Maryland’s early history and the story of Charles Carroll, because that value is under attack, and it will require our active vigilance to protect it — not just for ourselves, but for future generations.
Pope Benedict XVI recognized and highlighted this threat in his address to a group of Catholic bishops from the Mid-Atlantic region earlier this year.
The Pope spoke forcefully about the need to defend religious liberty in the United States:
“With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason,” he said, “the Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents, which ... seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth.”
Pope Benedict went on to say that “the legitimate separation of church and state cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the state may choose not to engage or be engaged by the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.”
HHS Mandate Litigation
That was on Jan. 19 of this year. On Jan. 20, as if on cue, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it had no intention of changing the mandate it had proposed in August, which would force virtually all employers — even those with conscientious objections — to provide health coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. The mandate would be subject to an extremely narrow exception, one that covers houses of worship, but leaves out the manifold ministries of charity that flow directly from that worship.
This has now become the most critical religious-liberty challenge that we face in the United States today.
This is the first time that the federal government has compelled religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their moral teaching.
Compounding the problem, the exemption has the federal government defining which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty.
For these reasons, a great number of Catholic dioceses, charities, universities and other Catholic institutions around the country found it necessary to file lawsuits this week against the federal government, challenging the mandate as a violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It is unfortunate — even tragic — that Catholic institutions and other religious groups were forced by the federal government into this situation.
Part of the tragedy is how easily, and on how many different occasions, this conflict could have been avoided entirely. Despite the best efforts of our bishops’ conference, the executive and legislative branches have failed to head off the problem.
For example, back in 2010, before the health-care-reform law was even passed, Catholic bishops warned Congress about the need for clear conscience protection in the face of the new health-coverage mandates in the law.
Soon after the bill became law, the bishops’ conference supported the passage of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which offered a complete solution to the conscience problem, drawing on language used in federal statutes repeatedly since 1973.
Once the administration began hinting that the “preventive services” mandate would include things that Church institutions could not morally facilitate or fund, the conference staff began filing comments and appearing at hearings, as early as fall 2010. Once the regulations finally came out in August 2011, we filed more comments. When the decision was announced that those August regulations would not change, we protested again.
Despite these numerous opportunities to avoid the train wreck, on Feb. 10, HHS finalized the August regulations “without change,” closing the door on any chance of removing the offending items from the mandate or expanding the exemption.
All that remains is the so-called "accommodation,” which is constrained by the final rule that precedes it and which addresses itself to only a small part of the overall problem, and does so inadequately.
Catholic institutions have thus been forced to take action by litigation, a course no one desires, but a course that appears to be the only alternative left in order to seek relief from this unjust federal government mandate.
This is not about the Catholic Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church — consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions — to act against Church teachings.
This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing.
This is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.
The Church forms its positions based on principles — here, religious liberty for all and the life and dignity of every human person — not polls, personalities or political parties.
Strange Inversions
Now I’ve said what this litigation is not about. So what is it about?
For starters, it is about opposing an unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption — employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith.
This exemption attacks religious freedom by defining it away — by limiting protections essentially to houses of worship, the exemption reduces the freedom of religion to the freedom of worship. But more importantly, the purpose of the litigation is to block government coercion to act against conscience. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions.
This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world.
I emphasize the fact of government coercion because it is one of the key differences between a mere dispute over reproductive health policy and a dispute over religious freedom. Those who would try to conceal that religious-freedom aspect have done all in their power to conceal the key fact that the Church is being forced by the government to violate its own beliefs. In a bizarre turn, those same advocates accuse the Church of somehow forcing its beliefs on others through the law, when the exact opposite is true.
To be sure, the mandate entails a breach in the separation of church and state, but it is an incursion by the state into the Church’s territory, not the other way around.
This is not the only strange inversion that we have seen in public discourse since the mandate.
In the name of protecting “choice,” the government is depriving the Church of its choice in how it runs its very own institutions. In the name of protecting a “diversity” of views within Catholic institutions, the government is imposing uniformity on employers, all but eliminating workplaces ordered according to Catholic values.
Worse still, these radical distortions seem to have some sway in our culture, when they should be laughed out of the court of public opinion.
This underscores the depth of the problem we face and points to the long-term remedy for it, which is teaching about religious freedom — the very value that brings us all here tonight.
Broader Problem
Put in other words, the HHS lawsuits, if successful, would only provide a band-aid solution to the greater problem of radical secularism that we face in this country.
Blessed Pope John Paul II discussed this problem almost two decades ago when he visited Baltimore and stated, “The challenge facing you, dear friends, is to increase people’s awareness of the importance for society of religious freedom; to defend that freedom against those who would take religion out of the public domain and establish secularism as America’s official faith.
"And it is vitally necessary, for the very survival of the American experience, to transmit to the next generation the precious legacy of religious freedom and the convictions which sustain it.”
So how do we pass on our great legacy of religious freedom to the next generation? As Americans, we must learn about the legacy of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
As people of faith, we must mine our own religious traditions on religious freedom and share the treasures we find — not only with our own communities, but with society at large.
And then we need to pray diligently as communities, as families and as individuals for religious liberty.
With this in mind, the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty has suggested that we celebrate a “Fortnight for Freedom” this summer, from June 21 to July 4. This is to be a special period of prayer in the two weeks leading up to the Fourth of July.
In the Catholic tradition, these two weeks include the feast days of members of the Church who were martyred by the state for their religious beliefs, beginning with St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher.
But regardless of your tradition, and what may otherwise fall within those two weeks, we invite you to join us in prayer and in a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.
This may take as many forms as there are great religious traditions in our country and will itself serve as a sign of the religious diversity that flows from religious freedom and that makes our country great.
For example, we are encouraging all Catholic churches to ring their bells on July 4 at noon Eastern (9am Pacific). So we hope that other houses of worship with bells will join us in that special sign of solidarity and support for religious liberty — to “let freedom ring.”
But the possibilities are endless, including prayer services for religious liberty within your own tradition and ecumenical events to show the breadth of support for this foundational value — to name just two.
The key point is this: U.S. bishops and faithful Catholics in this country, numerous though we may be, cannot fight the tide of radical secularism alone. And so we ask you to help however you might help. Together we can achieve great things.
Conclusion
Although fighting the tide of secularism in general and current threats to religious liberty in particular can seem like a daunting task, we know that with God all things are possible; and we know that prayer is the ultimate source of our strength in this fight.
Thank you so much for this honor this evening. And thank you for seeing the urgency of defending religious liberty for all believers. Thanks for listening, and may God bless our nation!
Joseph Pronechen: Bishops Call for 'Rosary Novena for Life and Liberty'
Matthew Warner: Thank God for the HHS Mandate
Comments
Post a Comment
What happened (the HHS) mandate is what any one with common sense expected to happen. The USCCB was and remain wrong in championing national health care. More horrors will inevitably come. They will not be righted easily. Are the bishops preparing the faithful for massive civil disobedience and suffering? My bet is they will find a graceful way to fold.
And who is watching out for the conscience of individuals who work outside of religious institutions and whose dollars will fund the anti-life mandates that have and will continue to come? Big government is always bad.
It does not take much imagination to see the next steps of limiting the number of children, forced abortion of less than perfect children, euthanasia, denial of normal treatment, etc. etc.
The previous commenter asks if the Bishops are preparing for civil disobedience and suffering, he also thinks they will find a graceful way to fold. He also asks, who is looking out for the conscience of individuals who work outside of religious institutions. As to the first question, I believe that the Bishops are willing to be arrested and handcuffed. I for one almost hope it happens. I could be the greatest thing that happens to the RC Church in America. I remember labor union chiefs going to jail in the 60s. Those unions became a hundred times more united and stronger. Second, as I understand it, the law suit is not just about religious institutions, it covers anyone who has a conscience objection to being forced to provide the drugs in question. Lastly, I have full confidence in the current group of Bishops under the leadership of Cardinal Dolan. There will be no “graceful folding”.
Francis…easy Francis, one issue at a time. Whose dollar will fund the HHS mandates: the insurance companies. Although the bishops protest too much, not accepting the compromise; the insurance companies certainly did. Covering the cost of contraception for an insurance company is considerably less than paying for the cost of birth…thus the insurance companies gladly took the offer. The church’s position is disingenuous.
Looking at the included photo, I could not help wondering which one of the apostle was a look alike.
@Jesuitical re: “The [C]hurch’s position is disingenuous.” Often one’s worldview is on display by the choice of proper nouns the poster capitalizes. Nonetheless, where do you think insurance companies come by their funds?
Jesuitical, I hope you are not serious. Yes the insurance compaines will be paying for the contraception in the so called “accomodation,” but who is paying the insurance companies? That would be religious employers who would therefore be committing sin by funding something which their faith(if they are catholics) states as morally sinful. The accomadation does not accomodate religious employers by placing insurance companies as a “middle man,” that would be similar to a gang leader hiring hitmen since they dont want to get their own hands wet. But the church is no gang, in fact it is the bride of Christ, established by Jesus himself to uphold truth until the the end of time (Matt 16:18). Contrary to what society may think, the Church continues to view the gift of life central to the growth of humanity as a whole and will not stop defeding it though contraceptin “is considerbly less than paying for the cost of birth.” Life is invaluble…and in the eyes of God eternal, when we offer it up to Him.
Francis ... big government is not all bad. Government $$$ fund military and veterans healthcare facilities, where providers don’t ask are you Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant, Jew ... they just care. ... and we all pay.
“..the faithful for massive civil disobedience and suffering?” does the individual not receiving the care she needs/wants suffer? How is the suffering of one group more important than the suffering of another?
... and as Peter said “...covers anyone who has a conscience objection to being forced to provide the drugs in question.” How is that bad? The individual has a conscience-hopefully!
You are right, it does not take much imagination to see what’s next. Fortunately, you’re in America (?) where Freedom reigns and you will have the opportunity to speak out when the next issue has risen. I suggest you write your political representatives and state your opinion so they just might vote your way ... these blogs don’t pass laws.
In response to Peter Kelley:
You are more optimistic about things than I am. As far as I know, the law suits are to protect “Catholic Institutions” from having to offer such coverage, not to prevent other citizens from having to pay into insurance plans that provide the coverage. Furthermore, even if we win this narrow law suit, the proponents of the culture of death will continue to find other ways to advance their cause. And if we then protest these further incursions, the public will lose patience with the continual fighting and tell us to behave. The Bishops have to come to the realization that big government will always end up as totalitarian government. Read George Weigel. I will not be optimistic until I hear the Bishops acknowledge that putting faith in big government was and is a mistake, particularly in this increasingly secular age. Face it, many of our fellow citizens only care about the economy; not Religious (or other types) of Freedom.
In response to Jesuitical:
Using your reasoning then, if I want to hire an assasin, I am not guilty if I give the money to person A and he then hires person B to do the killing. After all, the payment is made by Person A. Just where do you think insurance companies get money? Unlike the government they don’t have their own printing presses.
It appears that selection of William Lori as Archbishop of Baltimore was providential. No place more resounds with the echoes of out nation’s struggle for freedom. Our Founding Fathers did not say it any better then Archbishop Lori. What a magnificent and instructive keynote address. May God shower him with His richest blessings.
Definitely prayer and camaraderie are essential as you also said, Archbishop Lori, on Raymond Arroyo’s “The World Over”, especially in the coming two-week, nation-wide common effort. However, my grave concern is that conclusions via the lawsuits could well be delayed beyond Election Day. A seemingly ongoing delay during the campaign can mean too many Catholics and other allies not pushing for what *else* is necessary to say and do – unless a *vital backup* response is at least partially being exercised, ‘just in case’.
.
Mr. Obama senses this generation of American Catholics is not strong and is easily manipulable by a small margin, yet enough to give him a second term. The excellent long term remedy you mention, teaching about religious freedom, can’t be solely relied upon with only 5 months to go. So please consider the short term helps below which are fit and effective, along with prayer.
.
Raymond also interviewed Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute who told of a boyhood Jewish neighbor having been branded on her forearm by the Nazis while she was in those horrible camps. Father made my eyes light up as he unexpectedly described the Nazis as having treated her **like an animal** being branded for roundup and identity
.
Back in 2009, my letter to the President via HHS’s then formal public request to file comment on Obama’ s “proposal” to rescind the Bush conscience protections reads exactly this:
.
“Mr. President, you treat Americans **like lower animals** when you threaten to remove good and needed respect and protection for our SACRED consciences in this Age of sophisticated abortifacient pills and methods, and other medicines, procedures and science which challenge God over the full range of human life, from start to death.”
.
I feel certain Fr. Sirico will agree that the apt animal-treatment descriptions are not “gutter-level” words; rather, they are accurate “gut-level” words of truth, fully legitimate and immensely helpful when heading off loss of the Republic in November. Most importantly, a Catholic’s place in eternity is largely determined by how he/she responds to conscience in this life. Why should President Obama be allowed to put Christian Americans in such constant jeopardy?
.
Indeed, Cardinal Dolan used, three times, the vivid “gut-level” phrase “Strangling the Church”, on “CBS This Morning” on May 24. Cardinal Dolan also said the right thing on CBS, that he’ll scoot down to DC if POTUS Obama calls him to say he finally understands Catholics.
.
But beware, dear Shepherds: we have here a glimpse of a plausible OCTOBER SURPRISE in the making! Will lukewarm Catholics plus Clergy caught-off-guard make the Catholic Church a laughing stock by giving Mr. Obama a second term? For certain, whatever happens on November 6 also critically depends on how guardedly the USCCB lets other Catholic leaders use Catholic Social Justice teaching.
.
In general, good strategy includes use of succinct phrases that folks over a wide range of education and political savvy can readily understand in their “gut”.
.
And so I will forward to the several of you my respectfully written complete 2009 email to HHS and President Obama for it has a few other pertinent recommendations applicable to November 6. As a preteen, I wondered how I would have acted in Nazi Germany before Hitler took over. Without hinting or meaning that the President is another Hitler, we have to act intelligently and strongly *now*—before it is too late as in pre-war Germany.
.
Because we must not assume the law suits will be benignly resolved before November 6, I implore you, Archbishop Lori, Cardinals Dolan and Wuerl, Father Sirico and Raymond Arroyo to encourage Americans to include *gut-level truth* expressions that awaken the sleepy and distracted. For sure, the under-educated will be bombarded with negative attack-ads *having key omissions* thus to mislead just enough such voters to give President Obama his second term via key “winner-take-all” electoral-vote-captures – even by the thinnest margins of popular victory in those states!
.
Then we can be cooked! Regarding *post lost-election regrets* for not being actively diversified with delivery of truth – well, too late! Yes, God CAN help if he finds enough turning toward Him. So, remember, our human efforts can at least stimulate the lukewarm to reconsider their need to turn more toward God. Better to do our human part, too, as the Russian Proverb urges.
One point not made is that the church in many cases self-insures, so it would still be paying directly for intrinsic evils as part of the so-called “accommodation.”
I commend Cardinal Dolan and the bishops in their defense of religious freedom and freedom of conscience and we must stand in total solidarity, however,I strongly believe, that in terms of how radical and frightening this HHS mandate is, that this is just the tip of the iceberg. the HHS mandate encompases the following ethical/moral problems, panel appointed by the Administration that determines what diagnostic tests and treatment patients get, fragmentation of the patient/personal physician relationship in determining health care decisions, i.e., diagnosis and treatment decisions that a patient and the patient’s personal physician must make, mandate embraces “comparative effectiveness”, i.e., diagnostic tests, treatment and care to be given only to those they deem worthy of care…leading to rationing of healthcare, euthanasia, forced abortions, infantacide, ets. and all of this is so contrary to our Christian values of healthcare and contrary to what our healthcare delivery has been in the United States of America. Unless the HHS Healthcare Mandate is completely thrown out we will be fighting an ongoing battle to preserve the Sancitiy of all Human Life from Conception until Natural Death. God protect us and bless America.
This is everyone’s problem. Freedom of Religion inheres in the individual, not just Churches and their institutions. The Bishops did not give us this right, nor should they be allowed to defend it alone just for their areas of responsibility, no matter how broadly they perceive them. Laymen, Corporations, Lawyers of every stripe, ought to be in court on this. If we do not, the Right to Religious freedom and conscience will become Freedom of Worship and no conscience. LAWYERS AND CITIZENS OF THE NATION, ARISE !!!! Our Nation is at stake.
Dear Bishop Lori,
We allow you a great deal of gratitude. Your courage has been a great source of inspiration to many, many Catholics. You have rekindled flames in the hearts of many and our “hearts are on fire”. We stand in solidarity with you!
The Lord has surely brought a fresh wind of His Spirit to our beloved Church.
Thanks Francis for pointing out “...who is watching out for the conscience of individuals who work outside of religious institutions…” Obamacare is a “Titanic” disaster. It would be a perfidy even worse than Obamacare itself if the Bishops are offered a narrowly crafted exemption just before the election and accept the poisoned offer. It would be like putting on a dress and boarding the handful of life boats while the rest of us are left on the deck of Obamacare without “life” vests as Obamacare drags the rest of us into an icy cold ocean of blood of slain innocents. The Bishops MUST insist on Solidarity with ALL people of Conscience; Honor and Decency demands it.
You get what you vote for, Catholics voted for change. This is change,all our freedom is being slowly taken from us! Is is November Yet?
I commend Cardinal Dolan and the bishops in their defense of religious freedom and freedom of conscience and we must stand in total solidarity, however,I strongly believe, that in terms of how radical and frightening this HHS mandate is, that this is just the tip of the iceberg. the HHS mandate encompases the following ethical/moral problems, panel appointed by the Administration that determines what diagnostic tests and treatment patients get, fragmentation of the patient/personal physician relationship in determining health care decisions, i.e., diagnosis and treatment decisions that a patient and the patient’s personal physician must make, mandate embraces “comparative effectiveness”, i.e., diagnostic tests, treatment and care to be given only to those they deem worthy of care…leading to rationing of healthcare, euthanasia, forced abortions, infantacide, ets. and all of this is so contrary to our Christian values of healthcare and contrary to what our healthcare delivery has been in the United States of America. Unless the HHS Healthcare Mandate is completely thrown out we will be fighting an ongoing battle to preserve the Sancitiy of all Human Life from Conception until Natural Death. God protect us and bless America.
@William F. Folger: “As a preteen, I wondered how I would have acted in Nazi Germany before Hitler took over.” This is one of the most insightful statements ever posted, simply brilliant, chilling, and challenging. Now, how do we persuade our Bishops and clergy at-large to take this statement to heart. After all, they have two great popes who likely contemplated the same idea, Pope Pius XII regarding the Nazis and Blessed Pope John Paul II regarding the Soviets. Thanks Mr. Folger.
@Carol Klotz: So true, so sad. The Church leadership may like the sound of being apolitical, but look who the sheep continuously vote for. Republicans may not be perfect, but at least they do not foster an agenda of death.
To Carol Klotz, I don’t know what country you are from; however, in the US there have been many republican presidents who declared war-going back to Lincoln whose election brought on the Civil War and continued forward with the two Bushs’ declaring military force on Iraq. Articles such as this are intended to incite people to think, to speak out for what they believe. Not only should you speak out here, I suggest you take more time to write to your congressional representatives and tell them how to vote. That’s where your voice is.
The bishops should compromise. Covering the cost of contraception, etc. is a matter of conscience..the conscience of the individual who chooses to use it! The role of the CC is to educate and pray their people don’t stray.
Dear NancyC
“I don’t know what country you are from” but, seriously, uhhhhhh…who gave you the authority to define the role of the CC (I assume you mean USCCB)?
For the record, here is how the bishops define their role:
The Gospel of Christ and the teachings of his Church guide the work of the USCCB. The work of the Conference is rooted in three general mission goals and organized into three key areas of responsibility.
General Mission Goals of the USCCB
To act collaboratively and consistently on vital issues confronting the Church and society
To foster communion with the Church in other nations, within the Church universal, under the leadership of its supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff
To offer appropriate assistance to each bishop in fulfilling his particular ministry in the local Church
You obviously have little, or no understanding of the inerrant, consistent teachings of the Catholic church regarding contraception. It all begins with the book of Genesis… you may want to start there.
Dear Ann Marie, “..who gave you the authority…” You make assumptions that lead to false dichotomy. answer: The Constitution of the United States and International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights. It’s a good read.
Having attended Catholic school from kindergarten through college, I have a darn good understanding of history and religion. Nothing is obvious to the uninformed…
I fully agree with the author’s closing statement “...seeing the urgency of defending religious liberty for all believers” ...further, as our Pledge of Allegiance states, “liberty and justice for All”
Hey “Nancy C” ... “Catholic” college I can believe ... glad you could chum up with Mzzz Fluke or her clone ... but Catholic “kindergarten????” really now ... if you are selling stupid we are “full up” out here. If you really did go to a Catholic College then go read Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman ... read “The Idea of a University” and see how you were cheated of a REAL Catholic education if you went to a Georgetown or a Notre Dame ... see how far we have fallen…. Blessed John Henry “nailed it” when he addressed that first crop of Dublin students “... how much I desire that this University should be of service to the young men of Dublin, I do not desire this benefit to you, simply for your own sakes. For your own sakes certainly I wish it, but not on your own account only. Man is not born for himself alone, as the classical moralist tells us. You are born for Ireland; and, in your advancement, Ireland is advanced; - in your advancement in what is good and what is true, in knowledge, in learning, in cultivation of mind, in enlightened attachment to your religion, in good name and respectability and social influence, I am contemplating the honor and renown, the literary and scientific aggrandizement, the increase of political power, of the Island of the Saints.” So Nancy C as we slouch our way to Gomorrah today know that Notre Dame, Georgetown et alia have inverted and perverted EVERY dream of Blessed John Henry. Yes Nancy C read “The Idea of a University” and then join others in a “Class” Action suit against your Alma Mater for fraud as clearly you were cheated.
Our bishops (USCCB) meet in Atlanta (6/13 – 6/15) while they currently advertise the following agenda item that is worrisomely listed under “other [agenda] items” as if it could get low priority or suffer incompleteness that will leave us sheep in the dark until too late in this historic election year: “Discussion of a proposal for a *special message* on Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy”. It is crucial that the USCCB “special message” include some “gut-level” summary *phrases* shown to be wise to use by Cardinal Dolan and Fr. Sirico (see above May 25, 5:04 pm comment)
.
Those concerns are why I write before their Meeting so that the USCCB’s “special message” 1) doesn’t get low priority and 2) also does not have the serious defects of *critical omissions* plus delay of publication that will hurt the cause, as have some things from the past, even from well meaning bishops. A week after their Meeting, the prayer, education and action “Fortnight for Freedom” period begins (6/21) with *three* focus points, not solely prayer. That period is the ripe time to make use of results from discussions in the mid-June Meeting AND from other sources.
.
While Gov. Walker’s recent victory is truly uplifting, the small ~ 1.3 % increase above his pre-recall 2010 victory-margin warns against overconfidence. His open, explicit thanks to God near the start of his victory speech exemplifies simple, doable “Intelligent God-Talk” – “IGT” – we need to hear from more God-respecting candidates: for example, brief God-related remarks such as “Praise God America!” and “America needs God!” can be given at the end of speeches, whether ‘stump’ or formal. Conservatives will notice and give further support including on vital TURNOUT Day!
.
While President Obama can get away with a non-committal “God Bless America”, he has ZERO credibility for voicing “praise and need” for God. Any attempt would unmask him via his God-dissing policies. So, the getting-started objective for spreading “IGT” should be to get even a small distribution of God-respecting candidates doing IGT initially plus the friendly media discussing it. Then, the MSM will have to address it because friendly media will put leftist “God-believing” yet not “God-respecting” candidates on the spot for their unwillingness to sincerely praise God and to acknowledge America needs God. The stark contrast will help stop Obama’s second term and improve the new Congress.
.
In *subsequent* comments below I bring together a few problematic items important to learn about from the recent USCCB past so that we can then apply *clarified items* in this perilous campaign. Otherwise, we can easily lose the Republic in a close race for failing to correct serious misperceptions. *Perception* is always key to understanding victory and close-race losses. Freedom is jeopardized not only by outside forces stomping on conscience but also by our side *dropping* a vital societal principle as done in certain key USCCB documents while retaining some misleading statements on racism and poverty. And let us not forget: August 1, 2012, is D-Day against conscience from unfriendly HHS and President Obama!
Since 2009, Administration trends indicate a “pre-cancer” stage has developed that can quickly metastasize as Socialism in a second term Obama Presidency fixed on its trajectory toward more-threatening fiscal & immoral structures. Yet simultaneously, too many Catholics remain ignorant of the importance and significance of “subsidiarity”—which is opposed to Socialism and is one of three key societal operating-principles well recognized by the Universal Church as vital for maintaining responsible, safe, strong communities. Sadly, it is *neglected-subsidiarity* that also enabled growth of the major problem with the American Catholic “Leadership Conference of Women Religious” (LCWR) where the Holy See now has to temporarily intervene.
.
Subsidiarity generally though not completely means responsible decision making & governing by LOCAL people, usually in the context of their also being part of a larger community: an American city yet still under the U.S. Constitution or a National Conference of Bishops yet still under Holy See Authority. A Church lesson for America’s Catholics today is that had “subsidiarity” been practiced by the “local” USCCB, the LCWR would have been prevented from doing the harm it has done.
.
Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute highlights that “subsidiarity is more of a social and theological principle”. Hence it important to examine for its effective operation—or failure to operate—within “local” Church-authority structures, not just civil structures.
.
A reading of Benedict XVI’s comments in the first link below will never lead one to think of “subsidiarity” as being the polar opposite of “solidarity”, or as disconnected. In the second link is Msgr. Charles Pope’s article which refers to that misconception held by some. An important concluding point he highlights is the problem cited by a Peter Brown, Biblical Studies Doctoral student at CUA, April 2012: “On this issue as many others, the complexity of the modern age defies simplistic theological sloganeering [exactly]”, the brackets indicating Msgr. Pope’s agreement. See my *subsequent* June-dated comment for an earlier citing, in 2009, by a bishop, of the misuse of subsidiarity as a slogan. However, a ‘sometimes-misuse’ should never be used to remove one leg (subsidiarity) of the three-legged stool symbolizing support of society.
.
Therefore, discussions at the Bishops’ mid-June Meeting need to let Catholics know—given that modern mobile society presents new challenges to how much risk we should take in designing, say, a Health-Care system that does not violate conscience—that society is not obliged to accept the LARGER risk of experimenting with or being captured by untrustworthy Socialism thru unwise voting. Socialism threatens MORE than the freedom of conscience, especially given a President who respects neither God’s Innocent New Personal Treasures nor conscience-bearing adults! That is why the ”gut-level “animals” analogy in the above May 25, 5:04 pm comment is both apt and *needed* in this historic campaign.
.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=112117
.
http://blog.adw.org/2012/04/subsidiarity-and-solidarity-not-necessarily-what-you-may-think-they-are/
.
Because the threat that this Election year represents is extremely dangerous to current AND future generations, we trace in my next comment a series-of-neglect by the USCCB with respect to its unintended yet de facto neglect/abandonment of subsidiarity—which shows up in at least three well publicized USCCB documents, two badly-affecting the Catholic electorate in 2008 AND *right now* in terribly dangerous 2012, the third unwittingly having aided President Obama early in his presidency in his disrespect for the crucial Triad of Catholic societal principles working together: subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good.
.
THE REPUBLIC cannot afford a repeat of what Catholics did in 2008. Yet a repeat may well happen if we and the USCCB fail to learn from such ‘Catholic’ mistakes. From the solid way God designed the Catholic Church’s Magisterium (universal Catholic teaching authority, with the Pope as head; the USCCB is not the Magisterium), local sin and mistakes do not invalidate Catholicism, but they can do great harm to Christ’s Mission! Jesus’ warning-question about the End of Time (“….will [the Son of Man ]find faith on the earth?”) signals we ought not be surprised that wrong things will occur, given human nature and stresses on those in charge.
.
BUT not all wrongs are malicious and certainly NOT the ones presented herein re the USCCB!
The three links below aid checking key points made. In order to help preserve our Republic which is gravely threatened this November, this comment traces the 2007-2012 USCCB neglect of the key-principle “subsidiarity” discussed in my *second-JUNE-dated* comment above. Neglecting subsidiarity sustains harmful voter-ignorance thus enabling Socialism-leaning candidates to win, especially when low-to-no-income areas are saturated with misleading super-PAC ads having crucial *omissions* as noted in my May 25, 5:04 pm comment above. Additionally there has been neglect by the USCCB of monitoring the misuse of Catholic Social Justice teaching by less than honest candidates who, unfortunately, are supported by some Catholic lay leaders in very influential positions.
.
In November 2007 the USCCB issued for election-year 2008 a 31 page Booklet “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” (FCFC) which would be thoroughly read by only a low percent of Catholics. The USCCB also issued a companion single-page, double-sided “Bulletin-Insert”—The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship—a summary for the Booklet. The very problematic Bulletin Insert would be read by most Catholics during the 2008 campaigns, its few but critical errors were bound to have negative effects on Catholic voting in 2008. Yet in 2012 we have those very same texts!
.
In September 2011, after June USCCB discussions, both the 2007 FCFC Booklet and companion Bulletin Insert were approved *unchanged* in their 2007 texts. An “Introductory Note” was merely added to the booklet. However, the Intro is simply dismissive of legitimate criticism related to proper Catholic-voter education.
.
The Introductory Note names not a single criticism, even though valid criticism clearly applies to: 1) the much too little space given to complex “subsidiarity” in the 31 page Booklet (only 45 words on subsidiarity); 2) the *total abandoning* of subsidiarity in the Bulletin Insert (the most widely read reference!); 3) the damaging dropping of subsidiarity in the conclusion of another well publicized USCCB document (see 3rd link below) where its dropping speaks volumes to induce public-perception that subsidiarity is relatively unimportant; 4) the USCCB’s selecting the too-flexible phrase “promotion of racism” for the Bulletin Insert (instead of racism) where “promotion of” is often in the “eye/mind of the beholder” thus letting vulnerable minorities be misled by those who “play the race-cards”; 5) the Bulletin Insert’s implying “solidarity” *requires* that we *eliminate* racism; (free will makes that impossible but, unfortunately, it worsens the problem with “promotion of racism” because a *perceived requirement* to eliminate racism makes it easier to *rationalize* against a good candidate who is unfairly attacked via “race-card plays”).
.
Built-in word-finders in pdf links aid checking points made:
.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011.pdf
.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-Faithful-Citizenship-bulletin-insert.pdf
.
http://old.usccb.org/mr/entre_amigos/2009/EntreAmigosSeptember09Eng.pdf
.
In the 3rd link, “subsidiarity” is initially acknowledged as one of *three* related *fundamental* societal principles; but as above noted it is dropped (back in September 2009!)—too early in the new Obama Admin (where “hope and change” was still WARM for those who voted him in) to even consider for one minute any dropping of subsidiarity! The author’s mention of a bishop and “slogans” suggests the reason for her dropping subsidiarity so early, perhaps the reason ~ 3 years later that a related thesis has been developed by CUA’s Peter Brown (see Msgr. Pope’s link above). Perhaps the effect of such a thesis on subsidiarity-versus-solidarity will be evident in the “special message” to be considered or developed in this June Meeting. With the Republic in grave danger, may our Bishops be extra careful!
.
In my May 25, 5:04 pm comment above, that mysterious USCCB agenda-item is titled: “Discussion of a proposal for a *special message* on Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy”. Pray the Bishops avoid deficiencies analogous to those in the other documents. Again, they avoided doctrinal problems but it is practical errors that can give the vote to the wrong type of President and Congresspersons this November 6. A LOT is about to happen during the imminent Fortnight for Freedom. May it all honor God. Ora et Labora.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.