 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Categories |
| Monthly Archives
|
Writings of the Bishop
Address on Religious Liberty - USCCB Fall Plenary Assembly
November 2011
Posted in Selected Homilies/Addresses
I. Introduction: Watchmen for the Church
A. In a homily which we read on his feast day,
Gregory the Great comments on the Word of the Lord addressed to Ezekiel:
“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel” (Ez. 33:7).
The saintly pontiff adds:
“Note that a man whom the Lord sends forth as a preacher is called a watchman.
A watchman always stands on a height so that he can see from afar what is coming.
Anyone appointed to be a watchman for the people must stand on a height,
for all his life, to help them by his foresight” (Pope St. Gregory the Great, Homily on Ezekiel, Bk. 1, 11).
B. Gregory compared his ministry to that of a watchman.
So too, we bishops are called to be vigilant heralds of the Word
and overseers of the household of God.
For some time now, we have viewed with growing alarm
the ongoing erosion of religious liberty in our country.
During our last plenary meeting,
we decided to make the defense of religious liberty a Conference priority
and embraced our responsibility to address head-on threats to this precious freedom.
In consultation with the Administrative Committee, Archbishop Dolan
established an Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty now comprised of ten bishops,
ably assisted by excellent consultants,
and skillfully supported by our new Associate General Secretary, Anthony Picarello,
with two additional staff – a lawyer and a lobbyist.
In addition, we will rely on the collaboration of an extraordinary number of bishops
and the expertise of our Conference staff.
C. So now, brothers, let us ask ourselves:
How do we, as pastors and citizens, bring into focus our teaching on religious liberty?
What should we be looking for and what do we see?
And how should we respond to what we see?
II. Bringing Our Teaching into Focus
A. The Second Vatican Council calls us “to read the signs of the times”
and to do so, as it were, through binoculars equipped with the two lenses:
first, the lens of the Church’s teaching on human dignity and religious liberty,
a dignity and freedom inscribed on the human heart and revealed fully in Christ;
and second, the lens of that heritage bequeathed by the Founding Fathers:
a bold Declaration of Independence
that recognizes inherent human rights, “endowed by their Creator”;
and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights
that accords a certain primacy to our freedom to respond to that Creator,
in every aspect of our lives, without undue government interference,
along with the indispensable adjuncts of freedom of speech and assembly.
B. Our experience tells us that it takes a lot of work to keep our binoculars in focus,
that is to say, to maintain a critical and accurate understanding
of how the vision of our Founding Fathers
and the vision of the Church’s teaching on religious liberty fit together.
As historians in this room know so well,
the relationship of the Church and the American experiment
came into focus only gradually and will always need careful re-focusing.
Nonetheless, both lenses, when allowed to function as intended,
offer a remarkably clear vision of human dignity and freedom.
C. This remarkably clear vision includes the following:
• An understanding that basic human freedoms are inherent to human dignity
coupled with an understanding that our freedoms
are granted not by the State but rather are given to us by our Creator.
As President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address,
the rights for which our forebears fought
“come not from the generosity of the State but rather from the hand of God” … … even as the Church teaches that
“the ultimate source of human rights is not found
in the mere will of human beings, but in man himself, and in God his Creator.”
• If religious liberty is prior to the state
and not a privilege the government grants and so may take away at will,
then we rightfully look to our government to fulfill its duty
to protect religious liberty,
to promote tolerance among various religious faiths
and those who profess no faith,
and broadly to accommodate the place of religion in American life.
• In the vision of our Founding Fathers, religious liberty occupied pride of place.
The Bill of Rights ranks it first in the “honor roll of superior rights”,
(to use the phrase of Henry Abraham, a noted constitutional scholar).
So too, Pope Benedict XVI recently stated that
“[Religious liberty] is the first of human rights,
not only because it was the first to be recognized
but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, (viz.,)
his relationship with his Creator” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 2011).
And so with Blessed Pope John Paul II we keep in focus
a common understanding that religious freedom is
the source of all other human rights, and, “a kind of litmus test or ‘touchstone’
for the protection of human dignity generally”
(Mary Ann Glendon, “Religious Freedom—A Second Class Right?” Emory University, 2011).
Accordingly, we expect our government not to allow religious liberty
to be easily compromised by other claims and interests,
in effect, to become a “second-class right” (Ibid.).
• Our vision is sharpened by the wisdom of George Washington,
who saw the importance of morality and religion for “political prosperity”.
and by the observation of Alexis de Tocqueville who saw
“…that religion and religious freedom are indispensable supports
for our country’s great experiment in ordered liberty” (Ibid).
Thus we rightfully envision the Church as an actor in society
forming not only believers but also citizens
equipped to build “a civilization of truth and love”.
Thus we seek protection by law and acceptance in our culture
of intermediate institutions such as the family, churches, and schools
which stand between the power of the government
and the conscience of individuals,
all the while contributing immensely to the common good.
• The lenses of our binoculars equip us to search both law and culture
to see whether they respect religious freedom as an individual right,
inscribed in our human nature by the Creator,
no matter the moral or political trends of the moment.
For, as the Second Vatican Council teaches,
“[t]he exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else
in those internal, voluntary, and free acts
whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God…”
and thus no one should “…be forced
to act in a manner contrary to [his] conscience” (Dignitatis Humanae, 3).
• While recognizing religious freedom as an individual right, we see that
religious freedom belongs also to churches and religious institutions
comprised of citizens who are believers, and who seek,
not to create a theocracy, but rather to be leaven and light within their culture.
We look for a robust understanding of religious liberty extended to all faiths,
an understanding that envisions
not only the importance of being able to worship freely
but also to bring into the public square
truths and values that flow from faith and reason,
expressed in works of education, healthcare, social services and charity.
In short, religious liberty pertains to the whole person –
it is not simply the freedom to believe and to worship
but to shape our very lives around those beliefs and that worship,
both as individuals and as a community,
and to share our lives, thus transformed, with the world around us.
• And with clarity of vision we ask
whether a genuine understanding of religious liberty
still has a chance of shaping our society.
For as one distinguished jurist put it,
if liberty dies in the hearts of men and women,
“no constitution, no law, no court can save it” (Learned Hand).
As watchmen we need to see whether or not this fundamental liberty
continues to live in the hearts of our fellow Catholics and citizens.
III. What We See
A. And what is it that we actually see
through these dual lenses that give us clear access to reality?
We see a Church who, for all her challenges, serves the common good
with extraordinary effectiveness and generosity.
Think of the tremendous international relief work of our church and its agencies
in reaching untold numbers of people in desperate circumstances.
In the dioceses that we serve, the Church is the largest non-governmental source of
educational, social, charitable, and healthcare services,
offered as an integral part of our mission,
offered as an expression of our faith in the God who is love.
In a time of economic hardship,
the services which the Catholic Church and other denominations offer
are not only beneficial but indeed crucial,
but it is becoming more and more difficult for us to deliver services
in a manner that truly respects the very faith that impels us to provide them.
B. Indeed, Archbishop Dolan gave voice to what we collectively see:
“Never before have we faced this kind of challenge in our ability
to engage in the public square as people of faith and as a service provider.
If we do not act now, the consequence will be grave” (National Catholic Register, Oct. 23, 2011).
Among the challenges we see is a pattern in culture and law to treat religion
merely as a private matter between an individual and his or her God.
Instead of promoting toleration of differing religious views,
certain laws, court decisions, and administrative regulations treat religion
not as a contributor to our nation’s common morality
but rather as a divisive and disruptive force better kept out of public life.
Some invoke the so-called doctrine of separation of church and state
to exclude the Church from public policy
thus ignoring the historic role of churches in ending slavery, in securing civil rights,
in promoting just labor practices, including the introduction of child labor laws.
So while religion is indeed a personal matter, it is not a private matter,
for there is no religious liberty
if we are not free to express our faith in the public square
and if we are not free to act on that faith
through works of education, healthcare, and charity . . .
just as there is no freedom of speech if one is free to say what he or she believes
only privately but not publicly through the media, the arts, libraries, and schools.
C. We also see that the reach of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
is being expanded so as continually to narrow the protections
offered by the Free Exercise Clause, thus turning the First Amendment on its head.
The Establishment Clause was meant to protect the Free Exercise Clause
not the other way around.
The result has been that both individual citizens with strong religious convictions
and also religious institutions are less broadly accommodated
and even marginalized on the grounds that any minimal accommodation
somehow constitutes the “establishment” of particular religions in our land.
For example, the Conference has been defending against an ACLU lawsuit
claiming that HHS’s recently abandoned policy that allowed us
to serve trafficking victims without also providing them abortions and contraception—
a policy that respected our freedom of religious exercise –
actually violates the Establishment Clause!
But let us make no mistake.
Aggressive secularism is also a system of belief.
In failing to accommodate people of faith and religious institutions,
both law and culture are indeed establishing un-religion as the religion of the land
and granting it the rights and protections that our Founding Fathers envisioned
for citizens who are believers and for their churches and church institutions.
D. In addition, over time, the barriers preventing government
from interfering in the internal life of religious groups have been lowered.
This aids and abets the erosion of religious liberty,
which is expressly recognized and protected by the First Amendment,
by the imposition of court-mandated “rights”
which have no textual basis in the Constitution
such as those that pertain to abortion and same-sex marriage.
Refusal to endorse the taking of innocent human life or to redefine marriage
is now portrayed as discriminatory.
As a result, the freedom of religious entities
to provide services according to their own lights, to defend publicly their teachings,
and even to choose and manage their own personnel is coming under increased attack.
E. This and more have led to dramatic and immediate threats to religious liberty
across our land, in various states,
whether it is an Alabama law and court ruling
that criminalize the “good Samaritan” services
which religious entities provide to the undocumented;
or a county clerk in New York State who faces legal action
because she refuses to take part in same-sex marriages;
or the 2009 attempt of members of the Judiciary Committee in Connecticut
to re-organize parishes in a manner utterly opposed to Catholic teaching and law,
or the sad reality that many diocesan Catholic Charities have had to withdraw
from adoption and foster care services
because of our fidelity to the Church’s teaching on marriage.
F. We see the problem at the federal level.
Some federal agencies, absent legislative and judicial oversight,
threaten religious freedom:
As we know, the Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations
that would mandate coverage of sterilization and contraception,
including abortifacients, in all private health care plans.
The religious exemption was far too narrow,
requiring Catholic employers to hire mainly Catholics, serve mainly Catholics,
and exist mainly to inculcate religious values –
all these conditions must be met in order to qualify for the exemption.
As Sr. Carol Keehan noted,
the exemption is so narrow that it scarcely covers the parish housekeeper!
And there is no conscience protection for insurers or individuals
with religious or moral objections to the mandate.
While there is a real possibility of a broader exemption,
it remains to be seen whether it will indeed protect all religious organizations
and the conscience rights of individuals and insurers.
Contrary to conscience protections that are already a matter of law,
CRS and MRS were told that a new condition
for the renewal of cooperative agreements
was the provision of a full-range of so-called reproductive services,
a condition we hope may soon be dropped.
The Department of Justice has created additional problems.
It has attacked DOMA as an act of “bias and prejudice”, akin to racism,
thereby implying that churches which teach
that marriage is between a man and a woman are guilty of bigotry.
The Department of Justice has also argued before the Supreme Court
for the virtual elimination of the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception”
which protects the freedom of religious denominations
to choose their own ministers without state interference
to say nothing of court decisions which have severely curbed the religious freedom
of students to organize and maintain religiously based groups on college campuses.
IV. How to Respond to What We See
A. We see these and other threats no longer from afar but immediately on the horizon
so the Ad Hoc Committee has begun its work in helping us in our dioceses
to defend and promote religious liberty with and among our dioceses.
B. As bishops our first duty and instinct is to teach, and so, among other things,
the Committee will provide multi-media resources
to help us all in teaching about religious liberty.
As pastors, we recognize that we have a critical role to play
in leading our people in prayer and in instructing and inspiring them,
so that they will cherish their God-given freedoms
and work to shape a society marked by respect
for the transcendent dignity and freedom of each human being.
As watchmen, we will continue to flag threats to religious liberty
and to speak out against them,
to engage public officials, whether elected or appointed,
not in a partisan fashion but in a manner entirely consistent
with the deepest values of our democracy.
C. But this we cannot do alone.
We need to join with our ecumenical and inter-faith partners.
We need to involve our closest co-workers, our priests,
who are on the front lines of parish life,
and who enjoy the respect and esteem of their parishioners.
Their voice will be vital in the struggle that lay before us.
But we bishops and priests cannot do it alone.
D. We must stand united in calling forth the lay men and women of the Church
to put their gifts and expertise on the line in defense of religious liberty –
whether experts or hard-working lay Catholics
who simply want to raise their families and hand on their Catholic faith
in a land that is free, in a land that is just.
It is not a question of creating new structures or new bureaucracies
but of utilizing what is already in place – parishes, schools, communications networks,
so as to refocus and reenergize the people we serve,
so as to bring this message and mission to every corner of our land.
Together, we will do our best to awaken in ourselves, in our fellow Catholics,
and in the culture at large a new appreciation for religious liberty
and a renewed determination to defend it.
V. Conclusion
A. When Archbishop Dolan asked to me give this talk, he called it a stem-winder
and standing before you today I am very grateful
for the invention of self-winding watches!
Thank you for seeing the urgency of defending religious liberty
for our Church and for all believers.
I hope that the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty
will be of greatest service to all of us in our dioceses,
in our role as teachers, as pastors, as lovers of truth and freedom – as watchmen!
I have already testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution
and yesterday the new Ad Hoc Committee met for the first time.
On behalf of this Committee, I warmly invite your pastoral wisdom
and seek your input as we move forward.
This Committee will strive to do its work in your behalf effectively and efficiently
and will consult you and report to you on a frequent and regular basis.
B. Thanks for listening, may God bless our Church and our Nation!
« More of the Bishop's Writings | ^ Back to Top of Page ^