Bishop: When religion is kept out of public life, trouble ensues

[cornbread_r2]

This is not me personally, since I’m not a business owner. But for a Catholic who believes that birth control pills (and it’s not just Plan B that can cause a fertilized egg not to implant), sterilizations, or abortions are immoral, the government is forcing them to provide those for other people.

In the case of birth control, that would seem to depend on the state where the pharmacy is located. According to this article, there are currently apparently more states that, by law, allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions than there are states that prohibit them from refusing.

In the case of sterilization and abortion, it would appear that since 1973 and the enactment of the Church amendment no one can be compelled to participate in either.

 

[abucs]

If we look at the basis for western society - charity welfare, education, health etc we see that it’s foundation was Christianity going into the public square and building homes for the needy, building schools and universities, underwriting the pursuit of science and creating hospitals across medieval Europe.

It is only in relatively later times that we have had democratic tax payer funded governments who have in large part taken over the great Christian success story.

I think it is unreasonable, unjust and ultimately detrimental to society to pretend this didn’t happen and we should shut down a great source of civic strength because some have developed an alternate unhealthy morality of mis-directed equality and pretend victimhood.

 

[abucs]

Alternatively if we look at those who have tried to shut down Christianity - the French atheists, the international communists and the National Socialists of Germany this has created widespread death and destruction in the name of a de-Christianizing civic universalism.

It is clearly the state participating in the de-Christianizing civic universalism that has been the great threat to peace and stability in the last 200 years.

The idea that Christianity retreat from the public square has always been the first step in this threat, so I have to agree with the bishop.

Christianity in the public square has created the great humane traditions and intellectual progress of the west, Christianity forced to retreat from the public square has caused social breakdown and the rise of evil. The evidence is pretty clear to my mind.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Alternatively if we look at those who have tried to shut down Christianity - the French atheists, the international communists and the National Socialists of Germany this has created widespread death and destruction in the name of a de-Christianizing civic universalism.

It is clearly the state participating in the de-Christianizing civic universalism that has been the great threat to peace and stability in the last 200 years.

The idea that Christianity retreat from the public square has always been the first step in this threat, so I have to agree with the bishop.

Christianity in the public square has created the great humane traditions and intellectual progress of the west, Christianity forced to retreat from the public square has caused social breakdown and the rise of evil. The evidence is pretty clear to my mind.

In what way, if any, is Christianity being forced to retreat from the public square in the US today?

 

[abucs]

I think the best people to answer your question would be Christians from the US.

 

[Tom_Baum]

If freedom of religion is not for all, than it is for none.

There is no such thing as “partial” freedom of religion, however, if any religion has it as a belief to force themself on others in any way, shape or form that is NOT covered by “freedom of religion”.

As far as Christianity goes, Jesus forced Himself on no one, so why would anyone think that Jesus would want them to force Jesus and/or Christianity, denominational or non-denominational, on anyone else?

“Religion” should come from within, it should not be imposed from outside.

Any “belief or belief system” that is forced on another ceases to be , by definition, a “belief or belief system”.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Again, that’s a fair criticism of both catholics en masse and the bishops. The road to re-evangelization is indeed a slow path and not always easy to discern. I’ve at times wished they’d just throw all the lukewarm bums out and start over with a small, lean church faithful to Christ and His teachings. But the argument against that goes something like “Really? You’ve got about a billion people who claim allegiance to your faith and at least several times in their lives have an opportunity to preach the gospel to them, but you’re going to tell the majority of them to GET LOST so that you can feel all nice and self-congratulatory in the faithful small remaining parishes?” Ouch. Good argument.

Since the 1980’s the church has prepared the first comprehensive catechism in centuries and proceeded to use it as a yardstick for all catechesis materials. This has gone a long way in halting the faithless dissent that once masqueraded as catholic education in our OWN parishes and schools. JPII spent much of his papacy developing his Theology of the Body, which seeks to re-introduce the totality of catholic teaching on human sexuality from which springs the widely misunderstood contraception issue. Admittedly, JPII (in my opinion) didn’t truly appreciate for a long time the magnitude of the compromised faith held by some in the American episcopacy and trusted too much in THEIR recommendations in who should be ordained as new bishops. That too has been largely turned around under B16. Large numbers of grass-roots apostolates and apologetics resources have sprung up in the last 30 years as the laity finally figured out what was truth versus fiction about Vatican II and these have been outstanding.

Are we done? Nope. Are we ready to kick out all the sinners? Never. Have serious and concerted efforts been under way to re-evangelize the nominal members of the faith? Yup (see above). Does the lousy job done in many quarters for some decades excuse government efforts to make everybody share the cost of an elective product / procedure that some people object to? No way. Freedom is still freedom if you have to pay for the things you want. That that needs explaining in this ONE context still boggles me.

So fewer Catholics are practicing contraception now versus in the 1980s?

 

[manualman]

So fewer Catholics are practicing contraception now versus in the 1980s?

I’d say it a bit differently. Among those who genuinely believe the faith and demonstrate it in their lives it is certainly true. In the 1980’s those who actively sought to practice their faith and follow Jesus Christ genuinely were bewildered by the controversy. Back then, it was hard to tell where the truth fell since bishop A winked and nodded at the practice of contraception while bishop B preached against it as sin.

Today, catholics sincerely trying to conform their conscience to Christ as revealed through the catholic church have no difficulty in determining what that faith actually teaches.

In other words, in the 1980’s among catholics who attended mass weekly, went to confession more than once a year, prayed daily and read their bibles you’d find almost no detectable difference in the contraception practice rates compared to the general public. Today, I’d say you’d find a BIG difference. There’s still probably no difference in the general population of those who self-describe as catholic though. We still have a lot of work to do.

 

[adowcday]

Bishop Liam Cary of the Diocese of Baker says the problem is one consequence of blocking religion from the common sphere. When people ignore the wisdom of ancient faith and instead fight for rights to contraception, abortion, gay marriage and even marijuana, they forget the damage to society and order overall, especially youth, Bishop Cary explains

.

Bishop Cary could also have mentioned that fighting against gun control, regulation of financial institutions and environmental protection causes damage to society. Equating “religion in the common sphere” with support for GOP hot button issues does a disservice to the Catholic faith.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is not me personally, since I’m not a business owner. But for a Catholic who believes that birth control pills (and it’s not just Plan B that can cause a fertilized egg not to implant), sterilizations, or abortions are immoral, the government is forcing them to provide those for other people.

But the Catholic Church already provides these service to people now–and has for decades. I don’t understand why the Bishops are suddenly objecting.

 

[Genesis315]

Bl. Pius IX prophetically predicted the effects of this kind of unhealthy secularism 150 years ago:
Pope Bl. Pius IX:

1. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?

Does this not sum up all the problems of modern society?

Every society is governed by some ideology or another, why not that given by our Creator, rather than atheistic one or one derived from some false religion? The Catechism makes this very point and then points to history to show what happens when we don’t:

CCC:

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

Of course, the Catechism also tells us how to go about infusing this truth into our society’s laws and structures–we need to evangelize:

CCC:

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33

 

[SuperLuigi]

On the other hand, Sharia law has worked out really well

Interesting how more non-religious folks rush towards sharia law whenever Christians talk about expressing themselves in public.

Does anyone see Christians publicly comparing Lenin and Stalin with post-modern liberalism? :ehh:

As bad as it is, sharia law is spreading, so it must be working in some way, shape or form even if by sheer force.

 

[SuperLuigi]

In the case of birth control, that would seem to depend on the state where the pharmacy is located. According to this article, there are currently apparently more states that, by law, allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions than there are states that prohibit them from refusing.

In the case of sterilization and abortion, it would appear that since 1973 and the enactment of the Church amendment no one can be compelled to participate in either.

Tell that to the Obama Administration.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Pretty much agree, you only need to look at the 20th century to see the examples of secularism: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, the list goes on…

But I thought that governments were supposed to “care” about people?

What happened?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

.

Bishop Cary could also have mentioned that fighting against gun control, regulation of financial institutions and environmental protection causes damage to society. Equating “religion in the common sphere” with support for GOP hot button issues does a disservice to the Catholic faith.

These are not “GOP hot button issues”. The Catholic Church, since its beginning, has taught that abortion and contraception are wrong.

Not to take us off-topic here, but really? Being against gun control is a disservice to the faith???

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

In the case of birth control, that would seem to depend on the state where the pharmacy is located. According to this article, there are currently apparently more states that, by law, allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions than there are states that prohibit them from refusing.

In the case of sterilization and abortion, it would appear that since 1973 and the enactment of the Church amendment no one can be compelled to participate in either.

I’m concerned you’re very unaware of major current political events in this country. Under the HHS mandate, no one was exempt, excluding the physical churches themselves. Heck, even the Little Sisters of Charity was being forced by the Obama administration.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

But the Catholic Church already provides these service to people now–and has for decades. I don’t understand why the Bishops are suddenly objecting.

No, the Catholic Church does not provide those to people and never has. If individual organizations have chosen to (again, NOT the Church), then that was their choice. Immoral, but their choice. The bishops are objecting to Catholics being FORCED by the government to provide these non-medically essential items against their religious beliefs.

 

[TMC]

Interesting how more non-religious folks rush towards sharia law whenever Christians talk about expressing themselves in public.

Does anyone see Christians publicly comparing Lenin and Stalin with post-modern liberalism? :ehh:

As bad as it is, sharia law is spreading, so it must be working in some way, shape or form even if by sheer force.

Yes. It happened in post 4 on this thread, and occurs on lots of threads on this forum.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

No, the Catholic Church does not provide those to people and never has. If individual organizations have chosen to (again, NOT the Church), then that was their choice. Immoral, but their choice. The bishops are objecting to Catholics being FORCED by the government to provide these non-medically essential items against their religious beliefs.

Our local Catholic bishop (now the Archbishop of San Francisco) admitted in the diocese’s newspaper (ref here): cal-catholic.com/?p=626 that his diocese–Oakland at that time --was providing ongoing contraceptive coverage under California state law (which was used as a model for the Federal Law). Although in this article, the archbishop promises to investigate, I don’t think that ever happened because my sister-in-law works for CCEB and still gets contraception coverage from the Catholic Church. That’s why I think this outcry about the HHS mandate is pure politics and has nothing to do with morals. The whole thing seems like a very expensive farce designed to employ attorneys; the bishops should mind their own store IMO. If they don’t like contraception, then don’t provide it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Our local Catholic bishop (now the Archbishop of San Francisco) admitted in the diocese’s newspaper (ref here): cal-catholic.com/?p=626 that his diocese–Oakland at that time --was providing ongoing contraceptive coverage under California state law (which was used as a model for the Federal Law). Although in this article, the archbishop promises to investigate, I don’t think that ever happened because my sister-in-law works for CCEB and still gets contraception coverage from the Catholic Church. That’s why I think this outcry about the HHS mandate is pure politics and has nothing to do with morals. The whole thing seems like a very expensive farce designed to employ attorneys; the bishops should mind their own store IMO. If they don’t like contraception, then don’t provide it.

It’s not a farce. The compliants are legitimate.

Yes, attorneys are going to make their monies, but if one is really concerned about it, then one ought to look into supporting tort reform.