Religious freedom battle 'daunting,' but bishops urged to persist [CNA]

[CNA_News]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...embly_Credit_Michelle_Bauman_CNA.jpgBaltimore, Md., Nov 12, 2014 / 05:05 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The leader of the U.S. bishops’ religious freedom committee encouraged his fellow bishops not to lose heart, but to place their trust in God, in the ongoing battle for religious liberty.

“Sometimes it might seem that fighting or struggling against threats to religious liberty is a daunting task,” Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore acknowledged, but we know that “with God all things are possible.”

“And we realize that with prayer is the ultimate source of our wisdom and our strength and our pastoral love in these struggles,” he stressed.

Archbishop Lori addressed the U.S. bishops at their annual fall assembly in Baltimore on Nov 11, giving an update on the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, which he chairs.

He listed current affairs that the committee is keeping a close eye on, which include new state proposals requiring all health plans to cover abortions with no religious exemptions.

In a similar case in August, California’s state Department of Managed Health Care declared that employee health plans at two Catholic universities limiting abortion coverage were in violation of state law.

The state’s Catholic conference had deplored the action, saying it “directly targeted” Catholic institutions and calling it “government coercion of the worst kind” and a “flagrant violation of their civil rights.” Archbishop Lori singled out that case as one of particular concern to the committee.

Also among the laws and regulations being monitored by the committee is the HHS mandate, which requires employers to offer health insurance plans covering contraception, sterilization and some early abortion drugs.

The federal mandate has prompted lawsuits from more than 300 plaintiffs. The Supreme Court issued a ruling affecting some of these cases over the summer, upholding the right of closely-held corporations owned by individuals with religious objections to the mandate, such as Hobby Lobby.

However, more than 100 legal cases against the HHS mandate are currently open, the archbishop said. “That’s keeping us all pretty busy,” he admitted. An update to the mandate was recently released and is being studied by the bishops’ religious freedom committee.

In addition, Archbishop Lori noted the growing threat to religious liberty being posed by “laws redefining marriage.” Such laws have led to businesses and religious entities being threatened with fines or closure for seeking to maintain their longstanding beliefs on marriage.

Despite the ongoing challenges in the realm of religious freedom, the archbishop called for hope.

“It seems that the situation with regard to religious liberty continues to be of great concern to us all,” he said, warning his fellow bishops not to grow discouraged but to be “spiritual leaders” despite these difficulties.

“We love our Church, we love our people, we love our country, and we love people around the world who are suffering all kinds of discrimination and persecution,” he said.
feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/MfD3j7z9QTo

Full article…

 

[Sy_Noe]

When Catholics speak about religious liberty are they only meaning for themselves or for all religions and faith beliefs? What happens when there’s a clash between what faiths believe? Doesn’t at least one or another have to come to grips with some liberty taken from them when there is not agreement to begin with on how something should be in society at large? If one says I want apples to be the national fruit. And another says oranges. And bananas become the national fruit, the banana people get their way and the apple advocates and oranges don’t. That of course doesn’t mean you don’t have the liberty to eat apples or oranges. They just wouldn’t be society’s national fruit.

 

[oneofmany]

When it comes to including abortion pills in the insurance you buy for your employees there has to be a line drawn though. Well the church close down many of their organizations, instead of supplying abortions? They would have to really, just like they stopped being in the adoption business when the state said they had to include gays.

We have a sign in our front yard that says, “We pray for religious freedom,” How much longer will we have religious freedom is the question.

 

[JimG]

Well, this administration seems to value contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing contraceptives much more than religious freedom. It has fought tooth and nail against providing conscience exceptions to the odious HHS mandate. The correct response would be either to drop the mandate or to provide religious liberty exemptions from it. They are still fighting the Little Sisters of the Poor over the mandate.

And when gay marriage becomes law, it will be enforced with equal vigor against those religiously opposed to it. Yes, religious liberty is threatened and will continue to be, as long as state sponsored secularism sees itself as the official religion of the nation, to be enforced by the executive and the courts.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, this administration seems to value contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing contraceptives much more than religious freedom. It has fought tooth and nail against providing conscience exceptions to the odious HHS mandate. The correct response would be either to drop the mandate or to provide religious liberty exemptions from it. They are still fighting the Little Sisters of the Poor over the mandate.

And when gay marriage becomes law, it will be enforced with equal vigor against those religiously opposed to it. Yes, religious liberty is threatened and will continue to be, as long as state sponsored secularism sees itself as the official religion of the nation, to be enforced by the executive and the courts.

But what about those whose faith believes SSM or civil unions should be legal in civil law? There are religious denominations in support of such. Or who support contraceptives being included in a set of uniform healthcare benefits for all women since women are prescribed them for health matters? And not to base benefits on who the woman’s employer happens to be?

 

[JimG]

But what about those whose faith believes SSM or civil unions should be legal in civil law? There are religious denominations in support of such. Or who support contraceptives being included in a set of uniform healthcare benefits for all women since women are prescribed them for health matters? And not to base benefits on who the woman’s employer happens to be?

If the employers are paying for insurance coverage, they should have the right to determine the kind of insurance coverage that they will pay for. Many policies cover contraceptives for medical purposes in the body of the policy. What the HHS mandate does is put contraceptive coverage first and foremost and require that it be included in all policies as a no-copay item upfront.

The Little Sisters of the Poor don’t need it, don’t want it, won’t use it, and don’t want to be forced to pay for contraceptive coverage. Why should they? Why should any employer with moral objections? Employers who want such coverage can provide it. Or patients can buy cheap contraceptives from Wal-Mart.

If people want the definition of marriage changed, all right, then pass legislation to define what marriage is. Don’t just force a new definition on everyone for no reason, especially since same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. It would make more sense to legalize polygamy. But that will happen anyway, once same sex marriage removes any meaning from marriage.

 

[Genesis315]

When Catholics speak about religious liberty are they only meaning for themselves or for all religions and faith beliefs?

For all, but within limits determined by the objective moral order and the true common good (and not a positivist or “naturalist” conception of it).

In sum, all individuals must be given liberty to follow their conscience in religious matters except where doing so is contrary to public morality based on the objective moral order (the natural law) or the common good (which includes also man’s spiritual well-being).

Here’s the Church teaching on this which I have tried to sum up above:

CCC:

The social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom

2104 "All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."26 This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."27 It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"28 nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."29

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

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

A “naturalist” conception of the common good referenced by the CCC does not take into account the good of the whole person, including his spiritual good. Good Pope John summed it up like this:
St. John XXIII:

1. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)
2. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)
3. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

 

[Sy_Noe]

If the employers are paying for insurance coverage, they should have the right to determine the kind of insurance coverage that they will pay for. Many policies cover contraceptives for medical purposes in the body of the policy. What the HHS mandate does is put contraceptive coverage first and foremost and require that it be included in all policies as a no-copay item upfront.

The Little Sisters of the Poor don’t need it, don’t want it, won’t use it, and don’t want to be forced to pay for contraceptive coverage. Why should they? Why should any employer with moral objections? Employers who want such coverage can provide it. Or patients can buy cheap contraceptives from Wal-Mart.

If people want the definition of marriage changed, all right, then pass legislation to define what marriage is. Don’t just force a new definition on everyone for no reason, especially since same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. It would make more sense to legalize polygamy. But that will happen anyway, once same sex marriage removes any meaning from marriage.

Employers should be forced to pay so there is a uniform set of health benefits available to all who are or may become sick. And it’s not up to voters or for that matter their elected legislators to have the only say as to whether SS monogamous couples have the right to a civil union or civil marriage at a courthouse or even in a religious setting in those faith communities willing to perform such ceremonies. There are 3 branches of govt with the judiciary being one of them. And many courts as you know have been interpreting the Constitution to say they do. Now sure we might disagree with an interpretation. That occurs all the time.

 

[JimG]

Employers should be forced to pay so there is a uniform set of health benefits available to all who are or may become sick. And it’s not up to voters or for that matter their elected legislators to have the only say as to whether SS monogamous couples have the right to a civil union or civil marriage at a courthouse or even in a religious setting in those faith communities willing to perform such ceremonies. There are 3 branches of govt with the judiciary being one of them. And many courts as you know have been interpreting the Constitution to say they do. Now sure we might disagree with an interpretation. That occurs all the time.

Why should employers be forced to provide “a uniform set of benefits?” Not everyone wants or needs the same benefits. Many people would prefer a catastrophic plan at a lower cost, in which the patient covers most ordinary medical bills and the insurance kicks in at the catastrophic limit. Others prefer a more comprehensive plan. Let the consumers decide and let the insurance companies offer what consumers—not the government—wants.

If some denominations want same sex marriage, let them perform those marriages. There’s no obligation on the part of the government to recognize them. The government ought to recognize only real marriage, not fake marriage which can never be marital and provides no benefit to the state.

Courts have, to a large degree, lost their common sense and sanity. Arguments against same sex marriage rely on the factual differences between men and women. Courts don’t want to hear about the differences between men and women because their objective is to act as if they were the same.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Why should employers be forced to provide “a uniform set of benefits?” Not everyone wants or needs the same benefits. Many people would prefer a catastrophic plan at a lower cost, in which the patient covers most ordinary medical bills and the insurance kicks in at the catastrophic limit. Others prefer a more comprehensive plan. Let the consumers decide and let the insurance companies offer what consumers—not the government—wants.

If some denominations want same sex marriage, let them perform those marriages. There’s no obligation on the part of the government to recognize them. The government ought to recognize only real marriage, not fake marriage which can never be marital and provides no benefit to the state.

Courts have, to a large degree, lost their common sense and sanity. Arguments against same sex marriage rely on the factual differences between men and women. Courts don’t want to hear about the differences between men and women because their objective is to act as if they were the same.

Not everyone needs the benefits of healthcare until they need benefits and who among us knows when we or anyone of us will. It can happen in a second. The government is only trying to see to it that caring for the sick is less determined or rationed by income or who your employer is. And to try to spread the cost of healthcare out. Now by my estimation the ACA while a God send to so many, is not successful enough in ensuring we all have access to quality, affordable healthcare. But the changes you would prefer probably are not the same I believe should occur. In fact I know they’re not.

But no doubt on this and the rest, on what can be marital in civil law, we shall have to agree to disagree.