On Jan. 20, 2012, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) brought forth a decision that virtually all private health plans be required to include coverage for contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs and sterilizations. The HHS has identified these as “preventive services” — as if having a child were a disease.
With this decision, the HHS is forcing all employers, public and private, including Catholic institutions, to offer their employees health coverage that includes these “preventive services”. Almost all individuals will be forced to buy this coverage as a part of their health care policies. On Sept. 28, 2011, I signed a letter with the other two Catholic Bishops of Alaska and we sent the message to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, asking that this unconscionable decision not take place.
Nevertheless, with this ruling, the Administration of our Government has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to religious communities and institutions our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty and the freedom of religion. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, many will be compelled either to violate their consciences, or many religious institutions will drop health care coverage for employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so).
On the morning of Jan. 20, President Barack Obama called Archbishop of New York Timothy M. Dolan, who is also the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, with the news that the decision was going to be made public later in the day. Archbishop Dolan expressed to President Obama that he was shocked and disturbed in learning the news. Archbishop Dolan communicated this message to all the bishops in the country with the request that we share this information with the faithful of our dioceses.
Last weekend I asked that a letter from me to all the parishioners of the Diocese be read at all the Masses in Southeast Alaska. In it, I said, “The Church cannot comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights.”
In the letter I asked that the faithful do two things. First of all, to pray; we are a community of faith and every challenge and every obstacle in life should be met with prayer. Secondly, I asked that they contact our legislators in Washington, D.C. asking them to support legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.
Since all this has taken place, there have been some developments. The national secular news agencies have reported on it and the religious blogs have indicated that more than 80 percent of the Roman Catholic bishops have made statements about this issue. Parishioners have responded in varied ways; and more than 40 non-Catholic religious organizations, including Protestant-affiliated colleges, the National Association of Evangelicals, Focus on the Family, the Assemblies of God, Northwest Nazarene University, and Eastern Mennonite University, have sent a letter to the White House seeking religious protection against this HHS mandate. In their statement they say, “We write not in opposition to Catholic leaders and organizations. We write in solidarity. …Leaders of other faiths are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the mandate and the narrow exemption.”
This impacts more than just the members of the Catholic Church in the United States since it strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty of all citizens of any faith. From my perspective, I could not imagine any decent person or government agency wishing anything upon a religious institution that is against that institution’s conscience, until this announcement by the HHS.
The implications of this action are even deeper. It reflects the view that an individual’s basic rights can somehow be changed at the discretion of the government. We believe that this is wrong. We must never forget that this country was founded on the truth that all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” as the Declaration of Independence states. Our human rights come from God, not from an elected/appointed administration of the state. Unfortunately, many in our society try to change divinely established truths. In light of this, I believe that it is necessary to speak out against those who seek to take away our religious liberties.
• Burns is the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau and Southeast Alaska.
Comments (221)
Add commentThank you
Thank you Bishop Burns. We are praying with you.
Several thoughts
1. This ruling doesn't require anyone to use those services, right? Only that churches, as with all other employers, offer them as part of their health insurance plans to employees.
2. Are the employees required to be Catholics or adhere to the Catholic belief system?
3. This is a great argument for a single-payer system. Then the church wouldn't find itself in the position of supporting these services. Expand Medicare to all.
4. Perhaps it's time for the churches to shed their tax-free status if they're going to engage in politics.
Rev. Burns...
Are we talking about the basic right to deny reproductive health coverage to employees? Is the government stomping on your religious liberty to limit your flock's access to contraceptives? You don't have to use them, just include them in your coverage...
These services focus primarily on women---Maybe you're the wrong gender to be speaking out on this; that is, if you want to be taken seriously.
and Latitude...
Amen to #4!
Another view
For those interested in a different view see
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/opinion/soko-catholic-contraception/index....
Defending Our Rights to Discriminate
There, title fixed.
Mike
Waste of energy
You just have to offer them, that's all. They don't have to be used.
Instead of spending all this time (and money) on your political campaigning, invest in a package of post-it notes to stick on the health care coverage description reminding your flock that it is "wrong" for them to USE those services.
Then move on.
Religious freedom is a right
Religious freedom is a right for you to practice your beliefs. It is not a right for you to be able to force those beliefs on others.
It seems it is a very dysfunctional position to demand not allowing the government interfere with your church and how it deals with employees who may or may not be of your faith. And at the same time be promoting Constitutional amendments based on your religious beliefs that affect everyone in the country including your employees. Churches seem to find rationals for selective use of the Constitution when it fits their belief system. Too bad the same churches do not see the rights of others in the save visions.
Latitude said it best.
He beat me to it.
Bishop, no one is forcing anyone in your church, to use contraception. But the irony and hypocrisy in your church is, most Catholics already use contraception anyway, despite what you say.
It's similar to the fact that abortion is legal in this nation. Just because it's legal doesn't mean anyone is required to get one.
As such, no one is denying your freedom of religion.
I doubt many in your flock will heed your passionate requests to lobby their elected representatives, but I'm sure a few of your ostriches will.
And, as Latitude alluded to above, since it is obvious you are a lobbyist, lobbying on behalf of your employer, you and your church really should lose your tax exempt status. Jamison above concurs.
And I like it when you speak of "second class citizenry." With every woman you deny the priesthood to, you create that class yourself. With every gay marriage you deny, you create that class again.
And I wasn't surprised to learn that you included Charles Dobson's "Focus on the Family" as being in your corner. They are to gays what Hitler was to Jews. I'm surprised you didn't also list Rev. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church among your allies as well.
Whenever an institution like yours pushes its religion into our politics, there will be people like Latitude, Jamison and I who will push back.
98%
Thank you wmolson for that link above. It's right on the money.
I encourage everyone to read it. It's from cnn.com and talks about 98% of Catholic women use contraception.
ArTCLE
Then will the Catholic Church realize that NOT ALL people believe as they do. It is a woman's/ family choice to us birth control or not. The church DOES NOT have right to tell people how to act when it comes to family planning
Jo MacNamara, good points.
Mike
We have other freedoms, too.
I wonder what the Church's position is on Viagra. I mean, God's telling you not to procreate if you need Viagra, right? Just sayin'.
This is an election year and
This is an election year and with the outcry does anyone want to place bets on when Obama blinks?
From Peggy Noonan's piece in the WSJ -
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.
I would advise the Catholic Church to start standing strong on their moral convictions and biblical teachings and leave the politics of the day alone. Remember they embraced Obamacare under the guise that the church would be exempt under the Conscience Clause? They're also involved in the illegal immigration debate and environmental issues.
Lesson here - don't lie down with dogs.
figures
Usual suspects. Degrade, demean, debase. Not likely to matter much one way or the other it'll be settled in the supreme court as was row v wade. Then it'll be the law of the land & as with many organizations, the church will refuse to insure their employees & pay the fine. Let's see I pay 150 a month for my HC insurance the company kicks in another 450. Over the entire year it makes more sense to pay the thousand dollar fine & be done with the headache of annual negotiations. What I'll/we'll be stuck with is likely to be much less than what we've got.
Pro-Choice?
Why not CHOOSE to pay for your own contraception/abortion?
What does it tell you, Frenchie?
When 54% of catholic voters went with Obama even though he made it clear that he was pro-choice during the previous campaign?
And what does it tell you when every poll of U.S. catholics consistently shows that 90% of them support the use of contraception?
What it tells me is that this is a political issue drummed up by the likes of Burns, but won't be supported by his parishioners.
Just speculation
This is just speculation with no solid evidence to support it -its just my opinion.
What might happen if the Catholic clergy were allowed to be married and have families? What if they had to make a living to provide health care, educate their children and face up to the problems of everyday life that others have to solve. What if women were allowed to become priests and even some day bishops? Would there be change?
Over the centuries the moral teachings of the Catholic Church have changed. For example at one time charging any interest on money that was borrowed was considered wrong. Now the Vatican invests in the stock market and makes loans with interest. In other matters, such as the belief that the earth is the center of the universe. Then challenged by Copernicus and Galileo the response was denial, but finally accepted.
What are the core teachings of Jesus that should never change and what are things that need to change as the world changes over time?
Ecclesiastical change
The early Christian clergy were not necessarily required to be unmarried, although there is plenty of ground for discussion whether entry into the clergy was seen as grounds for celibacy within the boundaries of marriage, and at what point in history that development began to be universally applied. Timothy states that a bishop shall be the husband of one wife.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, along Dr. Molson's line of speculation, a Zen monk once told one of his students, a samurai, that a person fully immersed in the vagaries of daily life, such as a samurai who had to confront life and death on a daily basis, could accomplish more in terms of insight and monastic self-examination in a year than some comfortable monk could in five years.
Take it to the Supreme Court
The Church knows it's holding a losing hand otherwise they'd be threatening a lawsuit on 1st Amendment grounds.
Bring it.
Mike
Those are good musings,
Those are good musings, wally. Religions have a hard time "keeping current" and I'm not sure we want religions to always preach in the present. There are some things in the soul of a person that shouldn't change with the latest fad.
Look at Islam, for instance. They basically live in the 7th century.
This may go down as a turning point in the Catholic religion. They may lose some of their flock over this.
That's why I have a hard time with organized religions. I don't like going along to get along. If one has true, strong convictions, those convictions need to be lived through all aspects of one's life - like in politics, like in religion, like in business, etc.
The church finds itself in a conundrum.
Calypso, surprisingly I agree
When a person has some time to actually "philosophize" and ask themselves basic questions in life they may re-evaluate all that they have previously accepted or believed, as I have had to do in my life. However, a lot of people don't have the luxury to do this because they are busy just trying to survive. They want something to hang on to in life that they feel will never change and can be assured of this.
But for those who have the time- luxury-education of being able to think, question themselves and their lives, it may transform them.
I have no evidence or proof of this, but I suspect that people listening to Siddartha (long before the time of Jesus, and later called the Buddha), that some Jews, Muslims and Christians have come to sort out the basic teachings, the core concepts and ideas that are most important to them and feel should never change. Those seem to be what made these teachers so influential. They made people re-think all that they had believed, accepted and practiced.
But when it comes to what is not "core" such as how to dress, what ceremonies to follow, traditions or customs that were added after the founder's teachings, these can be adjusted and adapted to the present world, the social, economic, political, technological, scientific world supported by facts and evidence. When a great teacher comes along, with great new teachings, soon followers start adding their ideas and thoughts and the basic message is lost.... that's why it is so important, in my opinion to go back and try and made a teacher's, a prophet's or someone's ideas so transforming.
I agree
Someone with strong convictions should not be expected to dismiss them in the face of opposition, and indeed, if they did so, it would be evidence that they were not that strong to begin with; we generally criticize behavior like that regardless of the specifics.
That brings to the fore, however, the question of whether anyone with strong religious convictions and ideals can serve in public office. The idea behind freedom of religion in the United States is that the broadest number of people are afforded the broadest legal protections to allow them to pursue their religious framework. Unless that ideal of equality is somehow incorporated into a person's religious framework, how could they be expected to support it if they felt it contradicted their own convictions?
It's a bit of a tangled web - we can apply the same assessment criterion to any strong belief held by anyone. For instance, can a businessperson be expected to give fair and equal weight to scientific evidence supporting regulation or reduction of industry? Or can someone who feels that all industry should be radically curtailed in order to allow certain ecological transformations or recoveries be expected to give credence to the economic consequences of such actions?
Not sure of the answer.
@MikeDz
(running across the room, hugging Mike)
Thanks.
Buy you a drink, sailor?
Calypso
Surprisingly, I agreed with you and sent a long comment. However, it never showed up. I suspect, but am not sure, that the "moderator" of comments is off duty now. Maybe watching the Super Bowl!! Who knows?
disturbing
Upon second reading of the Bishop's letter, I found a couple other items I found disturbing.
He issued a letter to his sheeple saying, “The Church cannot comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom."
Two disturbing things here. First, that he claims solidarity from people of ALL faiths, and I seriously doubt that claim. I doubt the MCC, Unitarians and Episcopal churches share his view. He is sensationalizing like Glenn Beck. I wonder if he cries from the pulpit like Glenn does in front of a camera.
But the more disturbing line is, "The Church cannot comply with this unjust law." Then, he calls for action directly from his flock to oppose the law.
Can inciting mass amounts of people to commit civil disobedience amount to...treason? "The Church cannot comply with this unjust law."
Sounds like inciting civil disobedience to me.
The amusing part of all of this is, his sheeple will likely ignore him. They will continue to buy the pill, rubbers, IUDs and anything else they need for family planning.
@Jo
If inciting civil disobedience amounts to treason then you also agree that MLK should have hung for treason. Right?
Or does your definition of "Treason" hinge on your political point of view?
game time
7 Minutes to kickoff
AH HA
Can't speak for MLK, but there are lots of 'unjust laws' that I haven't heard the bishop inciting his flock over. Get the picture?
For all the atheists
2 Corinthians 4:3-5
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age (satan) has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake.