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 comment"The preservation of the
"The preservation of the family with many children is a matter of biological concept and national feeling. The family with many children must be preserved ... because it is a highly valuable, indispensable part of the ... nation. Valuable and indispensable not only because it alone guarantees the maintenance of the population in the future but because it is the strongest basis of national morality and national culture ... The preservation of this family form is a necessity of national and cultural politics ... This concept is strictly at variance with the demands for an abolition of paragraph 218; it considers unborn life as sacrosanct. For the legalization of abortion is at variance with the function of the family, which is to produce children and would lead to the definite destruction of the family with many children."
Citation to follow.
JuneauWilliam response 8
You are almost there but I am going to prod you along. How come you haven't brought up mathematical axioms? Let's assume you did (it would momentarily strengthen your position). But it would only do so for a moment as I will just repeat my prior response (I think it was 5/credulity) and would throw in Occams razor for the rational side.
JuneauWilliam, the length of this dance between us depends only on the skill of each participant. As PP has shown, you've gone through a longish list of fallacies already. You are also skirting around the God of the gaps fallacy and probably a few others I've missed.
JW, some dances are long symphonies while others are shorter than a shoe commercial jingle. But, when the band stops playing this argument will end up at one place for the theist: an absolute belief based on personal experience sans evidence while the position of reason will have tested explanatory power for the nature of reality without any need of myth, making all supernatural claims superfluous.
Mike
Is it ...
1. Rick Santorum
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Mitt Romney
4. Sarah Palin
5. Michele Bachmann
6. Herman Cain
7. Ann Colter
8. Rush Limbaugh
9. Sean Hannity
10. John Boehner
@Persnickety Persimmon
Since I have not personally conducted the scientific research myself, I have to accept what other people tell me about the speed of light. I believe what the scientific community states about light because I consider them to be a generally credible source of information on this subject. Until you have personally done the research and proved it, you are basing your belief on what others have told you. You have faith in what they say because you consider them to be credible.
@MikeDziuba
Oh, Mike I don't have great skills like you do. I am but a pauper holding the jewel of truth handed on to me by the saints.
@spiff
Thanks for that quoted passage!
JuneauWilliam response 9
I don't find your position of claiming special knowledge convincing. Again, I think it is much more interesting to live life not knowing than claiming to have answers that might be wrong. Regarding the supernatural, no evidence beyond emotions and personal credulity ever surfaces.
A Nobel is waiting for you if you prove otherwise!
Care to join me in Washington DC for the Reason Rally in March?
Mike
@MikeDziuba
You said, "it is much more interesting to live life not knowing."
One important thing to remember is that faith depends on not knowing for sure. If somebody knew for sure, they would not need faith.
There are different kinds of certainty:
1.) Certainty WITH proof.
2.) Certainty WITHOUT proof.
Of the 2nd kind (certainty WITHOUT proof) there is:
a.) Reasonable Certainty WITHOUT proof
b.) Unreasonable Certainty WITHOUT proof
Under 'a' (reasonable certainty w/o proof) would be my acceptance of the speed of light as 187,000 miles per second. Based on my trust of the scientific community to be honest, precise, and knowledgable, it is reasonable for me to accept this statement about light as fact. Also under 'a' would be my acceptance of what the saints have handed on to us about God because again, they are honest and the witness of their lives give me reason to trust them.
Under 'b' (UNreasonable certainty w/o proof) would be if a person diagnosed as a chronic liar told me he had a spaceship in his basement. If I felt certainty about his claim, my certainty would be unreasonable.
Note: Reasonable is different from conclusive, 100% proof. You can believe something without proof. There is always the chance you might be wrong, but it is not unreasonable to believe it. For example, if your uncle calls you and tells you to keep an eye on your mail because he has sent you a birthday present, you have no reason to doubt him. He is a credible source of information, and although you have no direct evidence other than his claim, you would believe him. Now, it could turn out he was mistaken and sent it to the wrong address, in which case his statement would be false. Or he could be playing a joke. But in general, it is reasonable for you to believe an uncle who calls you to say he's sent you a birthday present in the mail. This is a common example of how you can have reasonable certitude without proof.
JuneauWilliam response 10
Science tells us what is false. Faith purports to tell us what is true. Science and faith, JW, are mutually incompatible.
That's why I quoted the phrase by Richard Feynman where he says it is more interesting (for him) going through life perhaps not knowing rather than claiming one has answers that might be wrong.
The subtle point Feynman demonstrates is the honesty and humility of the scientific method and the arrogance of people of faith claiming things they simply can't know.
You are terribly mistaken about what science is JW. That's why you keep trying to equate trust in the scientific community to the trust you have with your religion's saints.
Your error is the appealing to authority for proof. Religion does that, JW, science does not. It is foolish of you to trust a scientist because they are a scientist. People who are scientifically literate base their trust on evidence, not credentials. Science is not consensus!
Please think about that; it's the key to your misunderstanding.
Mike
@JUneauWilliam
Religion DOES NOT make a person! Religion is a learned behavior. Worshiping saints is just short of idolatry. Spirtuality is WHAT IS NOT RELIGION!
@MikeDziuba
You said, "Science tells us what is false."
Actually, science tells us what is true, such as the atomic weight of gold.
You also said, "Faith purports to tell us what is true."
Actually, to have faith is to believe something without having proof.
You then said, "Science and faith, JW, are mutually incompatible." Mike, Father Gregor Mendell was the pioneer of the science we know today as genetics. He was a priest. His faith made him want to study the wonderful universe created by God. There's really not a conflict between faith and science. If one's faith leads them to do good works such as to build hospitals for poor people, then science helps you to fill the hospital with effective medicines, equipment, and treatments. Science and faith are a terrific team.
@billb
Hi, billb. As a Catholic, I don't know anyone who worships saints, so I can't comment on that part of your reply, but I can respond to the next part where you said that religion is a learned behavior.
The word religion is from the Latin word 'religio' which means bond. In the case of the Catholic Church, man enters into a filial relationship to the Father. Filial means 'son-like.' There is only one true Son of the Father. His name is Jesus Christ. Insofar as we are grafted into the body of Jesus Christ, we too share in his Sonship to the Father. By extension of that, it is only just that we owe God certain obligations of behavior.
To use an analogy, it is only just that a husband who is in a relationship with his wife owes her certain behaviors, such as: faithfulness in marriage, flowers on Valentine's Day, a kiss goodnight. A wife has a right to be upset if her husband forgets their anniversary, or worse yet, cheats on her.
All relationships involve certain actions and obligations that indicate there even is a relationship. Sometimes they are subtle, and sometimes very public.
JuneauWilliam response 11
We are at an impasse in this exchange. I cannot in good conscience participate any further.
Mike
@jUneauWilliam
How can one say it is not pagan to think that wine is blood and a biscuit is body?
@MikeDziuba
Alright, Mike. You're an awesome dude. It's been a pleasure.
@billb
Actually, in the Mass, something called Transubstantiation takes place where the wine becomes the Blood of Christ (and is not wine anymore), and the host becomes the Body of Christ (and is not bread any more.)
This is a distinctly Catholic teaching which no pagan religion has ever taught.
@JUneauWilliam
Is it not pagan to drunk Blood? You can go on defending you warped views of reality, but stop trying to say anyone else is wrong
@billb
The Holy Eucharist was personally given to us by Jesus Christ, and He was definitely not a pagan.
@JuneauWilliam: actually, the
@JuneauWilliam: actually, the Eucharist was likely influenced heavily by Greek traditions, such as the drinking of Dionysus' blood or the eating of Ceres' flesh. Dionysus, in fact, influenced a lot of the Jesus myth (turning water into wine, healing the blind, dying and being resurrected).
And as for your earlier post on science, dude, you are completely clueless. Mike is correct in that science tells us what is wrong, not what is right. Nothing in science can ever be proven 100%. It can be tested and retested over and over until it seems overwhelmingly likely that it is correct, but nothing is ever considered to be truth. We do not know the atomic weight of gold is about 197; experimental evidence simply indicates that this is so. And when the evidence becomes overwhelming, we can assume it is true until something proves otherwise. But we know it has not actually been proven. Alternatives have merely been disproven.
Persnickey,
I am not a vet.
Mike
I thought you said you were
I thought you said you were once before? My apologies.
@Persnickety Persimmon
Persnickety, you are 100% correct that nothing in science can ever be completely proven, only tested and re-tested. And yet, it is fair to say in a manner of speaking that what science tells us is true, otherwise we would have to say that what science tells us is false - and it would be a worthless pursuit.
As for the Eucharist, you are free to have faith that it came from pagans. My faith is that it comes from the Lord Jesus personally. It is my understanding that the Catholic Church contains an unbroken chain of witnesses back to the original time when Jesus Christ walked the earth, breathing the same air that we do.
(Which of course is where the distinction from Russel's Teapot comes in at. Namely that the teapot never personally came to earth and told us about itself. And being a teapot... who would expect it to?)
It's not faith, and you know
It's not faith, and you know it. Religions are all cultural constructs--not a single religious ritual or tradition was created from thin air. Some are derived from specific events that occurred within that religion's timeframe, but many are derived from older traditions. It's no secret that Christianity is rife with Pagan rituals--the Romans had to do this in order to get the population at large to accept it.
The religion that preceded Christianity, Judaism, is also rife with it. The Hebrews were originally a polytheistic sect of Sumerians whose patron deity was--you guessed it!--Yahweh. Some anthropologists believe that the Hebrews picked up monotheism from the Egyptians during Akhenaten's reign, as he threw away all the old gods in favor of Aten, the one true god up in the sky. Many of the Old Testament stories (including the first creation myth) are simply repackaged Sumerian myths.
It doesn't take faith to think that religion is entirely a human construct. It takes a bit of logic and some knowledge. Sure, it's possible one religion is correct, but the scant evidence that does exist does not support this idea.
@Persnickety Persimmon
You said, "It's not faith, and you know it." What "it" do you speak of? If you are talking about your faith that Catholicism is merely a manmade construct, then it is faith, because it is something you believe but cannot prove. Belief without proof is faith.
You're right that Christianity did not come from thin air. First, for thousands of the years the Jews were awaiting a Messiah. Then, Jesus Christ was born, lived, suffered, and died on a cross. On the third day He rose from the dead, and after that ascended into Heaven. The Apostles who were handpicked by Jesus continued baptizing Jews and Gentiles into the Body of Christ and administering the Sacraments. From that original time 2,000 years ago until today, the Apostles (who in successive generations were called bishops) have been maintaining an unbroken witness to Jesus Christ.
You have many theories and ideas about the Jews as well. It seems to me that your only criteria is that, "If an idea or speculation goes against the validity of Judaism and/or Christianity, it must be right." Meanwhile, there are priests celebrating Mass, not 10 miles from you probably, who have received their Holy Orders from a bishop, who himself can trace his own commission back through successive bishops all the way to the Apostles. The Catholic Church is a palpable, visible, and even tactile witness to Christ. The Catholic Church is not something you read about in a book, it's there for you to experience today. The Church does not only tell you that Jesus once forgave sins, the Catholic Church forgives your sins today! The Catholic Church does not just tell you that Jesus was once crucified: in the Mass the Catholic Church brings you that reality today! As much as you can see a poster listing all presidents from George Washington to Barak Obama, you can get a similar poster listing all popes from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. I'm fine if you want to deny all this. I certainly don't have the power to move the seven ton iron doors of another man's mind. In the Church, I have encountered reason for hope, and reason for faith.
Dude. There is evidence for
Dude. There is evidence for all of this. It's not faith to say religions are man made. All the evidence points towards that fact. It's faith to say they aren't. Are you even aware of the Council of Nicaea? I'm curious how you can square away the idea that the Bible is the word of God when a bunch of guys sat down and essentially picked and chose what would go in it for political reasons.
As for the Jews awaiting their messiah--that actually was a very recent "prophecy." It did not exist 2,000 years before Jesus.
You're once again engaging in false equivalence. I don't care if you have faith, but when you start to portray that faith as fact (or evidence as faith), we have a problem.
@Persnickety Persimmon
You have no proof that God did not send His Son into the world. You have faith that there is proof, but you personally do not possess the proof. Think of the time spans involved, and the ancient history involved, the ancient civilizations. I would be surprised if you could tell me what the normal breakfast food of these ancient people was, let alone something as nuanced as their faith. And if you did reference a Wikipedia article to find what they ate for breakfast you may be able to track down the specific professor in the sources who provided that research. And when you did, you could arrange a meeting with him or her, and they would tell you that at best they are providing an educated guess. They will usually follow up by saying things like, "Though I might off a century or two..." and "Unless we find out more about their agriculture or trade that contradicts my findings..." They would never draw a line in the sand as you have tried to do by basing your own claims on their research.
If you want to have faith that Jesus is not the Son of God, I am honestly okay with that. I have faith that He is, and my faith is reasonable because the Catholic Church provides an unbroken chain of saints and witnesses to the historical events of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection.
Regarding Nicea, you have it right about the imperfect men who sat down to pick the books. But you forgot to mention the guidance they received from the Holy Spirit. Don't leave Him out of the party, my friend. ;)
Once again, we have evidence
Once again, we have evidence that religions are cultural constructs. This is not faith. Faith is ignoring all evidence in favor of some conclusion you've already reached and are determined to hold, regardless of the facts.
Want more evidence? Imagine if you had been born in Tehran to Islamic parents. Would you be a Christian? Absolutely not. You would be a Muslim. Or imagine if you had been born in Athens in 100 B.C. Would you be Christian? Nope. You'd believe in all the Greek gods and myths. If you had been born in Jaipur, you'd be Hindu. Sri Lanka, you'd be Buddhist. And so on. You aren't Christian because you're privy to some divine esoteric knowledge, you're Christian because of the culture in which you were raised. Religion is, itself, an element of culture.
@Persnickety Persimmon
The word culture is based on the word CULT. This is because CULTure comes from religion, not the other way around.
Also, you said, "If you had been born in Athens in 100 B.C. Would you be Christian? Nope. You'd believe in all the Greek gods and myths."
True. And I would also have believed what Parmenides said about vision: that it is made possible by rays that shoot from my eyes and wrap around objects, like hands, making those objects visible. My belief in his wrong teachings would not change the truth of what vision really is (the eye absorbing light.) So, the fact that people once believed something that was wrong does not contradict the idea that their descendants will one day possess the truth.
No, the word "culture" is not
No, the word "culture" is not derived from the word "cult," and religion is not the source of culture... I'm sorry, but that's an asinine statement. Culture is a collection of mores, taboos, traditions, norms, and social roles that naturally form when people live together in a society.
Please fact check your statements before posting them. Also, you completely missed my point, which is that religion is an element of culture, not of reality. You hold your beliefs because they were taught to you, not because they have any truth to them.
@Persnickety Persimmon
Persnickety, are you aware that the Catholic faith has existed:
- under the Roman Emperors
- under kings in Europe
- in modern American democracy
- in Japan
- in African tribes
- in Alaskan Indian habitats
- in South America
- currently on every continent, in every political system, and in almost every culture?
Also, you said, "You hold your beliefs because they were taught to you, not because they have any truth in them."
1.) This means you are presuming I was always a Catholic, which is not true.
2.) Are you implying that if something is taught to me, it cannot be true?