Following his fellow American bishops, Bishop Edward Burns argues that our religious liberties are under attack from the Affordable Care Act (Juneau Empire, A Bishop’s Perspective, June 10, 2012). This rhetoric is not simply disingenuous; its transparency makes it insulting. Outside the Tea Party, no one really believes that the administration wants to curtail our Constitutional freedom to worship as we choose (or choose not to: as a friend of mine notes, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion). No one believes that the government wants to shut down the Catholic Church in America. The episcopal rhetoric about our Constitutional rights being threatened resembles a Tea Party tactic and deserves only contempt. There may be serious issues here, but none of them threatens anyone’s religious liberty; they should be discussed rationally, without the mendacious rhetoric.
The Affordable Care Act would not force anyone to use contraceptives against his or her religious convictions. It would require the Church, when operating as a certain kind of employer, to provide health benefits that include access to contraceptives. (And a new study from Johns Hopkins shows that contraception is health care: the research suggests that meeting demands for contraception in third-world countries could reduce global maternal mortality by nearly a third.) The bishops are concerned that the Church not provide access to something that Catholic doctrine opposes. That is the issue, not anyone’s “religious liberty.” If the bishops are serious about defending “religious liberty,” they must ensure that the Church’s non-Catholic employees are not forced to abide by Catholic doctrine. That means giving non-Catholic employees health benefits that give them the liberty to choose in good conscience and in conformity with their own religious beliefs whether to use contraceptives.
In fact, their Catholic employees need that freedom as well. I’m a Catholic by choice, not by birth. Raised in the Southern Baptist Church, I was exposed to Catholic thought in college and eventually joined the club after being influenced by some of the best Catholic writing from across the ages — Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Merton, and others. Those writers were concerned not primarily with what it means to be Catholic, but with what it means to be human, and they found the truest answers in the response to life and scripture that emerged as the Catholic tradition. Indeed, they weren’t following the Catholic tradition as much as they were creating it, shaping it, revitalizing it as the truest (and smartest) response to the majesty and mystery of life. The upshot of that response is fairly straightforward: Let love be your guide — love and a conscience free to discover what you truly believe to be good and right and holy. Aquinas says we must rely on the authority of our own senses to know the world and must have free recourse to follow our own conscience to do what is right. And in one of his sermons Augustine tells us, “Love and do what you will.” If we let love be our guide, then whatever we do will be right. The freedom to choose to do right is fundamental.
The Church took a long time to learn that it has nothing to fear from the free exploration of nature by science, and it’s still learning that it has nothing to fear from the free exploration of human nature by art; the Church also needs to relearn one of its own best messages: that every human being must be free to act in accordance with his or her own conscience, which is, by definition, our understanding of the difference between right and wrong. If there is one thing that Augustine and Aquinas are very clear about, it is this: the only way any of us ever make the right choice is by conforming our consciences to God’s will, and we can do that only because we have, by God’s grace, a free will and an intellect capable of understanding what is right. We only choose right, choose well, because God gave us the ability and responsibility to do so, not because the Church says so, and certainly not because the bishops try to frighten us that our religious liberty is in danger.
• Hale lives in Juneau, where he works for NOAA Fisheries.
Comments (25)
Add commentarTCLE
Well written and right to the point.
Well articulated, but a little disjointed.
"Outside the Tea Party"? How, and why, is the Tea Party relevant in this supposition?
Organized religion is more for the masses, not so much the individual, though without it Jesus may have lived a long and fruitful life.
Mr. Hale's article has made it transparent one can belong to an organization without marching in step with it.
But the dogma of Organized religion will not be coaxed into the 21st century.
I agree here, Organized religion is not under threat by the ACA but rather the possibility that individuals can exercise free will and remain faithful without it.
Excellent!
Well done sir.
Discussion
At the present time the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (a group representing many Catholic nuns) has been reprimanded by the Vatican for publicly discussing various issues such as contraception and whether women should be ordained to the priesthood. The leaders of this conference haven't attacked the current policies, but have said they should be discussed openly.
This seems to be exactly what Pope John XXIII had in mind when he called for the second Vatican Council. He is reported to have said something like it was time to "Open the windows and let a fresh breeze blow through the Church" The nuns are saying that they are doing what Pope John had recommended.
However, since his passing, the Catholic Church hierarchy have returned to a much more conservative position.
Thank You
As a fellow Catholic, thank you so much for this concise and pointed rebuke of all this "religious liberty is under attack" hyperbole.
Politics
As a devout and life-long Roman Catholic it is clear to me that the Republicans have manufactured the "religious liberty" baloney as a wedge issue for their political advantage. And the US Bishops have decided to hang thier hat on the Republican candidate when in fact they are supposed to be a political.
You othen hear Bishop Burns speak out against abortion. But according to the Church, "All life is sacred and begins at conception and ends with a "natural death". Thus the death penalty is the same as abortion.
But just like the Republicans who are pro-life but pro- capital punishment Bishop Burns never speaks out aginst capital punishment because of the American Bishops alignment with the Republican party.
Very well said, Mr. Hale
Thank you for coming forward.
I think by 'certain kind of employer' - you mean public, or accepting of public funds.
I also agree that freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM a particular religion.
I'd suggest that freedom FROM conservative Christian tenants has been under attack in recent years, as evidenced by the number of laws and bills put forward at both the state and congressional level trying to force people in one way or another to live by a few people's idea of Christian "values". I would also agree with you that you cannot legislate morality.
Two for four with nobody on deck
A textbook display of cognitive dissonance. I thought precisely in this manner too, Mr. Hale, once upon a time.
The first two paragraphs hit it out of the ballpark but the last two paragraphs make ridiculous, even dangerous, faith claims.
If the author would like to discuss a few points, I'm up for it.
For starters:
1. You can't have Aquinas without The Magisterium. Any implication of privately, that is to say without Holy Mother Church, deducing right from wrong is not a complete understanding of Aquinas.
2. Catholic Tradition is the smartest response to the majesty and mystery of life? Are you serious?
Batter up.
Mike
Keep chattering amongst
Keep chattering amongst yourselves because you're losing the argument.
By the way, one cannot call himself a Catholic and continue to march to his own drummer. There is a church doctrine that must be lived up to in order to be considered a Catholic.
Sitting in the pews every Sunday or anyday listening to Mass, all the while believing in abortion and gay marriage, for instance, does not make you a Catholic. Just saying...
There is so much wrong with this letter. This one sentence stands out though - "In fact, their Catholic employees need that freedom as well." Actually no they don't. The Catholic employees' freedoms extend only as far as having the freedom to work somewhere else. They are serving at the pleasure of the Catholic employer.
Here's all one needs to know about this author's views - "I admire Barack Obama immensely. And I find much about John McCain to admire too, although most of it seems to have gotten lost in his petty and petulant campaign. But Biden stands out somehow. For all his gaffes and maybe sometimes because of them, I don't think there's a better human being in this race than Biden."
Hale is quite the prolific Empire contributor!! Atleast we all know where he stands on a lot of issues.
http://search.juneauempire.com/fast-elements.php?querystring=%22JIM+HALE...
So Wrong
It's not about the non-catholic employee or the employee that wants contraceptives. By all means they should be able to spend their own money and buy them.
Abortions in the US are legal but Catholic Churches should not be forced to allow them in their hospitols. Catholic organizations should not have to be a part or providing contraceptives any more than they should be forced to marry homosexuals or give communion to divorcees.
It is liberty under attack. If you want contraceptives work for a non-catholioc organization - your choice - or buy them yourself.
Concerned
From what I see and read in the comments, the point seems to be that if Catholic organizations receive money and funding from national, state or local governments and are tax exempt, they have to comply with the regulations those agencies require from all whom they fund or benefit.
If in their religious practices, not depending on government funding, such as marriages or communion services, churches, synagogues, mosques and any other group I think have a right to determine what they will or will not do.
But if they use taxpayers money, then they need to comply with the rules and regulations imposed by those taxpayers those they elect to represent them.
If you don't agree with my opinion, my view,please feel free to explain why those funded by government to some extent, do not have to comply with the rules they have established.
LOL Calypso -
Thankfully for humanity, whether or not you personally think an argument is 'won' doesn't matter one bit.
And by the way - if your views are correct (perish the thought!)
then the Catholic congregation is about to get a whole lot smaller - by about 70%, when you count all of the women using contraception (95% of them) some of their husbands who will leave the church with them (because, you know, they still want to have sex with their wives) and those who don't oppose gay marriage.
Concerned - for the record
Catholic Hospitals are not being required to perform abortions or dispense birth control. They are merely required, as public institutions, to provide full coverage health insurance.
Which, by the way, the majority of them (universities and hospitals) already do, and have been, for decades without a peep.
I'm still happy to be
I'm still happy to be Catholic.
I do believe in Jesus's resurrection, transubstantiation, and our obligation to help the poor.
In our Catholic Church there have been thousands of decrees, bulls, conciliar teachings, statements of bishops, theological opinions that sometimes have been accepted (like St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching on Transubstantiation) and many ideas that have been rejected (heresies).
In 1830 the pope condemned democracy as some kind of raving madness, said that religious freedom was wrong and in 1964 the Vatican Council said that religious freedom is a human right and now all recognize democracy as good form of government.
The hierarchical church itself goes by the many offerings, selecting some and refusing others. That is, the official teachers choose which teachings (doctrines) to promote and which teachings to ignore and let fall by the wayside.
If we exclude everyone who has ever and will ever fail at being obedient to a church teaching that they disagree with, our pews, altars, and the Vatican itself will be empty.
Thank you God for giving us the grace to continue the journey despite the obstacles we put in our own way
Threat to Religious Freedom Made Up
Pope Benedict's reconstituted Catholicisms of Old chief hallmarks, however, are being shaped more by Opus Dei and a number of extreme rightists into strident anti-Semitic posturing masked by not so thinly veiled endorsement of the Tea Party element here in the U.S.A., the radical right-wing Republican Party, and other European and American neo-fascist political movements.
Together with a thorough rejection of even the mildest forms of ecumenism.
Thus the made up threat of the Affordable Health Care Act to to religious freedom and suport from the American Bishops via their boss.
When large, wealthy religious institutions
take public money, and then turn around and use their pulpits as political platforms in an end run around public policy, that's not religious liberty under attack---That's a deliberate attack on the First Amendment
jamison, +1
Mike
Forgot Some Boardrooms
Exxon,ConocoPhillips,Shell,Koch Brothers,Haliburton,chick AFill,Bain Capital.............
Jamison said:take public
Jamison said:
take public money, and then turn around and use their pulpits as political platforms in an end run around public policy, that's not religious liberty under attack---That's a deliberate attack on the First Amendment
To that NewLife Said:
take public money, and then turn around and use their boardrooms as political platforms in an end run around public policy, that's not liberty under attack--That's a deliberate attack on the First Amendment.
GE, Solyndra, GM, Chrysler, etc, etc, etc....
@ NewLife
The difference is One group is claiming their "freedom of religon" is threatened by "obamacare" when they take federal money and pay no tax...the others have no such argument.
Get to the heart of it and admit it's a political attack against the healthcare law and our president....not an attack on constitutional freedoms.
@NewLife
Ya know...this bail out mess started before Obama became president...the first bail outs were doled out under GW
I don't understand how the right just "forgets" this little fact. Seriously...I am not an Obama fan, he's just a part of the machine...the same big corp. machine that runs this country. They've all sold out and you and I have very little to say about it. I just hate it when we play politics instead cooperating to solve problems.
You and your kind are the problem because your mind is closed to any logic but your own.
Wow, New Life
"you and your kind are the problem" - you mean Americans?
What a Christian statement by you, Mama T.
You are often incorrect, sometimes blatantly so. You inserted the word "waiver" into the Ferry EPA article, and you think there is a "mandate" for the military to buy certain types of fuel which came from the president, both of which are false. Not sure where you are getting this information - 'waiver' you clearly just made up in your head.
Solyndra was part of a Dept of Energy program under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Solyndra had passed through the first stages of approval and was on the top 3 list of companies the Bush administration had slated for approval but just didn't get to before they left office. The Obama administration did expand the program, shifting Solyndra to a loan under a new section of the law that eliminated the credit subsidy costs, but was otherwise largely the same. The Chinese then flooded the market with solar panels, which of course they do entirely through government-run outfits. There has been no solid evidence to support accusations of cronyism by the Obama administration.
As of September 2011 - the Energy Department's loan guarantee program has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects - Solyndra represents 1.3% of that amount, and was the only project to fail as of Sept 2011.
GE operates like EVERY OTHER LARGE CORPORATION IN THE COUNTRY, and takes advantage of every tax loophole it can. You do understand, of course, that the majority of these tax breaks have been in place for years, some even decades? You can't honestly believe (or maybe you can?) that all corporations paid 35% taxes until the year 2009, when they all suddenly got a free ride? Come on.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43552187/ges-scandalous-tax-break...
Here's an apparent news flash for you:
ALL big business has been lobbying congress on both sides of the aisle for DECADES to increase their profits - and ALL big business has been donating to political campaigns or making donations in a certain congressman's district for DECADES. It's what they do! ALL OF THEM. The citizens united ruling simply made the whole thing a lot bigger, and a lot worse. Candidate Romney has been very clear that he is 100% on board with tax breaks and loopholes for corporations, as well as the idea that corporations are people. So if he wins, be prepared for the GE, Exxon, Koch Brothers, George Soros type collusion from all sides to get a whole lot worse.
Term limits is what we need. Term limits and much stricter campaign finance rules.
@swimmergirl
I think you've confused me with NewLife. I did not comment on the ferry EPA article.
-I was responding to NewLife
-MY post said both parties are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
-The bailouts began under GW
-Obama was a disapointment because he sold out
I made a clumsy attempt to throw NewLife's nasty tea party words back at him.
I 100% agree with you that Term Limits are the only answer to the gridlock in Washington and sanity in government.
I understand if you've stopped reading his trollish words and simply reacted to the last line in my post
newlife, stupid people of your caliber are tough to deal with
even on the internet forums. Your "facts" are simply a collection of skewed and conveniently forgotten stats used in order to support your ultra-rightwing fantasy that liberals are out to destroy America. Do you really think liberals are fundementally evil or do you think liberals are fundamentally anti-American? Either way, it's clear you aren't will-informed, and it's not because you're conservative, republican, tea partier, or ultra-wealthy... it's because you're incredibly igorant and dangerously gullible.
Apologies, Mama T!
Indeed, that was a mistake. My apologies.