Archbishop Wenski: Government can't impose practices on Catholic Church
 Archbishop Thomas Wenski leads the funeral mass for Bishop Agustin Alejo Roman at the Cathedral of Saint Mary, 7525 NW Second Ave. in Miami. (MARSHA HALPER, Miami Herald Staff / April 14, 2012) |
There was a time when Catholics here in the United States were regarded with great suspicion by their mostly Protestant neighbors. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the numbers of Catholics grew because of immigration; many thought that these immigrants who accepted the religious authority of a pope could never be successfully integrated into the American experiment of democracy.
Fortunately, the civil liberties granted by our Constitution allowed Catholics, in spite of these prejudices, to prosper in America. The Constitution guaranteed citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to the common life together. And, as Catholics and as Americans, we can take some holy pride in pointing out our own contributions. We built schools, orphanages, hospitals, universities; we served in our nation's wars, we founded businesses, we served in public office, etc. We were no less Catholic for being American; and no less American for being Catholic.
However, today, America's "first freedom," the freedom of religion, is under great stress if not under outright assault — and not just for Catholics.
And even more ominous is the HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs represents. This represents an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government to force religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching. The mandate purports to define which religious institutions are "religious" enough to merit the protection of their religious liberty.
The Church cannot not oppose this unjust mandate. It is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.
These efforts to restrict religious liberty are seemingly founded in a reductive secularism that has more in common with the French Revolution than with America's founding. They seek to delegitimize the Church's participation in public debate about issues that will determine the future of American society.
As the pope told Castro in Cuba, in upholding this basic human right to religious freedom the Church is not seeking any privileges for herself. The Church does not seek to impose her views but seeks the freedom to propose them in the public square and to witness to them coherently so as to contribute to human flourishing in society.
Rather than facing the shuttering of our schools, universities and hospitals by the federal government, we will seek remedies from both the Congress and the courts. Here in Florida, we also have the opportunity in November to vote to approve the "Freedom of Religion" Amendment 8. This amendment will protect faith-based agencies and organizations from further erosions of religious freedom at the state level.
America's first freedom, the freedom of religion, has honored America's diversity by permitting the inclusion of all its citizens in contributing to the common good of all. The stakes are high. Separation of church and state does not require the exclusion of religion from society. To exclude people of faith from making their contributions and their proposals in the public square would impoverish us all.
Thomas Wenski is the Archbishop of Miami
>>>Acknowledge Deacon's Bench
Fortunately, the civil liberties granted by our Constitution allowed Catholics, in spite of these prejudices, to prosper in America. The Constitution guaranteed citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to the common life together. And, as Catholics and as Americans, we can take some holy pride in pointing out our own contributions. We built schools, orphanages, hospitals, universities; we served in our nation's wars, we founded businesses, we served in public office, etc. We were no less Catholic for being American; and no less American for being Catholic.
However, today, America's "first freedom," the freedom of religion, is under great stress if not under outright assault — and not just for Catholics.
Alabama's draconian anti-immigrant legislation "criminalizes" bible classes for undocumented immigrants. The federal government recently attempted to redefine for churches the definition of "religious minister" or "religious employee" — in EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor.
A radical rereading of the First Amendment protections has resulted in concerted efforts to deny right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices — ACLU v. Sebelius. The State Department in its analysis of the state of religious liberty in the world also seems to have reduced freedom of religion to mean merely freedom to worship.And even more ominous is the HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs represents. This represents an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government to force religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching. The mandate purports to define which religious institutions are "religious" enough to merit the protection of their religious liberty.
The Church cannot not oppose this unjust mandate. It is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.
These efforts to restrict religious liberty are seemingly founded in a reductive secularism that has more in common with the French Revolution than with America's founding. They seek to delegitimize the Church's participation in public debate about issues that will determine the future of American society.
As the pope told Castro in Cuba, in upholding this basic human right to religious freedom the Church is not seeking any privileges for herself. The Church does not seek to impose her views but seeks the freedom to propose them in the public square and to witness to them coherently so as to contribute to human flourishing in society.
Rather than facing the shuttering of our schools, universities and hospitals by the federal government, we will seek remedies from both the Congress and the courts. Here in Florida, we also have the opportunity in November to vote to approve the "Freedom of Religion" Amendment 8. This amendment will protect faith-based agencies and organizations from further erosions of religious freedom at the state level.
America's first freedom, the freedom of religion, has honored America's diversity by permitting the inclusion of all its citizens in contributing to the common good of all. The stakes are high. Separation of church and state does not require the exclusion of religion from society. To exclude people of faith from making their contributions and their proposals in the public square would impoverish us all.
Thomas Wenski is the Archbishop of Miami
>>>Acknowledge Deacon's Bench
The health law does not force employers to provide coverage for contraception, as Wenski suggests. The Bishops' arguments on this have gone from wrong to ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Constitution. Confronted by questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith, the courts have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them.
When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), provide exemptions for conscientious objectors.
The real question here then is not so much whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences.
Second, no need for an exemption. While some may well oppose the policy of promoting the availability of medical services they find objectionable, the law does not put employers in the moral bind some suppose. Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead paying assessments. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.
Some nonetheless continued complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed, seemingly missing that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.