Recovering Our Religious Freedom

 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

1.            What is meant by religious freedom?

This term relates to the personal freedom:

• Of religious belief,
• Of religious speech,
• Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
• Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
• To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.

The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that refers to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. How can Canadians and others claim protection of religious freedom?

 The "Fundamental Freedoms" section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Canadians are therefore free to have their own beliefs and opinions, are free to practise religion or refrain, and are free to establish media organizations with or without religious content. Canadian religious institutions generally benefit from charitable organization status, which allows supporters to benefit from tax credits or deductions for their financial contributions.

According to the Charter’s preamble, Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God. This portion of the preamble has not been accorded legal effect in Charter jurisprudence. The constitutional recognition of God has been criticized as conflicting in principle with the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed in section 2, as it would disadvantage those who hold non-theistic or polytheistic beliefs, including atheism and Buddhism.

For more . . . .  

It should be noted that at this time Canadians do not enjoy a clear Separation of Church and State as is the case of its southern neighbours and other countries.

3. Why do some in Roman Catholic Church claim they do not enjoy the benefits of Religious Freedom?

According to the Religious Tolerance Org. website "a rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer to apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

• The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
• The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexual, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
• The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT  affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics Atheists, secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
  
  
  The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6".

Many citizens of countries other than Canada may have their religious freedom limited due to certain agreements between Church and State.  For example, Concordant Watch reports that historically the Roman Catholic Church signed agreements called CONCORDATS with numerous countries which obliges the signatories to obey specific rules/restrictions beneficial to the Vatican but not necessarily to the advantage of that countries citizens.  According to Concordant Watch, once implemented, Concordats can never again be reintroduced without the consent of the Catholic Church. 

Canon Law represents the official collection of church laws for the Roman Catholic Church Canon (or church) law is the Christian counterpart of Hindu law, (Jewish) halakha and (Muslim) sharia. Vatican concordats often require Catholic canon law to be used in providing social services that are run by the Church, but funded by the state. Polls show that most Catholics do not agree with many of these Church rules.

Roman Catholic canon law can only be accepted inside the Vatican and inside institutions of the Roman Catholic Church. Canon law gives the rules for running one of the most successful institutions on earth. Despite its name, however, this complicated set of rules has features that no democratic legal system would tolerate. It enjoins "obedience" (Latin, obedientia) to a person, rather than to a set of legal principles, which turns the notion of the rule of law on its head. And it also makes use of the cynical concept of "scandal" (Latin, scandalum) to excuse clerics from following the rules, if doing so would cause the Church bad publicity. As a result, canon law enjoins secrecy. In practice, canon law is applied whenever the church wants to keep the state out. 

"A just laicism allows religious freedom.  The state does not impose religion but rather gives space to religions with a responsibility toward civil society, and therefore it allows these religions to be factors in building up society"  – Pope Benedict XVI  

There is little doubt that the conflict between Canon Law and Civic or State Law is responsible today for creating increased tension between the Vatican and many other Christian and democratic countries.  This tension was especially evident in the United States and Obama’s health care program. Similarly the Vatican is pressuring its bishops to advance its concerns worldwide on such controversial subjects as abortion, status of women, contraception, birth control, euthanasia, remarriage, homosexuality (LGBT), same-sex marriage, etc.

It is interesting to note that while the Vatican is eager to promote these controversial subjects on its Roman Catholic members of its institution everywhere, at the same time influencing countries to act similarly on many of these issues on all non Catholic members as well. This fact did not escape member countries of the United Nations of which the Vatican has been a full member since 2004.  It now appears that the worldwide endeavours of the Church may have back-fired to some degree.   During the fall of 2013 the Vatican was called upon to give detailed information on its record on child sexual abuse to a United Nations panel. The Geneva-based U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child has asked the Vatican to “provide detailed information on all cases of child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns.” 

 While the Vatican was among the first countries to ratify the treaty it has since claimed that the treaty to protect children could only be ratified by them when it is applied in line with Church teaching.  By insisting the Holy See should enforce compliance of Catholics all over the world it forced the Vatican to change direction. Now it says its signature only commits it to protect the children in the (virtually childfree!) Vatican city.  This reflects a statement made in May 2012 when the Italian Bishops' Conference (CEI) said in its child protection guidelines that under Articles 2.1 and 4.4 of this concordat its priests have no obligation to report suspected abuse to the police.  No doubt the Vatican likes to play both sides of the fence.  All the while continuing to enjoy an immunity (as a independent statehood) that places them above the law.

 
The influence of the Vatican in the U.N. as reported by Catholics for Choice, involving human rights treaties remain as follows:

Treaty	Status
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)	Has not ratified.
Convention on the Rights of the Child	Signed, with reservations.Did not comply with reporting requirements. Its 2nd periodic report was due in 1997. The report was finally made available on-line as of late 2012, listing numerous reservations, including language related to family planning.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment	Acceded to treaty: “The Holy See, in becoming a party to the Convention on behalf of the Vatican City State, undertakes to apply it insofar as it is compatible, in practice, with the peculiar nature of that State.” Did not comply with reporting requirements.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights	Has not ratified.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights	Has not ratified.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court	Has not ratified.
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees	Ratified, with reservations.
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination	Ratified. But see the diplomatic cable “Vatican Opposed to Brazilian Sexual Orientation Resolution,” which says, “One does not then see how one can include 'sexual orientation' among the causes of discrimination."

Geoffrey Robertson QC, a distinguished human rights lawyer and judge, evinces a deep respect for the good works of Catholics and their church.  But he argues unless the Holy See can divest himself of the beguilements of statehood and devotion to obsolescent Canon Law, the Vatican will remain a serious enemy to the advance of human rights.

What has been said of the Roman Catholic Church and freedom of religion can also be said about any other dominant religious institution especially in those countries where religion is Law.  God's gift of life respects every human being as being equal and the freedom to choose.     

In conclusion, it should be no surprise to anyone that more and more people are demanding freedom of religion.  Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. 

               

There were rules in the monastery, but the Master always warned against the tyranny of the law.
"Obedience keeps the rules," he would say. "Love knows when to break them."

Celebrating Our Religious Freedom

The following letter (italics) was recently submitted to a conservative Roman Catholic U.S. website in an honest effort to gain some insight on several distinct politically motivated issues.  Whether or not you agree with the viewpoints in this letter is not the issue.  Nor is a question of who is right and who is wrong about the various issues facing many Roman Catholics today.  What is of concern is that so many adult Christians seem to submit to the opinion of others rather than searching their own hearts through the gifts of the Holy Spirit which they received following the Sacrament of Confirmation. Surely God’s gift of faith is unique to each individual and can only be celebrated when we learn to trust directly in our hearts rather than by simply abrogating this gift to others?  To do so will only lead to a continued and destructive form of co-dependency. Remember God accepts us where we are - not where others would have us be.          

I am a relatively new Catholic (2 years confirmed on May 1, so please be patient with me), and am running into some confusion over the correct balance between obedience to the Bishops and where prudential judgment comes into play when it comes to the matter of finding political solutions to problems. I tend to run into Catholics, either in person or online, who fall into one of two categories: (a) Everything the Bishop says or supports is 100% gospel truth and you are not Catholic if you don't automatically jump on the bandwagon of whatever the Bishop is promoting right now, and (b) Everything the Bishop says is just a suggestion and you can make your own judgment about these things. Position B is obviously wrong. No question in my mind on that one. But where I am confused is on Position A and to what degree we are to submit our own logic and reason to the opinion of the Bishop on political matters when you disagree with the manner of implementation of our moral principles. I was under the impression that the Church and the Bishops are to teach the moral principles that should undergird our solutions, but that the actual work of solving these problems falls to the laity and implementation itself is a matter of prudential judgment so long as we are working within the boundaries of those moral teachings. I've read quite a few things lately that suggest (or flat-out say) that this is wrong and that we are supposed to submit ourselves to whatever the Bishops think on matters of implementation.

Now, for me issues such as abortion and SSM are no- brainers. The Bishops teach that intentionally killing an unborn person is wrong. Therefore abortion must always be wrong because it is the intentional killing of an unborn person.That's a pretty direct correlation. Same thing for the issue of same-sex unions. But when it comes to other political matters I get very confused.

For example (and this is only one of many I could give), the current illegal immigration debate. The Bishops have lent their support to the current "comprehensive" bill. Now as far as the morals undergirding their position, I agree completely that all people have intrinsic value and should be treated with dignity and respect. So I can agree that we should not be kicking down doors and dragging kids out of their parents arms and I also agree that no entity should interfere with the Church's ability to minister to people, regardless of their status.

But when it comes to supporting this bill, I have issues. First, I don't think it's a good idea to do "comprehensive" anything. Look at Obama-care for the prime example of the kind of gigantic mess these types of bill cause. There are also, historically, lots of awful little surprises tucked into these type of bills that come back to bite us eventually and has we known that x was snuck in there we might not have supported it. In this particular bill it's just come out that there is a biometric database of all US citizens that would be implemented if the bill passes and is signed into law. Hello, Big Brother! Second, I would rather this be done in pieces and in the daylight- instead of in back rooms between "gangs" where who knows who is even writing these bills, and we all know no one reads them- so we can see what is actually passing, and make sure it is actually implemented.

So I guess my question is am I a bad Catholic because I would see this problem be solved in pieces instead of defaulting to the "comprehensive" position of the Bishops? I have these same views on a lot of other subjects as well. Economics and the reach and role of government are other areas in which I struggle with their conclusions. I agree with the moral premises that the Bishops teach us (keeping the well being of the poor front and center) but I disagree with the various methods of implementations that they endorse and I think that some of what they endorse does not help the poor in the long term and undermines our position and our charitable mission in communities and the lives of individuals. Is is OK for me to see the implementation part a different way or does that make me a bad Catholic or a cafeteria Catholic?

Sorry to write a book for you. But I truly want to be loyal to the teachings of Our Lord and His Church and in this area I am really struggling to see things clearly.

Thanks so much for your time!

Again, as a reminder, you may not agree with the writer’s position on some of the issues, but he/she has every right and duty under canon law, to express them without fear of condemnation.  My sole purpose in bringing this matter to the fore is to ask ‘why, as adults, does your religious institution not teach us to rely on our unique gift of the Holy Spirit?’   

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”  John 14:26

 
Roman Catholic adults should be encouraged to trust in their hearts, the place where their treasure lies. See also 1 Corinthians 13:11. All Church teachings and other trusted teachers who understand this can be helpful, but until such time that we have come to rely on ‘the God within’ we probably have not learned to trust in God as well as our hearts.

For those who feel they must obey church teachings or have difficulty accepting them remember that Vatican II established for the first time in church’s history, that an informed conscience will always take primacy over any church teachings.  As such Roman Catholics are asked to discover the depths of their own conscience. To obey one’s conscience is the very dignity of the human person; according to it the human person will be judged. See Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World n. 16 and the Declaration on Religious Freedom, nn. 2,3,14.

Great spiritual teachers, be they bishops, deacons, Popes, etc. will always tell you “except for our Creator we as adults cannot expect others to direct or be responsible for our spiritual growth and development.

Addendum August 26, 2013:

Freedom

Jesus’ notion of the Kingdom is a different understanding of freedom than that of most religious and secular leaders today. We think of freedom as not having to do what we don’t want to do, but divine freedom is the capacity to be fully who we already are, to develop our inherent and true nature, as much as possible—really wanting to do what we know we have to do. Only God can create that freedom inside of us. Love can only proceed from such inner freedom. A mustard seed, yeast, and light—that all develop from within—are some of Jesus’ central metaphors for this freedom-loving Reign of God. Paul just calls it “grace.” For him grace and freedom are almost the same thing (see Ephesians 2:7-10, Galatians 5:1). And I would add to that “heaven.” Freedom, grace, and heaven are the same thing.

Secular freedom only creates individualists and private freedom, but not a society. It never gets around to the common good, which is a central principle of the Gospel and Catholic social teaching, which instead demands from you and demands for others—while ironically giving you all that you really need. Then you become who you most deeply and truly are, a member of a family, a neighborhood, a society, and a planet. If you are trying to “go to heaven” alone or on your own merits, you are preparing for a place other than heaven. - Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM

 

   

 

 

The New Evangelization and Religious Freedom

In October  2011, Pope Benedict XVI called for a Year of Faith which included a vision or blueprint for a new evangelization program. Now officially recognized as ‘The New Evangelization’ it calls each of us to deepen our faith, believe in the Gospel message and go forth to proclaim the Gospel. The focus of the New Evangelization calls all Catholics to be evangelized and then go forth to evangelize. Benedict stressed that, in a special way The New Evangelization must be focused on 're-proposing' the Gospel to those who have experienced a crisis of faith. It is interesting to note that the definition of participants provided by the U.S. bishops limits the calling to Catholics while Canadian bishops chose the more inclusive pro-noun Christian instead.

The actual implementation of a formal program or particular focus The New Evangelization  appears to be varied or different for each diocese and country. Some members of the Catholic clergy, such as Canadian Cardinal Collins want to link The New Evangelization to church teachings on  abortion and euthanasia, in vitro fertilization and fetal stem cell research, same-sex marriage and premarital sex.  Others, such as Canadian Fr. Raymond de Souza, (as consultant to the American bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty) sees The New Evangelization as an opportunity to speak about the threat to religious liberty as it applies to the religiously sensitive question of providing contraception coverage as a part of the Affordable Care Act  as   proposed by the U.S.  Health and Human Services (HHS).  According to a recent article in the Canadian based catholicregister.org. de Souza claims that religious liberty and the New Evangelization are profoundly linked.  How and what this has to do with Canadian and other  countries outside of the U.S.A  is not clear.  In any event de Souza claims “if the [U.S.] bishops give in to the very intense pressure upon them, our Catholic young people and families and priests will be devastated, and the credibility of the bishops as evangelists will be severely compromised.”  It is notable that Fr. Raymond would prefer that evangelization is left to the clerics.  While I hesitantly agree with de Souza  that the New Evangelization must offer a clear Catholic identity in the manner that shuns mediocrity and offers greatness, I don’t think presenting the issue of Religious Freedom into the political arena is something Jesus would necessarily agree with.  Accordingly I posted my concerns with the earlier Canadian news source as follows:       

"When ill health or an accident strikes do we first demand that the attending doctor, surgeon or nurse must be Roman Catholic? When we exit our driveway and enter the sidewalk, road or highway must it have been constructed by Roman Catholic engineers and builders? When we fuel up with gas, flick a switch to turn on our electricity, do we insist that the service providers must be operated by Roman Catholics? When we purchase appliances, food, or the clothes we wear do we insist that these items must be grown, sown and sold only by Roman Catholics? When we are asked to help our neighbor, teachers/instructors, fellow employees/employers should we insist that they be Roman Catholic? Do we simply avoid anyone who does not support our particular belief system?

When a Muslim doctor is prepared to save our child, a Jewish dentists offers to fix our broken teeth, or a gay gas station mechanic stands ready to repair our broken car, a atheist policeman/fireman stands prepared to risk his/her life to help us in our distress should we simply say no thank you, I think I will wait until a Roman Catholic expert comes along?

Today we live in a global village made up of many nationalities, cultures, customs, backgrounds, religions and faiths. And, unless we are prepared to grow and accept each other in peace and harmony we will continue to bring much self unnecessary pain and suffering upon our neighbors. Roman Catholics and others looking for solutions to this problem we need look no further than Jesus. He lived in a country that was taxed and ruled by cruel Roman soldiers yet, he never once suggested that his Jewish community remain closed or separate from any outside influence. Instead, Jesus healed pagans as well as Romans, ate and dined with the marginal of society and did not insist that they must join his religion. Jesus' thereby displayed the true meaning of religious freedom. It had nothing to do with membership to their local synagogue or observing Jewish customs - on the contrary it had everything to do with loving your neighbor, yourself and our heavenly Creator. The New Evangelization must follow this example and offer a clear 'catholic identity in a manner that shuns mediocrity and offers greatness. Note that the word catholic is used here with a small 'c' denoting its universal intent instead exclusivity. Perhaps the U.S. bishops could begin by recognizing the ‘greater good’ by supporting the medical needs Health and Human Services plan among the country’s estimated 40 million poor and disadvantaged. At the same time those who do not wish to entertain birth control, abortion inducing drugs, or any other demands contrary to their religious practice will remain free to exercise their own personal religious liberty. How many other countries provide this kind of religious assurance or protection?"

At the same time I want to take this opportunity to highlite one of Fr. Richard Rohr’s daily meditations on the subject of Religious Freedom as was posted on June 23 last year.  

“The Catholic Bishops of America have initiated a two week campaign to fight for religious freedom in America. It is called a “Fortnight for Freedom”. It strikes a large part of the population as crying wolf when there is no wolf. Probably no population in human history has had more religious freedom and more religious support than the present population of the USA. (I myself, as a Franciscan vowed to common purse, pay no taxes. Nor do our local parishes or institutions.) It feels like entitled people wanting more entitlement.

How different from the early Christian martyrs, whom we piously venerate, who became holy and courageous through the limitations imposed on them by empires and emperors. Too bad Sts. Perpetua and Felicity could not sponsor a fortnight for freedom from their prison cells. Now we suffer no limitations or constraints, refuse to dialogue fairly or up front, and just complain that “our freedoms are being taken away”. The final irony is this was initiated by an issue that 98% of Catholic women do not even believe in–contraception. It really feels like bishops are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to divert attention away from our own problems and sins. Christian spirituality has always first sought spiritual freedom, inner freedom, freedom from self, freedom for love, and never did we expect governments to supply our “freedom” by any political mandate whatsoever. Our dear bishops are beginning to look like “the Republican party at prayer” more than men of the Gospel of Jesus.”

Finally,  evangelizing should be understood as meeting people where they are – not where we would have them be. The most effective means of evangelizing is to lead by example. Evangelization has absolutely nothing to do with the view of converting anyone to a particular faith or church membership. Recall Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus did not demand that the Roman Centurion or his servant embrace his Jewish tradition. The Gospels remind us that Jesus evangelized by addressing the direct needs of the individual especially by means of healing and comforting etc. St. Francis of Assisi said “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”.

Faith versus Religion

In what must be one of the most offensive and un-Christian attacks by Christian fundamentalists on homosexuals and transsexuals while claiming to defend their Christian faith is described in the following article carried by the National Catholic Register 3/11/2013 under the  headline ‘Diocese fears recent revisions will compromise religious freedom by forcing acceptance of homosexual behavior’.  

Christian fundamentalist, seem to fear the so called loss of ‘religious freedom’ whenever they feel challenged about their false beliefs. They now suggest that homosexuals and transsexuals are an impediment to their faith and thereby threatens their freedom of religion. Since faith is a gift from God one would think these individuals should at least realize what Jesus promised his followers in John 10:28.  No nothing can take away God’s gift of faith.

As the article by  Canadian freelance writer Steve Weatherbe states “Christian critics, including the Diocese of Phoenix, fear the code can be used to force churches  and private businesses to hire homosexuals, to let transsexuals use either the men’s or women’s washrooms and to justify punitive fines against businesses that make homosexuals or transgendered feel “unwelcome.”

This is not the first time Bishop J. Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ has tried to muddy the religious waters.  In the spring of 2010 he excommunicated a Catholic nun for  her role in allowing an abortion to take place at the local hospital when it was considered necessary to save the life of a critically ill mother of four.

There is no question that the waters of Religious Freedom have been muddied over the last few years.  In the Catholic world the topic is being bandied about by those who feel threatened by the idea of same-sex attraction or marriage, the bullying of homosexual students, and frequent but patently false accusations from homophobes connecting sexual abuse by homosexual priests as being responsible for the sexual abuse scandal in the Church.      

Religious Freedom is now frequently used to garner political points or statements rather than  a means of ensuring the freedom to practise one’s religion or faith. In the western world Freedom of Religion is guaranteed under each country's individual charter along with the inclusion of 'Separation of Church and State'.  The latter is intended to prevent the State from supporting any one religion or from interfering with it.  At the same time it also obliges religion to leave the public sphere open to all.  When both sides respect the boundaries, secularism provides a framework for freedom of conscience, tolerance and democracy.  Secularism does not guarantee human rights but it helps make them possible.

It seems that an awful lot of Christian fundamentalists prefer to remain in the dark about the real causes of homosexuality (see Homosexuality: real causes ) and their understanding of transgendered individuals.  Perhaps they simply need an excuse to vent their own anger and pain.  However, it is not a license to hurl insults and pain on others who did not choose the cross they bear. To do so, takes away their religious freedom. It does not give religious fundamentalists such as bishop Olmstead the right to condemn them.  Is it not time to thank God for the diversity of his many gifts. Lets each of us discover the God within especially in ALL others.

It took the Roman Catholic Church almost 500 years to accept that the world was not the centre of the universe.  Hopefully it will not take them another 500 years to learn the real causes behind homosexuality and transgender.  

Finally, we need to understand the simple difference between ‘faith’ and ‘religion’.

Faith (Hebrew) aman, be firm, true; Latin fides, trust, confidence.) Faith is a gift from God that allows people to believe and trust in his love and protection.

Religion (Latin religio,) An organisation of people who follow a special set of rules, beliefs and practises in their effort to carry out their duties to their god and other people, e.g. the Christian religion.    

LINKS:
http://www.youtube.com/user/sloanchurman#p/a/u/0/LsOo3jzkhYA

http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2011/10/a_deaf_woman_who_can_finally_hear_meets_ellen_1005.php

Religious Freedom fail

"Secular freedom is having to do what you want to do.  Religious freedom is wanting to do what you have to do."   Richard Rohr, Everything Belongs.

A recent editorial in a Canadian Catholic weekly suggested that Canadian Catholics may be at risk of losing their religious freedom. This is not only totally false but completely contradicts the modern safeguards that are in place to guarantee all Canadians the safety to practise their faith without any interference from the state or other religious groups.  When we allow our conscience to be formed by God nothing can violate that or stand against it.  That same God will help us to overcome any situations which could cause us any personal conflict. Institutional rules and regulations should always follow the need to serve the greater good.   

In the Western world, including Canada and the USA, the ‘Separation of State and Church or Religion’ specifically provides for such freedom. While such separation prevents the State from supporting any religion or from interfering with it also obliges religion to leave the public sphere open to all. When both sides respect the boundaries, secularism provides a framework for freedom of conscience, tolerance and democracy. Secularism does not guarantee human rights but it helps make them possible.

This is obviously a thorn in the side of the American bishops who want direct control and influence over national policies and politics (as they once did for centuries).  Is it because they want to introduce legislation that would criminalize abortion and homosexuality, among other matters?   The fact that the Vatican is the only western nation that has refused to sign the 2006 UN declaration that de-criminalizes homosexual behaviour should sound alarm bells about the overall aims of these bishops.   Are they opposing the implementation a national health program to divert Catholics from their real objectives.  Surely these bishops recognize that such a health program is intended to serve the poorest of the poor?  What then has happened to the Catholic understanding about ‘the fundamental option of the poor’ when an estimated 40 million American cannot afford basic health care?       

According to official polls the vast majority of Canadian Catholics are opposed to abortion in general.  But they also understand that there are exceptions under which abortion can be allowed and approved. Who would write these guidelines, when the majority of US bishops seem to demand that there cannot be any exceptions?  What has happened to compassion and understanding when these issues are presented in absolute terms?  Nowhere in the bible will anyone find Jesus accusing sinners of being ‘intrinsically evil/disordered, or in a state of grave depravity’. Removing these terms from the current catechism would go a long way to take away the very fuel homophobic bigots use to justify bullying in school yards.   Recognizing that homosexuality in some countries is punishable by torture and death why does the Church still single out homosexuals over all other sins? Why has the Vatican not signed the UN declaration to decriminalize homosexuality?  At the very least should the Catholic Church not call for an end to these brutal actions in countries which continue to view homosexuality as a crime?

The question of religious liberty or conscience is being obfuscated when it is suggested that a relationship between God and a person can somehow be restricted.  God gave us free choice should religious institutions not follow suit? 

UPDATE:  reported by The Tablet (UK) August 30/2012  

Tunisia introduces blasphemy bill

30 August 2012

Christian and human rights groups have expressed concern about the ruling Islamist party in Tunisia introducing a Blasphemy Bill. It will make "insults, profanity, derision, and representation of Allah and Muhammad" punishable by up to two years in prison or a significant fine, with repeat offenders facing four years behind bars.

John Pontifex, from Aid to the Church in Need, a charity that helps persecuted Christians, warned that under Pakistan's blasphemy laws, extremists "take matters into their own hands and mete out ‘justice', committing heinous crimes against people whom they decide are guilty, totally ignoring due legal process".

The Barnabas Fund, which also assists Christians facing discrimination, noted that the introduction of the bill "indicates the increasing strength of Islam in public life in Tunisia, which before the Arab Spring was one of the most secular countries in the region."

Is this the kind of religious 'freedom', our bishops are hoping to implement?

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/15/ireland-abortion-law-savita-halappanavar.html

War on Catholics

The Catholic Church or at least the Catholic bishops in both Canada and the US are  on the defensive mode.   The Ontario Bishops are fighting a desperate battle to defend their position on GSA’s while the American bishops, acting as Republican pawns, are trying to unbalance Obama’s attempt to provide for a nation-wide public health plan.  What are Catholics to make of all this?  In this day of Robo Calls, information overload and dirty politics it is easy to become confused about many of the issues presented as fact or truth.

For Catholics and other Christian believers it is important to stay grounded in Gospel values and take personal responsibility to discern the voice of the God within and in others. Remember the bishops have been wrong before but are sworn to uphold Church teachings and therefore more likely to be influenced externally and risk challenging dogma and doctrine.  Hence the Vatican’s current strong commitment to oppose the primacy of individual conscience over Church teaching.

One of the voices I have come to respect a great deal is that of Professor Daniel Maguire. His view of the U.S. bishops’ current position regarding Obama’s plan to introduce a national health plan will help Catholics understand who’s wrong in this war on Catholics.    

 Who’s Wrong in ‘War on Catholics’?

February 7, 2012

Exclusive: GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich claims President Obama has declared “war on the Catholic Church” with a ruling that contraception must be included in health plans for employees of church-led institutions, but Catholic moral theologian Daniel C. Maguire says it is the U.S. bishops (and Gingrich) who are wrong.

By Daniel C. Maguire

The decision of the Obama administration to ensure health care coverage including contraception in Catholic institutions has enraged American bishops who lobbied hard against it. The bishops claim their religious freedom is violated by this ruling, but the bishops are wrong and out of the mainstream of Catholic teaching, including the teaching of bishops in other parts of the Catholic world.

A number of bishops, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, have spoken strongly on the need for condoms, especially in areas ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases. The U.S. bishops are even at odds with the pope who approves the use of condoms “where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection.”

The papal change on condoms effectively ended the taboo on condoms since it says that health concerns may require their use, and there are many health concerns aside from HIV/AIDS. The nonpartisan and well-respected Institute of Medicine, on which the Obama administration relied, says contraceptives can be used to treat reduce the risk of endometrial cancer and pelvic inflammatory disease and other diseases mainly affecting women.

Also use of contraception is linked to the decline in infant death. Obviously contraception limits the number of abortions since it prevents unwanted pregnancies.

But the American bishops say the administration’s decision on Jan. 20 was a case of religious freedom. In that, they are right but not in the way they intend it. The bishops are claiming the religious freedom to violate the religious freedom of those who are employed in their institutions or who are served in their tax-supported hospitals. By denying contraception as part of employee health plans, what the bishops seek is more like religious fascism than religious freedom.

Furthermore, traditional Catholic teaching rests on a tripod, including the hierarchy, the theologians and the sensus fidelium, the experience-fed wisdom of the laity. These three sources of teaching are, as Cardinal Avery Dulles said, “complementary and mutually corrective.” An accurate look at Catholic teaching on contraception today shows strong support for the position that contraception is not only permissible but even mandatory in many cases.

Catholic theologians overwhelmingly support contraception. Dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities cover prescribed contraceptives. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used contraceptives. Only 2 percent of Catholic women use the “rhythm method” of birth control favored by conservative Catholics.

Therefore the decision of the Obama administration, rather than threatening Catholic teaching on contraception, is actually more attuned to actual Catholic teaching than are the American Catholic bishops with their idiosyncratic taboo on contraception.

Daniel C. Maguire is a Professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University, a Catholic, Jesuit institution in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is author of A Moral Creed for All Christians.