The Editors
For a brief moment, Catholics on all sides were united in defense of the freedom of the Catholic Church to define for itself what it means to be Catholic in the United States. They came together to defend the church’s institutions from morally objectionable, potentially crippling burdens imposed by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. Catholic journalists, like E. J. Dionne and Mark Shields, and politicians, like Tim Kaine and Robert P. Casey Jr., joined the U.S. bishops in demanding that the administration grant a broad exemption for religiously affiliated institutions from paying health care premiums for contraceptive services. Then, on Feb. 10, President Obama announced a compromise solution by which religious institutions would be exempt from paying the objectionable premiums but women would not be denied contraceptive coverage. A confrontation that should never have happened was over. But not for long.
After a nod to the White House’s retreat as “a first step in the right direction,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the president’s “accommodation” as insufficient. Their statement presented a bill of indictments on the fine points of public policy: It opposed any mandate for contraceptive coverage, expanded the list of claimants for exemption to include self-insured employers and for-profit business owners and contested the administration’s assertion that under the new exemption religious employers would not pay for contraception. Some of these points, particularly the needs of self-insured institutions like universities, have merit and should find some remedy. Others, with wonkish precision, seem to press the religious liberty campaign too far.
The bishops have been most effective in influencing public policy when they have acted as pastors, trying to build consensus in church and society, as they did in their pastorals on nuclear war and the economy. The American public is uncomfortable with an overt exercise of political muscle by the hierarchy. Catholics, too, have proved more responsive to pastoral approaches. They expect church leaders to appeal to Gospel values, conscience and right reason. They hope bishops will accept honorable accommodations and, even when provoked, not stir up hostility. In the continuing dialogue with government, a conciliatory style that keeps Catholics united and cools the national distemper would benefit the whole church.
The religious liberty campaign seems to have abandoned a moral distinction that undergirded the conference’s public advocacy in past decades: the contrast between authoritative teaching on matters of principle and debatable applications of principle to public policy. The natural law tradition assigned application to the prudent judgment of public officials. Writing of policy differences in 1983, the bishops wrote, “The Church expects a certain diversity of views even though all hold the same universal moral principles.” Contemporary Catholic social teaching has spoken of policy in terms of “a legitimate variety of possible options” for the faithful and the wider public; it has urged that differences over policy be tempered by charity and civility.
The campaign also risks ignoring two fundamental principles of Catholic political theology. Official Catholic rights theory proposes that people should be willing to adjust their rights claims to one another. It also assigns to government the responsibility to coordinate contending rights and interests for the sake of the common good. The campaign fails to acknowledge that in the present instance, claims of religious liberty may collide with the right to health care, or that the religious rights of other denominations are in tension with those of Catholics. But as Pope Benedict XVI wrote in “Deus Caritas Est,” the church does not seek to “impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to the faith.” Furthermore, the campaign fails to admit that the administration’s Feb. 10 solution, though it can be improved, fundamentally did what Catholic social teaching expects government to do—coordinate contending rights for the good of all.
By stretching the religious liberty strategy to cover the fine points of health care coverage, the campaign devalues the coinage of religious liberty. The fight the bishop’s conference won against the initial mandate was indeed a fight for religious liberty and for that reason won widespread support. The latest phase of the campaign, however, seems intended to bar health care funding for contraception. Catholics legitimately oppose such a policy on moral grounds. But that opposition entails a difference over policy, not an infringement of religious liberty. It does a disservice to the victims of religious persecution everywhere to inflate policy differences into a struggle over religious freedom. Such exaggerated protests likewise show disrespect for the freedom Catholics have enjoyed in the United States, which is a model for the world—and for the church.
Comments
Religious liberty is not a strategy but an American tradition that arises from our history and law (biblical, Constitutional and decisional). The "go along and get along" tone of this editorial is repugnant to me as a Catholic.
The article presents a very sophistic argument which caters to the writer's presumption or belief that there is a discontent between the pastoral approach that the Bishops have engaged in concerning this issue and the duty they have to protect the Church and her sons and daughters from being owned, controlled, or coerced by the state. The duty of the Church is to gracefully facilitate that unique union between God and man that makes us saints. That duty is at war with the state which is efforting demonically to facilitate that pitiful union between man and the condition of sin.
It is becoming more and more clear that America magazine, indeed perhaps the entire Jesuit order of North America should be abolished. This magazine and nearly every university they administer is a hindrance to Catholics and the Church. Fiat Lux.
David L. Gray
http://www.davidlgray.info/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2tC-npvuGk
Amen.
Mandating that health insurers themselves provide reproductive health services to individuals at no expense to the insured or to the providers of that insurance seems to be the rule that the Obama administration is applying to this question. I fail to see how this position compromises the ability of individuals to exercise their moral judgment regarding contraception and abortion. Whether or not these services are covered by their insurance, they are free to make the right moral choice. I also fail to see how this policy coerces Church-associated insitutions to directly pay for contraception or abortion. Speaking purely from a financial perspective, insurance companies that provide contraceptives actually make money because the costs associated with the avoided births outstrip the costs of the contraceptives themselves. So their incentives are to provide this service even if they do not charge for it. Their insured pool is sufficiently large to be able to do t his even if there is a substantial number of individuals who do not use the contraceptive "benefit". Thus claims that insurance companies will pass on the charges of contraceptives and abortions to the unsuspecting Catholic-affiliated organizations are fiscally unreasonable and unsubstantiated.
Perhaps the Bishops and the Church-affiliated institutions in the US and elsewhere should consider providing morally acceptable health insurance to Catholics. The self-insured Catholic risk pool would certainly be large enough to be financially viable if a substantial number of Catholics joined. And there would be no need for the Catholic insurance company to provide services or ask the participating Catholics to pay for those services deemed morally unacceptable. If you are truly interested in religious liberty in the context of a pluralistic society you have to put your money where your principles are. I maintain this would be a more fruitful exercise than lathering up the electorate in an election year over a diversion from all of the other considerable challenges facing this country (sufficiently discssed above). As for those whose salaries or jobs are at stake because they have refused to provide abortions or contraceptives against their wills, I sincerely say hooray for them. They are a witness to us all becuase they are authentically living within their well formed consciences and suffering a financial martyrdom for Christ.
Finally, couching this argument in terms of "religious liberty" is a diversion from the central issues at play here in my view. I know of no one in this country who is not free to attend mass, to live a good Catholic life, to articulate his/her Catholic-informed points of view in the public arena. This is religious liberty. The Bishops are exerising it in the course of this discussion. If they loose the arguement with the administration, they have to accept that temporarily because we live in a pluralistic society whose principles will necessarily be at odds with the Catholic views at times. I say, be charitable, gracious in defeat, stick to your principles and persistently continue the discussion. However please don't try to make the case that religious liberty is threatened by the current health insurance discussion.
No one is trying to stop rebellious Catholics, non-believers or pagans from using chemical contraception, despite its cancer causing, environmentally damaging properties. We are trying to prevent an administration with a record or unconcern for traditional values from further eroding religious liberty by requiring individuals to offer immoral products and services to their employees. And we should be clear that there is no objection to offering contraceptives to treat disease. The issue is with recreational contraceptive drugs (insofar as many apparently see sex as recreation).
Perhaps more concerning than a loss of religious liberty is the loss of our willingness to tolerate the expression (by person or journal) of an alternate view.
While I am against the HHS Mandate, I do not want to be identifed with the the rhetoric of those who are leading the campaign to oppose it.Mr. Plevak (No. 108):
Would appreciate you telling us where you stand on the HHS Mandate, instead of saying, "I may not agreed with all the points."I can't believe you, or the editors for that matter, actually believe the editors' unsupported assertion that the President made an accomodation with the Church or did anything other than pitch the 1st Amendment into the circular file. We, at least most of us, aren't so stupid to fall for this cheap accounting gimmick.
Thus, what is so outrageous about the editorial is that these Jesuits think we are indeed this stupid. I say this as someone who graduated from a Jesuit high school, went to a Jesuit college for two years before joining the Army, and sent my son to another Jesuit high school.Please tell me where the vast majority of the commenters and I are off-base.
Suoglalana (No. 105):
Birth control pills and arbortion-inducing drugs are readily available everywhere. However our freedoms, religious and otherwise, are under fearsome assault by the Leviathan.It's unfortunate that in the choice between free birth control pills and freedom, you've apparently chosen free pills.
Has it occured to anyone that we, his children, have in fact completed His mandate? Can anyone think of some part of the planet earth that does not contain his children? Inner Greenland, Antartica, the Sahara, etc. cannot support life, and don't count.
In truth, we have fulfilled God's word: we HAVE been fruitful, and we HAVE multiplied, enormously. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates)
Estimates from multiple sources place the planet's population at ~300 million during Christ's life.
Now we have ~7 billion, approximately 23 times as large.
The overriding relationship between a Christian and the Lord is one of personal conscience/personal choice. Otherwise, we are merely robots. God created us so that we could love him of our own free will. God could have simply created automatons that walked around all day long saying "Great is God, how I love thee...". But that didn't happen. Instead, God created a partner, the Bride of Christ. We, the human race, all of us, are that partner.
God's message for us today is, "Go forth, and for each of you, create but one child, for my creation, the Earth, cannot support more than that. Use your own choice to decide when and where the time is right to bring forth the ultimate expression of my love. Do not mindlessly breed until my children are pressed against the "bars" of the "cage", and have crossed the thin red line. Do NOT bear fruit only to see it rot on the ground."
We are not supposed to breed until we break the planet's ability to support us, and we begin dying at our replacement rate. When that happens, the Apocalypse begins, in fact, has already begun.
As an example, I want all of you readers to seriously consider what is going to happen to the middle east after the U.S., Europe, China, and India have pumped the last drop of oil out of the ground. The middle east, being primarily desert, traditionally only supported a population of a few dozen million. With the black gold, their population soared to nearly a billion. When the oil is gone, so is their income, and their food. They will die in the hundreds of millions. There is no other way, no more food.
Somehow, this is a "womens" issue. Women take birth control, not men. I note that a group of old, balding males sit around making rules about what women should do with their bodies, all the while watching as God's children starve to death.
It's time for the women to say: "Men do not tell women what to do with their bodies. Men do not own women's bodies. Men do not make decisions about women's bodies."
Most Catholics in this country rely on contraception. I hear almost nothing from the millions of Catholic women who depend upon contraception. What I hear almost universally is from that segment of the population who have nothing to do with contraception, the MEN!
All these men are soooooo concerned about Obama, and contraception, and state v.s. "religious freedom". I have a good idea for all of you males:
Why don't you put an aspirin between YOUR knees? Then this entire, ridiculous, overblown issue would go away. That is, of course, unless Obama insists upon having your employer pay for your aspirin! In which case, the good Catholic women of the U.S. should rise up in righteous indignation that Catholic males 'religious freedom' is being crushed by a "statist government secular progressive liberal health care decision maker".
This is a non-issue. The will of the 97% that agree that women should have universal access to contraception will prevail.
-Suo
medications. Most likely it will be the policyholders. There is no change and his administration is having a good laugh.
Last weeks Editorial on poverty failed to point out that after spending trillions of dollars
poverty has gotten worse. So you say spend more? Why not discuss the root causes
such as missed opportunities, lack of responsibility, and the breakdown of family.
Please address individual responsibilities.
I was debating with myself as to why I continue to subscribe to your magazine ,after
50 years and at age 80.
Then I read 3 intelligent and thoughtful articles in this issue on the this subject of church freedom and remembered why:
Staying Civil
First of Freedoms?
A Balancing Act
I will keep reading and hope for a change
God Bless,
Joe Bliss
Taken in context rather than with blinders on, it strikes me that the "compromise" leaves in place most of an Obamacare mandate that remains unconstitutional and immoral policy as well as an affront to religious liberty. Unfortunately, this article is a predictable product of the Society's ongoing zeal to subrogate our Christian duty to a government that does not bother to hide its hostility to the Church - and whose takeover of the healthcare sector will diminish the quality of care for all by continuing to erode the Church's ability to provide affordable, compassionate, Spirit-guided care.
I pray that as an American Church we embrace a Constitution that empowers Christians, free of state tyranny, to fulfill our duty to bring Christ to His people. The alternative is to continue to practice a policy of appeasement that sells out the Church and her members.The editors are on the wrong side of this debate.In fact, everyone who has rationalized this issue and drank Obama’s Kool-Aid is gravely short sighted.
HHS is just testing out the climate and it doesn’t take too much imagination to forecast where this is all heading. Our government plotted a thinly veiled backdoor scheme (they call it “compromise”) in order to secure a woman’s right to contraception and have Catholics pay for it (as we all know, the cost will be passed along in higher premiums paid by universities, schools and hospitals). The path is now paved to support their real machinations…mandating Catholic hospitals to perform sterilizations and abortions in order to receive federal Medicaid and Medicare funding.
No help from America magazine for undermining our cause and trivializing this as a mere “policy issue.” As a physician that works for a large Catholic health system, I assure you that this will not be the end of government intrusions if we don’t hold the line here and fight this incursion. Thankfully, Cardinal Dolan and our bishops are leading the charge. Deus Vult!
So the objections to Bishop Lori's comments seem to fall into two categories: 1. I dislike his "tone"...in other words he speaks the truth in a way that I find annoying. 2. The bishops and USCCB have been inconsistent with their criticism/actions against other intrinsic evils. Which leads me to comment...so what? Neither of these postions is coherent logically or morally; neither are these objections really relevant to the issue.
Obama was elected on the promise that he was going to end the partisan politics (in many ways he has made things worse); and, that fact isn't entirely the fault of his opponents. It takes at least two to fight and Obama has been as partisan as anyone else that has held the Presidency. Secondly, is anyone with any moral concience going to seriously argue that because the bishops have been inconsistent in the past that what we need is MORE inconsistency? Really? Is this really the logical option to curb the encroachment that has already occurred and will continue to occur if we don't stop it? Why not try repentence and a return to the truth? Why don't we try that?
Rather than rolling back the worst abuses of the Bush era Patriot Act, Obama has enshrined these provisions as "normal" and expanded these unconstitutional powers even further. Rather than criticising Obama for continuing Bush policies, Democrats have now done an about face and praise these provisions as "necessary" after all we are in a *global war against terrorists don'cha know.* (Which sounds exactly like the Bushies and Dick *other priorities* Cheney from 2001-2008)... This only serves to demonstrate a distrubing trend in our politics...personal loyalty to a particular President is becoming more important the principle. Now instead of being able to wire tap citizens without a warrant the President claims the right to to detain or even to kill them based upon "secret" information without judicial review or due process. I suppose in the near future we can expect to change the oath taken by service men and women from "Protect and defend the Constituion" to "Protect and defend the person of the President"...which is entirely contrary to the founding of our nation.
This fight over contraception seems silly when so many other larger issues are at stake. But I would commend the USCCB for raising their voices and pushing back against immorality and intrinsic evil that will directly affect Catholic institutions. It's time for the rest of us to step up and support the bishops and then go even further to combat the other encroachments that are being foisted on us by ruling elites of both political parties.
As Cathi D implied in her great post above, it's pure coincidence that the Obama administration is talking at this moment about artificial contraception, to which the America Magazine editors obviously feel every woman has a right. What will you do when they start mandating coverage for assisted suicide, and for parents who want to euthanise their 2-year-olds with downs syndrome? I hope that there will eventually come a time when even you feel compelled to assert that the procedure in question is immoral, and to speak out against a policy that requires you to pay for it.
It's sad that we've lost sight of individual freedom in this whole conversation, which is to speak of the freedom of an individual to start a company which creates jobs and provides a valuable product or service to society. Now we're being told that individuals still have that freedom as long as they're willing to use their company's hard-earned money to pay for barbaric and immoral acts like abortion and sterilization.
And the saddest thing is the Catholics who are allowing themselves to be *used* by the administration because their consiences have been so dulled by decades of rebellion against the Church that they've lost all sense of immorality.
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
Are we ready? They're coming....
http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-and-peace/nuclear-weapons/petition-to-change-nuclear-policy.cfm
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/global-issues/middle-east/iran/upload/Letter-to-Secretary-Clinton-on-Iran-2012-03-02.pdf
One thing I've not seen discussed is that no insurance policy commands that it be used to facilitate purchase of anything. One may obtain services and pay for them directly ignoring the insurance, or one may invoke the insurance when obtaining services, or may elect not to receive services. Thus buying the insurance for an employee does not necessarily mean that any provision in it will be used by an employee for something not approved of.
If paying for the employee to have that option is objectionable even if no employee makes use of that option, then we are left with a truly philosophical issue, no matter what adjective is applied to the issue.
Then the President's proposal came along to the effect that the employer would not have to pay for that insurance, rather providing that insurance would be a matter of insurer overhead. The premium would thus be less by some amount, and the employer would not be paying for coverage the employer does not approve of.
Thus the question is not even one of employer directly paying for employee to have an option which employee may never make use of. Rather it is a question whether purchasing a policy that will provide that 'benefit' is objectionable even if employer did not make a decison about coverage in that regard and did not pay for coverage in that regard.
Thus far we have not discussed the fact that female employee benefits in this regard involved ob/gyn physician services that can include prescription of birth control pills for a reason having nothing to do with birth control per se, but rather for regulation of extremely irregular natural menstrual cycles in patients who might be far from home when one suddenly commenced, and other problems with such cycles. Imagine the plight of a teenaged girl in class as school who suddenly is blooding her pants. The disputed provision in the policies would prevent insurers from debating with physician and patient whether the services are covered. And insurers do behave that way on far too many occasions.
Some folks when analyzing this situation seem to analyze it in terms of male provision of birth control, which is relatively inexpensive, when female provision of such care necessarily involves physicians and prescriptions, far more expensive and as just noted very possibly in fact not having birth control as the motive.
And of course we have here the Bishops' well-known non-mastery of public relations, and non-coordination of public relations. The context of pronouncements is rarely explained. The fact that other, potentially equally important issues are also being pursued is taken for granted by the Bishops, but not by the audience. And that the perceived opponent on issue A is the ally on issues B, C, and D is also not clarified, nor that the friend on issue A is the enemy on issues B, C and D.
Instead the Bishops stride onto the public scene in a rather imperial mode guaranteed to delight a minority, alarm a majority, and lend strength to their enemies on the host of other issues.
Diplomacy is an art the Bishops need to master, for domestic application, not just foreign relations. Diplomacy thanks the President for making the accomodation he did, applauds his willingness to compromise, and expresses an interest in dialogue over remaining 'details'. The exact present dispute could be so framed in a way not requiring anyone to 'eat crow' in coming up with a good definition of religious employer that does not permit someone to evade the law by announcing a religious belief that is insincere, hoping to save a nickel, or annoy disrespected female employees.
One possible avenue would permit the insured employee to opt in to such coverage directly with the insurer without notice to, required consent from, or expense to the employer. At that point it would be abundantly clear that the employer had no intent to furnish such coverage and had no expense related to it.
And to think I graduated from Creighton Prep! Back in the 1500's, you guys would have helped behead Bishop Fisher.
My comment above, now #63, lost its final paragraphs which offers a picture of the future and the beginning of the end for government run health care in the UK.
http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/news-commentary/britains-healthcare-disaster-our-model.html
Those who continue to advocate for more and more government spending and borrowing for social engineering programs, government control of health care, and higher taxes obviously have never read or understood Santayana's words "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
The European countries that borrowed and spent on social programs are bankrupt and barely surviving. The UK's Prime Minister is calling for the privatization of large parts of their NHS( the Obamacare of the UK and the role model for Liberal pundits at the New York Times and the administration bureaucrats running the HHS ).
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/20/why-the-uk-is-ditching-socialized-medicine/
The administration's actions meet Einstein's definition of Insanity-" doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Additionally, and this is also about health care, when a woman's ability to bring forth life is no longer something to be cherished, then women are disvalued and they know it deep in their souls whether they are conscious of it or not. They are used as sex objects. The result? Depression, drug use, self mutilation, rampant diseases, selfish marriages that do not last. I have seen it far too often in my medical practice. Satan loves the pill. (Porn? No big deal since sex has no meaning anymore.)
The UCCSB is not just fighting for religious freedom. The bishops ultimately are fighting for a just, HEALTHY and loving society. You should join them, not admonish them. When the state is wrong, and ours is very much so, people of conscience are obligated to speak up or we are lost.
A society that does not value children is doomed to extinction. A society that does not value children also does not really value anyone who is dependent. That may be any of us down the road. But if there are too few descendants to care for us......?
Then will this magazine be justifying assisted suicide as well? How about a ramping up of the use of the death penalty since there won't be enough folks around to work in the prisons? It goes on and on. And it all starts with conception. Too simple to be true? Hardly.
You are Catholics. Stand up for Truth. You are blessed and intelligent. Take off the blinders of relativism and use your gifts in the way in which He intended.
It is a pity and a scandal that some within the Church (like America editorial board) decided to abandon the bishops and create a shameful division within the Church on that important issue. St. Ignatius of Antioch made it clear many centuries ago: "Where the bishop is, there let the people be, as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."
The entire letter of Cardinal Dolan:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Dolan-to-all-bishops-HHS.pdf
The Order urgently needs a period of prayer and reflection on its raisond'etre.
First, the issue has too often been framed as a "contraception" or a "women's health" issue. Whether or not one accepts the teaching by Church officials on artificial contraception or whether or not one accepts that access to contraception should be elevated to the same "rights" status as voting-that's really not the point. The crux of this issue is the extent of government power in our constitutional system-a First Amendment issue. This is not about whether artificial contraception is moral or not (reasonable minds differ) or whether women should have access to artificial contraception (they do). This is about whether our federal government has the power to compel employers to pay for a medication or procedure to which they have conscientious objections. If a Church holds that artificial contraception is immoral, does the government have the power to force that Church or its affiliated institutions (i.e., hospitals, schools, etc.) or its members (i.e., private employers who accept the official teaching) to pay for its employees' access to artificial contraception? The free exercise clause of the First Amendment surely should prohibit the government from doing so. Just substitute "abortion services" or "euthanasia" for "artificial contraception" in this discussion. In our system, if the government has the constitutional power to mandate non-government employers to pay for artifical contraception despite conscientious objections, it also has the power to mandate non-government employers to pay for, say, abortion services despite such objections. (This limitation on government power would not of course limit the right of the government to pay for access to artificial contraception itself, thereby making it available to those women who choose to use it.)
Second, there has been a dearth of commentary about the way the actions of the bishops have been received by Catholics at large, by the public at large. I would argue that the bishops suffer from a severe and tragic "credibility gap" on this and any other issue of morality on account of the stark contrast between their prompt and concerted action in this matter and their dilatory and disorganized responses to continued malfeasance by the bishops in handling continued clerical sexual misconduct. It has been reported that 160 American bishops published letters to their people on the contraception conscience issue to be read publicly at the Masses in their dioceses. When, for example, the bishop in Kansas City violated the bishops' own norms for dealing with a known sexual predator just in the past 2 years on account of which the predator was left free to abuse other innocents, was there even a single bishop who wrote a letter to his people criticizing the crime? Was there even a single bishop who asked that the Kansas City bishop be criticized from the pulpit-or anywhere else in public? Until the bishops make it a priority (at least on a par with this conscience issue) to prevent bishop misconduct in dealing with sexual predators, they will continue to suffer from their squandered credibility when they attempt to speak prophetically about poverty, war and peace, the death penalty, abortion, education and other issues of grave importance.
Of course it is well known the Church objects to abortion and most contraceptives. It is therefore extremely strange that any governemnt of a democracy with a Constitution specifically protecting Religious Liberties would force a religion to act against it own well known moral principles.
Since when is any American government into the business of heavy-handed corecion of a religion to act against its own beliefs on the say-so of the government? Yet yesterday at a Congressional hearing United States Attorney General Eric Holder said he would enforce these regulation on Catholic institutions. This is not a trivail matter as this editorial would have the reader beleive. This is de-facto a fundemental redefinition of the relation of the relationship of the state and church back to the aborant history of the past where the state is supreme and dictates what the Church may or may not do and otherwise endlessly infringe on religion to advance the political inbtrests of the state.
But the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." This is a most profound, sacred and fundemental right that has always strongly enforced and supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is wonderful that a Bishop of the Catholic Church can cut through all the theological sophistry of this editorial and say yes Religious Liberties in the Constitution are very important to Catholics and the Catholic Church in America and they are under attack by the federal government.
There is no support for Obamacare mandates or support for negotations with the administration bureaucrats for a compromise in the words of the founder of the Jesuit Order.
Pages