Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Religious Liberty, Health Care, and the Catholic Faithful



We are a group of thirty parishioners at The Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Washington, DC. Our group, formed into a small faith community in the 1960s, has been active in and deeply committed to our parish for all the intervening years. Blessed Sacrament is our parish community, and we have loved and served it to the best of our abilities. We have helped to build and strengthen its institutions, participated in every aspect of its spiritual and social life, seen our children educated in our parish school, and received the sacraments in our church. Our views and actions on issues of social and economic justice, war and peace, and the dignity of all peoples have been in great measure determined by our life in this faith community.

Situated in Washington, our parish community is a complex one, reflecting and bringing together the political diversity of the nation's capital, with leaders in government and media joining each Sunday in prayer. We have been through trying times together—war, civil strife, scandals in the church, terrorist attacks on our nation, contested elections, and controversial legislation—but we have remained a community, with our parish serving as our refuge. For all of us, whatever our political philosophy, our church has been a welcoming home.

This, we fear, may be changing.

On two recent consecutive Sundays, our parish bulletin has included rather alarming inserts from the Archdiocese speaking of a grave threat to religious freedom in America. The first of these was entitled "Our First, Most Cherished Freedom," while the second closed with the dire warning that Catholics must "Act on Your Beliefs While You Still Can." All of this, we understand, is part of a buildup to mobilize Catholics to participate in the "Fortnight for Freedom"—a two-week long demonstration planned by the bishops chiefly as a protest against the Affordable Care Act.

We are deeply concerned that, under cover of a campaign for religious liberty, the provision of universal health care—a priority of Catholic social teaching from the early years of the last century—is being turned into a wedge issue in a highly-charged political environment and that our parish, and indeed the wider church, is in danger of being rent asunder by partisan politics. We, as a group, may have differing views as to the wisdom of the details of the Health and Human Services mandate, against which our archdiocese has now announced a lawsuit in federal court, but we are united in our concern that the bishops’ alarmist call to defend religious freedom has had the effect of shutting down discussion.

It is a step too far. We, the faithful, are in danger of becoming pawns and collateral damage in a standoff between our church and our government. While HHS may have been tone-deaf and stubborn in its handling of the mandate, we believe that the points of disagreement have been grossly overstated by the bishops. In no way do we feel that our religious freedom is at risk. We find it grotesque to have the call for this "Fortnight" evoke the names of holy martyrs who died resisting tyranny. And we are concerned that the extremist rhetoric used to describe the "threat to our freedoms" both undermines the credibility of our church and insults those in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia who are truly suffering for their faith.

Furthermore, we find it incomprehensible that, in this time of worldwide economic distress and suffering, and with the church still reeling from the child abuse scandal, our bishops have chosen to focus the spiritual and material resources of our church on this issue, at the expense of the gospel injunction that we serve the poor and attend to the needs of the "least of these".

And finally, to return to the subject of our own parish, we are anguished by the threat of its being drawn into the vortex of partisanship. This destructive process has already begun.

One of our group recounts being disturbed and deeply hurt by an incident that occurred recently at a parish-sponsored lecture featuring a diocesan official speaking about the health care controversy. The lecture itself contained references to what was repeatedly referred to as "Obamacare"—a term that elicited more heat than light. During the question-and-answer period the atmosphere became even more charged, until finally one person arose and spat out: "I have seen cars in our parish parking lot with Obama stickers on them. They are complicitous in all this." Since the member of our group had such a sticker on her car, she felt unwelcome and left the event before it ended.

This is what we fear: that our church becomes tragically reduced to a partisan player in an election-year campaign and that our parish community becomes a battleground and no longer a source of spiritual strength.

Given our opposition to the misguided and costly “Fortnight for Freedom" we are heartened by recent reports that the bishops are not in full unity on the question of how to respond to the Affordable Care Act and that at least some of them may be disposed to reconsider the overwrought statements that have been made concerning threats to our religious liberties.

And so we pray that our bishops, the clergy, and Catholic laypeople in our parish and across the land will join hands to pull us all back from the brink before it is too late. We pray also that we can come together as a community of faithful, and as a country, with renewed resolve to address the broad range of critical social, political, and economic issues affecting our nation and the world.


_________________________________________________________________


Our Group: Marie and Paul Barry; Tony and Judy Carroll; Joy and Jerry Choppin; James and Jean Connell; Christa and Richard Cross; Larry Carter and Odelia Funke; Kathleen and Richard Hage; Timothy and Marilyn Hanlon; Ann and Ray Hannapel; James and Elizabeth Kane; Anne Kilcullen; Marion and John McCartney; John and Betty O'Connor; Ivo and Patricia Spalatin; Eileen and James Zogby

Principal writers of statement:
James Zogby    
Ivo Spalatin

16 comments:

  1. Is there a national organization for this? You are saying what I and many of my fellow parishioners have been saying since this hysteria on the part of the Bishops began.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is very encouraging to see that other Catholics are disturbed at the outrageous attempt to influence the outcome of the Nov. elctions! Let the courts decide the religious-liberty issues and put an immediate end to the Church-instigated divisive partisan ranting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you so much for this. I will share it on Facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FYI, morality isn't decided by popular vote. If you don't like the positions of the Catholic Church you're free to leave at any time. I'm a Catholic woman with no desire to use birth control, etc. and I should not be compelled by force of law to pay an insurance premium for such services. These are not my tax dollars that are being used for things I find immoral, rather I'm being forced to use my personal money to pay for things that are contrary to my faith and are damaging to women's health. That you don't find this a religious liberty issue is quite troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Furthermore, we find it incomprehensible that, in this time of worldwide economic distress and suffering, and with the church still reeling from the child abuse scandal, our bishops have chosen to focus the spiritual and material resources of our church on this issue, at the expense of the gospel injunction that we serve the poor and attend to the needs of the 'least of these.'

    This statement indicates to me that, sadly, you do not understand what is at stake here. Catholic organizations can do one of several things in response to this mandate: either comply with it and fund contraception, which is a grave evil and in my opinion has led to the objectification of women and the over-sexualization of our society, or drop health insurance for its employees so that it does not have to pay for contraception and sterilization, which will result in heavy fines as called for under the Affordable Care Act. The first option is out of consideration, and rightly so, because the Church should not and cannot pay for contraception and sterilization and pretend that there is nothing wrong with these things. The second option results in heavy fines, and thus represents a serious threat to the ministry of any Catholic organization--including those that serve the poor and others in need--that does not fall under the mandate's strict limitations. It is precisely because the Bishops want to continue serving those in need that they are challenging this mandate in court. And allowing this mandate to stand is a serious threat to our religious freedom, despite your statement to the contrary, because it would mean that the federal government has the power to tell people of faith to do something that would violate their consciences. That isn't right, and that should not be allowed to happen in the United States of America.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fr. Coulter's website contains the following autobiographical statement:

    "I am a priest of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. After attending Mount St. Mary's Seminary (Alumni Page) I was ordained in 1999. . . . I lived two years in Rome, at the Casa Santa Maria and completed a license in Canon Law at Santa Croce University (Opus Dei, Finding God in Work and Daily Life) - [See my talk on St. Josemaría Escrivá and the Spirituality of Opus Dei.]"

    CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I am not Fr. Coulter. I live in the Archdiocese of Washington and I often attend Mass at Blessed Sacrament. In any event, I don't see how the excerpt from Fr. Coulter's Web site is supposed to discredit my statement.

      Delete
  7. The sermon I heard this past Sunday at a Washington, D.C., mass contrasted the approach of Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J., which formed the basis for the Vatican II declaration on religious freedom, with that of the bishops. In essence, the homilist said, Murray maintained that claims of religious liberty, or its abridgement, have to be accompanied by a cogent argument if they're to be taken seriously. In the case of the Catholic espiscopate (or _some_ bishops, the homilist several times put it), the emperor isn't wearing any argument (my metaphor, but it captures the gist of his homily).

    Earth to hierarchy: if you want to make a political pitch under the cover of a campaign for religious liberty, basing it on contraception is not a canny strategy, since, according to the Pew survey, upwards of 90% of Catholic women use or have used artificial birth control during their fertile years. In the church, as anywhere else, governance depends for its legitimacy and effectiveness on the consent of the governed. The bishops are eroding whatever vestiges of authority they might still have had, and in the long slide from _Humanae Vitae_ through the clerical child abuse scandal and its coverup to the current intervention in election-year politics, those residues are not great. If I've misjudged the bishops and they back up their not especially fullthroated criticism of the Ryan budget with a Fortnight for Economic Justice that kicks off Labor Day weekend, I'll take some of this back.

    Richard Cross

    ReplyDelete
  8. I attended a prayer vigil for religious freedom at my parish; a couple who came to the U.S. from Hungary recounted their experiences of how the government there took away their religious freedoms slowly, then more and more aggressively. They also shared how frustrated they are when they try to share their experiences and people act as if it cannot happen here. It absolutely CAN happen here, and in fact has begun.

    ReplyDelete
  9. God bless you all for allowing the Holy Spirit to work through you in this authentic and sincere way, and give you the courage to share with those of us who are broken-hearted over the Catholic Bishops actions.

    In my very politically conservative, and wealthy parish, the bishops' action has served to inflame a particularly virulent strain of partisanship, and among some ...disturbing racism against America's first black president. President Obama is referenced by name in angry e-mails sent out by members of the church ministry. The pastor will keep the effort going through weekly services ending on November 5, the day after the election. While all of this is going on, there is no further talk of our gospel calling to serve the poor and vulnerable, especially in these most-challenging economic times. I find myself praying for those in my parish who are evidencing so much anger...and for the bishops, that they may repent and revise before further damage. Several parishioners I know are leaving our church and seeking less angry voices...when possible, in other churches in the city. Don Felipe

    ReplyDelete
  10. Situated in Washington, our parish community is a complex one, reflecting and bringing together the political diversity of the nation's capital, with leaders in government and media joining each Sunday in prayer. We have been through trying times together—war, civil strife, scandals in the church, terrorist attacks on our nation, contested elections, and controversial legislation—but we have remained a community, with our parish serving as our refuge. Liz

    ReplyDelete
  11. NES Health research suggests that the Human Body Field (HBF) is responsible for regulating and integrating the physical, chemical, mental, emotional, energetic and memory aspects of the physical body.

    ReplyDelete
  12. James Zogby....the anti-Israeli Arab activist ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Salvational History has revealed that tyranny begins with denying the essence of Love, The Ordered Communion of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gary Coulter, or we can show that it is a self-evident truth, that the obscene fine placed on those persons who desire to provide their employees with health insurance sans contraception coverage, $100 a day, per employee, per year, versus the $2,000 per employee per year for those who desire not to provide any health insurance, which is an obscene violation of the principle of proportionality, and thus The Eighth Amendment, can only be construed to be a means to "influence the recipient of said fine" into violating a tenet of their Faith, and is thus both a violation of The First and Eighth Amendments of our Constitution.

    ReplyDelete