Bishops sound alarm about threats to religious liberty

    What has happened in recent months to prompt the U.S. bishops to set up an Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty? Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport is the committee’s chairman, and he said the panel was set up at “near-light speed in Church time” because of the urgency of the issues involved.
    I can’t recall many examples of the entire body of bishops reacting so quickly to a perceived threat. We voted on setting up the committee at our June meeting. Religious liberty is a foundational liberty – in fact, Blessed Pope John Paul II called it “the most fundamental human freedom (because it involves) practicing one’s faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.” In the last several months, the federal government and the agencies that have the responsibility for writing the regulations that interpret and implement federal law have taken positions that clearly threaten religious liberty. That’s why it’s so important for the bishops to speak clearly and immediately on these threats.
    Bishop Lori testified about the threats to religious liberty before a U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution on Oct. 26. What were the important points he tried to make?
    He tried to do three things. First, he offered reflections on the Catholic vision of religious freedom for all, which is rooted in the inherent dignity of every human person, and how that vision resonates with our country’s foundational respect for religious liberty. Everyone knows that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was the establishment clause and the free exercise clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Second, he clearly identified specific, urgent threats to religious liberty that have emerged in the U.S. today. And third, he urged Congress to support legislative action that would protect religious liberty from these threats.
    What is the Catholic understanding of religious freedom?
    Religious liberty isn’t simply one right among others, but it enjoys a certain primacy. Pope Benedict XVI called it “indeed the first of human rights, not only because it was historically the first to be recognized but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, his relation with his Creator.” It is commonly called our “First Freedom.” It is not merely a privilege that the government grants us and might take away at will. Religious freedom is commonly understood as an individual right, but it also belongs to churches and other religious institutions. These churches and institutions are composed of individuals of faith who seek to influence the culture. We are not looking to the state to impose “religion” but to guarantee our religious freedom. The Second Vatican Council said that one key to the church’s independence is our right not to be “hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferal of their own ministers.” These rights are held not just by Catholics, but by all people.
    What threats to religious freedom have you and the bishops seen in recent months?
     One of the most recent occurred in August, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued regulations to mandate the coverage of contraception, including abortifacients, and sterilization as “preventive services” in almost all private health insurance plans. There is a so-called exception for certain religious employers. But the head of the Catholic Health Association, with just a touch of sarcasm, pointed out that the exception is so incredibly narrow that it would cover only the “parish housekeeper.” And, the exception does nothing to protect insurers or individuals with religious or moral objections to the mandate. The bishops have long supported greater access to health care for all Americans, but we warned that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was enacted in March 2010, did not include sufficient protections for rights of conscience. Another example: the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services has long been very effective in ministering to victims of human trafficking. But in May, HHS added a new requirement to its regulations. Any agency using government funds to help victims of human trafficking would be barred from participating if they did not offer the “full range” of reproductive services – namely, abortion and contraception. Thus, the exemplary service provided by MRS has been transferred by HHS to several smaller organizations that frankly may not be equipped to assume this burden.
    Are there any other examples?
    The State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development is increasingly requiring contractors to provide condom distribution and artificial contraception in its HIV prevention activities. That would eliminate Catholic Relief Services, which is among the most effective international relief agencies, from preventing and treating AIDS in Africa and other developing nations. The U.S. Justice Department also has ramped up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act by mischaracterizing it as an act of bigotry. If the label of “bigot” sticks to our Church and many other churches – especially in court, under the Constitution – because of our teaching on marriage, the result will be church-state conflicts for many years to come. There’s even a very important case before the Supreme Court – Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC – that might undermine what has been known as the “ministerial exception” that gives churches the right to choose their own ministers without government interference. The Department of Justice offered oral arguments in October before the Supreme Court that attacked the very existence of the exception. One of the Department of Justice attorneys said the “ministerial exception” would apply only to those ministers whose role is “exclusively” religious. Chief Justice John Roberts replied that not even the pope would be exempt under that definition. We’ll have to wait to see how the court rules. And, then, several states have moved away from the definition of marriage as “one man and one woman,” which has created chaos. In New York, county clerks face legal action for refusing to participate in same-sex unions. In Illinois, Catholic Charities has been driven out of the adoption and foster care business because it recognizes the unique value of man-woman marriage for the child’s well-being.
    What are some specific actions Congress can take?
    There are three important bipartisan bills currently in the Congress that would correct the “preventive services” mandate and related problems under the health care reform law. These are the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361), and the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179). As for the illegal conditions that HHS and USAID are placing on religious providers of human services, this may call for a Congressional hearing or other form of investigation to ensure compliance with the applicable conscience laws, as well as to identify how these new requirements came to be imposed. Congress also should resist efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. In looking at this complex issue, I believe it raises two major questions: No. 1, I know I can live my faith in my own home and in my church building, but can I live it daily beyond those two places? And, No. 2, whose responsibility is it to teach morality, the church’s or the government’s?
    Questions for Archbishop Aymond may be sent to [email protected].