Sunday, April 15, 2012

A Call For Civil Disobedience Which Utterly Mocks The Whole Idea Of US Catholic Protest

If I become a Catholic protester on July 4th, I'll be carrying the sign on the right.



When I read this article at the NCR on Friday I was completely astounded, so much so that I initially laughed.  Then I got angry.  Then this morning I read this post by Betty Clermont at Open Tabernacle and got even more angry.  If any bishop thinks Catholics are going to take to the street in their millions to protest  in the name of the bishops religious freedom, when most of us know it's really a protest in favor of their religious tyranny, they are mistaken.

Catholic Bishops Start 'Fortnight For Freedom' Initiative, Issue Rallying Cry For 'Religious Freedom'

By David Gibson - Religion News Service - 4/12/2012
(RNS) The nation's Catholic bishops are calling on the faithful to pray and mobilize in a "great national campaign" to confront what they see as a series of threats to religious freedom, and they are setting aside the two weeks before July 4 for their "Fortnight for Freedom" initiative.

The exhortation is contained in a 12-page statement released Wednesday (April 12) by the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, and its chief concern is the Obama administration's proposal to provide contraception coverage to all employees with health insurance, including those who work for religious groups. (No, it is not about religious 'groups' It is about secular enterprises run under religious auspices, taking tax money, to engage in charitable, educational, and medical endeavors.  These endeavors are not the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church.)

The statement represents the hierarchy's latest effort to overturn that policy, and it includes an explicit threat of widespread civil disobedience by the nation's 67 million Catholics. (And when less than 250,000 of that 67 million partake in this exercise, will the media still insist they represent the entire Catholic perspective?)

"If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them," the statement says. "No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith."
The document cites a number of other perceived threats to religious freedom besides the contraception policy, such as harsh immigration laws that could impede the church's social ministry and university policies targeting campus student religious groups.
The statement also makes a concerted effort to portray the Catholic campaign as bound up with the fight to defend American values from an overbearing central government. (Oh please, we are to exchange an over bearing central government for a over bearing theocracy controlled by Roman Catholic bishops?)
"What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society -- or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it," the statement says. "This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue." (Uhhmmm, the US is a democracy run by a government and all governments determine the common good and who gets to define it---by definition.)
The "Fortnight for Freedom" covers the period during which the church calendar recalls "great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power," as the bishops put it -- such as John the Baptist, who was killed by Herod; the apostles Peter and Paul, who were killed in ancient Rome; and Sts. John Fisher and Thomas More, who were executed under England's King Henry VIII.

Religious progressives and church-state watchdogs quickly pushed back.
The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance, argued that while he agrees there are genuine threats to religious freedom, the bishops' fight against contraception coverage means that "the Catholic Church's definition of religious freedom is one that is only concerned with its own beliefs and practices and makes no room for those whose views differ."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, noted that many church-affiliated agencies operate on taxpayer dollars and therefore should follow public policy guidelines.
"When taxpayers are forced to support sectarian agencies that refuse to meet the needs of women, gay people and other communities that's a real violation of religious liberty," Lynn said. "If the bishops want to run sectarian social services, they ought to collect the money from their parishioners, not the taxpayers."

In their statement, the Catholic bishops deploy both the soaring rhetoric of American patriotism and the vivid examples of Catholic martyrs in calling for two weeks of parish activities, devotions and public rallies that would begin on June 21 and conclude on July 4. By invoking martyrs and saints, the bishops aim to recall the church's sacred history of "resistance to totalitarian incursions against religious liberty." (Notice how they do not recall the numerous examples of saints who lost their lives in dissent with Church leadership. St Thomas More was just as disgusted with the Church hierarchy of his time as he was with Henry VIII.)

The bishops have grown increasingly concerned about the advancement of laws promoting or protecting gay rights, for example, and fear that churches and affiliated agencies that use taxpayer dollars will have to comply with nondiscrimination policies.

But it was the Obama administration's release of a policy mandating that all employers provide free birth control coverage in their health care plans that sent the hierarchy into overdrive. The bishops have couched the fight as a battle for religious freedom because they say they know Americans -- including the vast majority of Catholics -- do not agree with church teachings against contraception. (Exactly, which makes this ploy an attempt to get Catholics to coerce the State into enforcing institutional Church doctrine they don't agree with and to essentially work against their own individual consciences. Nice trick.)

The White House has proposed modifying the mandate so that insurance companies would provide the contraception coverage separately to employees and with no cost to the faith-based employer. But the bishops -- as well as their conservative allies in other denominations and the Republican Party -- say that accommodation is insufficient. (The agenda is much deeper and wider than birth control or dubious appeals to religious freedom.  See Betty Clermont's post.)

*******************************************

I would hope there is a huge Catholic push back on this 'exercise' in defending the religious freedom of our erstwhile bishops.  If the idea is to germinate a sort of civil war inside the Catholic Church this is one way to accomplish it.  Real Christian leadership would be concentrating on their own egregious failures, you know, the ones all over the news right now as demonstrated in spades in Philadelphia and Kansas City. But no, American Catholics are being called to follow these corrupt criminal bishops and protest against our own consciences, especially the interests of Catholic women, and against an administration that has put more tax money in the hands of Catholic institutions than any other government before it.

I can't help but think back to the protests of the 60's, in which Roman Catholic leadership was front and center on the immorality of the Viet Nam war and the military draft,  in civil disobedience against racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws, and advocated for the influence of Catholic social teaching on the war on poverty.  I can't help but remember the 80's when the USCCB issued letters against Reagan's nuclear build up, US secret military incursions, and for an inclusive and coherent pro life stance.  It's almost like all of this was from another world.  Of course in some senses it was.  All of this came directly after Vatican II and before the crackdown on regional bishops conferences by the papacy of JPII and the CDF of Cardinal Ratzinger.

The real fruit of the 'reform of the reform' is not about liturgy or doctrine.  It's about regaining power and centralizing authority so the men of the Vatican can keep playing their oh so Traditional political power games on the world stage.  Our US bishops are blatantly engaging in this behavior in their mad pursuit to prove their uber loyalty in order to join the clan of the red beanie.

Good thing today is Divine Mercy Sunday.  American Catholics could use some Divine Mercy.  They are getting utter nonsense from their bishops. 


27 comments:

  1. The US Bishops are on a real trip. They think the good old USA is a system they can use to manipulate for their own welfare. They seem to want to get their hands on welfare money that they don't really care is being taken from the poor and giving to the wealthy.

    I would love to see all the Bishops protesting against wars & the military industrial complex, famine, hunger, the lack of jobs, the high expense for education and energy, the lack of investing in the people in the US, saying something against the Supreme Court making it lawful to strip search people, even if they just were not wearing their seat belt!!! AND, if they were to PROTEST LAWS THAT ARE FOR VAGINAL PROBING ... But no, they will desire a march in protest against their right to welfare money from the US government, while they pay no taxes at all.

    BISHOPS - I do not consider them Americans if they are not really FOR Americans.

    I'm thoroughly disgusted with the US Bishops, such as Mr. Dolan. What a creep!

    Butterfly

    ReplyDelete
  2. PS - The red beanie brigade, the leadership of US Catholics via Dolan & US Supreme Court idiots supported by Dolan & right-wing & center power brokers, have entered their flocks into the twilight zone, heading straight for fall from a very high cliff.

    I really think they might wake up when the very things that they do not protest against will hit them like a tons of bricks, such as the very notion of religious freedom that negates the freedom of others to practice and express their spiritual and/or religious views.

    We all have no freedom at all when the dialogue is rigged for corporations and/or red beanie babies touting they are the only voice that can be heard, when they alone are deemed to be The People now, having power over REAL people and red beanie morons marching their flocks the other way as we are all betrayed & led to a cliff to fall off of and rot.

    Can you tell I am thoroughly disgusted, as are many fellow Catholics, at this march and parade of ignorance that the US Bishops are trying to take the entire Church as hostages to?

    Just trying to discern just how anyone could so blindly follow the dictates of someone like Dolan is like trying to talk to zombies who are determined to remain zombies and they are determined to make you a zombie too.

    Butterfly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Butterfly I wonder how long it will be before Cardinal Dolan comes crashing down off his pedestal. I can't help but compare his grandstanding to the much lower profile of Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston. I just see a big fall coming for New York's big guy.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad you see that Mr. Dolan will be off his pedestal. He's already off his rocker!!

      Butterfly

      Delete
    3. BTW, Butterfly, did you read Charles Pierce's skewering of Dolan's phony religious liberty crusade on Pierce's Esquire blog? Pierce has them nailed accurately as the "red beanie brigade."

      Delete
    4. I don't recollect reading that, but it's possible I did. In any case, it's not a blog I frequent. Red beanie brigade sounds apt to describe Dolan and his buddies.
      Butterfly

      Delete
  3. There are so many more important issues, and the Bishops are complaining about not having religious freedom if people use birth control or if gays marry. What a bunch of hot air lack of veracity and simple leadership.

    The questions about global warming is most important, we may even be facing an extinction event. The fertility of the earth is certainly much more important than the Bishops rights in birth control which they are not personally involved. This is a group of either hypocritical or asexual men expressing their wish for power. Again according to Sipe only 50% of priests are celibate at one time. I know of at least 2 women who had abortions paid for by their impregnating priests. The Bishops, like all who suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder have no personal boundaries. They believe they are omniscient and omnipotent. It is horrible to have such an extreme group of leaders when the whole planet may well be at stake. I wish every one would read Jeremy Rifikin’s “The Third Industrial Revolution. dennis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You raise valid points here. I am horrified that some priests have paid for abortions for their partners. I wonder if they had the assent of their bishops in doing this. I don't know of any priests who have been thrown out for doing this but they do get throw out for getting married.

      Mark

      Delete
    2. Mark, this is relatively common in the global priesthood. In my experience all priests are anti abortion unless their livelihoods suddenly depend on their secret mistresses not being pregnant.

      I can remember reading an article a few years back in which a priest justified the abortion he paid for for his girl friend by declaring 'at least I didn't use birth control!" This attitude is not what I would call spiritually mature.

      Delete
    3. Col, it's not only an attitude that is not spiritually mature, it is not even humanly mature, imo.

      Butterfly

      Delete
  4. Dear All,
    I am so totally taken by your hypocracy in thiese comments that I do not have words for it.
    How odd-if it were the ACLU calling for a protest you would all applaud it..When there is ample, compelling reason for the millions and millions of Catholic Americans in the USA to demonstrate their love for this country, the constitution and also for the faith..your criticism is narrow and totally myopics. I am very disappointed in what you have said and would have expected at least support of those of you with "more modern ideas"..and broad mindedness. I am saddend by this reaction, and find it very puzzling. Jane Cobbe-Chicago
    Jane Cobbe-Chicago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you felt welcome enough to post Jane. I wish the USCCB would clean up their own house before they try controlling the bedrooms and health choices of Americans. America is a secular democracy, not a Catholic theocracy. If the USCCB stated they were not going to take another dime of tax payer money to fund their charitable, health, and educational works. I would be impressed with their consistency, if at the same time appalled with the real consequences of such a step. On the other hand, I think the teaching authority of the Church is wrong on birth control and gay marriage as they apply with in a secular society. For me to support the bishops in this endeavor would indeed by hypocrisy on my part.

      Delete
    2. Jane, health insurance premiums are deducted from an employee's paycheck, it's considered part of an employee's earned compensation. How does an employee negotiating services with their insurance provider infringe on a Catholic bishop's freedom to pastor their people?


      John Fremont

      Delete
    3. Jane, there is compelling reason, and has been for quite some time now, for Catholic Americans in the USA to protest against deadly weapons of mass destruction. Yet our tax dollars go towards building this death machine. And, the Bishops are not really calling for a march in demonstration of their love for this country. They are really calling for Catholics to not be very Constitutional and be not very American either. I find it amazing that anyone would even consider marching behind Dolan when he continues to not address the real issues us real Americans are facing: high unemployment, higher taxes, less health care or no health care at all, budget cuts against anything that is FOR those most in need, while Dolan supports politicians who don't pay any taxes at all. Your comment is more than puzzling. It is outright bewildering, to be perfectly honest.
      Butterfly

      Delete
  5. I only know that the last campaign against gay marriage caused hundreds to leave our parish. This campaign will again rip apart a community of faith.
    I can't even begin to address those who think this has something to do with their faith or love of country, but I do believe we need to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
    If the RC church wants to run their institutions by USCCB rules they need to stop asking for government aid. If they want to tell the government what to do, they need to pay taxes.
    I am sick at heart at this campaign for power which has nothing to do with Jesus' command to Love God and one another. It seems that they seek to divide us so we cannot speak in a united voice.
    coolmom-I could not figure out how to get my name on top this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's Ok coolmom. Blogger changed the main interface for the blog itself and I couldn't figure out how to access monitored comments for three days. I also do not like the new writing and formatting program but I guess once I get used to it I might actually like it's increased versatility.

      I think your probably correct that this latest move is designed to rip apart communities of Faith. I've felt that for the last couple of years, that we were headed to a showdown. I believe that because I believe the real issue is maintaining hierarchical control of Catholic assets and this current crop of bishops is perfectly willing to force out the 90% of the flock who think and for whom the threat of hell holds no persuasion. Those are the people who demand accountability and won't enable autocratic control and the abuses that come with it.

      Delete
  6. There is something quite incongruent and discordant when the bishops, archbishops, and cardinals of the United States start playing the victim over the issue of birth control and calling for civil disobedience.

    These men; bishops, archbishops, and cardinals of the United States have not been able to convince their own people on this issue, if you give even a little credence to polls on the question of birth control. So now these men are seeking to do in a political realm what they could not achieve with their own followers. We, and the church, would be better served if they got back to being pastors instead of politicians.

    The high point of the Catholic Church’s place in trying to influence the political world goes back to the time when Cardinal Bernardin talked about the seemless garment of life. At the time, 1982, Cardinal Bernardin appeared on the cover of Time magazine for his efforts to promote peace. Also in those days, Bishop Leroy Matthiesen of Amarillo offered to help find new employment for any conflicted Catholic working in the nuclear weapons industry in his diocese.

    Perhaps; bishops, archbishops, and cardinals today should offer to find new employment for any Catholic working in an organization that provides birth control for their employees. I think it would be more honest than playing the “victim” and saying their freedoms were being taken away.

    When civil disobedience has been called for in this country, it really involved some issue of life or death or real material injustice. I don’t think any bishop, archbishop, or cardinal is threatened in any of these ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely right Wild. Civil disobedience, if it's going to be an ethical path, really needs to involve some issue of life and death or real material injustice. The cynic in me thinks they threw in the immigration line as a smoke screen. Very few bishops have been down at the Southern Border fence protesting the presence of our drones.

      I think your point about failing to convince their own flock about birth control and now seeking to do it in the political realm is what first started me laughing, but after more thought, I don't think this a whole charade is a laughing matter at all.

      Delete
  7. Wild, I really agree with your second paragraph but I don't think this crop of bishops is ever going to go back to being pastoral since most of them are Canon Lawyers and favor the part of their flock that doesn't need the pastoral approach. Obedience to the catechism is pretty straight forward. You either obey or you go to hell. That kind of thinking doesn't need much in the way of the pastoral kind of leadership--just the 'magic' sacramental kind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Bishops' challenge affords an opportunity to affirm our religious freedom and show how their complaints of infringement are wrong.

    First, the Constitution. Confronted by questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith, the courts have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (E.g., http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html)

    When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), provide exemptions for conscientious objectors.

    The real question here then is not so much whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences.

    Second, no need for an exemption. While some may well oppose the law’s policy of promoting the availability of medical services they find objectionable, the law does not put employers in the moral bind some suppose. Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.

    Some nonetheless continued complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed, seemingly missing that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.

    In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.

    Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you Doug for this completely rational explanation--and welcome to the blog.

    Your last point was one of my own issues with the argumentation offered by the USCCB. Why did they think they were entitled to determine what people did with the dollar they paid them for services rendered. I can only wish they would use such reasoning with the companies in their investment portfolios.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is interesting that the Vatican, in the 60's through the 80's, was heavily invested in companies that make BC pills!!

      Delete
  10. Commenting from Ireland where the Vatican is currently weeding out all questioning within the church of delicate topics, I have to see the USA Bishops' call as a joke.

    We have our own jokers over here too.


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stacking the deck with jokers is one way to increase the odds you will win--unless someone else draws more jokers.

      Delete
  11. As an aside, this little bit is an error.

    "(Uhhmmm, the US is a democracy run by a government and all governments determine the common good and who gets to define it---by definition.)"

    Government are not the arbiters of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I didn't say they were the arbiters of truth. I said by definition they get to define the common good. I also didn't say that was always a good thing or good for the common man/woman/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they do not. The statement is not actually true.

      Delete