Religious Liberty

I was glad to see this from my Bishop.

The Catholic bishop of the Diocese of St. Augustine wrote this week to Mayor Lenny Curry and the City Council that any expansion of the city’s anti-discrimination law to cover sexual orientation must have “strong conscience exemptions” for churches, religious organizations and private businesses.

The Most Rev. Felipe J. Estevez said while the church is opposed to “unjust discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” a change in the law must ensure that people providing employment, housing and public accommodations can still make decisions guided by their “sincerely and deeply held religious beliefs.”

Estevez’s letter highlights the contentious question of where to draw the line on religion-based objections to expanding the anti-discrimination law to cover lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

A bill supported by City Councilmen Tommy Hazouri and Aaron Bowman would exempt any “religious corporation, association or society” from being subject to the anti-discrimination law regarding LGBT people.

Estevez’s letter says the exemption should be broader to cover church entities, religious nonprofits, professionals, and the private businesses of “people with strongly held contrary religious beliefs.” Source

A necessary letter considering the trend of the narrow view of religious liberty as espoused and enforced by the Obama administration. Very glad the Bishop mentioned private businesses.

The authors of the law talk about striking the “right balance”, as if rights can be taken a way or shifted to make everybody even as Procrustes would do.

I don’t really need to write anything about the idiotic backlash to Indiana’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Others have taken up the task much more ably. So mostly I will point you to others with minimal commentary.

First off, Brandon Vogt replies to Apple’s CEO Tim Cook misguided editorial about how such laws are “dangerous”. His post nicely points out where Tim Cook is wrong What Apple’s CEO Gets Wrong About Discrimination and Religious Freedom. Like Brandon I am a fan of Apple’s products and have been impressed with Tim Cook’s overall leadership. Personally I have been less than impressed with his other forays into the political realm. Under his time as CEO an app was banned from the app store. It was an app developed by the group behind the Manhattan Declaration in support of social goals including the dignity of marriage. Tim Cook talks about religious freedom, yet this app which also called for Freedom of Religion was banned. I found this political censorship rather egregious.

Tim Cook like President Obama has a very confused view about exactly what religious liberty means. Apparently it only regards your ability to attend worship services and not actually acting on your beliefs if it conflicts with political correctness.

Ross Douthat at the NYT times posts some questions for critics of this bill. He provides seven questions about future steps in regard to this issue. Although I doubt these critics for the most part are interested in answering these questions.

Kevin Jones at the Catholic News Agency wrote No, Indiana did not just pass a law discriminating against gay people. Here’s why. He provides examples from multiple others states who have instituted the same law and the positive results.

Much has also been made of the fact that Indiana’s law reflects the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by a nearly unanimous Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton who came out against Indiana’s law of course did not explain this. So yes you can play a “gotcha” game with critics, but to really no gain. What Congress passes is almost always about what is popular at the moment and not some action to be held for all time. That politicians will support something while it is popular and then support the contrary when the contrary is popular. Look at all the about-faces on same-sex marriage among Democrats for the most part.

One more aspect of this as Ross Douthat wrote:

I don’t think the view taken by these florists/bakers/photographers is necessarily mandated by orthodox Christian belief.

I’ve listened to what Al Kresta has also said along the same lines. From a moral theology view exactly what level of cooperation with evil is involved in these cases? My initial reaction is that in some of these cases it would indeed be cooperation with evil. Other cases it might be considered remote material cooperation. Regardless the person whose conscience has made that determination should not be forced to do otherwise. When I was a liberal I remember that freedom of conscience was a big deal and often talked about. Although probably is was always the case that supporting freedom of conscience was contingent regarding what you were objecting to.

There has been a lot of noise recently regarding Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco new contract for teachers working for the Archdiocese.

First a little history.

SAN FRANCISCO — Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco has approved language for a new high-school teachers’ contract and handbook that calls on faculty to avoid publicly challenging the Church’s position on issues like same-sex “marriage” and abortion.

The existing teachers’ contract expires on July 31. The new one has not been finalized and is under negotiation with the local Catholic teachers’ union, the San Francisco Archdiocesan Federation of Teachers, Local 2240.

In contrast, the faculty handbook is not subject to negotiation and is developed by the archdiocese.

Now, those handbooks will be updated for the 2015–16 school year with descriptions of key points of Catholic doctrine. The new language that will be incorporated into the handbook was presented in a “Statement of the High Schools of the Archdiocese of San Francisco Regarding the Teachings and Practice of the Catholic Church.”

Archdiocesan officials said the statement represents the religious beliefs formally affirmed by the schools, but individual teachers will not be required to sign documents that attest to their own beliefs in these doctrinal teachings. Source

Subsequently:

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – Students and parents from schools controlled by the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco protested at Saint Mary’s Cathedral on Ash Wednesday, saying the church should stay out of teachers’ bedrooms and drop proposed morality clauses in teacher contracts.

On Ash Wednesday, one of the holiest days on the Catholic calendar, the students and parents are hoping Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone will change his mind on the clauses, as the church heads into 40 days of Lenten reflection.

First off the new contract has no statements regarding a teacher’s private life and much less there sex life. Specifically this applies to publicly contradicting Church’s teachings. I wonder how many of these protesters would protest the Hatch Act? As a veteran I certainly was aware of the Hatch Act and some restrictions placed on me regarding the political realm.

Still what I find ironic about the Lenten protest is that it is a heck of way to start Lent implying you are doing something in the bedroom contrary to Church teaching.

Then some California lawmakers stepped in:

A group of California lawmakers asked Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco to remove “morality clauses” from a proposed contract for teachers in high schools under his jurisdiction, reported the Los Angeles Times.

The new language in the contracts direct teachers in four archdiocesan high schools to avoid public statements or actions that oppose Church teaching on contraception, pre-marital sex or homosexual relationships. My story on the proposed change in contract language is here.

In their letter to the archbishop, the California lawmakers argued that the morality clauses “conflict with settled areas of law and foment a discriminatory environment in the communities we serve.”

To which the Archbishop replied in part:

“Would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?” he wrote in his reply to eight state legislators who had criticized Catholic standards for school employees.

The archbishop suggested a hypothetical situation in which Democratic politicians employ a “brilliant campaign manager,” though a Republican, who is willing to work for them and not speak or act contrary to his employers or his employers’ political party.

“Now, let’s say that this campaign manager you hired, despite promises to the contrary, starts speaking critically of your party and favorably of your running opponent, and so you decide to fire the person,” the archbishop continued in a Feb. 19 letter. He suggested this firing would be done not for hatred of Republicans, but because the employee “violated the trust given to you and acted contrary to your mission.” Source

Not that using logic with lawmakers is  a fruitful game. Still it is a good analogy. There have also been complaints about designating the teachers as ministers which is really a result of U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 free exercise case, Hosanna Tabor, which ruled in favor of a Lutheran school in an employment dispute.

One story today said the Archbishop was now backtracking. Joan Desmond continues her excellent reporting on the story with this piece of information.

The Archbishop has not repealed anything. He is adding explanations, clarifications, and material on Catholic social teaching, via a committee of religion teachers he is establishing. The committee is to expand some areas of the material to be included in the faculty handbook, and clarify other areas by adding material. Nothing already planned to go in is being removed or retracted or withdrawn.

With respect to the use of the word “ministers,” the Archbishop only said that “ministers” is no longer being considered. That is all the Archbishop said. The word currently being used is “ministry.” Nonetheless, the Archbishop did say that he would work hard to find language that satisfies two needs. One is the need to protect the rights of the teachers in the Catholic high schools to have complaints fairly treated. The other is the right of the Archdiocese to run Catholic schools that are faithful to their mission. Language must be identified that meets both needs. Even if a substitute for “ministry” is found, the substitute must guarantee that the teachers in the Catholic archdiocesan high schools promote the Catholic mission of the institutions.

Her story also includes information on the lengths the Archbishop is going in working with the teachers in clarifying the language of the contract.

And of course the typical reaction of Democrat politicians “That’s a nice school system you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.”

On Monday, Assemblymembers Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and Kevin Mullin (D-San Mateo) urged an assembly committee to investigate working conditions at the high schools administered by the San Francisco archdiocese,” reported the CBS local news.

An update regarding the Federal lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Fr. Ray Leonard. Fr. Leonard is a contract preist at the Kings Bay Naval Submarine base in Georgia.

One day after the lawsuit was filed, three U.S. Department of Justice attorneys contacted the Thomas More Law Center to alert Mersino that Father Leonard would be able to return to the base to perform Catholic services. Subsequently, the Navy chain of command confirmed the new guidance.

In a statement released after the government reversed its policy, Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, expressed alarm that contract priests like Father Leonard had been barred from serving Catholics on military bases and described the policy as a “blatant attack on religious liberty.”

“I would never have imagined that our government would ever bar Catholic priests from saying Mass under threat of arrest and prevent Catholics from participating in their religious exercises,” said Thompson.

“Allowing the chapel doors to open and Father Leonard to fulfill his priestly responsibilities does not erase the constitutional violations that occurred. We don’t want this to occur again the next time there is a government shutdown. Our lawsuit will continue.”

The Archdiocese for the Military Services has also expressed alarm about the furloughing of contract priests, who are needed to complement the short supply of active-duty Catholic military chaplains.

Taylor Henry, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said it would have no formal response to the lawsuit. But he told the Register that the Air Force had contacted the archdiocese to confirm that the contract priests would be allowed to return to Air Force bases to celebrate Mass and fulfill other duties.

We will just have to wait and see if the situation has actually been resolved for now.

John Schlageter, the general counsel for the Archdiocese for the Military Services, spoke with the Register earlier this month about the developing situation and frustration that the military appeared to be looking for “alternative” sources of funding to maintain other programs on bases, like sporting events, but there appeared to be less concern about securing Sunday Mass services.

During an Oct. 16 interview, Schlageter told the Register that the Air Force had just notified his office that furloughed contract priests could return to their duties, though it was not clear whether they would be paid.The new guidance designated all Air Force “contract clergy as ‘excepted’ for the purpose of the current shutdown.”

Further, Schlageter said that, on Oct. 10, he had been told that the Department of the Navy had also changed its policy that prevented priests with contracts that began on Oct. 1 from performing their duties. However, the AMS still has not received any formal notice to that effect, and many priests were barred from celebrating Mass on naval bases on Oct. 12. The AMS has not received any new guidance from the Army.

As for what is essential:

In the wake of the government shutdown, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that many civilian personnel provided “essential” services and thus would not be sent home. However, contract priests were not deemed “essential.”

In a presidential administration where the Constitution is not essential this comes as no surprise.

(source)