Human Autonomy Rightly Understood

From an essay by Philip Tartaglia, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Paisley, Scotland, comes this summary of human autonomy rightly understood. His essay is adapted from a keynote address he delivered on April 11, 2012, at Magdalen College, University of Oxford, to a conference sponsored by the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University. You can read the rest of his talk here.

Religious freedom is more than freedom to worship, but is also the freedom to express and teach religious truth. It must include the freedom to evangelize, catechize, and serve the needy according to a religious community’s own precepts. Religious freedom is thus intertwined with freedom of expression, thought, and conscience. Believers should not be treated by the government and the courts as a tolerated and divisive minority whose rights must always yield to the secular agenda. As we have seen in the genesis of the threat to religious freedom in the UK, the great question that exercises modern culture is the meaning of human autonomy and especially sexual freedom. Cardinal Pell wisely remarks that this struggle is fundamentally over a religious question that revolves around the reality of a transcendent order. One way of putting it is: “Did God create us or did we create God?” The limited scope that secularism is prepared to concede to religious beliefs is based on the assumption that we created God. As long as the supremacy remains with man, then faith is understood as a private therapeutic pursuit and is permitted. But when people insist that faith is more than this, and that the supremacy is not ours, religion must be resisted, increasingly through the law. The question of autonomy, of freedom and supremacy, plays itself out, among other places, in the contest between religious and sexual freedom. Absolute sexual freedom lies at the heart of the modern autonomy project. Beyond preferences about sexual practices or forms of relationship, it extends now to preferences about the method and manner of procreation, family formation, and the uses of human reproduction in medical research. Cardinal Pell hit the nail on the head when he observed that the message from the earliest days of the sexual revolution, always barely concealed behind the talk of “free love,” “live and let live,” and creating space for “different forms of loving,” was that limits on sexual autonomy will not be tolerated. This is generating the pressures against religion in public life. It is difficult for Christians to know how to respond in this situation. We are in the midst of a cultural revolution that can be uncompromising and brutal. Christians have the more promising vision and more convincing arguments than secularists about the nature of human beings in their need of God, about the nature of the family, about the place of faith in public life, and about the relationship of faith to science and progress. However, the cultural mood is to dismiss these arguments and insights in summary fashion. Christians today are riding the tiger, and, if the present cultural trajectory goes unchecked, I fully expect to be prosecuted in the courts in the coming years. But Christians need to be patient and steadfast and always ready to engage. Evil may well have its time but eventually it consumes itself, and it will not have the last word. We may need to pick up the pieces of a shattered civilization, broken and exhausted by its extreme adventure with radical godlessness.

The bishop’s finally paragraph is applicable as well to the Orthodox Church: “Whatever happens in the next few years, the Catholic Church has only one choice: to be herself by being true to Jesus Christ, whatever the cost. What kind of nation and what kind of democracy will we be? That is another question.” In Christ, +Fr Gregory

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tomas Bogardus’ logical case for religious freedom

Need a logical defense of religious freedom? Look no further than First Things‘ “On the Square” web exclusive, where future University of St. Thomas assistant philosophy professor Tomas Bogardus tackles a proposed restriction of an idea long taken for granted in free countries. Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, recently published an article, “The Use and Abuse of Religious Freedom,”which proposes to limit “the legitimate defense of religious freedom to rejecting proposals that stop people from practicing their religion.”

Read more on Tomas Bogardus’ logical case for religious freedom…

h/t: Acton Institute PowerBlog

via Tomas Bogardus’ logical case for religious freedom.

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Religious Freedom and the HSS Mandate

Michael Matheson Miller at Acton writes:

What would Diedrich Bonhoeffer have to say about the HHS mandate? Eric Metaxas–best selling author of the biographies on William Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer:Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy gives us some insight in this 2 minute video that explains the real issue behind the HHS Mandate: Religious liberty

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Not just a concern for Catholics

From WDTPRS comes this:

The First Gay President, Pres. Obama, and his administration have been eroding our first liberties. He is attacking the First Amendment, this time through the Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS). The most aggressive pro-abortion president in history is bent on forcing us to pay for things that are morally objectionable not only on religious grounds, but also according to natural law. We must resist these attempts to diminish our first freedoms. We will not and we cannot comply with Pres. Obama’s attacks on the religious freedom of all Catholic institutions.

From CNA:

Archbishop Lori highlights role of laity in Fortnight for Freedom By Michelle Bauman

Washington D.C., Jun 12, 2012 / 02:19 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore stressed the importance of laity involvement in efforts to defend religious freedom from the ongoing threats in the U.S.

“It’s important, of course, for bishops to be teachers and leaders.” But “it is crucial for lay men and women, mothers and fathers of families, lay leaders in all walks of life to advocate for freedom and justice in our society,” Archbishop Lori told CNA on June 9.

“Without those voices and without the involvement of the laity, we just won’t get very far,” he added.

“In the Church’s understanding,” he explained, “it is the laity who are the ones that bring about the just and tranquil society. It is the laity who are the forefront of creating what Pope Paul VI called the ‘civilization of love.’”

Archbishop Lori, who leads the U.S. bishops’ religious freedom committee, encouraged the laity to get involved in the June 21 to July 4 “Fortnight for Freedom” event through education, prayer and advocacy.

[...]

Read the rest there.

At some point the Orthodox Christians will have to decide as well whether or not we are going to defend religious liberty or not.

Simply put,  will we remain on the sidelines while others are mistreated it will we join our voices in condemning unjust laws? Archbishop Iakovos of blessed memory marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Can we do any less today in response to laws that require Catholics to violate their own moral teaching?

As it stands now if Catholics are to be faithful to their own tradition they must risk either legal sanction or the loss of a wide range of ministries that testify to the truth of the Gospel.

Can we as Orthodox Christians really claim to love Christ if we stand by without protest? Or are we simply naive,  or secularized,  that we imagine that we will escape tomorrow what today the Catholic Church today?

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

Religious freedom, freedom of conscience

Let’s keep something clear. My role as a priest, and the bishops’ role as bishops, is to form and support the laity for their proper role in the public square. It is the role of lay people to shape the world around them according to their vocations. I (or, even more, the bishops) will teach, give you the sacraments, and support you. The work of the public square is really your work, lay people, not mine. Remember that when you think bishops aren’t being strong enough in the public square. We clerics know that you lay people often face in your daily lives challenges that would make many of us roll up in a ball and hide under the covers. On the other hand, the Enemy of your soul hates priests and bishops with surpassing malice. We live every day knowing that we go to our judgment with Holy Orders upon our souls and to those to whom God has given much, more will be expected. As Augustine said, “I am a bishop for you, but I am a Christian with you.” Neither portion of God’s poor little servants should fall into the trap of thinking that the other has anything easy in life.

***

For years now we have been subject to the pro-abortion mantra, “it is my body and my choice” (and of course we believe that is incorrect as there are other lives — other bodies — at stake), but now it seems the mantra must be, “it is my body, my choice, on your dollar.”

Read the rest of Bishop Robert Morlino’s essay here.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

Religious Freedom: Its Not Just Pakistan and China

From George Weigel at First Things:

To be sure, Americans of conviction and conscience are not under the same threats that made a martyr of Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan a year ago. American believers in biblical religion and its moral teachings do not face the relentless pressure visited upon Chinese Christians who refuse to concede that the Church is a subdivision of the state. But religious freedom is, nonetheless, under assault in these United States. The assault is both cultural and legal. It is shameful that the present administration underwrites the former while being a major actor in the latter.

I try to unravel some of the cultural aspects of the problem-the attempt to erect an empty shrine” at the heart of western democracy-in the Spring 2012 issue of National Affairs, in an article whose title is taken from the Book of Daniel: The Handwriting on the Wall.” (The article is available online, after March 21, at www.nationalaffairs.com.) As for the administrations legal assault on religious freedom, consider the following: 1) The recent HHS mandate-which requires that all employers (including religious institutions with moral objections and private-sector employers with religiously-informed moral objections) facilitate the provision of contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs like Plan B and Ella to their employees-is an effort to bend religious convictions to the governments will. Under the mandate, the federal government will impose its understanding of preventive health care” on all of American society. And if that tramples the right of religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment and the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, then too bad-or, as the administration seems to believe, all the better. The administration is likely to lose this battle, legally, but the underlying intent to erode religious freedom is all too clear.

2) The gross overreach of the HHS mandate is of a piece with other administration policies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions remarkable claim that the First Amendments religion clauses offer no protection against EEOCs reach into the hiring practices of religious institutions. In January, the Supreme Court batted that claim down, 9-0; thus the constitutional firewall held. But the administrations intent to break it down was, again, unmistakable.

3) The Justice Department has refused to do its constitutional duty and defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] in the federal courts. Why? One can reasonably conclude that the refusal to do what the law requires the administration to do is based on the administrations agreement with the claim of DOMAs critics: that genuine support of traditional marriage (as distinguished from the presidents ever-meeker lip service to it) is irrational bigotry-a slander the administration seems willing to see applied to American citizens who once marched on Washington to support civil rights and thus make the election of an African-American president possible.

4) Then there is the State Department, which now refers to freedom of worship” rather than religious freedom” in discussing U.S. international human rights policy. This dumbing-down is bad enough in its abandonment of men and women of conscience around the world. But it now seems to have seeped back into domestic policy: For arent the cases cited above efforts by the administration to hollow out religious freedom and reduce it to a privacy right that accommodates certain weekend recreational activities?

These questions should be at the center of the conversation between now and Election Day.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

HHS mandate insulting and dangerous

Charles J. Chaput is archbishop of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia:

The [Obama] administration prides itself on being measured and deliberate. The current HHS mandate needs to be understood as exactly that. Commentators are using words like “gaffe,” “ill conceived,” and “mistake” to describe the mandate. They’re wrong. It’s impossible to see this regulation as some happenstance policy. It has been too long in the making.

Despite all of its public apprehension about “culture warriors” on the political right in the past, the current administration has created an HHS mandate that is the embodiment of culture war. At its heart is a seemingly deep distrust of the formative role religious faith has on personal and social conduct, and a deep distaste for religion’s moral influence on public affairs. To say that this view is contrary to the Founders’ thinking and the record of American history would be an understatement.

Critics may characterize my words here as partisan or political. These are my personal views, and of course people are free to disagree. But it is this administration – not Catholic ministries, or institutions, or bishops – that chose the timing and nature of the fight. The onus is entirely on the White House, which also has the power to remove the issue from public conflict. Catholics should not be misled into accepting feeble compromises on issues of principle. The HHS mandate is bad law; and not merely bad, but dangerous and insulting. It needs to be withdrawn – now.

via HHS mandate insulting and dangerous.

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)