My Morning Rosary, the Supremes, and Gratitude

I took time out on a very busy morning to pray. The prayer I most rely upon in times of anguish is the Rosary. I pray the Rosary about once a week. It is a very beautiful prayer. One must concentrate just enough (on the divine mysteries) while disappearing somewhat into the chant of it. I don't like to mix church and state, but I confess, I prayed for SCOTUS to do Christ's work on earth, knowing my Roman Catholic high priests won't.

It's very female, the Rosary, it's a circle. The prayers of the rosary still of the tenets of Roman Catholicism the tiny opera that is its chant.

I prayed a Rosary today for the poor and elderly who would be helped by the Affordable Care Act. I prayed for the money that will be saved if the poor who burden our hospitals and Emergency Rooms by relying on them for routine medical care are finally able to be insured. I prayed for the hundreds of thousands of teenaged girls who will have abortions (whether insurance covers them or not) as a direct result of their having been robbed of access to contraception by lobbying efforts driven by the hierarchy of my church.

For those who don't know, Rosary beads are not jewelry although even the simplest ones with their inescapable talisman and worry beads aspects are beautiful. A coolness comes when they slide through your hands. I needed that coolness as I waited, this morning, for the Supremes to do the right thing.

One praying the Rosary begins with a summarizing statement of belief, our Credo. Five Pater Nosters and 50 Ave Marias follow. The "Glory Be" comes early on, offering affirmation of a world that follows this one and a prayer to the triune God. Five "decades," comprised each of One Our Father and ten Hail Maries follow.

The Rosary happens on many levels. It's a chant and a conversation with a mother.
Praying the Rosary can get complicated, but I keep it simple, especially since I often pray it on subway or while waiting for my kid to get out of fencing class. Most who pray the Rosary bear in mind (what we call) the "Sacred Mysteries" (aspects of the lives of Jesus and his disciples) in accordance with a prescribed schedule.

I like to sit before statue of the Blessed Mother when I pray the Rosary. If a church is not available, anywhere works. Today I sat in my Brooklyn yard and prayed the Rosary. I addressed my Supreme Court-related petition to the Supreme Being and Mary. I asked Mary to uphold the moral right of children to see doctors even if their families are poor. I prayed for the religious freedom of those who, like me, feel that giving birth to too many children is a sin -- an ethic most loving mothers understand.

I prayed for the protection of children.

I prayed for a wealthy nation and its moral commitment to the poor, I prayed as a Roman Catholic who is faithful to worship and works in Social Justice ministry. I prayed as a Christian who knows that the current, self-serving campaign being waged by the U.S. bishops against my nation's president -- and against the biblical Jesus I know -- is unjust...

A couple of hours later, my prayers were answered.

It so happens I had lunch with a priest today. He prayed over our food, and I thanked God for the Supreme court decision, for the gift of a government that takes up Christ's cross when as the Roman Catholic leadership drops it.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet

Fortnight for Freedom in NY: A Dud?

250 Catholics, not much of crowd, assembled on the first day of "Fortnight for Freedom" at St. Patrick's Cathedral to hear New York's top priest, Timothy Dolan, celebrate mass and reflect on religious liberty.  "Fortnight for Freedom," is a two-week period designated by the USCCB (United States Conference for Catholic Bishops) as a time for prayer and reflection on religious freedom.  What "Fortnight for Freedom" really is -- is a, now scaled-down, effort to mobilize Catholics to vote for Mitt Romney in November.

It's likely Dolan's public relations nosedive has necessitated a few alterations in the plan. So far, "Fortnight for Freedom" hasn't gotten much support in New York, but Catholics made a better showing in Baltimore, where Archbishop William Lori's mass to kick off "Fortnight for Freedom" was well-attended. Perhaps they're a little softer on systematic child-sexual abuse in the birthplace of American Catholicism, for it was standing room only at the basilica on Friday.

At the Sunday June 24th Roman Catholic mass I attended in New York, no mention of "Fortnight for Freedom" was made, and the two announcements following the mass were invitations to parishioners to join in the New York City LGBT "Gay Pride" parade and a request for volunteers to work a few shifts in a an overnight respite program for homeless men.

It would seem "Fortnight for Freedom" has, thus far, been a dud in New York City.

The bishops draped "Fortnight for Freedom" in "Old Glory" because they know that right-wing Protestant fundamentalists like the stars and stripes a lot more than they like Roman Catholics. While the USCCB has no substantive objection to a black president, the bishops recognize that in Obama, they and white, American racist (so-called) "Christians" share a common enemy.  The enemies of the bishops' enemies are the bishops' friends. The red-neck-friendly patriotism packaging bridges the right wing Catholic-funbamentalist Christian gap.

On the other hand, the USCCB must be careful not to overdo the redneck angle. They may find a certain comfort in joining the "bring your gun to church"  "Christians" -- but the bishops are ever mindful that many U.S. Catholics are black and brown. While the bishops know most black and Latino Catholics will probably vote for Obama, they also recognize that a small percentage of black and Latino Catholic locksteppers are the kind of undiscerning Catholics who will simply vote as the bishops tell them to vote.

The great black hope of lockstep Catholics "of color" might explain why William E. Lori and Timothy Dolan et al took the chance of trotting out "Letter of Birmingham Jail" two weeks ago, which they cannibalized quite erroneously for their lecture on the importance of conscience, "Why Conscience is Important" which they disseminated via weekly paper bulletins throughout every diocese in the United State on June 10th.

The Latino vote is of special concern to the bishops at present because both the bishops themselves and Obama favor progressive immigration policies. Hence, the need for the "Why Conscience is Important," a sophomoric and cringe-inducing missive in which the bishops make liberal use of the lyrical, logical prose of a courageous black American patriot and man of the cloth, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in order to make a case for what they fallaciously dub "religious freedom." This morally tone-deaf lecture on conscience was composed and delivered by a conference of bishops whose president was --at the very time the insert was being disseminated to U.S. dioceses -- remaining silent in the face of serious allegations of indirect complicity in the sexual abuse of children.

The lecture on conscience, coming as it did from a group led by a man who unfortunately appears to many to lack one, was a slap in the face to every decent Catholic who read it. (Read more about this document on Indie Theology.) One amusing aspect of "Why Conscience is Important" is that its author missed the point of "Birmingham Jail" entirely, while offering any Catholic with reasonable reading comprehension skill the ideal argument in favor of disregarding the pontiff and Magisterium when informed conscience demands it.

The thesis of both the composition from the bishops, and from "Letter From Birmingham Jail" from which it disingenuously borrows, is that unjust laws (those that prohibit contraception or same-sex marriage, for example) are made to be broken. "Why Conscience Matters," in other words, reiterates the argument advanced by Joseph Ratzinger in his commentary on the Vatican II Pastoral Constitution, Gaudiem et spes:

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority...I was talking with my husband this morning about the fine line between preaching morality from the pulpit and electioneering. "Haven't clerics always preached politics from the pulpit?" he asked. "Sure," I answered, "but preaching that abortion is wrong is not the same as endorsing a particular candidate."

He remembers the day in August 2009, when I came home steamed over a monsignor who had campaigned from the pulpit at a Brooklyn church. Monsignor Kieran Harrington, spokesman for Nicholas DiMarzio, the bishop of Brooklyn and Queens, had somehow snaked his way to the pulpit at one of the churches I attend. There he introduced Steve Levin, then a candidate for City Council in Brooklyn, saying "He's been good for our church." After the noon mass, a few church ladies were recruited to leaflet on the future councilman's behalf on the street outside of the church as the crowd let out. It it walks like a duck applies.

According to a June 21st Reuters report, La Mesa, California pastor Jim Garlow announced his intention to deliberately, conscientiously risk the tax-exempt status of his church in order to campaign for candidates of his choice. He will engage in direct action civil disobedience on "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" on October 7th. He's been conducting "Pulpit Freedom Sundays" for a few years now and sending proof of his electioneering to the Internal Revenue Service. I don't like Garlow's message, but I appreciate that he's not a complete weasel in this. 

Pastor Jim Garlow will stand before congregants at his 2,000-seat Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, California, on October 7, just weeks before the U.S. presidential and congressional elections, and urge his flock to vote for or against particular candidates.

How stark the contrast! Between Pastor Garlow and the Catholic bishops who routinely, consistently and flagrantly violate the spirit of the law while pretending to adhere to its "letter."

Pastor Garlow is planning to engage in civil disobedience for reasons of conscience, for his "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." The clerics planning "Fortnight for Freedom" are poaching syllables written by the ultimately martyred man of the cloth who gave up his life trying to build Augustine's City of God. As I read about Pastor Garlow in La Mesa, and think about William Lori and Timothy Dolan who have worked so hard to rob LGBT people who are not even Catholic of equal marriage rights, these words from King's open letter come to mind:
.

..all too many others {clergy} have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

So much, in the analysis of Roman Catholic leadership boils down to a remaining silent behind anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

So much in the analysis of Roman Catholic leadership boils down to a lack of conscience and courage.

On one hand we have Catholic martyrs who suffered and died for their beliefs. On the other hand, we have the allegedly fugitive Bernard Law enjoying prosperity and clout in La Citta Vaticana. We have the newly incarcerated Monsignor William Lynn, and Timothy Dolan waiting for accusations impropriety to blow over, and way too many Catholics who are willing to do what all of those people who knew about Larry Sandusky did while children suffered: nothing.

We can think of them as latter-day Abrahams carrying their children to sacrifice. Only when God says stop, the latter-day Abraham says "no."

To seriously entertain the whingeing of men in miters who wish to seize religious freedom for themselves while wrenching it from others is foolishness.

Let the bishops give up tax-exempt status and withdraw all government funding for reasons of conscience id they must. If religious freedom is half as important as the U.S. bishops would have us think - if defeating Obama is so very essential - let the Catholic bishops announce from the pulpits that Catholics must cast their votes for Mitt Romney? There'd be a little honor in that.

So much of the analysis of Roman Catholic Leadership boils down to a lack of conscience and courage: and the rest, to economics.

The USCCB is a bit caught between rock and a hard place as "Fortnight for Freedom" begins with a whimper and looks destined to fizzle like a wet Roman Candle. They didn't count on Timothy Dolan's need to hit the mattresses just as "Fortnight for Freedom" was getting under way. They didn't know the Vatican butler did it or would be called, just as "Fortnight for Freedom" was getting started, to take the fall. The USCCB weren't counting on the overwhelming support nuns are receiving in the aftermath of the papal spanking. Obama's immigration policy announcement, which will remind many Catholic voters why he, not Romney, should be president had to have thrown the men in miters for a loop. And the USCCB could never have anticipated how powerful the very public trial of Larry Sandusky, which allowed so many Catholics to see all too vividly just what pedophiles do to children. To have monsignor convicted and sentence to prison on the day the Sandusky verdict is handed down is very bad for morale. Legal precedent has been set. These trials were very bad for Vatican business.

So much of the analysis of Roman Catholic Leadership boils down to business.

If Americans have learned nothing else about the Roman Catholic Church in the United States within the past three or four years, we have learned that the church is big business. Speaking of business-- On Saturday and Sunday (June 23rd and 24th) most Roman Catholic Churches held their annual Peter Pence collections.

"Peter Pence" -- cute name. So often, through the years, I've seen people drop a dollar or two in the (second collection) basket while turning to ask a friend in the pew, "What is the Peter Pence collection, anyway?"

As most Catholics know, the Vatican takes its cut of the weekly collections (a thing the locksteppers like to deny). Peter Pence ducats go straight to Ratzinger et al.

If you dropped a dollar in the basket for the Peter Pence collection yesterday, you might want to say an "Act of Contrition" for doing so today.

Your money might help to support appointments for allegedly fugitive child abuse abetting priests like Bernard Law. Your hard-earned dollars might be used to bankroll lobbying campaigns to ensure that LBGT are denied equal marriage rights. Maybe your Peter Pence money went to fight legislation to extend the statute of limitations for reporting sex crimes against children. Ratzinger may use this cash to send priests to Sub-Saharan Africa to teach women to eschew the use of condoms -- even if their husbands are infected with HIV. Joseph Ratzinger might use your contributions to dig up dirt on the victims as part of legal defenses of pedophile priests. Inquisitions are expensive; the generous contributions of Catholics are much needed to bankroll the investigation of nuns. And if Ratzinger is feeling generous, he might even kick back some of those Peter Pence dollars to William E. Lori and Timothy Dolan for their Romney for President campaign.

If you gave generously to the Peter Pence collection on Sunday, you can be sure you gave till it hurt.

And there's a good chance you gave to causes that fly in the face of everything Jesus stands for.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet

Christ Without Borders: Something POTUS and The Church Can Agree ON

I am often asked how I, a political progressive, can continue to practice Roman Catholicism as part of a church so mired in corruption. The long answer is for another day and my short answer is that despite all that's wrong with the church, I still believe there's something true -- for me at least -- in Catholic worship. That truth burns brilliant this week as I notice that like the president, the Roman Catholic church maintains an expansive and generous perspective on immigration. The views of the bishops are far more in step with those of President Obama than with those of the American hierarchy's candidate of choice, Mitt Romney. Most Roman Catholics (the bishops and Vatican included) are not so much as soft as they are open when it comes to immigration, because they believe in a Christ without borders.

I recently attended a fundraiser hosted by a Haiti Aid group at a Roman Catholic Church. The church was collecting money for a water system in Haiti. In the past, I've worked these dinners, and I look forward to attending them each spring. This year, the bishop in charge of the diocese made a special appearance at the start of the party. As he took to the microphone to make a short speech before leading the gathered in a prayer of thanks (before the meal) I stepped out. I couldn't pray with this guy; I just couldn't. After the bishop left and I returned, a priest who had noticed my abrupt exit told me that night that the bishop has been very supportive in initiatives on behalf of Haitian people living here in New York City, and those living in disaster-torn Haiti. I wasn't surprised. The Catholic hierarchs have a good track record in protecting immigrants as in upholding the conception of Christ without borders. Good on the bishop, I thought.

My church's stance on immigration has long been a source of pride for me. It's also seemed a sign of what the church at its best is capabable of. When I observe the unity with which the church in New York responds to those who arrive here from other nations in need of love (caritas) and support, I can't help but take it as a sign that a City of God is possible.

I'm not unfamiliar with the cynical analysis some put on the United States Roman Catholic bishops' progressive stance on immigration. Sure, there's a self serving aspect to it. When it comes to immigration policy, it can't be denied that the bishops have a dog in the race. Many immigrants, especially those who are supported by our ministries to the needy, do become devout Catholics. But there's more to it than that. Catholic fidelity to Christ the rabbi on earth who challenged cultural, national and tribal norms accounts for much of how Catholics feel about newcomers to our nation. The progressive disposition of our church, on the matter of immigration, extends from the truth promulgated by Jesus the rabbi who declined to distinguish between Roman, Greek and Jew. The teaching body of the church has managed to hand this message down without bastardizing it. Christ the Lord without borders is stubbornly essential to Roman Catholic belief and practice.

Fidelity to Christ as God without borders, is helped along in cities like New York (where I live). People move here and remain here in part, out of their great love for diversity and Catholics are no exception. My children, for example, are not Catholic, but I insisted that they engage in my parish life (then in a three-language community) because I wanted them to grasp and integrate into who they are the notion that God is for all who seek God. As white kids who live in an affluent neighborhood in New York and attend elite public schools -- knocking around parish life was the best shot at exposure to true cultural diversity they were likely to get. I choose to raise them with a faith other than my own, but I wanted them to be "catholic" with a small "c." I wanted them to know people who spoke Spanish and Haitian Creole. I wanted them to know old people, and poor people, and people in wheelchairs -- and they do -- from working in secular ministries in a Catholic church, from singing in a children's choir, and from accompanying me, on occasion, to worship and an extremely economically, racially and even religiously diverse Roman Catholic church.

Catholics at their best tend to be "catholic." Even Roman Catholics who do not particularly savor culture and ethnic diversity wind up impressed into it by default it if they are active in most New York City parishes. I have a "girlfriend," an old school half-Irish "gringa" Holy Hour attending, rosary intoning Roman Catholic in her 80's who takes part in LGBT ministry events (Her son is gay.) and is frustrated by the fact that she's not learning Spanish fast enough from her fellow Golden Age Club members. This is not all that rare in Catholic New York.

Roman Catholics have always integrated into their practice of Catholicism, Jesus's loving disregard for the boundaries between nations. We have always, Catholics of all stripes, "thrown down" with the Jesus the teacher's outreach to people of all tribes, regions and religious affiliations. Jesus prayed with women. He challenged the dietary laws of the religion into which he was born and in which he was educated. His ministry on earth was dedicated to shifting focus off of tribal divisions onto universal redemption. Obviously the Roman Catholic church of today sometimes loses sight of this "Catholic" with a small "c" emphasis, but we see the true light of this committment to Jesus's teaching in the conduct and perspectives of Catholics in the context of immigration.

Seeing the Christ in in the context of Roman Catholic Social Justice ministry is one of several aspects of my life as a Catholic that keeps me faithful to worship. Outreach to those in need and the social justice often feels to me like the sacred heart of things, which beats strong even when the rest of (what we Catholics call) the "Mystical Body of Christ" is ailing.

It will be interesting to see how the immigration issue this plays in the context of the campaign for the presidency. The president of the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) and the pope want Americans to vote Obama out. So obvious is it that the bishops are stumping for Mitt that we no longer even see the bishops bothering to deny it, but Romney's positons on immigration do not square with those of the United States Roman Catholic Church as a whole. On the matter of immigration, Ratzinger, the U.S. bishops Obama and progressive Catholics are all on the same page.

This strong support for immigration is sure to give pause to the anti-Obama Protestants who have aligned themselves with Catholics on the so-called "freedom of religion" issues of same-sex marriage and contraception. The Roman Catholic stance on immigration could take a big bite out of Romney's Latino support. A significant number of Roman Catholics who are otherwise politically conservative could force Romney to do the very thing for which he is most often criticized and most loath to do: flip flop.

The fact that significant numbers of Roman Catholic conservatives, who normally vote Republican, should embrace a view on immigration that is more compatible with the president's could force Romney to adopt a more immigration-friendly policy. But if he does this, Romney will certainly be accused of wavering with the wind. If he does soften up on immigration, Romney might need to worry about alienating the anti-abortion, defense of marriage Protestants who enjoy an uneasy alliance with conservative Catholics but favor strong anti- immigration policies.

It's hard to know how this will unfold. The pope's chess pieces in the U.S. will continue to campaign for Romney, because for them protecting pre-born babies trumps protecting post-born ones. Romney may have to take his chances with easing up on immigration.

Either way, when it comes to immigration, I celebrate my church for getting Christianity right.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet

"Why Conscience is Important": USCCB, SCOTUS & "Birmingham Jail"

As I sat in a beautiful church during the quiet minutes before the 9:00 am Feast of Corpus Christi mass this past Sunday, I read the document called "Why Conscience is Important" which the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) disseminated, via weekly bulletin inserts, to most parishes in the United States this weekend. I was delighted and amusedly shocked.

"Delighted" because the USCCB made liberal (if bizarro) use of one my favorite essays, Dr. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail," which he wrote in the margins of a newspaper as King sat in a jail cell after having been arrested for civil disobedience.

"Amusedly shocked" because the bishops failed to notice that its "Birmingham Jail"-buttressed argument had presented its flock with a perfect argument in favor of Roman Catholic dissidence.

In his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. boldly said, "The goal of America is freedom." As a Christian pastor, he argued that to call America to the full measure of that freedom was the specific contribution Christians are obliged to make. He rooted his legal and constitutional arguments about justice in the long Christian tradition: "I would agree with Saint Augustine that 'An unjust law is no law at all.'... A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

Two gay men wearing "Pride" pins helped to distribute the Eucharist at the 9:00 a.m. Corpus Christi mass I attended. I know these men to be Roman Catholics of strong faith and deep belief. Both men live in committed partnerships with the men they love. One is a father who is raising his daughter in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is because these men know intuitively that "an unjust law is no law at all" that they are able to continue as active Roman Catholics in a church whose highest leaders support systematic prejudice that targets them. They understand that the doctrine which targets them is "man-made" law which fails to "square," as Thomas Aquinas said, with "moral law of the law of God."

Donna Rougeux was ordained this week in Lexington Kentucky in time to celebrate a mass on the Feast of Corpus Christi. She, too, knows that "an unjust law is no law at all." The two gay ministers of Holy Communion and the woman priest not only understand the essence of King's argument (by way of Aquinas) that "an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law" - they live it.

And for them "conscience," of which so much is made in the bishops' insert, comes before man-made codes which fail to exist in "harmony with the moral law. They know Jesus never barred women from the priesthood; men who came later did. They know that Jesus never condemned same-sex marriage; men who came later did. They know their God as Love, and that this is what Jesus taught. Because they know that prejudice is an affront to God, the aforementioned gay Roman Catholic men and woman Roman Catholic priest allow their informed consciences to guide them as they violate the Roman Catholic hierarchy's unjust, man-made codes. They know what the tenets of their faith are and where "primacy of conscience" fits into (it comes first - hence the word "primacy.") Roman Catholic faith and worship.

They reject the de facto Roman Catholic Jim Crow the hierarchy promulgates on the grounds that it is unjust and an affront to a loving God.

The bishops' use of "Birmingham Jail," comes off as silly and duplicitous. As I read the bishops' sloppy attempt to piggy back on the authenticity of offered by an essay I (having taught it eight or ten times) know well, I kept asking myself, "Did these guys even READ the "Birmingham Jail?"

The USCCB's use of King's text backfires entirely, as does much the bishops' clumsy attempts to graft political freedom ideology on to the Vatican's "freedom of religion" campaign. 

The church does not ask for special treatment, simply the rights of religious freedom for all citizens.

This is the opposite of true.

When courts make allowances for any religious group it always constitutes "special treatment."

What the bishops really mean is that they are only asking for the religious freedom all religious people deserve.

This statement is erroneous in another way, too; the bishops' use of "the church" is a misnomer, for it is the bishops, not "the church," who are asking for changes in the Health and Human Services mandate. And 80% of the church not only supports the use of artificial contraceptives -- they also use or have used it. So, the sentence should read: "The bishops and a minority margin of orthodox Roman Catholics are asking for special treatment."

The bishops and their orthodox supporters have every right to ask. Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. The inmate who receives Kosher meals, the girl who wears a veil in a "no hats" public school classroom for religious reasons -- they receive special treatment under the law because the Constitution protects religious freedom.

But the constitution does not offer all persons of faith unlimited freedom.

In the United States, it falls to the courts to draw the line on what has, throughout U.S. history, always been the slippery slope of religious freedom.

The justices charged with deciding whether it is constitutionally proper to make special exceptions for Roman Catholic Church-run agencies at the bishops' behest, will take into account, when they issue a ruling this month, how deeply held the beliefs in question are. While the there can be no doubt on the part of the court that the USCCB holds (deeply) the belief that the use contraception is a grave sin, the court can't ignore that the Roman Catholic Church as a whole does not share this belief.

Most Catholics and many Catholic bishops either have no objection to the mandate or believe that providing the poor, uninsured, and hard-to-insure with adequate health care, being Christ's work on earth, is a greater good than enforcing doctrine on contraception. If 98% of Catholics were in compliance with Rome on the matter of contraception -- the work cut out for the courts would be entirely different.

But as things stand now, only a small margin of Roman Catholics are approaching the bench, and the courts may have to choose between ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic orthodox fringe - or the larger Roman Catholic Church.

Things will go one way or the other, but if the Supreme Court does uphold the rights of the Roman Catholic orthodox fringe, they could set precedent that groups like the USCCB would not much favor, down the line. When it comes to religious freedom, this much is certain; nobody -- especially the U.S. bishops -- wants to see unlimited religious freedom granted to all religious groups living in the United States. Yet it is conceivable that, in time, catering to the Roman Catholic orthodox fringe might pave the way for Orthodox Mormons to marry plurally, and for Christian faith healers to refuse medical interventions for their cancer-stricken children. We have seen the lengths to which the bishops have gone to pass DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and can well imagine their outrage at the were plural marriage to be written into the law of the land. A ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic orthodox fringe could pave the way for greater freedom for other extremist religious groups, and most Americans, atheists and believers alike, fear that.

Many of those who staff such agencies as Catholic Charities are not Catholic. Many are Catholics who believe -- as part of their Catholic, Christian faith -- that comprehensive national health care for the poor is a moral imperative. How does their religious freedom figure in? 

Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer,
deprived of the essential contribution in education, health
care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services
that religious Americans make every day.

Some Catholics believe that giving birth to more children than one can properly nurture, nourish and educate is sinful. Do their consciences, and their religious freedom not figure in?

The HHS plan does not force any Catholic to have an abortion or to take birth control pills; however, if it prevails, the USCCB would force the 80% of Roman Catholics and members of other faiths (and no religious faith) to act in accordance with the Vatican's views on contraception (and not their own). Does their religious freedom not count?

We all pay for services that violate our religious freedom. Roman Catholics who hold the "deeply" the belief that capital punishment and nuclear proliferation are grave sins have long paid for capital punishment and nuclear weapons. The tax dollars of atheists have long contributed, indirectly, to tax-exempt churches. The tax dollars of women have long supported tax-exempt churches that discriminate against girls and women. The tax dollars of LGBT people have long supported churches that spend fortunes to fight to oppose legal same-sex (civil!) marriage. 

What we ask is nothing more than the right to follow our
consciences as we live out our teaching. This right is not
only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray
the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our
contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can
we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without
having to compromise that very same faith?

Not exactly.

The mandate doesn't force bishops to abandon their consciences. The bishops are free to close down their operations and walk off in the direction their consciences dictate. This would be difficult, but it is an alternative.

The bishops are indeed asking for more "than the right to follow" their "consciences." They are asking the secular state to be bound by an orthodox Roman Catholic stance on birth control.

In Comment on the Documents of Vatican II published in 1969, Joesph Ratzinger,commenting on the 1965 Pastoral Constitution Gaudiem et spes, wrote the following:

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority...

.

What about the consciences and religious freedom of Catholics who have observed through their work with the poor that women who have access to sound medical care (which would include contraception) are less likely to have abortions? What about the consciences and religious freedom of Catholics who have observed that family planning often protects children from poverty and abuse? What about the religious freedom of Catholics who work with the poor and routinely see children without health insurance forced to manage without the medications they need? What about the religious freedom of those Roman Catholics?

When the Supreme Court justices consider the position of the Catholic bishops in the context of ObamaCare, they will do so knowing that only a small segment of the church opposes the use and distribution of contraception.

Meanwhile, the other 80% are unlikely to answer the bishops' Corpus Christi Day call to action, because spruced up though it may be by Martin Luther King's Jr.'s inspired and eloquent syllables, the 80% aren't buying it.

The 80% know that while the missive sounds good, its authors don't practice what they preach: 

"I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

Isn't it silly for those who traffic in it to shout "discrimination"? How can the bishops insist that conscience have primacy outside the church when within the church, in counts (with them) for nearly nothing? As long as the Roman Catholic hierarchy promulgates laws that degrade human personality on a regular basis, pitches like "Why Conscience is Important" will continue to come off as duplicitous fronting. Meanwhile Catholics of conscience will go on heeding the Holy Spirit within, paying the USCCB no mind, because they 

... know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet



Text of "Why Conscience is Important":


Pope Benedict XVI spoke earlier this year about his worry that religious liberty in the United States is being weakened. He called religious liberty the “most cherished of American freedoms.” However, unfortunately, our most cherished freedom is under threat. Consider the following:  HHS mandateforcontraception, sterilization,and abortion-
inducing drugs. The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services forces religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching. Further, the federal government tries to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty.

 Catholicfostercareandadoptionservices.Boston,San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the State of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services— by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.

    State immigration laws. Several states have recently passed laws that forbid what they deem as “harboring” of undocumented immigrants—and what the Church deems Christian charity and pastoral care to these immigrants.

    Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City adopted a policy that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services, even though non- religious groups could rent the same schools for many other uses.
Summer 2012

    Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. After years of excellent performance by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contractspecificationstorequireMRStoprovideor refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching.

    Christian students on campus. In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaderstobeChristianandtoabstainfromsexual activity outside of marriage.

    Forcing religious groups to host same-sex “marriage” or civil union ceremonies. A New Jersey judge recently found that a Methodist ministry violated state law when the ministry declined to allow two women to hold a “civil union” ceremony on its private property. Further, a civil rights complaint has been filed against the Catholic Church in Hawaii by a person requesting to use a chapel to hold a same-sex “marriage” ceremony.

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat? Yes, Pope Benedict XVI has recognized that various attempts to limit the freedom of religion in the U.S. are a serious concern. This threat to religious freedom is larger than any single case or issue and has its roots in secularism in our culture. The Holy Father has asked for the laity to have courage to counter secularism that would “delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.”

What can you do to ensure the protection of religious freedom?
The U.S. Bishops have called for a Fortnight for Freedom from June 21 to July 4. Please visit www.fortnight4freedom.org for more information on this important time of prayer, education, and action in support of religious liberty!




The document:

The Child Victims Act: Justice for Victims of Child Abuse Requires More Time

Updated 6/12/12

Read this essay on Huffington Post. 

Just Buy "Just Love"

I was cyber-stalked last week, by an orthodox Catholic extremist. It was a little unsettling to read about 25 angry mini-screeds (most written within a 72 hour interval! ) some pubic, others private, each bit of neurotic vitriol articulated in God's name -- but it was good for business! The cyber-stalker fixated especially on the possibility that he might prove that I am not Catholic. The whole episode was desperate, tedious and sad, but what interested me most about this man's quest was his Eureka moment came when he found what he saw as incontrovertible proof that I was not Roman Catholic: an R-rated poem published in an excellent online poetry publication: The Nervous Breakdown.

My Roman Catholic faith and worship are important to me. There are two crosses and a Blessed Mother on display in the room where I work on my novel, books of poetry and essays about education, politics and religion. There's a 9 x 11 framed copy of my "Masters Thesis Approval" form hanging above my desk, too. The man who sponsored this thesis, Allen Ginsberg, went to court to defend his book of verse -- which I also hold sacred -- against fools who deemed it obscene. I learned, as a girl, from reading Howl and other great works of literature, that using "dirty words" in a poem no a sin.

The word "angel" means messenger; sometimes angels use "dirty words," and thus render them clean.

It is telling, but not surprising that it was the sexy, "dirty word" poem which seemed to sent the cyber-stalker into a tizzy.

We're seeing this same kind of perversion play out on a much larger scale, with a far smarter writer than I in the eye of storm and center of the the pontifical dartboard. Sister/Dr. Margaret Farley, in her not-exactly-hot-off-the presses-but-just-in-time-to-bump-the-United States-top-bishop-off-the-front-pages book Just Love has, according to Ratzinger, done the unforgivable. She's challenging the way the Vatican looks at sex. Not abortion, not contraception -- sex. Farley is, in a sense, using "dirty words."

I don't think the bishops especially mind good sex. Indeed plenty of them have good sex or enjoyed it in their youth, but Ratzinger et al are afraid of women who like sex and of women who think liking sex could possibly be a good thing. They are afraid that potty-mouth female angel-messengers will reverse the Magisterium's anti-sex message.

If Catholic women like sex too much, the reasoning goes, the whole Holy Roman Catholic Empire will buckle. (In my three-part essay "Sex and the City of God" I float some "voice from the pews" theories on why the Vatican persists with its medieval views on sex.) The advance of feminism within the past fifty years has left both those Catholics who long to restore the church of five centuries ago, and the current pontificate, which views feminism as a threat to global evangelization, feeling jittery. The Vatican and orthodox fringe Catholic both want global Catholic expansion. The expansion they envision it is only possible if Catholic women comply sexually.

There are two reasons that the Vatican is jumping on Farley's book right now: 1) The "Gunning for the Nuns" initiative has been very successful at pushing stories about priests who rape boys' and the bishops who (allegedly) serve as their accomplices after the fact off the front pages. 2) The other reason is that the Vatican wants women to like sex only enough to ensure a maximum number of new Catholic baptisms per annum.

Indoctrinating female Roman Catholics with the notion that sex is inherently sinful helps this plan along, but Catholic girls and women pay a price when they are taught to view their sexuality as a an essentially sinful aspect of their physical selves designed to be alternatively suppressed except when employed in the service of procreation within sacramental marriage. (I note that current Vatican teaching makes an allowance for non procreative love in the context of what it calls the "unitive love" between spouses in a sacramental marriage. Many in the anti-Vatican II. traditionalist fringe do not like the exemption for "unitive" love. Many of them believe any sex that lacks the potential to bear fruit is sinful.)

I believe a more honest, expansive, and (most of all) adult approach to understanding sexuality in the context of Roman Catholicism would go a long way toward creating more safety for children and a less defective priesthood. But today's Vatican will never permit that because it would blow the lid off the Pandora's Box, so to speak, of women's desire for knowledge, power and justice.

Just as the rule of celibacy for priests arose for economic reasons, so does the need to keep women "fruitful" exist for economic reasons. Desire is complex. It extends outward to include longing for knowledge and political power. That's where the gynephobia of the hierarchy comes in.

Women who command control over their own sexuality are more likely to mother more consciously and conscientiously. They are more likely to bring no more children into the world than they can truly afford to nurture, educate and feed. Women with fewer children tend to be better educated and have lives outside the home. It is easy to see why conservative Catholics fear this, because they are banking on Roman Catholic women to whelp those armies for Christ who will haul the church of the past into the future.

But Roman Catholic women who have fewer children are more likely to produce thoughtful, discerning Roman Catholics who live active, conscious lives in Christ and do the kind of work which drew the first Christians to follow Him. This would be very good for the church.

A woman who goes to a clinic to get birth control pills has her blood pressure taken, her breasts palpated, her weight checked, and a cervical cancer screening. A physician listens to her heart. Nuns who are open to "ObamaCare" are focused on health care outside of contraception, not free love. Many nuns recognize that in industrialized nations in which contraception and sex education are widely available, women are less likely to have abortions. The nuns who are currently under fire, including author theologian and nun Sister/Dr. Farley, are not libertines. They aren't militating for the right of Catholic nyphomaniacs to run around town in fishnet stockings and hooker pumps trolling for sex. They are concerned with the hunger and poverty that results when medieval-style religious practice requires its women to breed like rabbits.
Even their worst enemies (That would be the Vatican, I suppose.) recognize that nuns like Sister/Dr. Margaret Farley aren't interested in the least in promoting perversion.

There is, however, something truly perverse about watching a Vatican credibly accused of being soft on child rape persecuting a Catholic theologian for the transgression of discussing sex.

It can't be denied that the decidedly erotic nature of our Roman Catholic faith demands that Catholics pay attention to the topic of sexuality. Obviously, Ratzinger knows that theological investigation of human sexuality is part and parcel of Roman Catholic inquiry; he has written much about human sexuality himself.

When Roman Catholic writers, artists and thinkers refuse to push erotic and sexual content away, it is a blessing.

We have a cardinal in the news who has pretty much admitted he paid priests who sexually violated minors to disappear. In other words, he knew priests were raping children, declined to report them, and sent them off with pocket money, little to lose, and no guarantees that these men would not rape again. Can an authority that refuses to condemn such transgressions against children possibly be seen as having the slightest credibility at all when commenting on any book about faith and sex?

I watched Steve McQueen's film Shame on Easter Monday about two months ago. Those on the hunt for anti-Catholic elements will not find them in Shame, but the film struck me as quite Catholic -- which might explain why my friend, a Roman Catholic priest, exhorted me to see it. In Shame, the body promiscuous becomes the vessel of suffering. This could never have been achieved without graphic depictions of attractive people having ugly, empty, mechanical sex while utterly failing at both love and lovemaking. This argument, which the Magisterium would favor, was made by means of by imagery it would surely deem obscene.

Can church leadership that has so long dwelled in the mire of perversion and obscenity be trusted to offer any wisdom at all on human sexuality? No.

Sidebar: As it turns out, it appears my "condemn-a-Luciferian-liberal-to-Hell-for-Christ" cyber-stalker helped sell a couple of copies of my own 2009 book.

Ratzinger will sell tens of thousands of copies of Just Love. It's nice to see the pope doing something right.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet