Wednesday, March 21, 2012
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In a previous blog article I said I wasn't a Constitutional law expert so I wouldn't enter the debate. After reading the Amendment, case law, secular and church history, and reflecting upon all, I decided to offer some more reflections about "religious liberty."
The First Amendment was written by people who came from European countries where secular and religious governments were intertwined if not synonymous for centuries. In Europe, the Holy Roman Empire was crumbling as people rejected church/state entanglement. The Catholic Church was losing secular control but not without a fight. For example, many Calvinists came to America fleeing religious persecution such as the Huguenots whom the 1700s Roman Catholic Church in France persecuted for their religious beliefs. The Church of England had broken from the Holy Roman Empire and was imposing its own form of control on other minority denominations as well as persecuting Roman Catholics so as to keep the Roman Catholic Church from regaining secular power in England.
As denominations broke free from state religions such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Church of England, they endured persecutions or even death. But the conscience of people prevailed despite persecution. Thus, by the late 1700s, Europe had a patchwork of different Christian denominations where for centuries it primarily had the Roman Catholic Church.
In the American colonies, Catholics were a minority and experienced widespread religious persecutions. This is likely attributable to colonists, with recent memories of persecutions and control suffered at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, trying to prevent the recurrence of a power structure which allowed those atrocities. Sadly, it is common for a persecuted people, once freed, to impose persecutions upon their former persecutors. It’s not any more right, but history shows it is a common reaction.
Nonetheless, the 1787 American Constitutional Convention reflected Europe’s religious patchwork but carried a predominance of delegates that were not Roman Catholic, a reflection of the colonies’ population demographics but an inversion of Europe’s demographics. The 55 delegates had these religious affiliations: 49 Protestants (28 Anglican, 8 Presbyterian, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutheran, 2 Dutch Reform, and 2 Methodist), 3 Roman Catholics, and 3 other. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were anti-clerical and/or deists – not really subscribing to any denomination.
The Framers of the Constitution seemed to want to protect religious organizations from imposing their morals upon others. They saw the ill effects of religious institutions that carried secular power. In their minds, things like the Roman Catholic Church’s Canon Law should not impact those who did not wish to be subject to it.
We fast forward to today where the Catholic bishops are twisting the First Amendment in an attempt to regain and expand religious institutions’ secular powers. In bishops’ interpretation of the First Amendment, the “free exercise” of religion includes granting religious institutions control over individuals in as broad of domain as the religious institutional leaders define. And, boundaries of what falls within the church’s domain of control expand back towards those exercised in the Holy Roman Empire days. The bishops believe that an individual’s “free exercise” of religion includes insisting individuals – even those of different faiths – relinquish control of their lives and bodies to the bishops if the bishops feel they are within their span of control – and more and more people seem to fall within what the bishops believe is their span of control.
Furthermore, if the bishops believe something is within the Roman Catholic Church’s domain of control, then they believe Roman Catholic Canon Law should supersede U.S. laws. Thus, they seem to be using the First Amendment to justify religious institutions’ governing bodies as legitimate alternative governments to U.S. secular governments. These religious governing bodies operate within the United States independent of and immune to secular laws while at the same time being protected by those same secular laws that grant them such sweeping powers. Isn’t this a form of moral relativism?
Are the bishops indirectly trying to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire on U.S. soil? Should Canon Law be imposed upon people who are not Catholic? Does the bishops’ interpretation of the First Amendment constitute respecting the establishment of a religion, a violation of that very amendment?
Most prominent in the public dialogue is the bishops’ battle over insurance coverage for birth control. They claim that providing such healthcare coverage would prohibit them from freely exercising their religion. The church teaches that the use of artificial contraception is immoral. And the bishops extend this one step farther that by being forced to provide contraceptive coverage, they are required to do something immoral because they are aiding an immoral act. As an aside, the bishops don’t mind funding other immoral acts such as paying alcoholic priests’ salaries which enables them to buy alcohol, drink it, and exhibit destructive behavior.
Regardless, the contraceptive coverage rule has been changed. Alternative funding sources will be used, so the bishops wouldn’t be paying for the coverage. But, the bishops do not relent. Instead they expand their boundaries of “religion”. Now they don’t want anyone paying for contraception for their employees or students who attend their universities. The religious freedom they want protected is for them to have mullah-esque control over the social practices of their employees and students.
This expands their religious control in a way that greatly dehumanizes individual employees and students. The individuals’ religious conscience takes a back seat to the bishops’ belief in institutional religious control. Their argument really seems to be about which governing body gets to control people. Should the bishops be allowed to impose their dogmatic beliefs on others, or should the U.S. government be able to impose its belief of how best to abide by the U.S. Constitution’s mandate to “promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty” for its citizens in a modern society?
The contraceptive coverage debate is not the only topic that the bishops are using the First Amendment to expand their control of Catholics’ and non-Catholics’ lives. They are trying to use the First Amendment to make themselves and their priests immune from prosecution in criminal and civil proceeding for things like sexual molestation of children. Their logic is that priests are religious employees subject to their bishops and Canon Law (the Roman Catholic governing model). Thus, the Roman Catholic governing model should be allowed to handle sexual molesters as a religious matter rather than involving any secular governments, laws or courts. This is another example of building a religious governing sub-culture within U.S. culture.
Sadly, in country after country, the bishops are exposed as dealing with priests who sexually molest children in a way that protects the priests, bishops, and church institutions more than protects the children. I know of few people who believe it’s a good idea to let the bishops handle sexual molesters independent of secular law.
Also, Canon Law does not offer liberties to individuals. The church has no Bill of Rights for its members. So, in the bishops “religious liberty” campaign, aren’t they trying to use a secular laws’ religious freedom guarantee to force people to give more credence to their Canon Laws, which will in turn strip people of their rights? Should religious laws be allowed to supersede secular laws? And, if so, doesn’t that constitute the government establishing a religion? Regardless, Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. So, why do religious leaders wish to dabble in secular power structures?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Ash Wednesday’s gospel reading (MT 6:1-6, 16-18) begins with Jesus saying to his disciples, “Take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father’” (MT 6:1). And it ends with, "When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. ..But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden (MT 6:16-18).”
Then, almost immediately after hearing on Ash Wednesday that we should fast clean-faced, in a discrete, upbeat manner, we walk in procession accompanied by gloomy music, to dirty our faces with ashes, indicating that we are fasting. Is this a procession of hypocrisy?
For some people, their dirty, ash-bearing faces are a source of religious pride. Some carry so much pride in their ashes that they disparage people who wash the ashes off their faces, for not carrying enough pride in their religion. This all strikes me as ironic too. I wonder what Jesus thinks of the faithful receiving ashes, especially those who proudly display them as a testament to their Lenten observance, or who belittle others who discretely wash their faces afterwards. Does he see hypocrisy in any of this?
I also wonder why the reading skips past MT 6:7-15. I especially wondered that this year because this is the first Ash Wednesday in which English speaking parishes were forced to use the verbose new Mass translation. In the omitted text lies MT 6:7-8 where Jesus states, “In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” It seems Jesus calls us to offer understated prayers with few words. But, in contrast, the books priests use during Mass are now unwieldy from accommodating all the extra words from the new translation. Does Jesus think the new Mass translation is akin to us babbling like pagans?
In Mt 6:9-13 which is also omitted from this reading, Jesus delivers the Lord’s Prayer. During most Masses since the hubbub over the new translation I find myself pondering why the hierarchy is unconcerned that the Lord’s Prayer text used at Mass differs from the translation found in scripture, and differs significantly from the original Aramaic. Since the Lord’s Prayer is a direct instruction from Jesus who is God, shouldn’t we worry more about correctly translating that than about correctly translating prayers composed by humans?
As an aside, the end of this blog article has a table comparing translations.
But, especially during the current U.S. political climate in which the bishops rail against secular leaders, and also during this sustained period of punitive church hierarchical practices, I find myself reflecting on the omitted passage in MT 6:14-15 too. “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” Since the pope has censured over 90 theologians in an unforgiving manner, I wonder how much forgiveness awaits him or other hierarchical leaders who mimic him by dismissing in an unforgiving manner faithful servants with whom they disagree.
The Lord’s Prayer
Mass version (English translation)
Scripture version (English translation)
English Translation of the Aramaic
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.
Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.
Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna
daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
Wela tachlân l'nesjuna
ela patzân min bischa.
Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
You, from whom the breath of life comes,
Who fill all realms of sound, light and vibration
May your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Let Your will come true - in all that vibrates (the universe) just as in all that is material and dense (earth).
Give us understanding, assistance for our daily need,
detach the fetters of faults that bind us, like we let go the guilt of others.
Let us not be lost in superficial things, materialism, common temptations,
but let us be freed from that which keeps us off our true purpose.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act, the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.