Fortnight for Freedom

ST. LOUIS, MO, June 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- If the US Supreme Court decides to redefine marriage in the next couple weeks it will not stop the nation’s bishops from proclaiming the truth, says the archbishop serving as point man on the issue.

“Regardless of what happens at the end of this month, nothing the court says can change what marriage truly is and we will continue to promote and defend it,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman for the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

The archbishop quoted Russian novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to illustrate the point for his fellow bishops at their Spring Assembly earlier this month in St. Louis.

“Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me,” said Archbishop Cordileone. “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.”

“We may have to suffer this lie about marriage in the law,” he continued, “but we must not participate in it or keep silent about it.”

He suggested to his fellow bishops that the faithful can offer up small hardships in this regard for the Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere who are being killed and exiled for the faith.

“Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.”

The archbishop knows something about taking heat for the Catholic faith, with the attacks on him over the last several months for working to strengthen the Church’s identity in San Francisco Catholic high schools. His fellow bishops applauded him fervently at the end of his presentation after USCCB President Louisville Archbishop Joseph Kurtz thanked him for his courageous leadership for the Church.

Marriage has been effectively redefined in 37 states and the District of Columbia as consequence of judicial action, Cordileone told the bishops, and a “yes” answer to either question before the high court – whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” and whether states have to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states - will have the practical effect of redefining marriage nationwide.

Archbishop Cordileone warned of more persecution coming for those who believe in God’s plan for natural marriage should the Supreme Court decide to redefine marriage in the law.

“Those who continue to advocate for the true definition of marriage will be increasingly marginalized in law and society,” he said, “and depending on the rationale, could be erroneously viewed as proponents of discrimination and will themselves be targeted for discrimination.”

His department had already been providing material for the bishops and dioceses to educate on the issue, and also filed an amicus brief in the cases before the Supreme Court. More resources will be available on the implications of the court ruling once it is handed down.

“In this atmosphere we continue our efforts to protect the freedom of those who believe and act on the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

Various recent legislative efforts were supported by the US bishops in defense of marriage, including reintroduction in both Houses of Congress of the State Marriage Defense Act and the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, the latter which protects adoption and foster care providers against discrimination by the federal and state governments for placing children in homes with a mother and father.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act will be introduced again soon in the House and the Senate, he said, especially important with it providing protection in the areas of federal employment, contracts, grants, and tax-exempt status.

“The act is particularly relevant,” Archbishop Cordileone stated, “given that when the Solicitor General of the United States was recently asked by a justice of the Supreme Court at oral argument in the marriage cases whether a religious school could lose its tax exempt status for opposing same-sex ‘marriage,’ the Solicitor General did not take the opportunity to deny it, and thereby quell fear about it, but instead said that, ‘It’s certainly going to be an issue.’”

More is expected as well in terms of federal classification of sexual orientation or gender identity. “These categories have come to acquire meanings in law that both reflect an incorrect understand of the human person and protect immoral behavior,” said Archbishop Cordileone, calling out the Obama administration for promoting them.

“Regarding the federal executive branch,” he said, “we have continued to witness efforts to advance what Pope Francis has referred to critically as ‘gender theory’ or ‘gender ideology.’”

The recent OSHA-released dictates compelling employers to allow self-identified transgendered individuals to use the bathroom according to their “gender identity” and not their biological sex, were a perfect example of the Holy Father’s insight on the subject.

“There is the mistake of the human mind – gender theory – creating so much confusion,” the archbishop said, quoting Pope Francis, “and it seeks to cancel out sexual difference.”

“The importance of responding to this challenge with truth and compassion remains paramount,” he said, and shared that the Holy Father has been offering excellent catechesis on marriage in his series on the family during his Wednesday general audiences.

“An essential part of our teaching is and has to be that the difference between man and woman in a positive difference,” said the archbishop. “It’s the difference that makes new life possible, rather than a negative one to be ignored or actively opposed.”

He, along with a few other bishops had signed the Defense of Marriage and the Right of Religious declaration in April along with more than 30 other faith leaders, showing that the Catholic Church is not alone in its witness to marriage.

Taken from:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-us-may-suffer-the-lie-of-gay-marriage-but-we-wont-take-part-in-i

God Bless
Nathan

Fortnight 4 Freedom

The U.S. Bishops have called for a Fortnight for Freedom from June 21 to July 4, 2014. Please visit www.fortnight4freedom.org for more information on this important time of prayer, education, and action in support of religious freedom!

 

What do we mean by religious liberty?

 

In Catholic teaching, the Second Vatican Council explained in Dignitatis Humanae that the foundation of the principle of religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person, who is endowed with reason and free will, and therefore able to take responsibility for his or her actions. Religious liberty is protected in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in federal and state laws. Religious liberty includes more than our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home; it also encompasses our ability to contribute freely to the common good of all Americans.

"We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to our common life together. "

Religious Liberty Is More Than Freedom of Worship

 

Religious liberty 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? 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, both here at home and overseas.

 

What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.

 

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement about the administration's contraception and sterilization mandate that captured exactly the danger that we face:

Most troubling, is the Administration's underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its "religious" character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration's ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization's religious principles. This is deeply disappointing.

This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.

 

 

"All the Energies the Catholic Community Can Muster"

 

What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right, be respected.

 

In insisting that our liberties as Americans be respected, we know as bishops that what our Holy Father said is true. This work belongs to "an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture."

As bishops we seek to bring the light of the Gospel to our public life, but the work of politics is properly that of committed and courageous lay Catholics. We exhort them to be both engaged and articulate in insisting that as Catholics and as Americans we do not have to choose between the two. There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with Christians, Jews, and others, to impress upon our elected representatives the importance of continued protection of religious liberty in a free society.

 

We address a particular word to those holding public office. It is your noble task to govern for the common good. It does not serve the common good to treat the good works of religious believers as a threat to our common life; to the contrary, they are essential to its proper functioning. It is also your task to protect and defend those fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This ought not to be a partisan issue. The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected representatives to ensure that it remains so.

 

Text taken from, and for more information, please go to:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/

 

God Bless
Nathan

Religious Liberty

Current Threats to Religious Liberty

An Overview of Specific Examples

Pope Benedict XVI spoke in 2012 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 mandate for contraception, 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.
• Catholic foster care and adoption services. 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. Litigation in this case continues.
• 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 contract specifications to require MRS to provide or 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 leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual 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 recognized in 2012 that various attempts to limit the freedom of religion in the U.S. are particularly concerning. The 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.”

Copy/pasted from:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/current-threats-to-religious-liberty.cfm

For more info, please go to: www.fortnight4freedom.org

 

God Bless
Nathan

Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty has been on our minds a lot lately. The HHS mandate, same-sex marriage initiatives, and recently, the Duck Dynasty controversy with television network A&E, have put the issue squarely before us. In late December, CNA published an article about Camille Paglia, a 1960’s generation “feminist lesbian professor” who is reported to have “harshly criticized” A&E’s decision to suspend Phil Robertson because it violates the right of free speech.

What has occasioned this brief note on religious liberty is Paglia’s denunciation that some gay activists in this country have fallen into “fanaticism.” She also states, “that this intolerance … toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility.” Her reason for these indictments is striking: “in a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality [emphasis mine].” In other words, a democracy should tolerate every moral conviction, even if it is wrong, as she evidently condemns homophobia to be. Such a claim goes well beyond the issue of free speech, touching more upon the rights of religiously informed moral beliefs within the public square, which is actually a question of religious liberty.

One may ask, however, why CNA reported on Paglia’s public outcry in the first place? Was it to demonstrate that even a self-acclaimed libertarian-styled feminist stands with us in protecting our right to believe as we do? It’s hard to say. What seems clear is that the CNA article could lead unwitting Catholics to conclude that the basis upon which the Church defends religious liberty (or freedom of speech for that matter) is the moral equivalency, within a democratic order, of every conviction. In today’s American context of “tolerance in the name of moral relativism,” it is easy to mistake the Catholic understanding of the right to religious liberty (i.e. freedom of conscience and speech in matters of faith) for Paglia’s position. This is a confusion many Catholics have today—as is evident by the widespread sympathy among self-described Catholics for the cause of same-sex marriage and the HHS mandate.

This confusion is easy to understand given the cultural climate in which we live. This is why a clarification is in order. Let’s begin with the HHS mandate. Against this the Church is defending her right on the grounds that the state has no authority to force anyone—individually or institutionally—to act against religious conviction (conscience) by cooperating in the morally illicit acts of sterilization, contraception, and abortion. With same sex-marriage, the Church does not recognize the authority of government to change the definition of marriage, even within a democracy. The Church has no official stance on the Duck Dynasty/A&E controversy, but presumably the Church would support Phil Robertson’s right to voice publicly the truth of Christian ethics, his awkward and crass articulation of this truth not withstanding. In all three situations, the right of religious liberty proceeds from the prior obligation to live according to the truth about the human good.

There are two principles that situate the Church’s understanding of religious liberty. The first and most important is that all people, as God’s creatures, are “bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it” (Dignitatis humanae, 1.2). This prior obligation originates in humanity’s nature as a truth seeker and in God who is the author of that nature. This is what grounds the subsequent right of conscience. Conscience cannot be violated because the human person is obligated to live according to the truth. This first principle grounds the Church’s stance toward same-sex marriage and the freedom of speech.

The second principle, which follows from the first, is that the dignity of the human person, as such, requires that, “[n]obody … be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters … within due limits. This right is based in the very nature of the human person” (Dignitatis humanae, 2.2). Due limits—what justice requires—pertains to those situations wherein we simply cannot be tolerant of what is being defended (in the name of conscience) because the matter in question is too harmful to society. The condition of due limits presupposes that conscience is in conformity with the basic requirements of natural law. This principle grounds the Church’s position toward the HHS mandate.

But here’s the problem with the language of religious liberty in our cultural context: if defended on the basis of moral relativism, it is easy to conclude that individual predilection becomes the rule and measure of law. This is what Benedict XVI meant when he spoke about the “dictatorship of relativism.” To return to Paglia’s approach, we ought to advocate tolerance for “homophobes” on the grounds that we are all entitled to our own moral perspective, and thus all ought to be treated equally before the law, even if a given stance is felt to be wrong by other parties. Would Paglia support the Neo-Nazis’ right to publicly express their views? I’m doubtful. Libertarians of her ilk tend to defend consensual forms of behavior more than those inclined toward violence, which in the end only shows that relativism is ultimately a weak foundation for defending any form of human liberty.

We should be careful in the present public discourse around religious liberty. If we employ relativism to defend this right, we can be assured that this same rationale will come back to bite us. The Catholic position on religious liberty is not based on the principle of “neutrality” or indifference toward every point of view. The HHS mandate, same-sex marriage, and the Duck Dynasty controversy are all quite different issues, but the Catholic stance on them proceeds from the same principled obligation to truth. In the case of the HHS mandate, the state cannot command us to violate the divine law. In the case of same-sex marriage, the state cannot redefine the meaning of marriage. In the Duck Dynasty controversy, people have the right to give public expression to moral truth.

All this might lead one to wonder, does the Catholic Church believe in tolerance? The answer is yes, but not on the grounds of moral relativism. Tolerance is rooted in the prudence to know which socially significant evils can co-exist with civility and the common good (due limits), and which cannot, lest they profoundly undermine the commonwealth. We tolerate evil as evil, not as “just one perspective among many.” We also recognize that some evils cannot be tolerated.

 

Taken from:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-philosophical-basis-for-religious-liberty

God Bless
Nathan

Freedom of Conscience

Two recent court cases illustrate the incoherence and remarkable intolerance of “liberal” views regarding conscience.

One involves the bottomless pockets of the atheist Michael Newdow, who most recently joined several plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department demanding the words “In God We Trust” be scrubbed from U.S. currency. Newdow advocates what Richard John Neuhaus called the “naked public square,” a public life stripped of all references to God or to the duties we owe to Him. The “Constitution” is invoked, that document granting jurists ultimate authority over the local customs of citizens a thousand miles away. The courts have been as wary of religion approaching the minds of impressionable children as an epidemiologist is wary of meningitis. A child in a public school must never have to endure even the vicinity of any common, publicly acknowledged prayer, lest it wound him in his feelings, and lest it undermine a parent’s conscientious objection to giving homage to the Guarantor of conscience.

That supersensitive concern must puzzle a young Christian couple in New Mexico, the Hugenins. They run a small photography business, and they were sued, not for doing anything, but for begging to decline from doing something. They cannot in good conscience take pictures for a celebration of sodomitical relations. They are not saying, like Melville’s Bartleby, that they should prefer not to. They are saying that they must not. They have no choice in the matter—unless they wish to betray all that they hold most dearly. And, with stunning insouciance and callousness, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that such betrayal is the price you must pay to live in a civil society.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s like saying that one must cease to be fully human in order to attain to the human flourishing which civil society is for. That is a contradiction in terms. That the court does not see it as such suggests that it has not considered the nature of religious faith, the claims that the worship of God makes, and the centrality of conscience to the human person.

Think of the violence the state wishes to wreak upon that young couple. Their involvement in the celebration would not be incidental. Unlike people attending a graduation ceremony, they would not be merely present while others did something ordinary, something that even the atheist would not call indecent. If you’re going to take successful photos of the groom and groom, you have to enter into the spirit of the occasion. You have to ask them to kiss one another. You have to photograph their embraces. You have to be a participant.

Alter the terms of the situation. Suppose the Hugenins were asked to shoot photographs at a party thrown to celebrate a friend’s divorce. Would they be required by law to participate in that? Suppose it was a celebration of a porn magazine’s jubilee. Must they assist in that, if the editor comes a-calling? Why should they be compelled to stifle their consciences and be less than human, just to run a business? Aren’t business and politics meant to serve the flourishing of human persons, and not the other way around? Why should running a business expose you to what Jefferson called tyranny upon the mind of man?

Conscience-forcers will argue that the Hugenins are like a racist restaurateur who turns away a black customer. I wonder whether Americans have lost the capacity for rational thought, so feeble are their powers of analogy. First, the restaurateur is in the position of Bartleby, not in the position of Daniel, who refused to do homage to the statue of the emperor. He would prefer not to serve the black customer; but his objections are not moral. It is not his conscience speaking, but his self-will. He does not say that it is wrong for a person to eat. If he believed that, he’d not have gone into the business in the first place. He’d be six feet underground. He simply does not want to serve the man his dinner. But that won’t do, not for someone whose business is to serve the bodily needs we all share in common. It is wrong not to feed the hungry, and people do not digest food through the skin! But the Hugenins most certainly believe that two men or two women celebrating a mimic-marriage are engaging in behavior that is gravely wrong. It’s the behavior and not the persons that they cannot in conscience serve. If one of them were to ask them to photograph her brother’s graduation, there would be no problem.

Second, the restaurateur is not being asked to cooperate in a deed. What the man at the lunch counter does when he leaves the diner is not his business. A bad man may show up at your stationery shop to buy paper. What he does with that paper is not your business. But it’s another matter entirely if the chef or the stationer is asked to take action to support something he believes to be evil. Suppose a Kleagle from the Ku Klux Klan shows up at your bakery and wishes to order a cake with a flagrantly racist decoration—are you required to make that cake? Why? Keep the law out of it for the moment. Consider only the demands of conscience. What would we call the chef who gives in, who knows that what the Kleagle is ordering is wrong, and whose conscience tells him that to comply is evil? We call him a coward, that’s what.

The real question is not whether the Hugenins have a duty to obey their consciences, but why any lover not merely of freedom but of humanity would want to compel them to disobey. Here it’s not just that a Hugh Hefner claims a supposed right to produce pornography. He is claiming the right to make you look at it, to be a part of it, knowing full well that you believe it is evil. He wants you to be either a coward or a hypocrite. What is going on? What kinds of people want to leave the souls of their fellow human beings a twisted mess, by forcing them to violate their consciences? Who would want to make Quakers shoot to kill, not because they need the Quakers to do that, but just because they revile their pacifism and want to rub it out?

One way to blunt your own consciousness of wrongdoing is to bully as many people as possible into it, to compromise them, to wear down their defenses, to entice them if possible, to badger or threaten them if necessary. The homosexuals in question cannot tolerate dissent. If even one person is allowed to decline to manifest a tacit approval of sodomy, that is a punishable offense. You must be suborned or silenced. A child may not be made to endure the proximity of prayer, but he may be required, in some of our schools, to say “I am gay,” or to imagine it, regardless of his conscience or his parents’ moral directives; and if he doesn’t, he will be castigated for his intolerance.

What we see here is the imposition of a religion—the religion of the sexual revolution, as bizarre and incoherent and dehumanizing as it proves to be. The state has become the church, and hearkens to no commandments but those of its own devising.

Article from Crisis Magazine located at:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/conscience-freedoms-denied-by-liberal-courts

God Bless
Nathan

White Martyrdom

You are now living in a country which is rapidly becoming secularized. Now we have a White House that begins to make distinctions between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of religion is a right. It’s guaranteed in the First Amendment. And yet, by euphemism and turn-of-phrase, the present administration talks about freedom of worship. The Red Chinese speak about freedom of worship; the old communists and the Soviet Union spoke about freedom of worship. There is a big difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship.

Freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by the Constitution, tells us that we have a place in the public square, that we have a right and an obligation in conscience, not given to us by a state, but given to us by Almighty God. That is our fundamental right, a right to go out and to speak the truth to power.

But instead, we hear now about a freedom of religion now called freedom of worship. What does that mean? It means you go to your little church, or synagogue, or mosque on Sunday, or Saturday, or Friday night, and you make your prayers over there quietly and don’t bother anybody. And we’ll all get along just fine in this godless, secular world that we are creating; a world in which there is no truth except the truth that man manufactures. And without a truth that comes from Almighty God, all of our rights are in jeopardy.

Will you have the courage to exercise your First Amendment right, freedom of religion? Or are you going to be satisfied with freedom of worship?—I’ll say my prayers quietly; I won’t bother anybody; I won’t disturb the society in which I live.

Right now our Church is being threatened. You don’t often think of it that way; this couldn’t happen in America. And so you hear about an administration that is forcing an HHS Mandate on us, telling us that we must provide in our Catholic institutions abortifacients, sterilizations. For us, that is a moral aberration. It is something that we cannot do. And why is it being pushed on us? Because if we do not obey, then our Catholic colleges, and our hospitals, and our Catholic outreach institutions will be fined and eventually closed down. That will remove the presence of the truth of the Church, remove the mission that Christ gave us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to give drink to the thirsty, to heal the sick. That will remove us from the public square.

This is no accident, my sons and daughters in Christ. This is well-planned. Don’t be fooled. Don’t be fooled.

You’ve heard, the Catholic Church has had one of the most successful adoption services in the country for years. And all of a sudden, in some states, and now in the District of Columbia, there’s a new human invention called same-sex “marriage.” And we are told that our adoption agencies have to supply babies for same-sex couples. This is abhorrent to Almighty God. And we cannot put children in jeopardy of losing their souls and their identity in homes that are now led by same-sex couples. And so our adoption agencies have had to close in those states because the states say that we are not practicing “equality.”

We have had one of the most successful operations to save women who are involved in sex trafficking, sex slavery. The federal government then tells us, “If you want to receive funding for your programs, you’re going to have to supply them [the women] with information for abortion, for birth control pills.” And when we refuse, they tell us, “We can’t help you anymore.” And once again, they try to remove us from the public square.

That’s the secularism that is now engulfing our country. That’s the secularism that you are going to be called to fight. Do you have the courage? Do you have the courage?

Let me tell you what will happen to you. As soon as you take a stand—if you take a stand, because some of you will not, some of you will—if you take a stand, you may not be hired by a firm; they find out that you’re pro-life. We’ve had someone in our class that has had that experience already. If you do become a part of a firm, if you are hired, you may never get promoted, you may never become a partner because you stood up for life or you spoke out against same-sex “marriage.” You may be fired from a position with a corporation because you’re telling them things that they don’t want to hear. You’re speaking about justice. And you’re speaking about the dignity of the human person before profit. And you just might not fit their profile. You may not get a raise. You may not have friends in the office. And some of you might decide you want to run for political office. Will you have the courage to say, “I’m pro-life.”? We have a congressman here now who’s had that courage and he’s been re-elected year after year. Do what’s right. Do what’s right.

But you will be tempted. You’ll be tempted to remain silent. You will be tempted to skirt around the issues. You will be tempted by fame. I want to be a famous lawyer. I want to be a judge. Power! I want to be a powerful person! I want money. But didn’t the devil tempt Jesus in exactly the same way? He’ll tempt you: “Change these stones into bread. Jump off the parapet! Kneel down and worship me!” You’ll be tempted. Like Jesus, though, you must have the courage to say, “Be gone, Satan! I will worship the Lord, my God, and Him alone!” That’s what we call “white martyrdom.”

But then there is “red martyrdom.” Red martyrdom means that you might be called to shed your blood for your faith. You say, “Oh Father, that couldn’t happen in America, could it? Now Oh Father Oh, is really going too far.” Let me tell you something:

Not even a hundred years ago, our closest neighbor to the south, Mexico, had a revolution. And godless secularists took over Mexico, a Catholic country. Churches were closed. Schools were closed. Priests, nuns couldn’t wear their habits in the street. Religion couldn’t be taught. But a movement began, the Cristeros movement, because you cannot suppress the truth; you cannot suppress the Word of God. One of the members of this movement was Father, now Blessed, Miguel Pro. (I gave you small cards with Blessed Miguel’s picture on those cards.) People were being rounded up because they didn’t obey the government. They taught religion. They worshiped. They prayed. And many of them were put before kangaroo courts —This is in Mexico, 1927! — and they were executed. Father Pro — he’s been one of my heroes for years — Father Pro knew that these people needed the ministrations of a priest before they died. And he came up with an ingenious plan. He got dressed up like a prison guard and snuck into prison numerous times. And he heard confessions and he gave the Eucharist before people met their fate at the firing squad. Eventually, Father Pro himself was captured, brought to prison, another kangaroo trial, and the next day, he was brought before a firing squad. Father Pro asked the guards a favor: could he pray before he died? Father Pro knelt down and prayed. Then he stretched out his arms, and he shouted the motto of the Cristeros movement, “Viva Cristo Rey! Viva Cristo Rey!” “Long live Christ the King!”

I gave you, attached to that card of Miguel Pro, a small crucifix. Put it in your pocket. And when the world challenges you, when the devil comes after you with all of his enticements, reach into your pocket, take out that crucifix, hold it in your hand, and recite those words, “Viva Cristo Rey! Viva Cristo Rey.” And remember what Jesus said your reward would be: The world will hate you; the world will persecute you; the world will speak every calumny against you; rejoice and be glad, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Good bye. Good luck. God love you all.

Rev. Michael Orsi is a chaplain and research fellow in law and religion at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida.

Watch the video of his homily at
http://www.catholicwitnesses.org/2013-baccalaureate-mass-homily/

God Bless
Nathan

Fortnight for Freedom

HHS Mandate Not the Only Threat to Religious Freedom

By Molly Loesel

While the Health and Human Services (HHS) contraception/sterilization/abortifacient mandate is often the focus of those concerned with current threats to religious freedom in the U.S., there have been several recent court cases involving the Catholic Church which also look to undermine our First Amendment rights.

Three female teachers – a computer teacher in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio, a first-grade teacher in the same Archdiocese and a physical education teacher from the Diocese of Fort Wayne – South Bend, Indiana – sued their respective dioceses after losing their jobs for publicly violating moral teachings of the Church. Two cases involved the Church’s moral objection to in vitro fertilization, and the first-grade teacher in Ohio was fired after becoming pregnant out of wedlock. Christa Dias, the former computer teacher in the Ohio case, is also an openly practicing lesbian. The Archdiocese of Cincinnati and the Diocese of Fort Wayne—South Bend both contend that the women violated employment contracts where they promised to abide by the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

At the beginning of June, a civil jury ruled against the Archdiocese of Cincinnati in the case of the lesbian woman who used IVF to become pregnant, and awarded her over $170,000 to be paid by the Archdiocese ($50,000 in back pay, $21,000 in compensatory damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages). The jury found the Archdiocese to be in violation of federal pregnancy anti-discrimination laws for terminating Dias after she became pregnant. The Archdiocese is considering an appeal. The other two lawsuits are still pending.

The Dias ruling is a serious blow to religious freedom in America. To put it in perspective: the court just fined the Catholic Church for firing a Catholic school employee who violated a promise to live in accordance with Catholic teaching.

In response to the many threats to religious freedom in the “Land of the Free,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is once again sponsoring a national Fortnight for Freedom from June 21 to July 4. This period of prayer, fasting and action is meant to unite the faithful in defending our religious freedom.

June 21 is the eve of the feast of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher, both of whom were martyred because of their refusal to support the King of England’s break with the Catholic Church. What better patrons could we have for our stand for religious freedom than these faithful men who died rather than act against their consciences?

Parishes, dioceses and lay organizations have planned a number of special events around the country in solidarity with the bishops on this effort. Human Life International is supporting the Fortnight by asking for pledges to pray the Rosary during the Fortnight and ask our Blessed Mother to intercede for the protection of religious freedom in the U.S. and around the world.

It is not only in the USA that Christians are being bullied. Indeed, Head of the Observatory on Religious Liberty Dr. Massimo Introvigne has argued that Christians are the most persecuted group in the world. At the annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), he cited laws in 15 European countries that threaten the religious liberty of Christians, and at last year’s meeting he mentioned 169 court rulings in Europe that were dangerous for the liberties of Christians. In concluding his report to the OSCE, Introvigne warned, “Where discrimination becomes normal, the transition to violence is never far away.” A look throughout history confirms the truth of his prediction.

One of the many reasons we are proud to be Americans is because we are blessed with many freedoms that other people throughout the world do not share. Unfortunately, we have learned over the years that these cherished freedoms are not safe from the nation’s lawmakers. If we are to retain these freedoms, we must be willing to stand up for them, starting now with our foundational right to freely practice our faith. This upcoming Fortnight for Freedom is a time to unite and stand up to lawmakers, judges and all those threatening our constitutional right to religious freedom. Let’s not waste the opportunity.

Copied from:
http://www.hliworldwatch.org/?p=2662

Freedom of Religion

Last week we learned that destroying a growing and living human being is truly against the Will of God.  Therefore all followers of God are obliged NOT to do those things.  Our Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Augustine when defining ‘sin’.  Augustine says: “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor cause by a perverse attachment to certain goods.  It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.  It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” (CCC 1849)

The Catechism also defines sin thusly:  “Sin is an offense against God.  It is a revolt against God through the will to become ‘like gods,’ knowing and determining good and evil.  Sin is therefore “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”” (CCC 1850)

We know there are two levels of gravity of sin, venial and mortal, Scripture is very clear on that point (1 john 5:16).  A venial sin is an act that does not completely cut himself off from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ.  A mortal sin does indeed cut him off from God.  The Catechism defines these terms this way: “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a great violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God”… “Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.” (CCC 1855)

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857)  Therefore since we know that contraception  and abortion are of a grave matter (very serious subject) then for one to deliberately (freely) and knowingly perform these or help others in performing these acts is morally evil (ie mortal sin).

It has been a tenant of our Catholic faith since the very beginning that abortion and the use of contraception is always and everywhere gravely wrong.  Whether anyone else believes this to be right or wrong is irrelevant for our purposes today.   If our conscience dictates that it is a great moral evil to use contraception or abortafacient drugs then by virtue of loving our fellow man we are also obliged not to directly help them acquire such products and services.  For example, if it is morally wrong for me to intentionally kill an innocent bystander then it is also morally wrong for me to knowingly supply the gun so that someone else can kill him.  Since 1973, ever since abortion has been legalized, federal law does not protect all of its citizens.  It currently discriminates against a class of persons not yet born and with the Healthcare services being proposed by Obama (ie, Obamacare) the government will force its citizens to pay for these deadly services whether we have religious objections to them or not.  We must make our voices heard.  The voice of reason needs to overcome or our great country will no longer be a country where freedom or religion prevails.  We must prevent our government from trampling on our right to freely exercise our religion in the public square.

Even though “unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense” as well as “the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders…” we as a society are obliged to defend our constitutional right to freedom of religion.  PLEASE, let us rise up and be heard.

Prepared by a St Denis parishoner