Religious Freedom and the Courts

Today some 43 Catholic institutions, including schools, hospitals, dioceses and archdioceses have filed suit in Federal Court to prevent enforcement of the so called “HHS Mandate”, a regulatory aspect of the National Health Care Reform Act passed a couple of years ago by the Congress and signed by the President. In essence, these institutions oppose the mandate because it forces these religious institutions to provide contraceptive and abortifacient drugs as part of employee health-care coverage.

The Diocese of Brownsville supports this effort to seek legal redress for what amounts to a serious infringement upon the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. If you wonder why the Diocese of Brownsville did not file suit, as some other dioceses did, the answer is that it is not necessary for all Catholic institutions to file suit, and thus congest the court system, only those whose situation is typical of what other similar institutions are facing. We may all rightly hope for a judgment in the courts that will protect the religious freedom of all religious bodies.

For us this is not a matter of politics, nor is it a partisan issue. It is a religious freedom issue. There must be a limit to what the government can demand of a religious institution in order for it to offer its services to the general public. We do not force anyone to accept employment at our schools, hospitals or charitable organizations, nor do we oblige anyone to accept the services we offer at those institutions. In a free society, religious bodies should not have to choose between their religious conscience and participation in the public work of healing the sick, offering a good education and feeding the hungry. We only ask that we be allowed to operate our institutions in a manner that is in keeping with the authoritative teaching of the Church.

One more point: It is sometimes said that if Church institutions accept government funding, then the Church should accept the mandate. But, this governmental requirement has no relation to government funding. Even institutions that receive not a dime from the government, if they employ persons and serve persons who may not be Roman Catholic, would be required to provide coverage that includes contraceptive and abortifacient drugs. And if all Catholic hospitals, universities, and charitable organizations stopped receiving government funding tomorrow, they would still be required to conform to this government demand. Even if Mother Teresa herself ran a charitable organization in the United States that did not meet the federal government's stringent new definition of what constitutes a a religious organization, the new rules would require her to pay for artificial contraceptives and abortifacient drugs.

In this context, I think it is timely for me to reproduce here a column I wrote back in March for our diocesan newspaper on this issue.

March 2012 Column, The Valley Catholic

Religious Liberty and the HHS mandate

By The Most Rev. Daniel E. Flores, Bishop of Brownsville

The right to religious liberty is a basic human good, and is recognized in the United States Constitution as one of the first and most basic principles of a free people. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Quite simply this amendment to the Constitution creates a framework wherein religious people in our society can truly live without fear of coercion. Congress, and by implication the whole of the Federal Government, cannot establish that one religious view be favored in law more than another. The second clause of this amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing upon the rights of religious believers to practice their religion in the wider society.

The recent decision of the Federal Government, through the Department of Health and Human Services, to mandate all employers to provide contraceptive, sterilization and abortifacient coverage to their employees has rightly caused a national outcry of opposition. The principal opposition of the Catholic Church in the United States to the “Contraceptive Mandate” is on religious liberty grounds. It violates both the “free exercise” of religion in this country, and it de facto establishes a social view that is meant to trump the religious freedom of those who wish to live and work in peace without having to conform to this “established view”. Let me explain.

The proposed government rules require that religious institutions established by the Catholic people of the United States, and supported by our contributions, must directly subsidize services that are objectionable to a Catholic conscience. Other religious denominations with similar objections would also be affected. More recently the Government offered an “accommodation” to the rule. Widely seen as an attempt at compromise, it is nothing of the sort. The so-called accommodation simply tells the religious organization that it must accept an insurance plan that provides these services through the insurance company. This is a shell game. The religious institution, sooner or later, must pay for the coverage, even if on paper the coverage is provided by the insurer and not the religious institution. Let us be clear: payment for a service is a kind of moral cooperation with the service. The Rule forces the moral cooperation of citizens who on religious grounds object to the service.  And there is more: many religious institutions are self-insured. Does the accommodation mean that self-insured religious institutions and insurance companies which were founded to respect the religious principles of their denominations, must conform to the government rule or go out of business?

If the government can tell the Catholic Church that it must pay for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs today, will they tell us tomorrow that we must ask for citizenship papers before we feed a starving immigrant? And what shall we do when some future government decides that partial birth abortion is a “health-care issue”?  Will we be forced to cooperate with this, though reason and faith tell us it is a grave evil? The point is that the good of the community and the society is gravely injured when the power of the government reaches a point that it can attempt to coerce the consciences of men and women of faith. The Church, and indeed all religious bodies seek to be free to serve the common good of society without being told that we must check our religion at the door in order to tend to the sick, educate the student, or feed the poor.

The Catholic bishops in the United States have long encouraged a reform of the health-care system in this country. But the aim of a just reform is to provide adequate health coverage to the poor and the marginalized. Health Care Reform is not, and was never meant to be, a way of imposing a particular secularist view about contraception or abortion upon the whole nation. But this is what the new HHS rules, even with the so-called accommodation, does. It imposes a social contraceptive and abortifacient agenda that a Catholic cannot accept. We cannot accept it because it is not sound social policy. Pregnancy, after all, is not a disease. But more importantly, we cannot accept a situation wherein we are told we must cooperate with the government by subsidizing acts we consider immoral.  Whether you call it a religion or not, a secular agenda takes on the status of an established religion when it requires all religious bodies to conform to its dictates. And this is a dictate. The Church will resist it by every legal means possible. We resist because a free exercise of religion is good for the whole of our society. We resist because the coercion of even some of our citizens to pay for services which are offensive to the best tenets of reason and religion is itself a grave evil.

I therefore urge all Catholics and all citizens in the Rio Grande Valley who recognize the value of religious freedom in this country, to support efforts to remedy the HHS rule. And I urge all to be vigilant in the protection of the rights of religion in our free society. Let us not tire of doing what is right.

Libertad Religiosa

Santo Tomás Moro

Por razones de la actualidad del tema, me parece oportuno reproducir aquí la columna que publiqué este marzo pasado sobre el tema de la libertad religiosa:

Columna de marzo 2012, The Valley Catholic

Libertad Religiosa y el mandato del HHS

Por Daniel E. Flores

Obispo de la Diócesis de Brownsville

El derecho a la libertad religiosa es un bien humano básico, y es reconocido en la Constitución de Estados Unidos como uno de los primeros y más básicos principios de un país libre. “El Congreso no hará ninguna ley con respecto al establecimiento de religión, o prohibiendo el ejercicio libre de la misma.” De una manera muy simple esta enmienda a la constitución crea una estructura en la cual las personas religiosas en nuestra sociedad pueden verdaderamente vivir sin miedo a la coerción. El Congreso, y por ende el Gobierno Federal, no puede establecer que un punto de vista religioso sea favorecido en la ley más que otro. La segunda cláusula a esta enmienda prohíbe específicamente al gobierno de infringir los derechos de los creyentes religiosos para practicar su religión en la sociedad en general.

La reciente decisión del Gobierno Federal, a través del Departamento de Salud y Recursos Humanos, de imponer que todo empleador proporcione cobertura contraceptiva, esterilización y abortiva a sus empleados a causado, con todo derecho, un grito nacional de oposición. La principal oposición de la Iglesia Católica en los Estados Unidos al “Mandato Anticonceptivo” es por razones de libertad religiosa. Éste mandato viola el “libre ejercicio” de religión en este país, y establece de hecho un punto de vista social que está destinado a terminar con la libertad religiosa de aquellos que desean vivir y trabajar en paz sin tener que someterse a éste “punto de vista establecido”. Permítanme explicar.

Las reglas propuestas por el gobierno requieren que las instituciones religiosas establecidas por los fieles católicos de los Estados Unidos, y mantenidas por nuestras contribuciones, tienen que subsidiar directamente servicios que son inaceptables para una conciencia católica. Otras denominaciones religiosas con objeciones similares también serán afectadas. Recientemente el gobierno ofreció un “arreglo” a la regla. Visto generalmente como un intento de acomodar la conciencia religiosa, no es nada por el estilo.

El llamado arreglo simplemente señala que las organizaciones religiosas tienen que aceptar un plan de seguro que provea estos servicios a través de la compañía de seguros. Esta es una artimaña. La institución religiosa, tarde o temprano, deberá pagar por la cobertura, aunque en papel la cobertura sea proporcionada por el seguro y no por la institución religiosa. Seamos claros: pagar por un servicio es un tipo de cooperación moral con el servicio. La Regla obliga la cooperación moral de los ciudadanos que se oponen al servicio por razones religiosas. Y aun hay más: muchas instituciones religiosas tienen su propio seguro. ¿Acaso el arreglo quiere decir que las instituciones religiosas y compañías de seguro, las cuales fueron fundadas para respetar los principios de sus creencias, tienen que ajustarse al mandato del gobierno o salir del negocio?

Si hoy el gobierno le puede indicar a la Iglesia Católica que tiene que pagar por los medicamentos anticonceptivos y abortivos, ¿Acaso mañana nos dirá que tenemos que pedir papeles de ciudadanía antes de alimentar a un inmigrante hambriento? ¿Y qué haremos cuando algún futuro gobierno decida que aborto por parto parcial es un “asunto de cuidado de salud”? ¿Seremos obligados a cooperar con esto, aunque la razón y la fe nos digan que es un mal muy grave? El punto es que el bien de la comunidad y de la sociedad es gravemente dañado cuando el poder del gobierno llega hasta al punto de intentar coaccionar la conciencia de hombres y mujeres de fe. La Iglesia, y de hecho todas las instituciones religiosas , buscan ser libres para servir el bien común de la sociedad sin que se nos diga que tenemos que dejar nuestra religión en la puerta para poder atender al enfermo, educar al estudiante, o alimentar al pobre.

Los obispos Católicos en los Estados Unidos desde hace mucho tiempo han fomentado una reforma del sistema de salud en este país. Pero el propósito de una reforma justa es el proveer cobertura médica adecuada al pobre y marginado. La Reforma del Sistema de Salud no es, y nunca se pretendió que fuera, una forma de imponer una visión secularista particular sobre la anticoncepción o el aborto a toda la nación. Pero esto es lo que hacen las nuevas reglas del HHS, incluso con el dizque arreglo. Impone un programa social anticonceptivo y abortivo que un católico no puede aceptar. No lo podemos aceptar porque no es una política social sana. El embarazo, después de todo, no es una enfermedad. Pero más importante, no podemos aceptar una situación en la cual se nos dice que tenemos que cooperar con el gobierno brindando subsidio a acciones que consideramos inmorales. Así le llamen religión o no, un programa secular toma posición de una religión establecida cuando requiere que todas las instituciones religiosas se sometan a sus órdenes. Y esto es una orden. La Iglesia pondrá resistencia por todos los medios legales posibles. Nos opondremos porque el ejercicio libre de religión es un bien para toda nuestra sociedad. Nos opondremos porque la coerción de incluso algunos de nuestros ciudadanos para pagar por servicios que son ofensivos a los mejores principios de la razón y la religión es en sí mismo un grave mal.

Por lo tanto, exhorto a todos los católicos y a todos los ciudadanos del Valle del Río Grande que reconocen el valor de la libertad religiosa en este país, a que apoyen los esfuerzos para remediar el mandato del HHS. Y exhorto a todos a estar vigilantes en la protección de los derechos de religión en nuestra sociedad libre. No nos cansemos de hacer lo que es lo correcto.

Just a thought-1

There has ever existed in the human frame of mind a weak but real hope that life aims toward a happy ending. The delight children take in a happily resolved fairy-tale adventure is an echo of this human preference for an end that merits a smile rather than a grimace. And the disappointment you (and I) feel when a good movie or novel ends badly, also witnesses to this stubbornly human inclination. The ancients, by whom I mean the bearers of culture prior to announcement of the Gospel, struggled to express this attitude. And although the tales of Homer, or the legends of the ancient Norse sea-faring men, or even the pre-Colombian tales of the tribes that inhabited the environs of what is now Mexico City, all had their dark streak denoting the inevitability of tragic suffering and loss in life, they nonetheless held out a glimmer-like hope that the suffering would abate somehow, and a resolution in keeping with our nobler hopes would prevail-- in the end.

The ancients often anticipated a kind of unexpected intervention from on high to accomplish this resolution in a narrative tail. Odysseus got much aid from Athena in order to find his way home. He loses most of his men along the way, and home is never how you left it, but the resolution is satisfying on a deep level. Balder the Good, from the Norse literature preserved in the Prose Edda, seems to shine the more brightly as a figure in mythology precisely because the envy and jealousy of the other gods do not penetrate to hurt him. True, the malicious God Loki, apparently the trickiest of the powers that swirl around the environs of men, did Balder in with a sprig of mistletoe. Still, Balder reigns in a way, even in the abode of the dead, while Loki ends in terrible chastisement.

Ambivalent tales, you say? Well, I agree. But my point is that the ancients knew about the struggle between good and evil. It was an enigma to them, and they tried to weave a credible series of tales that acknowledged the sorrow, without negating the hope. Anthropologists note that the Aztecs assumed into their mythologies a host of deities and heroes present in the religious forms of the peoples they conquered. We know that the god of human blood-sacrifice, Tezcatlipoca, defeated Quetzalcoatl and banished him away. The latter deity did not desire human sacrifice. But the persistent legend circulated that he would return and reign over human affairs in some hoped-for future.

I mention the tree mythic examples to make the point that pre-Christian cultures were realistic about the darkness that envelopes the human condition, that they ascribed this to the influences that to a large extent were beyond human control. They often anticipated, however weakly, the vindication of goodness. Now, I know some will dismiss the relevance of ancient mythic tales as expressions of naiveté, as outmoded imaginary constructions proper to the childhood of the human race, and the desperation of peoples held captive by religious myth. Aside from such an attitude being an expression of cultural snobbery (many post-moderns seem to think we have advanced beyond having to take the ancients into our conversations), I do not need to take up that argument right now. I only need to point out that the stories themselves indicate a stubborn anticipation of a happy ending to a tail that trails much misery. And that the happy ending is inextricably tied to the triumph of life over death (Quetzalcoatl will return), goodness and creativity over maliciousness (Balder is not finally gone, and Loki cannot get away with having sent him to the abode of the dead) and provident protection over malignant usurpation (The Odyssey).

Ambivalence marked by a real, even if wistful hope that in the end the good wins: I would at least say this is present in the ancient record. No doubt, lots of other things are also present there, competing for attention in the ancient imaginal mind. So, you may ask: Why are you writing about this? Mildly interesting, but honestly. Well, because we all need to think more deeply about culture, particularly about what is happening to ours. And I fear that among the manifestations of the uncharted territory modern cultures are traversing, the slowly fading hope in the final triumph of life and goodness is by far the most ominous. And, we cannot fail to ask how this has happened, and what relation it bears to the life and mission of the Church. A starting point for thinking about our current situation, it seems to me, is to ask what effect the Gospel had on the ancient cultures it encountered, and why. To ask that question helps us to understand what the challenge of the New Evangelization is about. What did the Gospel offer to the cultures of ambivalent hopes? What does it offer now to the human community, to our culture and to each one of us individually?

But this is "Just a thought-1". Si Dios me da licencia, I will continue this thought in days to come. Or at least I hope to.

Friday Roundup

It has been a busy time here in the Diocese of Brownsville, and I must plead for your forbearance. I have not been as frequent in my postings lately. I will try to do better. But, I do want to let you know about a few things going on within the last week or so.

Confirmations lately have included enjoyable visits to a great many parishes. I was able to snap a quick photo of the confirmation classes from Saint Joseph Parish in Donna, Texas, and San Felipe the Jesús in Brownsville.


Saint Joseph, Donna



San Felipe de Jesús

Last week the Parish of Divine Mercy celebrated the blessing of the new edifice. Finally, after a long wait, and much work, the newest parish in the city of Brownsville has its own building within which to celebrate Mass. Congratulations to all for a beautiful celebration!

I had a chance to make a quick one day visit to Houston to participate in the ordination of the newest auxiliary bishop in the state of Texas. Bishop George Scheltz was ordained in a beautiful ceremony at the Co-Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. Had a chance to quickly see some of my old friends in the Houston area.

And I want to say a special thank-you to the young people of Saint Luke Parish in Brownsville. Four representatives of the youth came to see me in my office, and left me with the fruits of their labors. They had been working all year to build up a gift of time, talent and treasure to the Church in response to the Bishop’s Children’s Appeal. I was truly humbled by the cards with prayers attached, and the list of service activities, and all the pennies, nickels and dimes as well as dollar bills donated to the needs of the Church in the Valley.

In Gratitude to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate: Saint Eugene, San Pedro, and Our Lady Star of the Sea

Saint Eugene

Here it is Sunday Evening and I am just returned from a Confirmation at Saint Eugene de Mazenod Parish in Brownsville. Saint Eugene is one of the newer parishes in the City; founded in 1996, it is down a ways on the east side as you head across Paredes Line Road. It is a parish that is staffed by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, who, as you know, have a long and storied history here in the Rio Grande Valley. I celebrated a groundbreaking for a new and permanent Church some weeks ago at Saint Eugene’s and the celebratory mood was amazing, as over 16 years of community sacrifice for the purpose of building a permanent church passed a mile-stone in the groundbreaking. Construction should begin soon.

The visit gives me a chance to encourage those of you who are interested in the lives of the saints (and I hope that is most all of you) to look up Saint Eugene. He is the saintly founder of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and was canonized by Blessed Pope John Paul II shortly before the parish was established. I think our Saint Eugene parish is the first in the world to bear his name. And that is fitting, since Saint Eugene himself sent the first Oblate missionaries into the Rio Grande Valley over 150 years ago. He lived an extraordinary life in extraordinarily difficult times, as he and so many others sought to re-establish the life of the Church after the devastating effects of the French Revolution. He was a contemporary of the Curé of Ars, Saint John Vianney, but I have never run across where they might have met each other. Surely in heaven, if not on earth.

I am grateful that Bishop Peña invited the Oblates to take up the challenge of establishing Saint Eugene de Mazenod parish, and that the OMI’s have so generously dedicated themselves to building up the community. And congratulations to Father Timothy Paulsen OMI, and the whole parish for the beautiful witness they give to the faith, hope and charity of the Church. As you can see from the smiling faces of the Confirmation class the work of the Oblate Fathers and of the community itself, is bearing fruit in the lives of our young people.

San Pedro MIssion

It so happens that yesterday, (that would be Saturday, May 5), during the morning, I was confirming the candidates at San Pedro Mission, also in Brownsville, off Old Military Highway. It is one of the oldest communities in the area. I recently helped them celebrate their 100 year anniversary as a mission. San Pedro church was part of the original Oblate Trail that stemmed from Brownsville up the Valley through to Mission, Texas and Rio Grande City and Roma. The Oblate missionaries would ride horse-back in the old days to bring the Gospel and the Sacraments to the residents in the small towns and communities up and down the river. Today, San Pedro Mission is staffed by a diocesan priest, Father Eduardo Gómz, who also serves as rector of our diocesan House of Studies next door to the Church. Each year some of our seminarians live and pray and study at the House of Studies, and participate in the life of San Pedro Mission. The community of San Pedro is very hospitable and friendly, and gives to our seminarians a generous commuity atmosphere to help nurture their vocations to the Priesthood. Again, the life of the Church shows great vitality in the faces of the newly confirmed at San Pedro Mission.

 

Both Saint Eugene parish and San Pedro Mission remind us of how much of our Church life in the Diocese of Brownsville has been and continues to be nourished by the work of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

Our Lady Star of the Sea, Port Isabel

Now, as some of you may have heard, the Oblates recently announced that they are asking the Diocese of Brownsville to take over the pastoral care of Our Lady Star of the Sea Parish in Port Isabel. This parish was also established by the Oblates, and – as you probably know— it is the parish “on the way to South Padre Island”. What you may not know is that the parish was established formally in 1927, though there had been a constant presence of pastoral care by the Oblates for residents of Port Isabel long prior to that. What does this request of the Oblate Missionaries mean? It means that the Oblate Community has discerned that for them to focus upon the missionary charism of the Order, it is pastorally best that at this time the Diocese of Brownsville supply the next pastor to the parish. This frees the missionaries to focus upon other commitments that they have in this diocese and other dioceses where they continue to serve. I have accepted their request and recommendation, and urge all of the faithful to pray for vocations to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, and pray also for me, su pobre servidor, as I discern the naming of the next pastor of Our Lady Star of the Sea Parish.

It is never an easy thing for a religious community to leave a parish they have served for generations. And I know it will be difficult for the parishioners to say farewell to the Oblate presence in their parish. I am grateful to God for the work of the Oblates over the years at Port Isabel, and particularly the work most recently begun by Fathe James Erving, OMI, the current pastor. But, despite the changes necesitated by the current situation, we live in the sure and graceful hope that the Lord will continue to bless the growth of Our Lady Star of the Sea, and that the hard work of the Oblates in building up the life of the Church in Port Isabel will serve as the solid foundation for greater growth in the days and years to come.

In the name of all the generations of Catholics here in the Valley, I am grateful to the Oblate Fathers for their dedication and generosity.  And I am thankful for the parish communities they continue to serve here in the Rio Grande Valley

May God Bless the Oblates.

Saint Eugene de Mazenod, pray for us.