Whose Freedom of Religion/Conscience?

I received a comment from a reader, which is posted on the preceding blog comments. Occasionally, I post a response as a blog, because I believe the comment contains sentiments/ideas that touch on general interest.


Dear Silias,


In regard to your statement,



“Actually, democracies have THE WORSE [worst] record of protecting minority rights of all types of governments, historically speaking.”


I would very strongly disagree with your assertion. You need merely consider the Twentieth Century to realize the absurdity of such a claim. The Third Reich under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong (all totalitarian regimes) together arguably murdered more people than all other governments combined in all previously recorded history. Incidentally, democracies constitute a small sliver of all forms of human government throughout history, the overwhelming majority have been authoritarian governments in which the common people have had little or no voice in decisions directly affecting their daily lives such as the subject at hand, their health care.


I agree with your sentiments regarding minority rights in the face of majority rule; in fact, I have argued that very point in previous articles. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the courts exist to protect minority rights (admittedly imperfectly) against majority tyranny.


That stated I think you have misunderstood the thrust and main point of my article.
I think it prudent, as my old philosophy professor used to say, to begin by clearly defining our terms. Specifically, what is meant by the expression “Freedom of Religion/Conscience.” Black’s Law dictionary, Seventh edition, defines Freedom of Religion as,



“The right to adhere to any form of religion or none, to practice or abstain from practicing religious beliefs, and to be free from governmental interference with or promotion of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment and Article VI, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution.”



Since laws are the codified values of a people, Black’s definition provides us with definition that represents both the legal, and culturally normative understanding of the term Freedom of Religion/Conscience in the USA. Reading that definition it becomes apparent that this right is primarily conferred upon individual citizens and secondarily upon associations of like-minded people (including religious organizations).


The bishops claim that a mandate that Catholic institutions (e.g. universities, charitable agencies) provide insurance coverage (such coverage normatively includes reproductive services/procedures) to employees, students and their dependents violates Catholic’s Freedom of Religion/Conscience.


The bishops are attempting to redefine Freedom of Religion/Conscience as being primarily, or at the very least equally, accorded to institutions (e.g. the Catholic hierarchy) and secondarily, or at most only equally, to citizens. The NCCB seeks to interpret a special right/privilege that they will first, use to effectively impose their views/beliefs and practices upon subordinated people (i.e. employees, students, staff, and their dependents). Second, to carve out and enshrine a special legal status for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) within American society.


Ironically, the practical effect of their demands will involuntarily impose NCCB beliefs/values/practices on citizens, who happened to be their employees/students/and dependents thereof, regardless of the beliefs, values and practices of these subordinated people. In effect, the NCCB will trample on the Freedom of Religion/Conscience of individual citizens (employees/students/and the dependents thereof) through raw economic coercion. If you work for us, or attend one of our universities, we will involuntarily exclude you from normative health care insurance benefits that contradict the employer’s religion, regardless of your religious beliefs or practices.


An employee, student, etc of a Catholic institution would have their conscience effectively overruled by the bishops; unless they could afford to pay for these services/medications/procedures out of pocket and many cannot. This has the practical effect of violating the Freedom of Religion/Conscience of employees, students and their dependents.


The fact that a majority of Catholics find no moral issue with disregarding the bishop’s prohibition of contraception, unmasks that this is NOT about the issue of Freedom of Religion/Conscience, as it has been historically understood. Nor is this per se about contraception. This is about power and control by the bishops of American law and society, period.


This is not an attack on Catholics by the government; in fact, it is the government protecting the Freedom of Religion/Conscience of all its citizens (including Catholics) against a powerful elite attempting to force its very narrow interpretation of Catholicism involuntarily on others by redefining Freedom of Religion/Conscience and attempting to intimidate elected officials.


The most succinct and insightful statement on the hierarchy I’ve yet heard was voiced by the Prime Minister of Ireland, a historically Catholic nation, when he said to the Parliament of that nation,




Prime Minister Enda Kenny denounced to lawmakers last week what he called "the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism – and the narcissism – that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day."

P.S.: More "Special Rights" for Catholic institutions.

Words & Deeds.

My dad is an accountant, he once told me "People lie, numbers don't lie." Here are some numbers about the distribution of wealth in America.




I have received several comments asking what the bishops have said about what is happening in Wisconsin. Actually there is a wealth of statements about social justice and the rights of workers.


On May 1891, Pope Leo XIII promulgated an encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Workers). Here are some quotes from that letter to Catholics:

If the question be asked: How ought man to use his possessions? The Church replies without hesitation: "As to this point, man ought not regard external goods as his own, but as common so that, in fact, a person should readily share them when he sees others in need.

No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, . . . But when the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains. (#35-36)


The following duties . . . concern rich men and employers: Workers are not to be treated as slaves; justice demands that the dignity of human personality be respected in them, ... gainful occupations are not a mark of shame to man, but rather of respect, as they provide him with an honorable means of supporting life.
It is shameful and inhuman, however, to use men as things for gain and to put no more value on them than what they are worth in muscle and energy. (#31)


The oppressed workers, above all, ought to be liberated from the savagery of greedy men, who inordinately use human beings as things for gain. Assuredly, neither justice nor humanity can countenance the exaction of so much work that the spirit is dulled from excessive toil and that along with it the body sinks crushed from exhaustion. The working energy of a man, like his entire nature, is circumscribed by definite limits beyond which it cannot go. (#59)


Labor which is too long and too hard and the belief that pay is inadequate not infrequently give workers cause to strike and become voluntarily idle.This evil, which is frequent and serious, ought to be remedied by public authority, because such interruption of work inflicts damage not only upon employers and upon the workers themselves, but also injures trade and commerce and the general interests of the State...(#56)


In protecting the rights of private individuals, however, special consideration must be given to the weak and the poor. For the nation, as it were, of the rich, is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself, relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wage workers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight. (#54)


In 1986, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (USA) issued a pastoral message to American Catholics. The title of that message was: Economic Justice for All. Here are some excerpts from that pastoral message:



68. Biblical justice is the goal we strive for. This rich biblical understanding portrays a just society as one marked by the fullness of love, compassion, holiness, and peace. On their path through history, however, sinful human beings need more specific guidance on how to move toward the realization of this great vision of God's Kingdom. This guidance is contained in the norms of basic or minimal justice. These norms state the minimum levels of mutual care and respect that all persons owe to each other in an imperfect world10. Catholic social teaching, like must philosophical reflection, distinguishes three dimensions of basic justice: commutative justice, distributive justice, and social justice11.


70. Distributive justice requires that the allocation of income, wealth, and power in society be evaluated in light of its effects on persons whose basic material needs are unmet. The Second Vatican Council stated: "The right to have a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one's family belongs to everyone. The fathers and doctors of the Church held this view, teaching that we are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of our superfluous goods"13. Minimum material resources are an absolute necessity for human life. If persons are to be recognized as members of the human community, then the community has an obligation to help fulfill these basic needs unless an absolute scarcity of resources makes this strictly impossible. No such scarcity exists in the United States today.


89. In summary, the norms of love, basic justice, and human rights imply that personal decisions, social policies, and economic institutions should be governed by several key priorities. These priorities do not specify everything that must be considered in economic decision-making. They do indicate the most fundamental and urgent objectives.


90. a. The fulfillment of the basic needs of the poor is of the highest priority. Personal decisions, policies of private and public bodies, and power relationships must be all evaluated by their effects on those who lack the minimum necessities of nutrition, housing, education, and health care. In particular, this principle recognizes that meeting fundamental human needs must come before the fulfillment of desires for luxury consumer goods, for profits not conducive to the common good, and for unnecessary military hardware.

Two personal observations about all the foregoing documents, it has been said that the best way to keep something secret from people is to publish it in print. Recently I was watching a television comedy series in which the father took his son to a public library. “What’s this place?” the boy asked his dad. “This is where homeless people come to sleep,” came the response from the dad. Winston Churchill quipped “The only thing new in the world is the history that you have not read.”


Secondly, several readers have asked “Why don’t the bishops speak about health care, or what is happening in Wisconsin to workers?” As you can see from the documents re-printed above, they have spoken. Having said that, it is also important to ask, “How have they acted?” Read this excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter commenting on the public position taken by bishops in Wisconsin.

Morlino, writing in his diocesan newspaper, The Catholic Herald, said he and the statewide Wisconsin Catholic Conference were neutral, even though the Catholic Church has long sided with the rights of unionized workers.


“The question to which the dilemma boils down is rather simple on its face: Is the sacrifice which union members, including school teachers, are called upon to make proportionate to the relative sacrifice called for from all in difficult economic times?” Morlino wrote.


“The teaching of the church allows for persons of good will to disagree as to which horn of this dilemma should be chosen because there would be reasonable justification available for either alternative.”


To be sure, Morlino has emerged as a hero of the Catholic right. In the heat of the 2008 campaign, he blasted vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi for “stepping on the pope’s turf—and mine” in appealing to church fathers for their support of abortion rights.

Do Catholic bishops apply what they preach to the secular world in their own relationships with their employees? Specifically, “What are the salary/benefits packages in my (Arch) Diocese for teachers, office staff, janitorial staff, etc?” “What are the salaries for priests, deacons, religious (i.e. brothers and nuns)?”

I was horrified to discover that the parish secretary and her dependants were not covered by our diocesan health insurance plan. Workers had to purchase this out of pocket; this effectively priced them out of health insurance. I was also shocked to discover that a woman who had worked all of her life as a housekeeper in a rectory was given a monthly pension of only $121.00

Bishops often sign these beautiful declarations about human dignity and rights, but fail to implement them in their own house. As long as they can convince the public that morality is primarily, if not exclusively, about what happens south of the belt they should be fine. If by some fluke the little people should actually prevail as they did in Egypt, then they can always point to all of these beautiful official documents and to the nuns and simple priests who worked with the poor as proof that they were always on the right side.