Religious Freedom

A few weeks ago, I came across this fine editorial in Our Sunday Visitor about the potential threat to religious freedom. The editorial board shared two examples in this insightful piece.

Here is an excerpt:

The issue of religious freedom until now mostly has been a tangent to the debate over civil unions and same-sex marriage. After all, the immediate issue at hand was the institution of marriage itself and the protection it deserves under law as a fundamental building block of civil society.

Those who fretted about potential threats to religious freedom — that religious groups who hold that sexual activity is reserved to a man and a woman committed to lifelong fidelity and open to the procreation and education of children might be forced to curtail their charitable and religious activities unless they acquiesced to the views of those who hold a radically different position — may not have been given the hearing they deserved. After all, at the time their complaint seemed speculative, and there were other issues that were much more immediately pressing.

You can read the whole editorial here.

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Religious Freedom”

  1. Steven Schwalbach says:

    You predicted it dear Archbishop! The Catholic Church must remain strong and fight off any Government dictates that go against our Faith. Thank you for seeing how the bill passed in New York IS NOT as benign as social Liberals say it is. Keep up the good work and God Bless you!

  2. AndyP/Doria2 says:

    And this is something new? Authentic Catholic publications have been warning about this from day one. It’s already happening in Sweden and Canada. Preachers are getting arrested for hate speech when they proclaim sound Biblical teaching.

    This is a war and the only ones who don’t realize it are the heirarchy of our beloved Church.

    “They” took prayer out of our schools, “They” took The 10 Comandments out of our court houses and school rooms, “They” tried to change the Pledge of Allegiance trying to omit the words under God, “They” challenge anything that is Christian on the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter.

    “They” intend to eliminate the name of Jesus the Christ from every public forum and we stand by and do next to nothing.

    Cardinal Raymond Burke is one of the few who stood his ground and still maintains that these manifest, very public sinners should be denied the Sacraments until they repent. They should be unceremoniously excommunicated for their own good. The inaction only emboldens them

    Sabellius, Cuomo 1 and Cuomo 2, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and too many more to name here should be disciplined. “They” should be made examples of the fact that God’s laws reign supreme and that esp. the Most Holy Eucharist is not to be bandied about for them to do what they please.

    “They” have done more public damage to our Church the Romans tried to do.

    IMO, the sooner we cut all ties to governments and get back to preaching The Word the better.

    We need shepherds not politicians. Lead us.

  3. AndyP/Doria2 says:

    Also, Bishop Coyne stumbled across another major cause of our problems.

    Why I Didn’t Go to Confession Today.
    Saturday, August 6, 2011
    Posted by Bishop Chris Coyne at 9:19 PM

    This morning I attended Mass rather than concelebrated Mass. Earlier in the week I was unable to find a Saturday morning Mass anywhere in the area so I was pretty much going to have to miss Mass today. But late last night on the internet I found a church abut a half an hour away that had an 8:00 AM Mass. This was doubly good for me because I wanted to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation if the priest had time after Mass since it and been a few weeks since my last confession. But it was a little late to make any arrangement for concelebration.

    I left around 7:15 AM and got there in plenty of time to spend some time preparing for Mass and, hopefully, the Sacrament of Reconciliation. When Mass began, the priest, a guy about my age, came out and said, “Hello,” and then proceeded with the Mass. The only problem was he had forgotten the Sign of the Cross. Well, maybe he was just a little distracted. I think we did the penetential rite but I’m not sure. There was no “Gloria” so I was beginning to think we weren’t going to be celebrating the Feast of the Transfiguration since it hadn’t been mentioned yet but eventually we got there when he “prayed” a spontaneous opening prayer that did mention the Transfiguration.

    Things kind of went downhill from there. I’ll spare you the details. I will say I’m pretty sure it was still a valid Mass even though he changed the words of the Eucharistic institution – a lot, not just a few. There is a theological practice of the Church called “Ecclesia supplet” (“the Church provides”) where if a priest inadvertently forgets some of the words of the ritual form or changes them, the “Church” recognizes the good faith of those gathered and their right to valid celebration of the sacraments and provides sacramental validity in the case of a human error or priestly malpractice. This is done for the sake of the people of God and not as an excuse for the sloppy or ‘creative’ celebration of the priest or bishop. Even though the priest went way over the the line in terms of his ‘creativity’ this morning, I think the intention of those us who came to Mass was to celebrate the Eucharist as the Church intends and so it was.

    As “Mass” progressed I was both disappointed and annoyed. I wasn’t angry. I learned the trick long ago of moving into emotional “cruise control” when this stuff starts to happen. I also began to wonder if I should say something to the priest afterwards. I mean, I was just there as a visitor not as his bishop or vicar general. I was also on vacation so … Nevertheless, I didn’t let it go. What I did or did not do, I will leave between me and the priest. I hope it was helpful.

    I do know one thing. I certainly wasn’t going to ask him to hear my Confession. If he changed the words of the Institution Narrative, there’s no telling what he might do with the words of Absolution. I suppose I could have asked him before we began the sacrament if he would be so kind as to use the Church’s rite and not his own but then that opens a whole can of worms. So I didn’t go to Confession. I’ll try and make an appointment with a priest and go Monday. But isn’t it a shame that I couldn’t go to Confession?

    Every time people ask my why some in the Church have a desire for the “extraordinary rite,” the traditional Latin Mass, I guess I can give them at least one good reason. Masses like this. When one attends the Mass according to the Tridentine Rite, you know what you are going to get. There is no one being ‘creative,’ no one making up their own prayers or rite, and no question of validity. I am a child of Vatican II. From the time I was old enough to understand what was happening at Mass, it has been the Mass of Pope Paul VI. I have been formed in it. I have studied it. I love it. Out of it, I have been ordained a deacon, a priest, and a bishop to celebrate it for the people of God. I have no desire to celebrate the Tridentine Rite but any time I hear people criticize those who want the “traditional” Mass, I am more inclined to understand why they want this form of the Mass. Perhaps if each priest were committed to the correct celebration of the present Mass of Paul VI – the Church’s rites and not the rite of Fr. X – then maybe there would be less clamor for the “traditional” rite. Just a thought.