Religious Liberty and the Bishops

I have just reviewed a document by the Catholic Bishops of Maryland on the importance of religious freedom. It is commendable that the Bishops have expressed their belief in the value of this cornerstone of American democracy. They carefully enunciate the history of this freedom, particularly its roots in Maryland as it relates to the first Catholics who settled here under Lord Baltimore.

Of course there is also something of a failure to recall other elements of the history of Roman Catholicism and religious liberty. The Middle Ages for example included a lot of coercion in terms of insisting that everyone follow the religion of the current ruler. Whoever had the power determined what religion all their subjects would espouse. More than a few recalcitrants found themselves run through by the sword.

Much of this kind of thinking continued well into the modern era. As the ideal of religious liberty developed in our own country, Rome continued to look askance at the too modern notions of freedom of thought and religion. As an example the famous document of Thomas Paine Common Sense was placed on the index of forbidden books. It is only the determined efforts of American Catholics to promote the value of this American ideal of Religious Freedom that finally began to alter the thinking in Rome. Eventually Rome somewhat reluctantly agreed to accept the document on the Declaration of Religious Liberty produced during the Second Vatican Council. The famous American Theologian John Courtney Murray was the force behind this document. Unfortunately there may be some in Rome today who wish this document had not been accepted.

It is nevertheless positive to see the Church however belatedly come to understand the importance of this freedom. Yet, as with too many issues, the Bishops wind up with a somewhat distorted view of the freedom they promote. They demonstrate their blind side over the course of their document. When speaking about Catholics and their exercise of religious freedom they understand quite well what this concept is all about. They have much greater difficulty recognizing that this freedom applies to non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-believers as well. Their focus is so totally on the insistence that Catholics be given complete freedom to operate as they see fit within our country they fail to see how the exercise of their beliefs in the way they would like might infringe on the right of others to exercise their beliefs or their lack of beliefs. Or maybe they just don't care. Yet this is the essence of the meaning of religious freedom.

The Bishops first mention the case in Baltimore City where their pregnancy centers were asked to make clear that they did not provide abortion services. The centers fought this requirement and prevailed in the courts. I think this is an example of religious freedom and the courts working. That's why we have courts that provide legal recourse. If you feel agrieved you have options. Of course sometimes you will win in court and sometimes you will lose. Again this is the essence of the exercise of freedom in a democracy.

My question is, what would have happened if the Bishops lost? Would they suddenly have acknowledged that they had misunderstood the issue of religious liberty in this case? Would they accept the judgement of the courts, or would they refuse to be bound by what the courts say? After all, we are told that the Church is not a democracy and is the only arbiter of right and wrong. Ultimately the question becomes does the Church really believe in religious liberty or are they simply using it when it is helpful in promoting their own causes?

The Bishops refer to Martin Luther King's suggestion that the Church form the conscience of the State. They expect the right to be heard in the public square and complained that in the health care debate they were accused of high jacking the debate. Yet when nuns from their own Church put forth a different point of view they were outraged. I still see little evidence that the Bishops have a fundamental understanding of what the give and take of debate in the public square is all about. Yes, the Catholic Bishops have every right to put forth their ideas, but they must remember that others have this same right. In a Democracy, just because you are certain that your ideas are right does not mean they will always prevail. If you are losing the debate you cannot suddenly insist that your position is the only correct one and refuse to accept the decision of the marketplace. If you are determined to play in the market place of ideas then you must play on an equal footing with everyone else.

The natural law argument regarding abortion and other issues is a case in point. The Church puts forth this argument confident in its unassailable truth. After all, The natural law is common to all people, and anyone with good faith can understand these points with the eyes of reason. They are simply unable to see that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't buy into the natural law argument as the Bishops do. Their argument may indeed be correct, but in a democracy the majority position is to prevail. I find no evidence that the bishops are prepared to accept that. Certainly there was an absolute refusal on their part to consider any kind of compromise in the health care debate.

Conscience rights of health care workers, pharmacists, and the like are legitimate issues. They are appropriately settled in the court, but somehow I doubt that the Church is going to fight equally hard for the rights of those who seek to exercise legal rights in the area of reproductive rights, or same sex couples who want the legal protections of civil marriage. For all the lofty rhetoric couched in this document, I have to say I will be more impressed with Church leaders when they evidence a true understanding of the meaning of a pluralistic society. I would like to see them not only insist on making their views known, but also advocate for the rights of others to make their views known as well. The obligation of the Bishops in this case may still be to continue their opposition, but to also accept the reality of what has been decided. To be true citizens in this society they will have to give up declaring the absolute wrongness of any position they opppose. You can't both proclaim the noble value of religious liberty for all and then refuse to play by the rules when you don't like the results of the process.

The Bishops might want to consider that the gay marriage law passed in New York and the sun still came up the next day. People are still getting married and divorced. Catholics are still going to Church, or maybe not. Everyone has survived. If it passes in Maryland, the same thing will be true. The next Sunday we will all get up and go to Church as before.

It may be time for the Bishops to recognize gay marriage as a strictly civil issue and not a religious one. No one is asking any Bishop or priest to conduct a gay marriage or even to approve one. If any attempt was made to make such a demand the Bishops could appropriately challenge in court. No one is demanding that Catholic authorities change any of their views on this issue, although tolerance, respect for differences, and caring for all God's children may not be such a bad idea.

If religious liberty means anything however, it means respecting the beliefs of others. It means fighting for the rights and freedoms of others as much as you fight for your own freedom. As a child I remember many veterans from World War II saying 'I disagree 100% with everything you are saying, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. When I see an attitude of that nature from the Catholic Bishops of Maryland, then maybe I will believe their treatise on religious liberty means something.