It has been eight days since the Department of Health and Human Services has issued its latest attempt at regulations covering what is called the “contraceptive mandate” as contained in the Affordable Health Care Act (“Obamacare”). The regulations are some eighty pages in length but two thirds of those pages outline the management of the funds for the program once fully implemented. Every bishop in the country now has access to legal opinions on how these revised regulations will effect the Church’s approach and response to the “mandate.” I and almost every other bishop have waited while our own attorneys have studied the “regs” in detail. I also have the added assistance as a member of the Catholic Health Association Board of Directions, having listened to their General Counsel’s careful opinion of what influence these new regulations would have on Catholic Health Care interests. The wise and prudent approach has suggested not rushing into comments without the assistance of those more skilled in reading and understanding government “legalese” than most bishops. So what follows are my personal impressions of the Administration’s latest proposals.

1. Clearly, the Administration has been desirous of listening to and accommodating the concerns of Catholics and other people and institutions of conscience, like myself, who had real worries about the regulatory language in possession up till last Friday. There has been a serious effort to accommodate some of the conscience concerns of the Catholic bishops and I feel some expression of gratitude is due to the Administration.

2. One would be hard put to find any other segment of the American public whose concerns about the Affordable Health Care Act have attempted to be dealt with than those of the Catholic bishops and other like-minded people on this very important matter. There have been moments when I think we should consider ourselves lucky that they are still talking to us.

3. The result has been that many of our concerns, about religious freedom and conscience have been attempted to be met. For me the first attempt of the government to define religious ministry outside of our houses of worship has been addressed in the removal all together of the first three prongs of the prior definition and I am personally at peace with this aspect of the challenge.

4. By opening again, for the third time, a comment period (all must be submitted by April 8th), the Administration has offered an invitation to all interested parties, the Catholic bishops included, to raise any additional concerns which this new draft may have given birth to. There are no promises and anyone who has worked in Washington, as I have, should be prepared for the reality that whatever finds it way into law eventually will be “imperfect” in some way, but so was the much missed “Hyde Amendment.” Cardinal Dolan has made it clear subsequent to the statement issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that the USCCB has not rejected the HHS draft but seeks to continue to explore progress on some points which would lead to improvement.

5. As a former teacher of English (long ago), I find any discussion of the difference between exemption and accommodation to be interesting because as I look them both up in the OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE I am led to believe that it is a distinction without a difference. I find this especially true when studying the manner in which HHS would allow other religious entities for whom the mandate presents an issue of “conscience” to decide that they were worthy of the accommodation. Not many other entities of American life are treated with this level of trust (and this would be especially true of the tax code) and some thanks should also be due to the Administration for trying to find a solution which might satisfy us and other constituencies who think otherwise.

6. In the last eight days or so, I have found myself wondering who speaks for the Church? Cardinals, archbishops and bishops are certainly entitled to their opinions (as I hope I am amply demonstrating in this blog post) but since the Second Vatican Council, our collegial voice has almost always been the elected leader of our episcopal conference, currently Cardinal Dolan. His opinion is certainly not binding on every Catholic, but should be accorded greater respect than any of us. But he speaks for the bishops who elected him, as did his predecessors and as will his successors, not necessarily for the whole Church.

7. Which brings me to my final point. As far as I know, at no time up to yesterday (Friday)since the new HHS regs were made available for review and public comment, has anyone from the conference structure consulted with legal counsel for other entities in the Church (hospitals, college and universities, Catholic Charities)to ask their read on how this proposal will affect their ministry. Yet the USCCB statement, it seems, would have one believe that the above mentioned entities might fairly have their “noses out-of-joint” because they are being given consideration under the “accommodation” and not the “exemption.” I did not leave this week’s Board of Director’s meeting of the Catholic Health Association thinking that all those CEO’s of systems and related members felt they were being treated as second class citizens by these new regulations. Perhaps we bishops need a little more humility from time to time, recognizing that we are not the only “game in town” but that there are other players, women and men of great faith who also love the Church, and who can speak for themselves and their organizations, on what effect legislation, proposed legislation, regulations will have on their ministry. A more collaborative effort might lead to greater results.

We still have time to work to smooth out some of the rough waters which lie ahead. As one member, I would hope that our episcopal conference might be as open to listening to the issues and challenges which government seems to face as I believe they have been so far in hearing our concerns. But in the end, everyone must prepare themselves for what is likely to be imperfect regulations drawn from imperfect legislation. I still am grateful that that more universal health care coverage will be the first fruit of the Affordable Care Act and I am beginning to feel that I can say to my diocesan self-insured employees, all 1400 of them, that their moral right to health care coverage will survive this moment.

+RNL

I realize it has been some time since my last posting here and I will admit to a certain “desert” experience during which I felt neither the muse nor the motive. However, that brief period is now over and I am ready again to take “pen to hand” (well, not exactly literally) and share some thoughts with you again.

“A Sea of Bishops” at Mass on Monday morning. Thank you to Lisa Hendey, a Catholic blogger also at the Mass and who covered the USCCB meeting, for tweeting this photo and for graciously allowing me to post it. You can check out more photos and her tweets recapping the meeting by clicking here.

I am currently killing time in Baltimore awaiting my return flight to St. Petersburg after the fall meeting of the bishops of the US (USCCB). Admittedly, there was both some soul-searching and some navel gazing following the recent elections, but the work of the Church continues. Among the public actions taken, I think a special message on “preaching” written for bishops, deacons and priests who are privileged to have this special task was probably one of the best things which we accomplished during the two days of public meetings. It is a challenging document, sober in its analysis of both the challenge and efficacy of preaching. In my humble opinion, it is one of the better pastoral items coming from the USCCB in recent years. When published, I intend to give a copy to all of our priests and deacons but for those who cannot wait, Rocco Palmo of the “mother of all ecclesial blogs” has the text in its entirety and up even before the USCCB’s own website. You can read it by clicking here.

There is always a lot of “business” and “busyness” accompanying our annual meetings since the annual budget for the conference and the priorities and plans, in the case of this year’s meeting, for the next three years must be passed. Cardinal Dolan’s Presidential address on the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation was different than what we usually hear and built upon Pope Benedict’s homily that the new evangelization must spring from the twin foundations of reconciliation and charity. The representative of the Holy Father to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, addressed us thoughtfully on a number of matters including the care of the bishops for his priests.

It was hard at times for me to concentrate as there is a major challenge awaiting me at home in the diocese. With somewhere near 1,500 employees whose health care plan is administered by United Healthcare, the battle between they and Baycare, whose doctors and hospitals many of our employees use, is approaching a decisive hour when major decisions will have to be made. I can not envision being a part of a healthcare plan which does not include St. Anthony’s and St. Joseph’s Hospitals, but Baycare is demanding a dramatic increase in reimbursement fees which will also impact the already stretched and tight budgets of our parishes, schools and institutions. Nowhere in seminary training, then or now, were we trained how to deal with a “Clash of Titans.” November 30th is the drop dead date after which some major decisions may have to be made by my administrative team.

Tampa is in the news in a tragic and unflattering way these days, as most of you know, which leads me to share some concluding thoughts on fidelity, marriage, ordination and consecration. I don’t know if it is just me, but it seems that infidelity has brought down too many role models in the last decade, be they athletes, religious leaders, politicians, and now, high ranking leaders of the military. That marriages fail is an understandable reality and fact of life. That dalliances prevail is a tragedy of modern life. Cheating on one’s firm commitment undermines the stability and trust not just of the promises, but also of the major institutions of society and the people we elect, chose or admire who hold those positions. Fidelity, where art thou? It seems to me that fidelity is in, shall we say, a “skyfall!”

With that last paragraph, you might wish that I re-enter the desert where there are no birds, no ravens, no orioles, and no bishops!

+RNL

There have been numerous inquiries to my office about if and when I might speak about the upcoming national election. I choose to do so now, knowing in advance that what I say will disappoint some, and perhaps may be of some help to others.

What is a serious voter of conscience to do this fall? Both parties have now embraced their respective platforms and both candidates have spoken repeatedly about their positions on issues on what I believe to be “ of conscience.”

Looking at this election from the standpoint of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) document on political responsibility entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (very much worth a read by clicking here); the following is what I would take into the voting booth to shape my choice on Election Day. My observations on the issues are based on what has come to date either out of the respective party platforms or the candidates’ mouths and they appear in the priority order in which the issues appear in the aforementioned publication:

1. Protecting innocent human life in the womb, reducing abortion on request, opposing euthanasia, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. In these very important areas of life concerns,  it is abundantly clear from the party’s own platforms as well as convention election rhetoric that the Republicans provide stronger reassurance.

2. Opposing torture, waging unjust war, preventing genocide, eliminating the use of the death penalty, avoiding armed conflict and seeking peace. Personally, I find little comfort in either party on these very important “life issues.” Little has been said as of this writing by any candidate on most of these issues save the last – the search for peace.

3. Protecting religious freedom by allowing Churches and religious institutions to define themselves free of government interference and respecting the rights of those institutions and employees to protect themselves from materially cooperating in actions against their moral conscience. Nothing has changed since my previous “blog” writings on this very important religious freedom issue from the Administration and again the rhetoric at the Democratic convention suggests that they either just don’t care about how Catholics feel or believe there are too few of us who feel strongly to do them electoral harm. The other party’s candidates and their platform promise restoration of religious freedom.

4. Promoting genuine and just immigration reform while securing the nation’s borders. There is little difference to be found here but the President’s recent Executive Order implementing portions of the now nearly defunct “Dream Act” shows more compassion, at least to those children of parents no longer living in this country while their children do.

5. Proffering genuine access for all to medical care and expanding its opportunity to more of the uncovered. The Catholic Church and especially its bishops have long argued for the extension of health care benefits to those presently uncovered and unprotected. The Affordable Care Act accomplished a large portion of this important social agenda. Unfortunately the Administration has published regulations which infringe on the Church’s freedom to define and pursue its mission but the fact is there now is no maximum limit on health care benefits, there now is no pre-condition impediment to accessing a health care plan, and children may remain on their parent’s program now until they are twenty-six. Additionally, more of the nation’s previously uncovered are now covered. Contraceptive mandate notwithstanding, I think the Democratic Party and platform is more committed to the Church’s vision of universal health care for the poor although I lament the absence of access to care for the undocumented.

6. Support for marriage as between one man and one woman as the bedrock of societal family life. In this election, there is a clear choice, I believe, as seen in platforms and pronouncements of party leadership.

7. Strengthening the possibility of parental choice in the education of their children. The power of the teachers’ unions over the Democratic Party and its candidates for office is very visible. The teachers are strongly against parental choice in education (read that, competition is good in every other sector of society, except the education of our children) and the Democrats in this one walk lockstep the teachers’ union line. Republicans see the value to our nation in freedom of choice in education.

8. Care for the genuine poor, disadvantaged, the “least among us.” This one is interesting to me because the Democrats have always laid claim to it. Much of this election is about the economy, high unemployment, home mortgages, etc. I have yet to hear either party speak for “the genuine poor, disadvantaged and least among us” primarily, I suspect, because these people do not vote or form a voting bloc. That’s why they need the help of the Church and all followers of Christ. Remember those challenging words in the Gospel, “when did I see you poor?”

9. Advancing the cause of human labor by protecting employees and supporting their right to organize. You don’t need my help on this one. One party loves unions and the other has an allergy to them.

10. Giving witness to global solidarity through promoting peace and pursuing justice. I don’t think there is an advantage to either party here at this moment in human history. The evidence of the last few days is that there are a lot of people in the world who do not like, trust, or believe in the United States for a variety of reasons, a few fair, but many unfair. Now this is just my personal opinion but in answer to that quadrennial favorite question, “are you better off now than four years ago?” I would say I am not at all sure. Not to decide is to decide!

So, what I have attempted to do above is to take the issues which the body of bishops in the United States have lifted up as constitutive for conscience formation today and apply them for myself. I only ask you to do the same in forming your conscience and decisions. I do not wish to tell you for whom to vote or how to vote, but rather, in an area of human reasoning and judgment, only explain how I see these issues when I consider how to cast my vote. The guidance which the bishops of the United States follow at moments like this election season disappoints some while is understood and appreciated by many. You may read these guidelines by clicking here.

For some, one or more of these issues may be more important than others or there may well be an issue or issues which are not on this list (which was never meant to be exhaustive). I have never known in my lifetime a perfect candidate for office (though I think the late Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania came the closest to passing the test on most of the above) and voting can become a “lesser of two evils” decision for many (it has for me in the past, I know). One thing is for certain and is probably the only thing which the two candidates for the highest office and their parties can agree on. This year, there is indeed a clear choice.

Let me close by calling your attention to two important ecclesial statements that have guided me in preparing and praying over this blog entry, the first from the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and the second by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

In speaking to the bishops of the world, the Council described our responsibility as teachers in the “Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishop in the Church” and there in we were encouraged to “announce the Gospel of Christ” and also to “teach the value of earthly goods and human institutions according to the plan of God the Creator.” The fathers went on to enumerate “the human person and bodily life, the family and its unity and stability, the procreation and education of children, civil society with its laws and professions, labor and leisure, the arts and technical inventions, poverty and affluence.” In addition, bishops “should set forth the ways by which are to be answered the most serious questions concerning the ownership, increase, and just distribution of material goods, peace and war, and brotherly relations among all countries.” [Christus Dominus #12]

Then from the 2002 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s  “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,” the following: “In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, [emphasis is that of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith] Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forego extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution for example). In addition there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which the “right of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged” [Gaudium et Spes, #75). Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. "Peace is always the work of justice and the effect of charity."[Catechism, 2304] It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant a vigilant commitment on the part of all leaders.” (#4).

Voting is a sacred right won for us by our ancestors through blood and battle. We must take it seriously, study the issues and cast our ballot from a well-formed conscience.

+RNL

My earlier blog post on the situation between the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) engendered more than its fair share of disagreement from usually friendly sources. As a follow up, I would like to add some additional reflections which follow on events since the publication of the Doctrinal Assessment by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Last week the LCWR concluded its annual meeting, held this year in St. Louis, Missouri. At its conclusion, its leadership issued a statement which can be read by clicking here. I can not compliment the leadership enough for their thoughtful, reflective, and very ecclesial approach to a very difficult moment in Church relations. At no time did the elected leadership react in an angry manner, flame the fires of a potential fight, or descend into name calling. They kept their calm and showed real class. In a long interview on the public radio program “Fresh Air,” their president, Sister Pat Farrell, expressed her (and presumably her fellow leaders) bewilderment and hurt at the Vatican Declaration, but it was done in a respectful manner. However, what I admire the most at this moment is that going into and during their national meeting, the sisters prayed and dialogued among themselves, with no leaks and no search for grabbing headlines. I am not sure my own United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) could have accomplished that on an occasion which did manage to garner considerable national attention. The final statement indicates that the LCWR is willing to open a dialogue with the three bishops while hoping that they are not asked to compromise on what they hold important in their life and ministry.

On the PR front, the sisters gained a lot more support than “the bishops” did, or so it would seem. Bishop Leonard Blair, one of the three appointed bishops, also appeared on an interview with “Fresh Air” and did the best he could. I say this because I thought a lot of time was spent questioning the bishop on the question of the credibility of the bishops in light of the sexual abuse scandals rather than on the LCWR issue – dots that are difficult for me to connect, perhaps, because I am a bishop. I know of no bishop in this country who does not admire, love and support the women religious in his diocese. I also believe that the bishops have been somewhat restrained in their comments on the matter, except to do as I did and hope and pray for a sucessful conclusion. I also do not wish to waiver from my belief that from the Holy See’s perspective, Archbishop J. Peter Sartain is a great choice to chair what I hope will be a successful dialogue with the leadership of the majority of religious sisters.

Thanks to the leadership of the sisters, the true work of dialogue and reconciliation can now begin.

+RNL

Praying the Prayer for Protection of Religious Liberty with the congregation before the end of Mass. Photo kindness of Maria Mertens.

Last night, St. Paul Catholic Church in Tampa was almost full with those who came out to the Fortnight for Freedom Mass. I thank those who came and everyone who has been praying for the protection of our religious liberty.

I’ve included the text of my homily below. The video taken of my homily is also below if you would rather watch than read. You can read a PDF copy of my homily by clicking here.

There are a few photos from the Mass included after the text of my homily below. You can see more photos from the Mass by clicking here.

Brothers and Sisters, 

An often overlooked call to prayer, which in older times was called the Introit and since the Second Vatican Council called the “Entrance Antiphon,” tonight introduces the liturgy and this homily with these words: “These are the ones who, living in the flesh, planted the Church with their blood; they drank the chalice of the Lord and became the friends of God.” 

            Peter and Paul, far from perfect men as we know so well, rose with courage to plant the seeds of faith in the early Church and then sprinkled it with the blood of martyrdom. Peter, imprisoned in tonight’s first reading, by the same King Herod who out of sheer jealousy had ordered the slaying of countless Holy Innocents and John the Baptist, finds himself in chains. From the depth of his faith in Jesus Christ, Peter would not allow his voice to be silenced by an agent of the state.

Paul, time after time thrown in jail, tortured and beaten, simply because those in power, civic or religious, could not and would not brook a challenge to the established order, the introduction of a new way of life focused on a Jew crucified as a too-often purveyor of a message of love in a culture of doubt, suspicion. Or put another way, an advocate of a new faith rooted in a new covenant between God and humankind. Paul’s comfort in his final days on earth, before his beheading (a manner of death experienced sixteen centuries later in England and visited upon St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More who parted company with their king over their Church’s view of the indissolubility of marriage) was found in that in running the race, at least in later life he had fought the good fight.

            I chose this evening to call us to prayer at a moment when a dark cloud hangs over the future exercise of freedom of religion in our beloved country. The climate and culture of this moment in human history creates a welcoming environment for an attack on religion. Slowly but surely, this nation, founded as “one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all,” which we pledge alliance to, is becoming more and more Godless. How sad! Without God there can be little hope that is true and lasting hope. In his final days in Rome, Paul was not surrounded by a clamoring crowd yelling, “tell us more, tell us more.” Rather, he might have looked upon his efforts as singularly unsuccessful. But, listen to his words of confidence before his death: “I have kept the faith. From now on, the crown of righteousness awaits me, which the Lord, the just judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but to all who have longed for his appearance.” Now there is a man of hope.

            Likewise, the clumsy, impetuous and sometimes even imprudent Peter never gives up hope in God and in Jesus Christ. One can take on the prevailing opinion when one is personally comfortable that in so doing we are following in the footsteps and riding the shoulders of those who have gone before like Peter, Paul, John, Thomas, and the Baptist, all of whose feasts we have observed during this fortnight.

            As a more modern example, the Carroll brothers of Maryland – one a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the other the first bishop on this soil. Fighting in the revolution for the freedom we til this time have enjoyed, Bishop John Carroll often found himself defending to his superiors the American experiment of democracy and true freedom of religion. He and the other Catholics of the colonies found the first amendment to the Constitution to offer solid, sustainable hope for the future. Countless other bishops and laity over the succeeding years rose to defend the American ideals because of the hope which they had in their new land and its leaders. Even a less than zealous man of faith like Jefferson of Virginia argued strenuously for true free exercise of religious liberty because it was not just one of the basic pillars of this new land, but its first privilege, its first right.

            Tonight I seek your support in prayer to God who is both the source of our hope and inspiration to see what is at stake at this moment. Carroll, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Lincoln would and could never have envisioned the federal government defining what is a religious exercise and what is not. They fought and many spilled their blood for the contrary. Left to stand, the language of regulation of a single department of the executive branch of government would define Tampa Catholic High School, Jesuit High School, the Academy of the Holy Names, Saint Joseph and Saint Anthony Hospital, Catholic Charities and our homes for those with HIV-AIDS and Pinellas Hope (to name but a few) as not Catholic ministry because more than ten percent of the staff and the recipients of the education, healing ministry, homeless shelter are not Catholic. I repeat the line of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, “we do not assist people because they are Catholic, but precisely because we are Catholic.” They can’t regulate our freedom to be who we are and destroy our very  Catholic DNA which derives from the two great commandments, love of our God and love our neighbor. It is the Gospel which defines who we are, not a single agency of our government.

            What we are praying for tonight and throughout these days in our parishes and homes is simply this: let us define our mission, our purpose, our purview, free of outside influence while in harmony with the foundational ideals of our great nation and we will continue to be those in our neighborhoods who teach our children to be good citizens, who reach out to those who have either fallen through the safety net of previously government responsibility or who have no access to the safety net, who heal those sick and dying, who care for widows and orphans, who fight alongside others for freedom when called for, and fight for peace always.

            Brothers and sisters, failure to uphold our freedom of faith and liberty of practice is not an option even if the general culture of our society sinks into a religion of secularism. Others may chose other paths, but we pray that this great nation will allow us to continue to walk the road less travelled by if that should become the case. Catholics love this country, have spilt their blood for this country, and have risen to serve others in this county and tonight we pray for the continued ability to live free as Catholic Americans.

            Finally, it may well be a long walk to reinforce religious freedom. But it was a long walk for Peter and Paul. One could and did say “I have competed well; I have finished the race.” The other could and did say Now I know for certain that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod. . .” On this feast day, let us all be women and men of the Church and become at this moment in history to be the ones living in the flesh” seeking and working for the same freedom of religious liberty purchased some 237 years ago at the price of our ancestors’ blood. We shall not go quietly into this dark night.

Giving the homily. Photo kindness of Maria Mertens.

Praying the Litany for Liberty with the congregation. Photo kindness of Maria Mertens.

Fortnight for Freedom Mass. Photo kindness of Maria Mertens.

+RNL

This Thursday the Catholic Church in the United States will begin to observe what has been entitled a “Fortnight for Freedom.” I will not retrace the steps which have led the Church in this country to this point, as I have addressed them several times here and anyone reading even the secular press knows that we and other religious leaders feel that religion is witnessing a major reduction in the liberties and freedoms which it has long enjoyed in recent years. The Fortnight, therefore, is an attempt to move the growing conscious awareness of what is happening into as many Catholic homes and minds as possible for reflection and prayer. I will celebrate a special diocesan Mass at St. Paul’s Catholic Church on Dale Mabry North in Tampa (map and directions) on Friday, June 29, 2012 at 7:30pm and I hope as many people as can will come and pray with me for a restoration of those liberties which we have lost and an end to future incursions into classic American freedom of religion. Your parish should be doing some other things to support the effort of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), especially through special prayers at Mass during the Intercessions, bulletin announcements and as some parishes have done already, evening reflections and presentations on the issues involved. The Fortnight will be brought to a conclusion on Independence Day, the Fourth of July, with the ringing of Church bells at noon.

While I am appreciative and supportive of this national effort, I am also extremely concerned about the passage this Fall of two amendments to the Florida State Constitution: Amendment Six which would guarantee that no federal or state monies would be spent on abortions, and Amendment Eight which would eradicate the long-standing Blaine Amendment in our present constitution which precludes the use of any state monies for the support of any religious enterprise. Why do our children not get rides on school buses in this state? The Blaine Amendment. Why do our children not get access to textbooks for secular non-religion courses in our schools? The Blaine Amendment. Worried that one cannot go to the political well too often, I hope our parishes and institutions will work hard this fall in passing both of these important amendments to our state constitution. The history of the Blaine Amendment in the US is deeply rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry and should be an embarrassment to all fair and open-minded citizens. So, while we will cooperate and participate in the Fortnight for Freedom, I have these two other matters in my mind and know we will have to work hard to pass them. Florida statute requires a 60% “yes” vote on amendments to the Constitution for passage and that is a sizeable challenge.

There is a lot on the civic stove cooking at this moment and I hope you will walk these various paths with me and with the Church to achieve important changes in attitudes and law.

+RNL

I just left the Grand Ballroom of the Hyatt Atlanta Downtown, my daytime prison cell for the past two days. We just concluded our Spring Meeting of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), which is distinguishable from the Fall meeting in several respects: it travels (which means that we never meet in the same city two years in a row), it is shorter (two days instead of three), it is slightly less well attended by the membership, and it usually results in nothing startling,  controversial, or seismic. A new innovation attempted this year, quite successfully I would say, was to spend an entire afternoon listening to and responding to presentations on an issue of importance (this year the HHS Mandate debate). Quite frankly, I enjoyed the opportunity to spend some time in a matter of great importance to me, with insights and presentations given by experts in the field of religious liberty.

Dr. John Garvey, the President of the Catholic University of America and himself a lawyer, spoke about recent incursions into the freedom of religion. Citing five recent incidents in recent years, Dr. Garvey made a compelling case for the USCCB doing what it is doing relative to the Affordable Health Care Act and their attendant regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services. You may read Dr. Garvey’s talk to us by clicking here. A second presentation on the topic of international religious freedom was given by Ambassador Thomas Farr, currently on the faculty of Georgetown University and entitled “The Church and the Global Crisis of Religious Liberty” and it can be accessed by clicking here. The final presentation of the day was the most compelling to me and was given by Bishop Shlemon Warduni, a Catholic bishop of the Chaldean Rite from Iraq. Quite frankly, the bishop’s recounting of the cost to Christians in Iraq caused by the US invasion made me sick at my stomach. You may read Bishop Warduni’s brief talk here. Sometimes we bishops are accused of being the “Republican party at prayer” but this monstrosity was led by a Republican President. He ended by saying that the US had managed to get rid of one crazy dictator who has been now replaced by many crazy dictators. How sad and tragic and talk about an assault on religious freedom!

We spent a good deal of time dealing with the HHS regulations, the Conference’s response to them, the strategy of the lawsuits brought against the regulations, and where do we go from here. Starting next week, many dioceses throughout the United States will observe what is being called a “Fortnight for Freedom” which will end on July 4th. I will be celebrating Mass at St. Paul’s Church, just off Dale Mabrey in north Tampa, on Friday evening June 29, 2012 (The Solemnity of the Feasts of SS. Peter and Paul) and speaking in the context of the Fortnight for Freedom observance and I hope as many of you as possible can come that evening at 7:30pm. For more information on the June 29 Mass and to see how our Diocese is participating in the Fortnight for Freedom, please click here.

We talked about communications and how poorly we do it in the Church at the moment. Three bishops tweeted during the meeting and several posted to Facebook. There is wide-spread agreement among the bishops that the Church’s and the Conference’s communication efforts need to be improved and more use made of the modern means of social communication today – ah, like this blog! (Sorry, I could not resist.) There were some currents in the discussion which made me nervous as I feel the mantle of censorship coming to NC News which has since its founding enjoyed editorial freedom but may soon lose its “religious liberty.” I would rue that day. There is also a push for a spokesperson for the Conference (read that “easy to look at” and Walter Cronkite-ish in their credibility) and I would not want that job for all the proverbial tea in China. Nuance one thing in a way that upsets one bishop and that person’s livelihood would likely be at stake, a position Archbishop Wilton Gregory made on the floor in much kinder, gentler words.

We didn’t vote on anything except to authorize a statement to be written on the effects of the economy on people today. Today we spent ninety minutes in a regional meeting which is considerably longer than we are accustomed to doing. The day ended with an afternoon in Executive Session and then I am out of here and headed home tomorrow (Friday). If this blog has been less than scintillating, blame it on the fact that there is no train service from Atlanta to Tampa and I had to fly both ways. I tend in November to think better and perhaps even write better on the train coming home from Baltimore. It is always good to see friends at these meetings and the liturgies are well done in the morning. The Hyatt in Downtown Atlanta could, if it chose to do so, boast of the smallest hotel rooms for the steepest price on the eastern seaboard and while charging an arm and leg per night, there were no glasses in the room to be found and no room service from noon to five p.m. So that’s it from slumming it in HotLanta. Home sweet home awaits me.

+RNL

John Carr. Photo taken from a Google Images search.

The “mother of all ecclesial blogs” (http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/) began my day today with some sad news, my colleague and friend, John Carr, will be leaving his long-held position as lead agent and spokesperson for international and domestic social justice at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops this summer. Monsignor Daniel F. Hoye, who was general Secretary of the then USCC, and I, as his Associate, hired John in the mid-eighties for roughly the same position he has held now for a quarter century. John has a great story about his initial and only interview with me for the position but my high standards of choice of words will not allow its replication here. He came to the Conference immediately from the Archdiocese of Washington with the strong endorsement of then Archbishop James Hickey and that was significant in itself. I suspect that in a moment of truth, John would say that the first decade of his service were the  most rewarding and fun. My supervisees in that period of time, most of whom Monsignor Hoye and I hired, were Mark Chopko, gone now to private law practice in Washington, as General Counsel, Frank Monahan, now retired, as head of the Office of Government Liaison, then Monsignor (now Bishop) Nicholas DiMarzio as head of Migration and Refugee Services, Father Kenneth Doyle and Monsignor Frank Maniscalco in the Communications department, a succession of talented people as heads of the Education Department, etc. They were bright, brainy and dedicated Catholics and working with them was exhilarating.

As the principal staff person for the social justice agenda of the bishops’ conference, John Carr probably caught most of the flak from an increasingly polarized Church with right-wing mostly Republican critics shooting from the right and liberal mostly Democratic Catholics who always wished for more from the bishops shooting at him from the left. But the bishops trusted this team as well as this man and supported the Conference when it was occasionally under assault from friends and foes alike. At the intellectual level among these dedicated servants of the Church, I was outclassed by far and found my job to be more of allowing them to bring to the attention of the Conference as a whole the plans and programs of their bishop chairs or the Office of the General Secretariat. On Sunday night last, I had dinner with Father J. Bryan Hehir, now the principal social justice advisor to Cardinal Sean O’Malley and left the table thinking, how in the world did I one time serve as “supervisor” to this talented man? It was always humbling but heady and I loved it. The bishops of those days overwhelmingly had great confidence in the “team” at the Conference with a few exceptions beginning to form at the cardinalatial level. They were the best days of my life of service to the NCCB/USCC and it was all owing to women and men like John Carr.

Organizations change over time as they should and must and I perfectly understand and accept that reality. The bishops’ conference of today is vastly different than the one which I was privileged to serve and I also understand and accept that as well. John lasted longer than anyone in those positions, largely because he was an expert in reading and adapting to the “tea-leaves” of the Church in the United States. The poor, marginalized, underserved and not-served, voiceless and ignored, will be losing a great friend who helped the bishops to craft past positions which brought their plight to the attention of the larger Church. None of us are irreplaceable (that has been proved four times since I left the General Secretariat) but some like John will be hard to replace. He soldiered well, carrying the burden of proclaiming the armament of the Church’s social justice agenda and teaching and now it is time in the words of Ernest Hemingway to bid a “farewell to arms.” Thank you, John, for your faithful, significant, and strong presence in the Church in the United States and may the road indeed rise up to meet you and the devil never again be at your back. I know I speak for many today on this sad day.

+Bob

To bring you up-to-date on the latest regarding the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, what follows is a letter from Cardinal Dolan, our United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) President and Bishop William Lori, the chairman of our Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty to the bishops of the U.S. that was issued late last week. It says it all:                          

Office of the President
3211 FOURTH STREET NE WASHINGTON DC 20017-1194 202-541-3100 FAX 202-541-3166
Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan Archbishop of New York President

February 22, 2012

Dear Brother Bishops,

 
Since we last wrote to you concerning the critical efforts we are undertaking together to protect religious freedom in our beloved country, many of you have requested that we write once more to update you on the situation and to again request the assistance of all the faithful in this important work. We are happy to do so now.

 
First, we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to you, and to all our sisters and brothers in Christ, for the remarkable witness of our unity in faith and strength of conviction during this past month. We have made our voices heard, and we will not cease from doing so until religious freedom is restored.

As we know, on January 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a decision to issue final regulations that would force practically all employers, including many religious institutions, to pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraception. The regulations would provide no protections for our great institutions—such as Catholic charities, hospitals, and universities—or for the individual faithful in the marketplace. The regulations struck at the heart of our fundamental right to religious liberty, which affects our ability to serve those outside our faith community.

Since January 20, the reaction was immediate and sustained. We came together, joined by people of every creed and political persuasion, to make one thing resoundingly clear: we stand united against any attempt to deny or weaken the right to religious liberty upon which our country was founded.

On Friday, February 10, the Administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed “without change.” The mandate to provide the illicit services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite the outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain.

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any government’s decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations.

Recent actions by the Administration have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a “privilege” arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all encompassing, extreme form of secularism. The exemption is too narrowly defined, because it does not exempt most non-profit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self insured employer, the for-profit religious employer, or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily.

In the United States, religious liberty does not depend on the benevolence of who is regulating us. It is our “first freedom” and respect for it must be broad and inclusive—not narrow and exclusive. Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second class citizens. And it is not for the government to decide which of our ministries is “religious enough” to warrant religious freedom protection.

This is not just about contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilization—although all should recognize the injustices involved in making them part of a universal mandated health care program. It is not about Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. It is about people of faith. This is first and foremost a matter of religious liberty for all. If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end? This violates the constitutional limits on our government, and the basic rights upon which our country was founded.

Much remains to be done. We cannot rest when faced with so grave a threat to the religious liberty for which our parents and grandparents fought. In this moment in history we must work diligently to preserve religious liberty and to remove all threats to the practice of our faith in the public square. This is our heritage as Americans. President Obama should rescind the mandate, or at the very least, provide full and effective measures to protect religious liberty and conscience.

Above all, dear brothers, we rely on the help of the Lord in this important struggle. We all need to act now by contacting our legislators in support of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which can be done through our action alert on www.usccb.org/conscience.

We invite you to share the contents of this letter with the faithful of your diocese in whatever form, or by whatever means, you consider most suitable. Let us continue to pray for a quick and complete resolution to this and all threats to religious liberty and the exercise of our faith in our great country.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan                               Most Reverend William E. Lori
Archbishop of New York                                Bishop of Bridgeport
President, United States Conference     Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious
of Catholic Bishops                                             Liberty

The letter has also been posted on the diocesan website (www.dosp.org) and can be read as a PDF version in English or Spanish.

+RNL