Pope Francis: Pastoral Challenges for our Spiritual Journey

By Father John W. Crossin, OSFS

Pastors, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, know that challenging the members of the Congregation is part of the job description. Issuing such “wakeup calls” is usually not the pastor’s favorite thing to do. The pastor’s popularity -- and collections -- might go down as people can initially be shaken or even angry about a challenge. Yet the pastor is charged with the spiritual well-being of the members of the Congregation.

Recently Pope Francis’ poll numbers have gone down a bit. Most everyone knows that he has been saying quite challenging things since he was elected bishop of Rome. Reading the texts first of his exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, and now his encyclical, Laudato Si', I see something to challenge almost everyone. I include myself as one who has been challenged, for example, to live more simply, among other things.

The purpose of such challenges is to create “disequilibrium.” The call to conversion upsets our comfortable balance of friends who agree with us and our ways of thinking that are well insulated from some parts of the world. The challenge affects all the things we say to ourselves when we want to avoid real issues. All of us have blind spots and sometimes we want to stay blind. So we defend ourselves--at least initially.

Of course, the call of the Gospel is to open ourselves, even reluctantly, to transformation in Christ. Our problem is not really with Pope Francis, but with following Jesus in the Church. We can shape our ways of thinking to be more like His. We can walk with some of the disparate, and sometime disreputable, people Jesus talked to and healed.

The challenges should lead us into prayer. What is God saying to me? Should I take another look at my ways of thinking or acting?

These questions might lead us to consult a spiritual friend or two. These are friends or family members who are spiritually wise, have good judgment and will be honest with us. They can help us with discerning God’s will.

Among the larger number of suggestions Pope Francis makes, we are called to discern, what is the one path I am called to follow now? Who is God calling me to be now? These are the underlying challenges when Pope Francis speaks of the poor, immigrants, environmental degradation and other issues. He invites us to take merciful action, and the challenge is always to go deeper in following Christ.

Father Crossin is an Oblate of St. Francis De Sales and executive director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Radical Vision of Jesus: How Pope Francis Lives His First Encyclical

By Bishop John Wester

One of the numerous surprising moments of Pope Francis' young pontificate was the announcement that on Holy Thursday, March 28, he would celebrate the Mass of the Lord's Supper at Rome's Casa Del Marmo Youth Detention Centre. There, in an unforgettable moment, he washed the feet of 12 young inmates. In anticipation of the pope's visit, one of them said, "At last I shall get to meet someone who says he is my father!"

This observation captures the power of the pope's gesture. "True power is service," Pope Francis said in his inaugural homily and later on Twitter. And the power of this particular act of service is that it cast a light where there was darkness, a light that allowed a young person the world had forgotten to experience a father's love for the first time.

In Pope Francis' first encyclical, Lumen Fidei (Light of Faith), published July 5, the pope says that faith is a light that comes directly from an encounter with God. "The light of faith is unique," the pope writes, "since it is capable of illuminating every aspect of human existence."

This includes the past and all the people who have walked the path of faith before us, but also the promises for the future that God makes and keeps because he is faithful. And of course it includes Jesus, the embodiment of God's fulfilled promises.

"Faith does not merely gaze at Jesus, but sees things as Jesus himself sees them, with his own eyes," Pope Francis writes. Christ's way of seeing the world "enables us to grasp reality's deepest meaning" and constantly guides us toward God. It is through this experience of Christ that our lives become "radically open to a love that precedes us, and love that transforms us from within, acting in us and through us in radical, often surprising ways."

It's not a stretch to think that Pope Francis washed the feet of the young inmates because he sees the world with the radical vision of Jesus, who sees that God loves these inmates as much as he love any other person. It also reflects the call of Jesus to serve those at the margins.

Like a light shining forth, faith makes a person go forth into the world. A person of faith must be ready "to come out of himself and find the God of perpetual surprises," Pope Francis writes. Even the Ten Commandments, he writes, aren't about rule keeping so much as "concrete directions for emerging from the desert of the selfish and self-enclosed ego in order to enter into dialogue with God, to be embraced by his mercy and then to bring that mercy to others."

Those who believe in the light of faith, he says, come to see themselves as members of a body, in an essential relationship with others. This relationship goes beyond powerful symbolic gestures like washing feet and applies the same love to big-picture issues like just economic systems, care for creation and forgiving one another. But little gestures are vital, because they allow the light of faith to spread, even reaching places it hasn't been for a long time or maybe has never been before.

Whether it's his Holy Thursday Mass in prison or the July 8 Mass for migrants on Lamedusa Island, how many people have responded to the gestures of Pope Francis with surprise, followed by an enthusiasm for faith and even an openness to Christ and his Church that wasn't there before? What a perfect example for the Church during the Year of Faith. The light of faith is powerful enough to help the whole world to see like Jesus.

Bishop Wester is bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City and chairman of the Communications Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

(CNS Photo/L'Osservatore Romano via Reuters)

What's In (Chanting) a Name?

Pope Francis had some gentle words of correction for the crowd gathered in St. Peter's Square for the Pentecost vigil. He took issue with people making the pope the focus of the event:

"Jesus. What is the most important thing? Jesus. If we push ahead with planning and organization, beautiful things indeed, but without Jesus, then we are on the wrong road. Jesus is the most important thing. I would like to take the opportunity now to make a small, but fraternal, reproach, among ourselves, alright? All of you in the square shouted out: 'Francis, Francis, Pope Francis' ... But, where was Jesus? I want to hear you shot out, "Jesus, Jesus is Lord, and He is in our midst.' From now on, no more 'Francis,' only 'Jesus.' Alright?"

(Hat tip to Vatican Radio, Salt + Light Media and others who brought this quote to our attention.)

This isn't the first time Pope Francis has asked this. He made a similar appeal to young people in St. Peter's Square on April 21. And it would seem the pope faces an uphill battle with World Youth Day, an event noted for its wall-to-wall papal name chanting, looming in Rio de Janeiro this July. But that's not Pope Francis' fault.

Jesuit Father Norman Tanner notes that the papacy has faced a growing cult of personality ever since Pius IX (1846-78) became the first pope to be photographed. The phenomenon crested in the made-for-television persona of John Paul II who met cheering crowds every step of the way as he circled the globe. In contrast, the shy and retiring Benedict XVI downplayed this image. John Thavis and other Vatican watchers have noted that the former pope looked visibly uncomfortable when crowds chanted his name. Even his surprise resignation seemed designed to draw a line between the man and the office.

Pope Francis has continued the trajectory, styling himself mostly as "the bishop of Rome," eschewing the luxurious trappings of the office and adopting this "He must increase, I must decrease"/from-the-visible-to-the-invisible approach.

Not long after his election, Pope Francis told the story of a layman who worked in the archdiocesan curia in Buenos Aires who would say "Jesus" before heading out to work. When then-Cardinal Bergoglio asked about this, the man said that saying the name of Jesus made him feel strong and ready to work, knowing Jesus was by his side. And now Pope Francis is urging Catholics to follow this man's lead and fix their gaze on Jesus.

The benefits of focusing on Jesus are almost too obvious and too extensive to mention, but here are a few tangential thoughts:

• Non-Catholics who see a crowd chanting a pope's name might think this earthly man has somehow displaced Jesus Christ as the one being adored.
• Ecumenists have long championed a model of dialogue with other Christians in which both parties focus as much as possible on Jesus because, like spokes approaching the hub of a wheel, they're closest to each other when they're closest to Christ.
• The Church has made the personal encounter with Christ the central thrust of the New Evangelization and the Year of Faith, recognizing that in encountering Christ, people find true faith.
• Catholics encounter Jesus Christ in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, which the Second Vatican Council calls the "source and summit" of the faith.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church says praying the name of Jesus is to invoke him and call him within us (2666). 

So yes, Pope Francis is probably onto something. And now, a whole blog post about the pope later, this writer had better take the message to heart too: Jesus, Jesus, Jesus...

(CNS Photo/Paul Haring)

American Girl Catholic School Uniform

Catholic schools are in vogue. Proof: You can buy a Catholic school uniform for an American Girl doll. In your favorite plaid. You can find them for Barbie too. All the best dressed dolls are sporting them. They’re $25-$30 online.

            However, though the dolls are going traditional, the Catholic schools are not. Catholic Schools are in transition mode.

            National Catholic Educational Association’s latest statistics for the 2011-2012 academic year note that nationwide there are 6,841 Catholic Schools: 5,636 elementary/middle and 1,205 secondary. More than 26 percent of them, 1,822 Catholic schools, have waiting lists for admission. Total school student enrollment is 2,031,455, with 1,440,572 in elementary/middle schools and 590,883 in secondary schools. Most students are Catholic, but more than 15 percent are not.

The schools have a long history – St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, founder of the Catholic schools, opened her first school in Baltimore in 1808. Today’s schools are a far cry from then.

The need to work to attract students is one reason. Years ago Catholic schools didn’t recruit. Students came from the parish in which they were located. Now with Mass attendance down, many families don’t see the parish school and do not automatically think local Catholic school. Schools no longer expect the nearby parish to underwrite them, though some parishes do to an extent. Now Catholic schools must market – sell themselves as never before. Catholic elementary schools are adopting practices once reserved for high school and higher education. Enrollment management and advancement practices such as annual giving programs are being introduced to let schools plan and manage resources responsibly.

            Finances are but one concern, however. The more important questions address the why of Catholic education. In our pluralistic society, intentional efforts must go to creating an environment that stresses not just the three Rs plus religion, but also respect for the human person and the goal of eternity.

Religious values are real. One mother told me that a boy in her daughter’s class had cancer. He was dying and the children prayed for him every day. She liked that her child was learning to deal with one of life’s realities and to bring concerns to Jesus.

            Another mother told of her four-year-old’s experience. On the first day of pre-school he was reflective throughout lunch. Finally he confided, “You know, Mom, you can trust God.” Then he sang about trust in God, a ditty he’d just learned. The message will do him well for life.

            Today, school backers know that the common elements of a successful Catholic school include a strong Catholic identity, clear doctrinal teaching and sacramental focus, mission driven decision-making, a strong, vision-oriented administrator and faculty, active parent involvement, focused academic curriculum and an emphasis on community involvement. Soon another measure of success will be how schools provide Catholic education for the Hispanic community and otherwise support the nation’s new families and immigrants.

             Decades ago Catholic schools moved children of immigrants up the social ladder through education. The schools started as an alternative to public schools that promoted Protestantism. Today they provide a different form of alternative education, giving parents at all economic levels a choice to send their children to a school that is right for that child, academically excellent and supportive of the faith for which the school exists. 

Tweet the Pope

By Sister Mary Ann Walsh

With the push of a button, I sent a tweet with #AskPontifex to the pope at @Pontifex, the new Twitter account the Vatican set up for Pope Benedict XVI. It’s nice to go straight to the top. Kudos to the pope who saw that even at 85 years of age, he has to engage in social media.

Pope Benedict speaks many languages, his native German, of course, and Italian, French, English and other tongues too. But the most important language for him may be Digital, the one that reaches every nation in the world.

On Twitter, Pope Benedict will send messages in eight languages: English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, French, Arabic and Italian. His tweets debut December 12, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, who in an apparition startled the peasant Juan Diego by speaking to him instead of higher ups in mid-16th century Mexico.

When Pope Benedict joins Twitter, he endorses a community that exists on the Web, where people can even discuss matters of the soul. Its anonymity can free people to share deep concerns. It is not always pretty, of course. Recently, for example, on the USCCB Facebook page people debated whether or not there’s a religious obligation to help the poor. Arguments over such a mandate can be a healthy, though sometimes raucous religious exercise. Undoubtedly Pope Benedict will encounter cynicism, but he can handle that. He knows it is important to engage, even at personal cost.

The pope’s web leadership might encourage bishops and others to follow suit. This will be no small accomplishment. Resistance comes from more than the fact that social media is time consuming. It comes from the fact that blogging and the like defy what many have been taught. Priests and bishops, for example, learned early on: “it’s about the message, not you.” Now comes a communications vehicle where they are expected to get more personal. It jars them.

Church leaders also revel in finely nuanced theology. Tweets of 140 characters preclude nuancing. Some who think length equals profundity might pause at truths such as “God loves you,”  “Jesus died for you” and “I am with you always.” They’re short on words, deep in meaning and fit Twitter’s length restrictions.

Some fear the pope and other leaders might lose some mystique when they tweet with the hoi polloi. Yet plain speaking is not irreverent and being with the masses is not beneath a religious leader. After all, God did become man. Scripture proves simple speech can be holy. Think “Let there be light” at creation and Mary’s “Let it be done unto me according to thy word” at the Annunciation. Engaging the crowd means being with God’s children, such as the multitude Jesus addressed on the mountainside.

Social media reaches billions. Its brevity makes it accessible. It’s via the Internet, a new place people gather and that sometimes needs to be redeemed. It is interactive as it beckons web users to engage another, perhaps the antidote to the isolation many people feel today. As he wades into social media waters, the pope will encounter a sometimes cynical cyber-world, but by using Twitter with sincerity, he can elevate the medium. Some may doubt the wisdom of this papal venture, but fear has never stopped Christians from sharing their message through all available means.

---

Editor's Note: Got a question for Pope Benedict XVI on Twitter? Use the hashtag #askpontifex to @Pontifex.

 

President Obama: Render Unto God the Things that Are God’s

Jesus is often quoted for his saying to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” The rest of the quote could be a message to the Obama Administration: “Render unto God the things that are God’s.”

The current tensions over religious freedom come down to a simple fact: the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. That includes the right of Catholic and other religious institutions to define and carry out their ministry.

An Obama regulation that compels virtually all employers to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs, to employees without co-pay, has a religious exemption. But the exemption is so narrow that Jesus himself wouldn’t qualify. Religious ministries qualify for the exemption only if the people providing the service are Catholic, the ones being served are Catholic, and the service itself comes packaged with religious instruction.

So much for hospital ministry. Will “Where does it hurt?” have to be replaced with “Where were you baptized?” At the soup kitchen will “Are you hungry?” be replaced with “Are you Catholic?” Will we have to teach the hungry the Apostle’s Creed before we feed them?

It is the church, not Caesar, that defines ministry. We Catholics are called to serve others because we’re Catholic, not because they are. We help others because of their need, not their creed. For the government to hold fast to its new definition of ministry, one crafted by the American Civil Liberties Union, reflects deafness to the Constitution that is unbecoming to the man sworn to defend it.

There has been some talk of accommodation, whereby (it is claimed) some Catholic institutions would not have to pay for services that violate their religious beliefs. Apparently, their insurance companies would pay for the services instead. One doesn’t have to be a cynic to question where the money to pay for those services will come from, as the only pool of available funds seems to be the premiums subsidized by the objecting religious institutions. And the government’s problematic definition of religious ministry still remains. There also is the question of what self-insured Catholic organizations are supposed to do. What good does it do to say the dirty work will be done by the insurer rather than the employer, if they are one and the same?

The Administration’s intrusive decision about what does and does not constitute religious ministry should make every American pause. What falls after freedom of religion? Freedom of the press? Will Caesar tell you what you have to print or air?

Days before President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the miserly religious exemption in his Administration’s regulation; the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision pertinent to religious freedom. In the Hosanna-Tabor case, the Court upheld 9-0 the right of a Lutheran Church to decide who its ministers are. The Obama Administration had taken the opposite, and losing, side, arguing that the church had no more right of religious liberty than a secular organization. One would have expected the Court’s resounding rejection of that argument to bring the Administration’s eyes into focus on the religious liberty question. Clearly it did not.

The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution makes freedom of religion the “First Freedom.” The Founding Fathers stressed that this freedom was sacred. George Washington in 1789 wrote to an annual meeting of Quakers that “The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extremely accommodated to them.”

Certainly our government, wise as it is, can’t be expected (and shouldn’t purport) to know everything. It might well ease its burdens by leaving some things to the Almighty and rendering unto God the things that are God’s.

Church Social Media Rule: Let’s Talk

The social media phenomenon offers both challenge and opportunity for the church. Social media reaches people – millions are on Facebook and Twitter every day. The church cannot ignore them. They are interactive, however, and don’t work when conversations are one-way. They involve dialogue, something not always welcome by clergy, teachers and other leaders.

“Because I said so” doesn’t cut it in social media, a fact regretted by parents and leaders who for ages have resorted to the phrase when exasperated with the petulant “But …” and plaintive “Why?”

For oldsters, such dialogue takes getting used to. A few years ago I took a course in church social teaching. It was to be an intellectual treat – until I got into the classroom with students who sought to debate the prof. The lecturer loved the interactivity, but I groaned inwardly at each sidestep. A former teacher, I appreciated the back-and-forth that helps minds expand, but I wanted the teaching clear-cut and wanted to soak up all the renowned prof had to offer. It may have been my inner dinosaur peeking out.

The church has a solid history of such top-down didacticism. It has libraries of tomes that explore theological truths. But that is only one part of the church.

Another side of the church – the pastoral side – is open to dialogue. It has validated such conversations as far back as the Gospels (see woman conversing with Jesus at the well). On the one-on-one level, the dialogue that ensues after a “Can we talk?” encounter has been an integral part of the church for years, a comfort to worried parents, frustrated spouses, abused workers and confused children.

Perhaps social media can help the church engage more in such dialogue. It is not easy. It takes energy, especially emotional energy. Talk – or dialogue – is work.

Many business leaders boast they have a web presence, but don’t take questions and avoid interactivity, though they might send an auto-reply: “Thanks for your message.” Better they post comments on a billboard, with the honest implication that they don’t want feedback. To be genuine on social media you have to answer questions. You have to discuss. You have to accept and even embrace being challenged.

At the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, we have Facebook and Twitter accounts. They offer opportunities to share, but also give rise to points of contention inherent in all dialogues. Some people agree with you, some don’t. Some want to fight. All of them, however, belong to our virtual community and so deserve respect. Some people who post ask the community to share in their sorrow, perhaps over the death of a spouse. Others muse on the feast or Scripture reading of the day, giving others a new twist on a moment in the church. Some are ready for a fight and evoke the urge to push “delete.” We try not to do that since the whole point of the virtual community is dialogue. If a virtual scrimmage breaks out, we hope all, including virtual bystanders, come away more enlightened. It is a risk worth taking. Virtual conversations grow in importance as church attendance decreases and fewer have relationships with a parish to which to tether themselves in life’s storms.

The Internet, of course, cannot replace the community at Mass, where you know strangers by the pew they choose and as their children grow. There’s nurturing warmth even in the nodding acquaintance with those with whom you pray every week.

Social media has a place in the 21^st century church, though some oldsters may have to be drawn into it, collars, veils, rosaries and lapel crosses askew. Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be worthy instruments of the Gospel to nurture our faith life, though some are just warming up.

Death Penalty: Political Sport at Its Most Barbarous

Executions as a matter of political sport are unnerving. When an audience cheered at one debate because Texas Gov. Rick Perry has authorized 234 executions in a little more than 10 years, I got nervous. Such light-hearted reaction to a heavy-hearted reality reflects ill on us as a people. When the audience cheered the death penalty accomplishment I felt like I was at the Colosseum surrounded by Romans giving thumbs down to a beleaguered Christian before the lions. It is barbaric.

There are many reasons to oppose the death penalty. It is applied disproportionately to minorities, and there are more white prosecutors to seek the death penalty than black. The process demeans us as a people. Seldom do John Donne's words, "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind ..." ring so true. The death penalty is a statement of hopelessness, perhaps the ultimate sin for Christians since it denies that people can be redeemed.

But my number one reason is simply that we can be wrong.

The number of persons from death row who have been exonerated shows how easy it is for our society to be wrong. One estimate puts the number at 138 exonerations since 1973. We've had so-called eye-witnesses, who are absolutely sure a man committed a crime - until DNA evidence proves them wrong. They weren't liars. They just remembered wrong, something we all do all the time though in less serious matters. Sadly, "Oops, we made a mistake. Sorry," is pretty inadequate in this instance and cannot undo a mistaken execution.

At times, gripping witnesses and zealous prosecutors have convinced people to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. Some of the witnesses turned out to be wrong. Some prosecutors did not play by the rules. Some judges were swayed by political pressure. All of which is to be expected in our fallible world and all of which ought to put the death penalty off the table because the result of mistakes and weakness of character can result in the taking of God-given life. The fact that we are all fallible human beings should outlaw the death penalty.

There have been 1,268 executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Can anyone say the years since them have been made safer? Nor has America's spirit been especially uplifted. Right now there are some 3,200 inmates on death row.

Contemporary Catholic teaching opposes the death penalty. The Catechism of the Catholic Church finds it acceptable only when there is no other way to protect society from a dangerous criminal. With the invention of prisons that moment arrived. Digging a tunnel through a cell wall is the stuff of "Shawshank Redemption," a movie about a prisoner's escape from a corrupt warden, not the stuff of today's supermax prisons.

The death penalty is vengeance and a penalty to be reserved to the One who doesn't make mistakes. Those of us who make mistakes big and small have no right to decide on ultimate penalties.

Some argue that the death penalty is allowed by the Catholic Church. That may be right in theory but not in contemporary practice. Some argue that abortion is verboten because it is the taking of innocent life but the death penalty is acceptable because it is the taking of life deemed non innocent. Yet how can they be absolutely sure?

Some criminals inspire a lock 'em up and throw away the key approach. Some crimes are so horrific as to require it. Some persons are so damaged as to put all of us at risk. Thus the need for prisons.

The death penalty, however, is a step too far. And in the political games it becomes one more foul, error, offside. That's all right for the stadium, but with executions the error is fatal.

Looks Like Leno, Letterman Setting Tone at HHS, Justice Department

Late night comics who mock the church may have set the tone of the government's current salvos against religious freedom. Who would have thought that the disdain for religion by the cheap-laughs crowd would become part of the federal agenda?

At least it seems that way. NBC lauds Jay Leno, who once joked that a news report of a priest violating celibacy with a woman was received at the Vatican with, "A woman? Thank God." David Letterman, who once said a report on the priest shortage proved "there is some good news in the world," still stars at CBS. Both comics feel free to diss the church, and the government follows their lead as it works to dismantle longstanding guarantees of freedom for religion.

For example, new regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. health care reform) mandate coverage of contraception (including abortifacients) and sterilization in almost all private health insurance plans. HHS offers a religious exemption for some employers but only when most of the employees are of the same faith, when they serve primarily others of the same faith, and are proselytizing.

For Catholics, that means that feeding the poor counts as a religious ministry only when the hungry are co-religionists. One out of six people who need hospital care in the U.S. go to a Catholic facility - but HHS would qualify the hospital for a religious exemption only if it employed mostly Catholics, served mostly Catholics and, I suppose, taught the Ten Commandments in between sutures. When the government determines what is and is not a church ministry you have big-time interference with the exercise of religion.

Freedom for religion means that government cannot interfere with the internal governance of religious institutions. Whatever you think about sterilizations, for example, it means the government should not force Catholic organizations to pay for them, and therefore, promote them, through their insurance programs.

Unfortunately, the problems don't end with health care. In the effort to redefine marriage, we see the government threatening religious discrimination in the name of--you guessed it--preventing discrimination. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, declares that marriage is between one man and one woman. But the Department of Justice, which is charged with defending Acts of Congress like DOMA against constitutional challenge, declared in March that it would stop doing so. In July, Justice went further and started filing briefs that attack DOMA's constitutionality. Most disturbing in this flip-flop is its rationale: DOMA's definition of marriage must be abandoned and then attacked because it is motivated by bias and prejudice, comparable to racism. That is, the Justice Department simply writes off as bigots those with longstanding support for traditional marriage. And if the Justice Department gets its way in court, those considered bigots by the federal government will be marginalized with the full moral, economic and coercive power of the state.

For example, an employer who provides unique employment benefits to the actually married risks being disqualified from government funding - and most other government cooperation - and likely being sued for "discrimination." A government clerk who expresses a conscientious objection to cooperating with same-sex civil union ceremonies risks a pink slip.

In short, this is what happens when the view that marriage is between a man and a woman becomes a violation of the U.S. Constitution. And this is what the Justice Department urges--apparently forgetting that imposing special disabilities on people and groups because of their religious beliefs offends the First Amendment at its core.

Comics draw laughs when they mock the church, stereotype nuns and scorn priests both for adhering to celibacy rules and occasionally flouting them. They may be playing for laughs, but it is something more when the government abandons its centuries-old truce with religion. Toying with freedom for religion bodes ill--not just for Catholics, but also for the Constitution and anyone who lives under it.

Jesus Won’t Pass Muster at HHS

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is picky when it comes to religious exemptions from its rules implementing the nation’s new affordable health care bill. Right now HHS has such a narrow standard as to who operates a religious ministry, Jesus himself couldn’t pass muster.

HHS has a very limited definition of which church organizations can be exempted from having to pay for contraceptives, sterilization and other services that violate church teaching. Amazingly, to establish what HHS deems true religion, the agency turned to a definition concocted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for a law in California. (For the record, a list of church-state lawsuits suggests ACLU does not look kindly on religious organizations’ active involvement in the public sphere.)

Following the ACLU lead, HHS argues that a religious exemption should be available just to some religious institutions, and only if they primarily serve and hire persons who share their religious tenets and restrict their charitable efforts to the inculcation of religious values.

Here Jesus loses out. His chief teaching about serving one’s neighbor highlights the Good Samaritan who took care of a woebegone stranger by providing medical care, food and lodging. Jesus did not say anything about checking the man’s religious affiliation beforehand. There was no catechism test afterwards. The point of the story is to help anyone who needs help.

Jesus met needs that were not necessarily catechetical. For the disconsolate father Jairus, Jesus raised his daughter from the dead. For the worried military leader whose servant had a paralyzing illness, he offered a cure. For the wedding couple at Cana, he turned water into wine. He met basic human needs. The church practice to give help when and where it is needed marks the work of religious institutions from clinics, hospitals and nursing homes to soup kitchens, food pantries and Catholic schools and universities. The goal is to help people in need because they are fellow children of God, whether or not they pray beside you on Sunday.

As the law reads now, to follow HHS rules and qualify for an exemption, many Catholic institutions would have to violate their very mission and refuse service to non-Catholics. They’d have to fire hard-working employees. To maintain their religious integrity, they could be forced to stop providing employee insurance benefits. Or they’d have to close down, a step that would not benefit a nation where one out of six persons seeks hospital care in a Catholic institution. It would also hurt the millions who receive social services and counseling through Catholic Charities; bread, milk and cereal from parish food pantries; and other types of assistance from additional church-run agencies.

You’d have to be pretty removed from American reality not to know that Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools and many other Catholic charitable organizations serve more than Catholics. Such service is part of the church’s mission, following the example of the Good Samaritan and Christians from the first disciples onward.

Catholics are called to help people in need whatever their religion. To imply that when Catholics reach out to help others they are not being Catholic shows a poor understanding of the role of religion in our society. Most citizens know enough about Jesus and his works to recognize that his followers' caring ministries deserve respect, even (or especially) when they benefit not just Catholics but the health and human services of the entire nation.