The Fortnight for Freedom is almost over, praised be its patron saint Thomas More, whose devotion to religious freedom did not stop him as Chancellor of England from burning half a dozen Protestant heretics at the stake. Next up is the Obama Administration's decision on its proposed rulemaking for exempting religious organizations from having to cover contraceptive services for their female members.
I'm pretty sure that nothing the Administration does will satisfy the Catholic bishops. In their response to the proposal, they say they want the exemption to apply not only to religious organizations but also to secular ones and individuals who object to contraception on conscientious grounds. Which means that the lawsuits challenging the mandate will go forward.
Chief advocate in those lawsuits is the Becket Fund, the conservative legal outfit whose eponymous patron is Thomas Becket, that other English Chancellor who after becoming Archbishop of Canterbury was murdered in his cathedral by knights of King Henry II--for, as the Becket Fund puts it, "his own defense of religious freedom."
At this juncture, it's worth recalling the religious freedom issue that got Becket into trouble: the ancient power of bishops to police the criminal activity of those in holy orders--so-called "criminous clerks." Henry felt he had the right to try them in his secular courts. Thomas insisted otherwise.
"Religious freedom" is a wonderful abstraction, but it really does come down to particulars: heresy, insurance coverage, criminal jurisdiction, etc. Personally, I can't help suspecting that the bishops' rage against the contraception mandate is actually displaced anger at losing their de facto power to decide the fate of sexually abusive priests.
The real lesson of the conviction of Mgr. William Lynn in Philadelphia last month and the impending trial of Bishop Robert Finn in Kansas City is that if church authorities don't behave like secular executives when confronted with a subordinate suspected of abuse, then they too will be criminally prosecuted. Archbishop Becket would have considered that an assault on his religious freedom. No one in America can do so anymore, Fortnight or no Fortnight.
gilhow | Jul 3, 2012 | 9:20am
Becket was only one of uncountable Catholic and other “religious” leaders who, in the name of justice and goodness, committed outrageous “sins” and crimes of violence against others. That cruelty was honored equally among all sides of all religious wars.
When the Catholic hierarchy today practices its religious war against women, including its own nuns, or the cover-up of its sexual war against kids, they are all efforts to extend its magisterial faith and morals to cover everyone by force, to make everyone submit to the church’s official conscience. That is a defiance of Vatican II’s declaration of freedom of conscience.
The most historic practice of what became the Vatican church after the Emperor Constantine transferred his royalty to that institution at his Council of Nicaea in 325, has been super secrecy to hide every bit of scandal the church continues to commit. That has been the main purpose of church law, canon law. The church considers itself subject only to its own canons and outside the reach of every other legal system.
Hypocritically, the church has not followed its own claimed morals. We know those morals are less important than the scandals that might tarnish the reputations of its all-male clergy. Nothing is estimated more scandalous than that.
Ralph | Jul 3, 2012 | 10:45am
Mr. Silk, in another gratiutous attack on the Catholic Church, comes up with the same story. There is something in the news about the bishops, and then he attacks them on an unrelated subject. If the same level of interest would exist on Jewish subjects, Mr. Silk, correctly, would have been called an anti-semite.
gilhow, I am sorry. As soon as you put quotations marks around “religious” for the description of the Catholic epicopates, which are obviously the religious leaders of the Catholic Church, I stopped reading. Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about.
mike mason | Jul 3, 2012 | 11:54am
the clerics should not stand up say how horrible this sexual abuse tragedy of human suffering is, when they have allowed the tragedy to occur again & again over decades and longer…and the clerics wring their hands about injustice in the secular world and at the same time as a fortress of injustice practice blatant injustice toward our children, this is evil…the church cannot credibly exert moral authority in any area externally where the public perceives it is incapable of maintaining moral authority internally…but now, the Philadelphia jurors who found Msgr. Lynn guilty have done more than any Vatican cleric (in the last two millennia) to stop this systemic injustice to our children…give thanks for the Holy Spirit…
Carolyn Disco | Jul 3, 2012 | 11:01pm
Thank you, Prof. Silk, for filling in the blanks on Thomas More’s very selective belief in religious freedom. I find your comment apropos to the subject at hand, which is indeed religious freedom. Sadly, it took centuries until Vatican II’s rejection of such an approach.
What irony also in the record of Thomas Becket, the namesake of the fund supporting the bishops’ legal fight. That Becket believed bishops should only be tried by religious courts—- the law of the land to be ignored—- is eerily resonant of current bishops’ thinking. They claim under the First Amendment they should be exempt from secular child protection laws.
In effect, they insist in multiple court filings on the right to criminally endanger children in order to practice their Catholic faith. No one can interfere with their ability to assign predators where they want. That interferes with their ministry.
But alas, the First Amendment protects belief, not criminal conduct. Distorting religious freedom to fit the agenda of the day is hardly a principled action. Ah, the uses of verbal gymnastics. That was your point, I believe.
Thank you for an excellent post. I am sorry, however, to see a nasty reference/analogy to anti-semitism, an unseemly barb at the least.
afn | Jul 5, 2012 | 6:49pm
It’s intriguing how when a comment about Jews or Judaism is made that can be interpreted in the broadest possible was as negative it is immediately branded as anti-Semitic, which is considered unacceptable and evil. But when virulent comments are made about Catholics and Catholicism, there are no cries of anti-Catholicism because anti-Catholicism is socially and intellectually acceptable and good.
Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry and bigots are bigots are bigots.
Mark Silk | Jul 5, 2012 | 6:57pm
I’m not entirely clear what about this post constitutes an attack on Catholics or Catholicism. It’s not as if I had quoted St. John Chrysostom’s remark that “the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops” or anything.
afn | Jul 5, 2012 | 7:57pm
Very clever, Mr. Silk; but
bigotry is still bigotry is still bigotry and bigots are still bigots are still bigots. Anti-Catholism is just a vile as anti-Semiticism.
Carolyn Disco | Jul 6, 2012 | 12:20am
Prof. Silk,
People are entitled to their own anonymous opinions—of course—but not their own facts.
afn | Jul 6, 2012 | 8:13am
Ms. Disco certainly and rightfully objects to anti-Semiticism and is equally entitled not to object to anti-Catholicism.
I repeat anti-Catholism is just a vile as anti-Semiticism; and bigotry is bigotry is bigotry and bigots are bigots are bigots. Unfortunately, Ms. Disco apparently accepts or at least tolerates one but not the other.
Mark Silk | Jul 6, 2012 | 8:15am
afn, I’d appreciate your pointing out which statements of mine specifically you consider anti-Catholic.
Carolyn Disco | Jul 6, 2012 | 9:37am
Prof. Silk,
Best to move on. There is no there there.
Felapton | Jul 7, 2012 | 9:30am
The Fortnight for Freedom was a gigantic flop. The bishops have made themselves look like impotent losers. The Romney campaign has noticed that “religious freedom” is a completely useless talking point and dumped it. Catholic Marco Rubio’s star is in the descent and Methodist Rob Portman’s is looking brighter every day. Catholic hospitals are surreptitiously looking out for buyers and the president of Notre Dame is saying of course many of his faculty use birth control in accordance with the dictates of their well-formed consciences. Dolan is a laughingstock in Rome and Levada is venting his frustration by beating up on nuns, girl scouts and altar girls.
Don’t be surprised if the bishops and their self-appointed mouthpieces decide to blame it all on the Jewish media.
AJO | Jul 7, 2012 | 4:37pm
The lack of logic in this blogpost is impressive. “A stretch” is a mild name for taking the namesakes of two organizations and using medieval and Renaissance theological disputes to analyze the psychology of modern-day strangers. One would expect more precise thinking from a professor.