The New (& the Old) Evangelization USCCB concerned: Religious liberty threatened (part two)

Feb 3, 2012

Three questions should be asked about the current erosion of religious liberty at the State and Federal levels: How did we get here? How did we contribute to the problem? And how do we press forward?

To begin with, the sobering statistic that 54 percent of Catholics voted President Barak Obama in office in November of 2008. Without the Catholic vote, the prospects of him winning the presidential election would have been out of reach. Now, in no way do I wish to draw partisan politics into this conversation. But the glaring contradiction is this: The very politicians who are now violating religious liberties, and hence are undermining the mission of the Catholic Church in America, are the same politicians who were voted into office by scores of Catholics. In the case of President Obama, whose administration was alluded to in Bishop Lori’s address, the majority of Catholics made it possible for his policies to be enacted; chief among them are the regulations that would mandate coverage of sterilization and contraception, including abortifacients, in all private health care plans by the Department of Health and Human Services. This is a problem! Not simply a political problem, but a pastoral problem in the Church.

The truth is that the intolerance of good, i.e. religious liberty and the inalienable right to life, is always preceded by the tolerance of evil. Intolerance goes too far when it no longer tolerates the good. And tolerance goes too far when it admits evil. In other words, Christians tolerating evil paves the way for the dictatorial intolerance exercised by the State. But how does the tolerance of evil manifest itself in the Church? The short answer is that the pastoral practices of the last five decades did not require nor insist upon repentance from sin (at least strongly enough) as a condition of receiving the Sacraments or being a Catholic in good standing. It needs to be said, however, that this is a departure from the pastoral teachings found in the New Testament, in the writings of the Church Fathers, and in Church tradition!

In ages past, cohabitating couples were required to repent from fornication (and the use of contraception) before the Church would even think about blessing their union; churchless parents who wanted to have their children baptized and confirmed had to first demonstrate good will by, at the very least, attending Mass every Sunday (After all, at the baptismal rite of their child, parents are required to verbally renounce Satan and all of his works. However, these are empty vows if the parents have no intention on coming to Mass the following Sunday); candidates wishing to enter into full communion with the Church were required to believe “all” that Christ taught and to live according to his precepts; and any high profile Catholic who stubbornly persisted in publicly violating basic human rights or who promoted the violation of basic human rights was, ipso facto, publicly reprimanded and if necessary- excommunicated!

Recall the words of St. Paul. He wrote to St. Timothy and issued the following directive: “Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid.” (I Timothy 5:20) And to the Corinthians, he went so far as to say this: “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people . . . But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person . . . Purge the evil person from your midst." (I Corinthians 5:9, 11, 13)

Without the absolute insistence on repentance, one thing for sure is bound to happen: The distinction between virtue and vice, sin and merit, liberty and license end up being blurred. And if these moral distinctions are confused, it is no wonder that Catholics, as a voting bloc, cannot connect the dots between values politicians hold and the policies that are sure to follow.

When Pope St. Gregory the Great said that the tears of repentance must come before the waters of baptism, this was so that there would be, in the minds of Christians, a deep chasm between truth and error and between virtue and vice. With repentance from sin and an ongoing conversion to Christ and holiness, the distinction between good and evil is more firmly impressed upon the hearts and minds of believers!

From this pastoral practice comes a far-reaching political consequence. Liberty from sin and spiritual darkness becomes the very foundation upon which liberty from political tyranny is secured. The former leads to the latter.

Nevertheless, if repentance from sin and error is optional then the distinction between right and wrong will be muddled in the minds of Catholics. Liberty, then, will cease to find a firm place in our hearts. And the result of this is never good.

Indeed, we will struggle to know who is a friend of liberty and who is not.

|