In a recent example of
do what I say not what I do, the US Catholic Bishops announced their "great
national campaign" for religious freedom in the United States while at the same
time assisting in the Vatican takeover of the Leadership Conference of Women
Religious. LCWR represents more than 80% of U.S. women in religious life and is
alleged to have -- well, too much conscience, although that is not what the
Bishops call it.
The "great national
campaign" portrays the Bishops as under attack by the Obama Administration
because of the recent HHS mandate requiring access to contraceptive coverage in
employee health plans; the loss of a multi-million dollar government
anti-trafficking grant for failure to meet the grant requirements to refer
victims for contraceptive and abortion services; and the loss of some state
licensing as foster care and adoption providers because of Catholic Charities
refusal to place children with same-sex couples. Concerns with state-based
anti-immigrant laws infringing on immigrant access to the sacraments, state limits on small church
usage of public schools for weekend worship services, and questions of
leadership of college Christian groups came along for the ride.
If you feel this list a
bit narrow given the multitude of conscience issues we face, you have reason to
be suspicious. The Bishops' religious freedom campaign is largely a cover for their
fight against the Affordable Care Act and its HHS contraception mandate. Other
issues were added when it became clear that a single focus on contraception would
be a hard sell given the generally positive attitude of Catholics themselves toward
contraception. In short, the "great national campaign" is the Bishops' anti-Obama
political strategy for this electoral season.
While the Bishops'
resistance to supporting what they consider grave immoral acts is praiseworthy,
if selective, their campaign does not mention the effects of their freedoms on
others whose freedom of religion is, apparently, irrelevant . This understanding of religious freedom as, in part,
freedom to impose belief also underlies the hostile take-over of LCWR.
The more than 45,000 religious women represented by LCWR seem less
inclined to impose than to serve. In
fact, one of the Vatican's complaints is that the Sisters' ministries lack
sufficient focus on contraception and abortion. True, the women have largely
focused elsewhere: on the homeless, the low income and destitute, prisoners,
the undocumented, militarism, economic injustice, worker's rights, the cast
offs of modern capitalism and its sins. They broadened their availability to
the people of God because, after Vatican Council II, the Catholic Bishops asked
them to and because such availability echoes the Gospels.
In turn, the Sisters
often became a voice for the powerless, even sometimes sitting at the tables of
power. During the health reform debates, nationally known nuns, along with
medical experts and moral theologians, publicly disagreed with the Bishops'
conclusion that the Affordable Care Act increased access to abortion. The
Bishops took offense, loud and long.
Today's Bishops are
generally single issue men, focused on the sexual morality of others, and
either unable or unwilling to implement the full range of Catholic Social
Teaching within Church or society. Their concept of church is historically
different than that of Vatican II. More than anything else, they want obedience
from the Sisters, which, as the take-over document notes, means "allegiance of
mind and heart to the Magisterium (teaching role) of the Bishops." The Sisters,
on the other hand, have become what the Bishops were supposed to be; a ministering
reflection of God in the world. They are multi-focus women whose power comes
from their presence among the powerless. One can imagine the different
perspectives on allegiance, leadership, collaboration, truth and transparency to
which these two paths have led.
1
1
1
