Thomas Wenski
and Bishop Richard Malone contained in a release by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Washington Post reported
July 8 that the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy
groups were no longer supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
(ENDA). The reason, said the executive director of one of the lead
organizations: the Hobby Lobby decision opens the door for private
companies to determine that “LGBT people are not equal…and fire them.”
But the Hobby Lobby decision does no such thing. The decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court was an application of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires that, if the federal government
wants to impose a “substantial burden” on the religious exercise of its
citizens, it must prove that the burden serves a “compelling government
interest” and does so by the means “least restrictive” of religious
exercise.
The decision was the Court’s recognition that in the case of the HHS
contraceptive mandate the government failed to use the “least
restrictive means” of providing coverage for certain contraceptives. The
Court deliberately said nothing about whether the government had a
“compelling interest” in requiring that coverage. In any event, the
current debate about ENDA does not focus on its interplay with RFRA, but
instead on whether ENDA itself should have any exemption for religious
employers – as all prior versions have – and if so, how broad it should
be.
So what is really the matter with ENDA according to these groups?
They argue that ENDA in its current form would leave religious
employers free to “discriminate” based on their religious convictions.
They argue that religious people cannot “impose” their morality on
others. This ignores the fact that these advocates themselves seek to
impose their morality on religious people and runs directly counter to
the religious diversity that modern societies aspire to.
As Pope Francis wrote: “A healthy pluralism…does not entail
privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet
obscurity of the individual’s conscience or to relegate them to the
enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques. This would
represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism”
(Evangelii Gaudium no. 255).
To dismiss concerns about religious freedom in a misguided attempt to
address unjust discrimination in the workplace is not to advance
justice and tolerance. Instead, it stands as an affront to basic human
rights and the importance of religion in society.
The U.S. legacy of religious freedom has enabled the Catholic Church
and other faith communities to exercise their religious and moral
convictions freely and thus contribute to the good of all in society. No
good can come from removing this witness from our social life.
This also makes a July 8 letter
to President Obama about a proposed ENDA executive order rather
remarkable: it is from religious leaders who argue against religious
freedom protection in ENDA. One would expect these leaders to defend the
rights of all people – even those who may
disagree with them – to act according to deeply-held religious
beliefs and moral convictions about the dignity of the human person and
the purpose of human sexuality. Instead, these faith leaders go the
opposite direction in the name of “anti-discrimination.”
Indeed, discrimination is already happening to those who advocate for
religious liberty protections. Just after the president of evangelical
Gordon College signed a coalition letter asking President Obama to
include such protections in a proposed ENDA executive order, the college
became the subject of review by its higher education accrediting agency.
Unjust discrimination against any one – whether that person
experiences same-sex attraction or is of a particular religion – harms
us all. But ENDA is simply not a good solution to these problems and, as
the Bishops explained last November 7, it should be opposed.
Instead of protecting persons, ENDA uses the force of the law to
coerce everyone to accept a deeply problematic understanding of human
sexuality and sexual behavior and to condone such behavior. The current
proposed ENDA legislation is not about protecting persons, but behavior.
Churches, businesses and individuals should not be punished in any way
for living by their religious and moral convictions concerning sexual
activity.
Eliminating truly unjust discrimination – based on personal
characteristics, not sexual behavior – and protecting religious freedom
are goals that we all should share. The current political climate makes
it very difficult to maintain a reasonable dialogue on these contentious
issues, but we must keep trying.
Lobbying for coercive laws that violate freedom will not promote
justice in the workplace. Nor will it advance the common good to seek to
silence debate about sexual morality. We, like all Americans, wish
there was an easy way forward. There is not. But there is an honest one.
And it starts with the unflinching commitment to the inherent dignity
of every human person, and to the “healthy pluralism” we all wish to
share.
—
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco chairs the U.S.
bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage,
Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore chairs the bishops’ Ad Hoc
Committee for Religious Liberty, Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami
chairs the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
and Bishop Richard Malone chairs the bishops’ Committee on Laity,
Marriage, Family Life and Youth.
From http://cal-catholic.com/
The following comes from a July 17 statement by Archbishop
Salvatore Cordileone, Archbishop William Lori, Archbishop