|
The Life Issues Forum is a bi-weekly column by Pro-Life Secretariat staff addressing the latest issues on the culture of life. Columns may be reprinted as they appear here (in full and without alteration) without further permission.
In Christ,
The Pro-Life Secretariat
|
|
|
LIFE ISSUES FORUM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Religious Identity and Freedom October 20, 2017
By Kimberly Baker
In early October, the U.S. government made two announcements affirming the importance of religious liberty in our country.
First, the Attorney General issued a memorandum offering
guidance on "Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty." The
Attorney General's memorandum affirms the importance of protecting the
freedom of faith-based organizations to operate in accordance with their
religious missions.
Second, the Trump Administration announced a broad religious
and moral exemption from the current mandate of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring health insurance coverage for
various forms of contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing
drugs and devices.
The broadened exemption from the HHS mandate will protect
Catholic and other faith-based institutions--as well as non-sectarian
groups like the March for Life that have moral objections to
participating in abortion--from being forced to cover items in their
health plans that go against their deeply held religious beliefs or
moral convictions.
Critics of these announcements immediately claimed that such
exemptions would "roll back progress" and be an imposition on the wider
society. But, in fact, the opposite is true.
If religious freedom is not protected so that faith-based
organizations and individuals can live according to their religious
beliefs, we risk a slippery slope of state-imposed coercion and a
gradual loss of freedom for all. History has shown that suppressing
religious practices of ordinary citizens can lead to other civil
liberties being taken away--such as free speech and freedom of assembly.
As a society, we recognize an individual person's right to
religious freedom; it logically follows that this same freedom can be
exercised peacefully by a group of individuals and the faith-based
institutions and organizations they operate (see Dignitatis Humanae,
no. 4). It is a serious violation of freedom for a government to compel
a faith-based organization to adhere to a law or policy that goes
against the very beliefs it was founded upon. Such compulsion
essentially erases that aspect of the institution's religious identity
and suppresses it unjustly.
Allowing faith-based organizations to operate according to
their religious beliefs can hardly be called an imposition on the rest
of society. Individuals are free to choose their place of employment,
taking into consideration whether they are willing to respect its
mission. If they disagree with some aspect of the mission--whether faith-based or otherwise--they are free to work elsewhere.
By adhering to their founding beliefs, religious groups
aren't "forcing" their views on society; rather, the true imposition is
the stifling and suppression of religious identity and
expression--within these groups' own operations, even--due to mandatory
laws. It is therefore completely valid and fair for a government to
grant such religious exemptions.
Real progress is allowing faith-based organizations to be
true to their religious identities and have the freedom to serve by
contributing to the good of society in various ways. The recent policy
developments allow Catholic organizations to continue being faithful to
their religious mission and identity, especially regarding the sanctity
of life. While it is our hope that the sacredness of human life be
respected in all areas of society, we are certainly within our rights to
live and operate according to our beliefs within our own Catholic
organizations. Therefore, the Administration's recent announcements
pertaining to religious liberty are proper affirmations of this freedom.
|
|
