What a great rally. My five kids and I rallied like it was 1999. We met some really great folks from Generation Life and Cathy Ruse of the Family Research Council who was a great speaker.
My four year old acted as if the sun were beating directly on her and only her. At one point she was literally rolling in the dirt like a pig. I didn’t notice until I saw three people around us all looking down at the dirt. Oh.
The speakers were good.
The best part were the ten or so troublemaker hippies milling about with a video camera trying to get into it with the Catholics.
I’ll tell you guys more about this in a bit but we just got home so I’ve got to get them settled. And I think I have to put the four year old in the bath.
March 23, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Me too!
http://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2012/03/23/lunch-break-activism/
March 23, 2012 at 9:36 pm
And me, http://rantingcatholicmom.blogspot.com
March 23, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Prayer Warriors are fasting every friday, that t5he Lord will quash & eliminate the plans of evil people to destroy America & steal the next election…that the President of God's own choosing will be elected.
so…….. I spent the day fasting & praying for you guys as well. 🙂
March 23, 2012 at 11:32 pm
I went to the rally in SF there was a good turnout and good speakers. Counter protesters chanting in the background, but rally attendees in the back started singing Ave Maria. That threw them for a loop. Counter protesters took sign up by the stage, but Big Magnificat sign was able to cover it. I noticed that rally attendees don't know how to yell out right away when speakers try to get them to. Religious freedom groups need to take protesting 101 class. It was a sunny, beautiful day.
March 24, 2012 at 1:41 am
Religious freedom? Hm, so it's more an American thing than a Catholic thing?
March 24, 2012 at 7:25 am
Karl, do you have a point?
March 24, 2012 at 9:48 am
It's a fundamental human right thing! Without which we cannot claim and demand recognition for all other human rights. Without which we cannot object to contraventions of our basic natural rights as human beings.
March 24, 2012 at 11:04 am
My point is that I would feel as a hypocrite being Catholic and arguing for "religious freedom" because as a Catholic I cannot believe in religious freedom as error has no rights. Lynda calls it a fundamental human right and keeps going on about rights, rights, rights, seemingly basing her world-view on it, even daring to call it fundamental (together with, say, actual and reasonable ones like the right to life and liberty).
In the end, it all seems to be like a wholly American Catholic thing, the ordering being very important and relates to priority. That's my point. I thought this was about (american) Catholics standing up for the Church and the Faith, but really it seems it's about American Catholics standing up for the American Constitution. That's nice, I suppose. I thought it was more, though, and especially more Catholic.
March 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Why don't we rally for the social Reign of Christ the King instead? Religious freedom equals religious neutrality which leads to religious indifferentism which inevitably leads to secular tyrannny. The separation of Church and State is a most pernicious error as a St Pope Pius X wrote. And the heresy of Americanism has sown in its very fabric the seeds of destruction of our beloved country.
March 24, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Karl has a good point. We really are not asking for freedom of religion from the government. We are telling the government that they have no right to impose their draconian measures on the Church. If we are for religious freedom, it is for the religious freedom of the Catholic Church to do the will of God, and that freedom doesn't come from the U.S. Government or from any earthly power, but from God Himself. He has given it to Peter and the Apostles and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Others are granted the "freedom" to reject the will of God by God Himself as well. We all have free will. The most depraved radical secularist is free of God's will absolutely.
March 24, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Went to Trenton, NJ. Very peaceful and spirited. Retired Bishop Smith spoke among others.
March 24, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Here in St. Paul MN close to 2,000 people (maybe more and including me) showed up at the Fed Court House. Want to know what was on TV or in the paper this morning?
NADA, ZIP, NOTHING!!!
The MSM is not going to report on this unless we show up more than once a year. I'm going next Friday to the Court House from noon to 1:00 even if I can't find anyone else to go with me!
March 24, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Those complaining about the health law infringing religious liberty are mistaken in two respects.
First, questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues and have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (E.g., http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html http://www.aafcp.org/cplm/files/12.pdf.)
When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), add provisions to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.
The real question here then is not whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences.
Second, the law may not be one that some employers support as a matter of policy, but it does not put them in the moral bind some suppose. Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers' religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law's requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.
Some nonetheless continued complaining that by paying assessments they would be paying for the very things they opposed, seemingly missing that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required. Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag "our" dollars this way and control their subsequent use.
March 24, 2012 at 9:48 pm
The rally across the country yesterday was for all religious people who objected to the mandate. It was not just for Catholics. In SF there were speakers of different faiths. The government should not be forcing individuals to buy something and then charging them if they don't. In bay area home owners are forced to have smart meters and then they are charged a fee if they want them taken off and a monthly fee thereafter. Catholic organizations, many who are self insured, do not want the provide the mandated services. Yet, they will be fined to not participate. Not fair.
March 24, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Religious freedom most certainly doesn't mean religious neutrality. It means non-coercion in religion. Error has no rights…but people, however erroneous, do.
But no, Karl, I suppose you believe the state ought to close down synagogues? Jews, I regret to inform you, are in error too.
The coercive power of the state may only interfere in religion for the sake of civil peace; the Spanish were right to put a stop to Aztec human sacrifice, but wrong to close down the Hopi kiva societies. That is not because the Hopi are any less wrong than the Aztecs; it is because the Hopi's error is not dangerous.
Religious liberty has no bearing on religious truth; it is a political principle. "When do we get the coercive power of the state involved" is a completely different question from "what is, or is not, religious truth".
It's ironic, is what it is, that Karl here conflates the principles of state with those of religion—and then accuses others of rallying for a political constitution rather than for the Faith.
March 25, 2012 at 2:42 am
The 2nd Vatican Council had a whole document on religious freedom, entitled
"DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
"DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
"ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
It would seem, as Sophia's Favorite puts it, taht while error has no rights, people do 🙂 It's hard to pick just one part to quote (it's short, just go read it!) but here's a taste related to Religious Freedom being Catholic:
"10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son,(9) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father,(10) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded."
and two bits related to the HHS debacle:
(from #3) "On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3)"
(from #4) "Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense."
March 25, 2012 at 2:43 am
Grand Rapids had around 400-500 folks – and it was misting gloomy weather.
Good hearty solicited and spontaneous responses from the crowd.
As the press is frankly one of the major offenders in propagandizing for the HHS adgenda, how about a march on media news production locations – with signs – "start reporting! Stop distorting!". Put a couple thousand people outside and challenge them to report something that's literally on their doorstep.
-Metro
March 25, 2012 at 2:51 am
As for this being about religious liberty, when the HHS takes it upon itself to tell religious organizations whether they are truly religious organizations, or merely social services with churchy-sounding names, that is an attack on religious liberty. That's part of the reason some people have focused specifically on religious organizations that are affected, as opposed to religious people who are business owners, etc.
March 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Sophia:
In good faith I will assume were simply fallible your reading and understand of my post, and ignorant to the meaning of religious liberty, and mistakenly turned what I wrote (and the principle itself) from "error has no rights" to active persecution, and that you didn't outright lie. You should think further about if I am wrong or not, though. For my answer, you may read any book or work ever published that defends religious tolerance instead of religious liberty, in which even the opening pages quickly destroy your infantile play with words.
mandamum:
The Second Vatican Council does indeed have an entire document on religious freedom. That is all I have to say on that.
March 25, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Karl- I wondered if that would be your response. I'm sorry that's the case, but it's good to know that's where we part ways in our attempt to discuss things Catholic. For what it's worth, the footnotes referenced in Dignitatis Humanae #10 above are:
(7.) Cf. Lactantius "Divinarum Institutionum", Book V, 19: CSEL 19, pp. 463-464, 465: PL 6, 614 and 616 (ch. 20); St. Ambrose, "Epistola ad Valentianum Imp.", Letter 21: PL 16, 1005; St. Augustine, "Contra Litteras Petiliani", Book II, ch. 83: CSEL 52 p. 112: PL 43, 315; cf. C. 23, q. 5, c. 33, (ed. Friedberg, col. 939); idem, Letter 23: PL 33, 98, idem, Letter 34: PL 33, 132; idem, Letter 35: PL 33, 135; St. Gregory the Great, "Epistola ad Virgilium et Theodorum Episcopos Massiliae Galliarum, Register of Letters I, 45: MGH Ep. 1, p. 72: PL 77, 510-511 (Book I, ep. 47); idem, "Epistola ad Johannem Episcopum Constantinopolitanum", Register of Letters, III, 52: MGH Letter 1, p. 210: PL 77, 649 (Book III, Letter 53); cf. D. 45, c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col 160); Council of Toledo IV, c. 57: Mansi 10, 633; cf. D. 45, c. 5 (ed. Friedberg, col. 161-162); Clement III: X., V, 6, 9: ed. Friedberg, col. 774; Innocent III, "Epistola ad Arelatensem Archiepiscopum", X., III, 42, 3: Friedberg, col. 646.
(8.) Cf. CIC, c. 1351; Pius XII, allocution to prelate auditors and other officials and administrators of the tribune of the Holy Roman Rota, Oct. 6, 1946: AAS 38 (1946), p. 394; idem. Encycl Mystici Corporis", June 29, 1943: AAS (1943) p. 243.
(9.) Cf. Eph. 1:5.
(10.) Cf. John 6:44.
I don't have the time this morning (wish I did) to chase these down and discuss them specifically- it could be very educational for me. But I offer them as a pre-Vatican II potential source of Catholic teaching on religious freedom. Bl Pope John XXIII's encyclical "Pacem In Terris" is also referenced a lot in the document, for what that's worth.
Blessed Sunday to you and to all!