5 Comments

ROB
July 3rd, 2012 | 2:38 pm

Is the inclusion of Jessica Coblentz preposterous article a joke. Catholics for Choice as a starting point, the use of abortifacients an exercise of a religious right as the capstone? Tell us you’re kidding.

Mark Misulia
July 3rd, 2012 | 2:55 pm

I suppose it could be a joke. I thought it sobering.

Linda Wolpert Smith
July 3rd, 2012 | 3:53 pm

Re: “Whose Religious Freedom?” by Jessica Coblentz:

The article is indeed sobering. It sets forth an alternative understanding of Roman Catholicism itself and a desire to fundamentally change the basic beliefs of the faith while keeping the exterior form.

In reading this piece, I was reminded of a 2009 review entitled, “Resistance Literature” by R. R. Reno. The book reviewed was “The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command” by James Kalb.

Prof. Reno writes: “Books written in a spirit of resistance move us. I don’t mean manifestos or theoretical treatises decrying oppression and calling for revolution. … Nor do I mean utopian effusions. … No, the powerful, lasting literature of resistance has a personal and existential urgency. … the real experience of resistance is heavily weighted with the difficulty of trying to breathe in an atmosphere polluted by propaganda, the difficulty of thinking clearly in a world of lies so widely and sincerely believed that they exercise a frightening, insidious charm….”.

Yes, it was “difficult to breathe” after reading this article. It is frightening for one thing because of its origin in the Department of Theology of Boston College. The writer’s Ph.D. candidate status gives evidence of widespread agreement with her argument in a highly respected Catholic college.

Ms. Coblentz’ argument seems based on the existence of a church separate and distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. If this is a group in the process of formation, their action is certainly protected in the United States and their religious freedom is supported by church teaching.

But there is no church teaching authorizing the laity to re-define the faith “once received,” or to create a new religion while appropriating the exterior form of the original.

Sally Rogers
July 4th, 2012 | 11:39 am

I find the position described by Coblenz more and more often and I find it confusing.

She says that allowing the Catholic Church to run its organizations in compliance with its teaching denies the religious freedom of the women working for the Catholic Church who want it to pay for their contraception.

What does this mean? Is taking a contraceptive pill the exercise of religion? Which one? The decision is likely the result of some kind of moral reasoning, but what religion tells women that they must take contraceptives, and further that they must have their contraceptives paid for by their employer?

Secondly, the argument involves an unspoken but very dangerous shift in arguments about “religious freedom.” The free exercise of religion as guaranteed in the constitution is a limitation only on the government. It has never been applied to limit the Church, as Coblenz’s argument seems to suggest. No private individual or institution can possibly infringe on anyone’s constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Perhaps they can make it more uncomfortable, costly or stigmatized to practice a particular religion, but these are not constitutional issues.

If “religious freedom” as a legal matter is invoked in disputes between private individuals and private entities, then the government will be even more empowered to encroach into religious matters. If party A believes that party B is illegally encroaching on religious view X, then the only way we have to settle that dispute is to have the government adjudicate between two religious views. This is something courts have almost always refused to do, but the more we build up these arguments, the less likely it is this line will hold. Then all bets are off regarding limited government.

When people use the rhetoric about religious freedom to discuss their disputes with private entities, they blur the important distinction about the way the constitution limits only governmental actions, not those of non-state actors.

Blake
July 4th, 2012 | 4:01 pm

What does this mean? Is taking a contraceptive pill the exercise of religion? Which one?

With logic similar to that of Gilbert & Sullivan’s “all Englishmen do their duty/all Englishmen love their queen” (a logic just like real logic only with one or two little changes), you’ll find logic that is consistent once you understand that there is only one ideological frame that is legitimate – so legitimate that it is unspeakable because to speak it is to question it, and it is simply truth and thus beyond question.

All other ideological frames (which includes all religions) are not legitimate, and so are attacked. And how are they attacked?

a desire to fundamentally change the basic beliefs of the faith while keeping the exterior form.

The preferred method of attack is to attack through redefinition. Purple is still purple, it’s just that only the combination of yellow + blue gives us real purple.

Religious freedom now means you have a Constitutionally protected right to free birth control from your employer, but no right at all to hold traditional Roman Catholic beliefs.