The current issue of Columbia, the monthly magazine of the Knights of Columbus, should give faithful Catholics pause. The cover is Orwellian, featuring an illustration of an apparent cowboy, astride a black horse, with a 30-30 Winchester in his right hand and a large crucifix around his neck. Emblazoned in red across the bottom the words read: “Freedom Is Our Lives.” The issue is devoted to mobilizing Knights to fight for religious liberty against the Obama administration.
Cracking the cover, it turns out that the Cowboy With Rifle and Crucifix illustration is a stylization of General Enrique Gorostieta Velarde. In the 1920s, Gorostieta was a guerilla leader in the Cristiada uprising against the dictatorial Mexican president Plutarco Calles. Calles blended the ‘20s-flavored dictatorships of Mussolini and Lenin with homegrown peasant populism. A zealous atheist, he outlawed Catholic religious orders, outlawed Catholic education, and severely restricted the practice of faith, including the administration of the sacraments. Thousands died as a result of his persecution. Perhaps best known to Americans through Graham Greene’s novel, The Power and the Glory, priests were summarily executed by firing squads, churches were burned and looted, and Church land and properties were seized by the state.
The head of today’s Knights, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson argues in the Columbia issue that the Cristero War and the atrocities of Calles should inspire Catholics with “lessons as we defend religious freedom today.” “Today in the United States,” he claims, “it is impossible to recall these events without thinking of current threats to religious liberty, including the Obama administration insistence that contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs be included in the health insurance programs of Catholic organizations.” Anderson—formerly an aide to one-time segregationist Sen. Jesse Helms and subsequently head of public liaison for the Reagan administration—ends his exhortation by quoting Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, out of context: “We did not ask for this fight, but will not run from it. “
Such agitprop should frighten us all. This goes even beyond the over-the-top rhetorical comparison of President Obama to Hitler or Stalin—as Bishop Daniel Jenky did recently in Peoria while leading a 500 man march through that city. This is more than comparing the president with the dictator Hirohito, which seemed to be what Anderson intended in his remarks at this spring’s National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. No, Columbia’s implication is that things are so dire for American Catholics that even extreme rhetoric is not enough. Given the illustrated cover and Anderson’s connecting-the-dots, the implication is what? That it’s time for armed resistance?
A new Cristero War? Rifles with crucifixes? Let’s note what’s ridiculously obvious. There is no persecution of Catholics in the United States.
Catholics, though only one-quarter of America’s population, hold the majority of seats in the Supreme Court, hold about one-third of American governorships and about one-third of the seats of Congress. The false charge that the Obama administration is anti-Catholic runs directly in the face of the fact that the Vice President is Catholic and that more Catholics hold Cabinet positions under this president than probably any other administration in history. Catholics are significantly over-represented in the leadership of both political parties. Catholics are freer to participate in the nation’s public life than at any other time in American history—and overwhelmingly do so. By every conceivable measure Catholics are thriving today, thanks in no small part to American pluralism and to the modern protection of religious liberty by government since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Catholic institutions are not denied religious liberty by the Affordable Care Act and not morally compromised by its contraception mandate. A pretty good wall of conscience protection surrounds the health care law, insulating religious institutions from complicity in providing drugs opposed by the Church. All diocesan health insurance plans (and all sub-plans organized under diocesan management) are completely exempt from providing contraception insurance. All plans for religious orders or sub-plans organized under religious orders are completely exempt. All Catholic colleges and universities with self-funded student plans can be completely exempt. And while employees of public Catholic institutions such as hospitals and charities will receive coverage for these drugs, the religious institutions themselves play no role in either paying for or facilitating that coverage. Planned accommodations shield Catholic hospitals and charities from involvement by having outside insurance companies or plan administrators pay for and facilitate the objectionable coverage. Moreover, these accommodations still remain open for tweaks and adjustments as religious groups work with the administration during the existing comment period that extends for many more months.
Around the world, in countries far more Catholic than the United States, the Church has found ways to co-exist with national health programs that include drugs and procedures at odds with its teachings. In these countries Catholic institutions still flourish. But in America, Columbia suggests, it must be another Cristiada? This is an unacceptable escalation of America’s highly partisan culture war. It needs to be called out for what it is: dangerous. It’s past time for cooler heads—perhaps sage Roman heads—to intervene before excesses driven by the deep pockets of organizations like the Knights of Columbus spiral out of control.
This is not to say that Church related groups ought not work for more Catholic friendly policies from government. Arguably, we must continue to work with Congress and the White House for more accommodations for our institutions in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. Likewise, it’s appropriate for Catholic groups to complain if they think that the programs of Catholic Relief Services are not getting funded like they should by USAID or that Catholic charitable programs are being unfairly limited by regulations that undercut their opportunities for government funding. But for Columbia to wrap such everyday policy-wrangling in the battle flag of religious liberty, to convey to Catholics in the pews that there’s a “war” being waged against their faith, or to suggest that the President of the United States should be compared to Hitler, to Hirohito, or to Mexico’s rabidly anti-Catholic Calles is scandalous. To look to the rifles of the Cristiferos for “lessons as we defend religious freedom today” borders on something even more than scandalous.
The Knights of Columbus is an important and worthy organization that has rendered extraordinary service to America and American Catholics for more than one hundred years. Founded as a mutual aid society for what was then a largely immigrant Church, the Knights provided services that enabled generations of poor Catholics to bridge from their 19th century ghettos to the full inclusion and success in American society and public life they enjoy today. In those early years, Catholics faced real discrimination in the United States and the Knights were there to help. The Church owes an enormous debt to the organization. I honor its history and mission.
But, the machinations of the Knights’ current leadership as evident in this month’s Columbia are very troubling. Enough with the war footing. Enough with the totalitarian-atheist comparisons. Enough with the agitprop. Most importantly, shame on Columbia for that rifle.
Jesus once said, love God completely and your fellow man, all of them. To quote a famous philosopher. We have met the enemy and it is us.
Are we to infer from this article that Bishop Dolan, the USCCB and all the others who have filed numerous lawsuits are fools and baffoons for objecting to and waste potentially millions of dollars to fight the Affordable Care Act? Catholics who are truely Catholic, those who are in agreement with ALL the official teachings of the Church are most certainly under attack. The vice president, as evidenced by his latest declaration against traditional marriage, is Catholic in name only. As are countless others who claim to be Catholic yet indignately deny the authoritive teachings of the Church.
I thank God for the common Sense and clear thinking by Steve Schneck. Not only is the KC leader's rhetorical overkill troubling for Catholic relationships with the rest of US society, but it is highly divisive within the Church.
I am in complete agreement with Steve Schneck that the Knights Columbia article accusing the administration of attacking religious liberty is ridiculous. Anderson is pandering to his uber conservative followers. His attempt to enlist church support in his campaign against progressives is transparent and does a huge disservice to the church and its mission.
The K of C originally prohibited blacks from membership. It is only in recent memory that they were forced to be more open. Recently they purchased the John-Paul II shrine in Washington D.C. from the Detroit cardinal at a bargain price leaving the sheeple in Detroit to pick up the multi-million dollar shortfall. The K of C is far from perfection.
No one is being forced to accept contraception or abortion procedures. No one is prevented from preaching against contraception or abortion. In fact the Catholic Church is not even required to pay for the insurance coverage but MUST like all other employees permit their female employees the free will choice to opt for such procedures. God gave Eve the freewill choice to choose and did nothing to prevent her fvrom making a choice of evil. The hierarchs not only act like they are God they act like they are superior to God. It is about time they reread scripture and stop trying to push women around. That goes for their toadies the K of C as well.
Last month's Columbia, with the Bill of Rights being ripped up on the cover and all of the feature material devoted in one way or another to the war against religion in this country, was just as bad if not worse.
What Mr. Schneck's article misses, though, is that Catholics -- Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sibelius -- are seen by these folks as the worst of the worst anti-Catholics. Their enemy is within; the enemy without is a sideshow to them.
The only way the provision of coverage for contraceptives would violate my freedom of conscience is if I were required to use them.
If the USCCB is going to be scrupulous, will they next advocate the elimination of benefits for spouses &/or children from marriages not recognized by 'the church'? Will they support war tax resistance? Will they refuse to collect taxes that support nuclear weapons?
If they were all that concerned about keeping their hands clean wouldn't they have immediately referred accusations of child abuse to the civil authorities?
The Catholic Church made the decision centuries ago that education and thinking were a good thing. Trust us to think and use our consciences and trust the rest to the Holy Spirit.
As followers of Christ and the doctrines of the Catholic Church I find it difficult to understand that such a honored organization as the Knights of Columbus would find it advisable to use the image of war in the discussion surrounding the Affordable Health Care act that is
being offered to the citizens of the United
States. Have they not seen the pictures of war that have been pervasive over the past ten years? Is this what they are advocating. Nowhere does the government say that Catholic women have no choice in whether to take medications considered to be sinful.
I would hope that the use of the term \"war\"
and \"battle\" would fade from the vocabulary of Bishop Timothy Dolan and in the organizatiion of the Knights of Columbus.
There should be no exemption for churches from labor laws (or child exploitation ones). I remember when the Vatican even seriously considered retracting the prohibition of contraception!
Catholics recognize that contraceptives are used for health problems: http://thecatholicletter.com/birth-control-abortion-article-subjects-40/100-the-catholic-birth-control-a-sex-faq#3
The right to privacy is questioned only when it's women's privacy being questioned? http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_PrivacyIndex.htm
Religious liberty requires no exceptions from law. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1878 (Reynolds v United States) that \"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices\" else it would \"permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.\"
Apparently some insurers agree that it is cost neutral: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/insurers-not-totally-sold-on-contraceptives-coverage/2012/02/17/gIQAbBpjJR_blog.html There is no doubt, though, that societies thrive where women are educated about contraceptives and have ready access to them.
The Roman Catholic Church has changed its position on many things, even since I was a child when eating meat on ANY Friday was taboo, eating was prohibited before going to mass (so it was held in the morning) and sex was sinful unless for procreation.
None of it is biblical, even prohibition of abortion: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/index.htm
What I find most troubling is the paranoia and the seige mentality coming from \"some\" members of the USCCB. Almost equally troubling is the cheap triumphalism exhibited by organizations like the KofC and other far-right leaning groups;when your freely chosen leader is a former aide to the late Jesse Helms, it speaks volumes. Then we have \"attack\" mode...attack the LCWR for too much service to the poor and marginalized and too little \"lip service\" to the evils of contraception and homosexuality, attacking The Girl Scouts, claiming a connection to Planned Parenthood which DOES NOT exist, and attacking the President for threatening our religious liberty, which is, as Steve Schneck so clearly points out, just plain ridiculous. I'm growing increasingly nervous as the American Church and some of the hierarchy sound more and more like the Republican Party and less and less like the Gospel.
KC Supreme Knight Carl Anderson has certainly used the KCs monetary resources for political purposes to bolster GOP initiatives. When it comes to legislation sponsored by Democrats, Carl does not give it nearly as much attention and money, even if the legislation is supported by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. An example of Carl's partisan bias is his vigorous monetary support of the Defense of Marriage Act contrasted with little support (if any) of the DREAM Act. I would have much more respect for Carl if he was consistent with the bishops in his political support. Better yet, stop spending any KC money on political issues and instead lower the life insurance premiums for KC life insurance policyholders. Using the KCs for partisan politics is inexcusable.