'4 Words And A Comma' Belie Complexity Of SOGI Issue
Many will recall the political firestorm that occurred around the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (e.g. RFRA) here in Indiana during Holy Week of this year.
Several business and community leaders expressed strong support for the LGBT protest against Indiana SB 101 signed into law by Governor Mike Pence, which resulted in a “fix” bill just a couple of days after the signing of the original state bill. The intent of the bill, as had been previously secured in 36 other states, was to include elements of the Federal RFRA law into the state law of Indiana. Rather than intending to discriminate, the purpose of the bill was to protect religious liberty, particularly in terms of conscience, for both faith communities and individuals of faith.
More recently, there has been a campaign, with the slogan of “4 words and a comma” to further expand civil rights for certain persons, particularly related to sexual orientation and gender identity, which is slated to be addressed at the next session of the state legislature. Unfortunately, this creates the illusion of simplicity with regards to an issue of far greater complexity. Such an over-simplification of what is at stake here could result in very serious consequences for individuals and religious communities. As such, the Indiana bishops cannot support the proposed SB 100 as introduced. In particular, the bill lacks sufficient regard for the constitutional right of religious liberty for both faith communities and individuals. I will try to provide at least some insight into the complexity of concerns.
While the dignity of every person, as created in the image of God, must always be respected as sacred, this does not permit or approve any type of conduct or behavior that is deemed to be contrary to natural law. Furthermore, whether for faith communities or individuals, religious liberty demands more than a mere “exemption” in the law. Consistent with the intentions of those who founded our country and established its constitution, we must uphold the right of religious liberty as a foundational principle of our nation’s values and heritage. While remaining vigilant to protect each and every human being, regardless of sexual orientation, from actual harm, we must not overlook the right and responsibility of acting in fidelity to one’s conscience. As noted in comments regarding SB 101 earlier this year, difference of opinion is not the same as discrimination.
By referring more to religious liberty as existing in the realm of exemption rather than as a right, there seems to be a growing attempt to limit the exercise of religion (e.g. ministries and services) to that which does not interfere with public policy or opinion. The Church, however, is obliged in conscience to act in accordance with what it has been entrusted to believe and teach, such as marriage involving the union of one man and one woman. Its members, including both clerics (e.g. those who are ordained) and laity, are bound in conscience to uphold the Church’s teaching in word and action. The Church’s mission, as mandated by Jesus Christ, involves the obligation to worship, teach and provide outreach in accordance with its beliefs. Thus, while respecting the dignity of all persons, following one’s conscience may preclude a person from participating in the act of another that would be contrary to one’s religious beliefs. Despite the difference of opinion, there is not necessarily any intent to harm or discriminate. For example, someone who owns a catering service and holds the same position on marriage as that which has been taught by the Church for centuries is bound by conscience to live in accordance with that teaching. Thus, without any intent to harm or even prevent persons of same sex attraction from “marrying,” such a person should not be coerced into participation in such an act which is contrary to one’s religious beliefs by having to provide catering services for any type of event that contradicts Church teaching. One person’s right to not participate is not necessarily discrimination or an actual cause of harm toward another.
In accordance with Catholic teaching, the Church has both the right and the duty to carry out its mission of mercy without having to cheapen the notion of mercy out of coercion or intimidation. Every right has a corresponding responsibility. This is so for both the faith community, including all ministries and services provided by the Church, and its individual members. When seeking to assist someone in need, we do not first ask whether the person is Catholic. We do not serve people because of who they are, but because of who we are as Catholics.
The notion of gender identity is especially difficult for the Church to uphold. At last count, there were nearly 60 categories of gender identity. It would seem that individualism in our society has now reached such an extreme level that the reality of one’s being is determined by the particular individual. This seems to exclude, if not deny, God as our creator, which is something in complete contrast to the very core of Church teaching. Each person is uniquely created in the image of God. On one hand, the design of a person’s identity is determined by the creator rather than the creature. On the other, a person’s identity is more than sexuality. In his Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”), Pope Francis writes; “We should recognize in a culture where each person wants to be bearer of his or her own subjective truth, it becomes difficult for citizens to devise a common plan which transcends individual gain and personal ambitions.” [EG, 61] Without any sense of a common plan or common good, which is a foundational basis for Catholic social teaching, there is little to bind us together as a human family. Without this binding together, we harm not only individuals and religion but culture and society as well.
As we are well aware, there are those who profess to be spiritual without being religious. Without religion, there would be no spirituality for humanity. It was through religion, in founding the Church that Jesus Christ chose to bring about the kingdom and salvation. It is through religion that the life, teaching and miracles of Jesus have been preserved, the Word has been proclaimed and divine grace continues to flow throughout the world and all of creation. Regardless of whether we have the humility to realize and acknowledge it, religion is as essential to spirituality as oxygen is to breathing.
Trying to avoid the risk of oversimplifying the issue on my own part, I have tried to provide some points for consideration on the complexity of what is at stake in the deliberations of the early 2016 legislative session. I urge you to become familiar with the bill and proposals, pray and consider taking action by contacting your state representative in support of religious freedom. We must not give up our values, whether pertaining to the dignity of the human person or any other Church teaching. Preserving the right of religious freedom is the only sure way of maneuvering through all the opportunities and challenges before us, to maintain the proper balance and assurance of a truly just society and nation.
