Skip Navigation Links
Catholic News
Special Reports
Social Media
Google Plus
RSS Feeds

About   |   Subscribe   |   Order Print Copies   |   Archive

As Catholics and as Americans, we’re called to guard and defend religious liberty. If we’re to do the good works to which our faith calls us, we must have freedom to follow our consciences and practice our religion. Attorney Helen Alvaré, champion of conscience protection and the sanctity of life, is well-grounded both in U.S. law and Catholic Church belief. She spells out what’s at stake if the government continues to meddle in religious affairs—both in general and in the specifics of the fight against the federal Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that virtually all insurance policies include coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

Why Catholics Care About Religious Liberty
By: Helen M. Alvaré

Each issue carries an imprimatur from the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Reprinting prohibited
Nearly every week there’s media hype about something the government has done. Supporters and critics insist that the latest law, judicial decision, or executive action will change the world as we know it. Yet we wake the next morning to discover the world looks much the same.

A problem with this “Chicken Little cycle” is that, when something momentous does occur, it’s more easily dismissed, even when it shouldn’t be. This includes current threats to religious freedom by federal and state governments. In their 2012 statement on religious liberty, Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, the U.S. bishops write: “We address an urgent summons to our fellow Catholics and fellow Americans to be on guard, for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad.”

This is an alarming, but undoubtedly necessary, call to action. To the degree that government marginalizes or silences religious voices and institutions, we’ll find ourselves living in a very different society. Religious teachings and institutions will be less visible and influential. There will be more government intrusion into the internal affairs of religious institutions. The opinion that religion has nothing to offer that hasn’t already been said by science will prevail. In particular, Christian ideas about human sexuality, marriage, family, and sexual differences will increasingly be viewed as “discrimination” or “human-rights violations.”

It’s hard to overlook a theme running through the majority of recent challenges to religious freedom: the state strongly disagrees with the Catholic Church’s positions on human sexuality—concerning contraception, nonmarital sexual intercourse, and abortion—and insists that these constitute violations of women’s freedom. Yet more than one non-Catholic writer has pointed out how prophetic the Church has been regarding the harms that women would suffer should government throw its weight behind separating sex, procreation, and commitment. Fueled in part by legal abortion and government-sponsored contraceptive programs, we have seen not only the objectification of women, but also a rise in rates of abortion, nonmarital births, and failed marriages.

The government position promotes sexual self-expression and sexual gratification, free of reference to, or the possibility of, children. This position has been developing for quite a while. Beginning with “sexual privacy” cases as far back as 1965 and continuing with the 1973 abortion decision Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113), it reached its zenith in the 1992 Supreme Court abortion decision holding that matters relating to sex and procreation are matters of constitutional “liberty,” with “liberty” defined as “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” (505 U.S. 833, 851). This led to the 2003 Supreme Court announcement of a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. The same reasoning is being used by those seeking the creation of a federal constitutional right to “same-sex marriage.”

Looking past the political and immediate to the long-term and maybe even the eternal, one might observe that the temptation to challenge the most fundamental truths about the human person is as old as Adam and Eve. People of every age suffer the hereditary inclination to tell our Maker that we are in charge of truth and error, life and death, and the meanings of basic goods like marriage, sex, and freedom itself. Perhaps our current struggles are just the latest version of this age-old struggle for power.

A current dispute (2012) concerns a recent rule from the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring virtually all health insurance policies to include, without co-pay, coverage of contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The mandate contains a narrow religious exemption only for those religious institutions that primarily hire and serve people from their own faith communities. As noted by several Catholic leaders, neither Jesus Christ nor Mother Teresa would qualify for this exemption! As of this writing, the administration has promised further “accommodations” for Catholic religious institutions, but the mandate for religious institutions is scheduled to go into effect approximately one year after the fall 2012 presidential election.

Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, testified before Congress about this mandate: “This is not a matter of whether contraception may be prohibited by the government. This is not even a matter of whether contraception may be supported by the government. Instead, it is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs” (2/28/2012).

Leading religious-freedom experts believe that recent actions violate both the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) and a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic and non-Catholic entities have brought suit against the HHS mandate claiming these violations.

It shouldn’t be difficult for the Church to show that requiring all its educational, health care, and social-service institutions to purchase coverage violating long-held Catholic teachings is a substantial burden. The Church might also argue that the government is impermissibly interfering with the internal affairs of religion when it inserts itself into the relationship between an employer and its employees.

Consider how it changes the tone of a religious institution if, instead of it being permitted to set the terms of employment for its employees, the federal government inserts into that relationship a public or private entity that offers employees health coverage the employer refuses to provide on the grounds of Church teaching. Imagine the minor adolescent daughter of an employee being contacted by a government contractor who tells her that she has access, without her parents’ knowledge, to free, confidential birth control, or even a “morning after” pill that can act to destroy embryos. This is what HHS is currently proposing.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hosanna-Tabor gives us hope. There, the Court refused to permit a federal agency to contradict a religious institution’s choice of ministers on the grounds that the state has no authority to interfere in this crucial facet of religious exercise. This case could well assist the Church in its disputes over the HHS mandate, given the interference the mandate represents with religious institutions’ governance of their own internal affairs.

Paid Advertisement
Ads contrary to Catholic teachings should be reported to our webmaster. Include ad link.

The HHS mandate is not the only current threat to religious freedom. Additional controversies involving government meddling in religious affairs abound. These are affecting Catholic social-service agencies, adoption agencies, Catholic hospitals, universities, international humanitarian policies, and services to immigrants and refugees. Resolutions of these disputes will affect the conduct of the Catholic Church in the U.S. for many years to come.

A reduced respect for religious freedom in the United States has broad implications—at the individual, community, and international level. Every religious institution—as well as individuals and business owners—will be affected by the legal conclusions reached when the dust settles on these current controversies. Some institutions will challenge the government, perhaps to the point of contempt of the law. Some might close rather than pay the steep fines that would be imposed.

It should also be noted that women, particularly the poorest, will have lost a powerful ally if the Catholic Church is forced to choose between continuing its ministries and obeying the government. The Catholic Church is one of the last (and one of the most persistent and influential) voices supporting a vision of human sexuality which includes respect for the human body and for procreation, and decrying the objectification of women.

Finally, it’s not an overstatement to say that threats to religious freedom are worldwide. What will become of the U.S. voice on behalf of religious freedom if religious freedom is severely eroded here at home? What will become of concepts like equality, dignity, and natural rights in national and international (e.g., United Nations) documents and discussions without centuries of Judeo-Christian sources and witness to inform them?

Our bishops are clear on this matter: “Our faith requires us to defend the religious liberty granted us by God, and protected in our constitution. . . . We encourage you to hold firm, to stand fast, and to insist upon what belongs to you by right as Catholics and Americans. Our country deserves the best we have to offer, including our resistance to violations of our first freedom.”


“The entire Catholic community in the United States [must] come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. . . . Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.” –Pope Benedict XVI

“Religious liberty. . . . is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day. . . . If our obligations and duties to God are impeded, or even worse, contradicted by the government, then we can no longer claim to be a land of the free and a beacon of hope for the world.” –Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, USCCB

“Everyone should be immune from coercion by individuals, social groups, and every human power, so that, within due limits, no men or women are forced to act against their convictions. . . . The right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person.” –Declaration on Religious Liberty, Second Vatican Council


1.  The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or
2.  The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience,
     to pay for things they consider immoral.
3.  The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and
     devices as well as contraception.
4.  Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the
5.  Many other religious and secular people and groups have spoken out strongly
     against the mandate.
6.  The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates.

—U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Learn more at

Helen Alvaré is an associate professor at George Mason University School of Law. She is a senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute and chairs its Task Force on Conscience Protection. She is a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Laity and received the 2012 Notre Dame Evangelium Vitae Medal for her efforts to affirm and defend the sanctity of human life.

NEXT: Universal Call to Holiness (by Kathy Coffey)

I want to order print copies of this issue of Catholic Update.
Bulk discounts available!

I want to get digital access to this issue of Catholic Update.

I want to order a 12-month bulk subscription to hand out in my parish or classroom.

I want to purchase access to the library of Catholic Update issues available digitally.

Fidelis of Sigmaringen: If a poor man needed some clothing, Fidelis would often give the man the clothes right off his back. Complete generosity to others characterized this saint's life. 
<p>Born in 1577, Mark Rey (Fidelis was his religious name) became a lawyer who constantly upheld the causes of the poor and oppressed people. Nicknamed "the poor man's lawyer," Fidelis soon grew disgusted with the corruption and injustice he saw among his colleagues. He left his law career to become a priest, joining his brother George as a member of the Capuchin Order. His wealth was divided between needy seminarians and the poor. </p><p>As a follower of Francis, Fidelis continued his devotion to the weak and needy. During a severe epidemic in a city where he was guardian of a friary, Fidelis cared for and cured many sick soldiers. </p><p>He was appointed head of a group of Capuchins sent to preach against the Calvinists and Zwinglians in Switzerland. Almost certain violence threatened. Those who observed the mission felt that success was more attributable to the prayer of Fidelis during the night than to his sermons and instructions. </p><p>He was accused of opposing the peasants' national aspirations for independence from Austria. While he was preaching at Seewis, to which he had gone against the advice of his friends, a gun was fired at him, but he escaped unharmed. A Protestant offered to shelter Fidelis, but he declined, saying his life was in God's hands. On the road back, he was set upon by a group of armed men and killed. </p><p>He was canonized in 1746. Fifteen years later, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, which was established in 1622, recognized him as its first martyr.</p> American Catholic Blog Obedience means total surrender and wholehearted free service to the poorest of the poor. All the difficulties that come in our work are the result of disobedience.

New from Richard Rohr!

Richard Rohr explores how to find God in the depths of silence.

Epic Food Fight
With humor and practical wit, Fr. Leo invites you to read, savor, and digest the truth of our faith in new and appetizing ways!
A Spiritual Banquet!

Whether you are new to cooking, highly experienced, or just enjoy good food, Table of Plenty invites you into experiencing meals as a sacred time.

Pope Francis!

Why did the pope choose the name Francis? Find out in this new book by Gina Loehr.

The Seven Last Words

By focusing on God's love for humanity expressed in the gift of Jesus, The Last Words of Jesus serves as a rich source of meditation throughout the year.

Easter Thursday
Jesus is calling each one of us to resurrection. How will you respond?
Easter Wednesday
May the Lord be with us as he was with the faithful on that first Easter.
Easter Tuesday
If you’re taking a break this week from work or school, keep in touch with a Catholic Greetings e-card.
Easter Monday
It’s not too late to send an Easter e-card to friends near and far. Let the celebration continue for 50 days!
Catholic Greetings and wish you a most holy and joyous Easter season!

Come find us at: Facebook | St. Anthony Messenger magazine Twitter | American Catholic YouTube | American Catholic