CATHOLIC BISHOPS - ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Friday 13 April 2012 at 5:58 pm. Used tags: , , , , , , , , ,

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
Our First, Most Cherished Liberty
A Statement on Religious Liberty


 

We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith

which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as

American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other.

Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be

complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with

fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our

founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to

contribute to our common life together.


Freedom is not only for Americans, but we think of it as something of our special inheritance,

fought for at a great price, and a heritage to be guarded now. We are stewards of this gift, not

only for ourselves but for all nations and peoples who yearn to be free. Catholics in America have

discharged this duty of guarding freedom admirably for many generations.


In 1887, when the archbishop of Baltimore, James Gibbons, was made the second American cardinal, he

defended the American heritage of religious liberty during his visit to Rome to receive the red

hat. Speaking of the great progress the Catholic Church had made in the United States, he

attributed it to the “civil liberty we enjoy in our enlightened republic.” Indeed, he made a bolder

claim, namely that “in the genial atmosphere of liberty [the Church] blossoms like a rose.”1


From well before Cardinal Gibbons, Catholics in America have been advocates for religious liberty,

and the landmark teaching of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty was influenced by the

American experience. It is among the proudest boasts of the Church on



1 Cardinal James Gibbons, Address upon taking possession of Santa Maria in Trastevere, March 25,

1887.





these shores. We have been staunch defenders of religious liberty in the past. We have a solemn

duty to discharge that duty today.


We need, therefore, to speak frankly with each other when our freedoms are threatened. Now is such

a time. As Catholic bishops and American citizens, 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 has been noticed both near and far. Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke about his worry that

religious liberty in the United States is being weakened. He called it the “most cherished of

American freedoms”—and indeed it is. All the more reason to heed the warning of the Holy Father, a

friend of America and an ally in the defense of freedom, in his recent address to American bishops:


Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American

freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been

made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and

institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me

of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of

respect for freedom of conscience.


Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed

with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a

reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the

issues which are determining the future of American society.2



Religious Liberty Under Attack—Concrete Examples


Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat? Sadly, it is. This is not a theological or legal

dispute without real world consequences. Consider the following:


•   HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. The mandate of the

Department of Health and Human Services has received wide attention and has been met with our

vigorous and united opposition. In an unprecedented way, the federal government will both force

religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching and

purport to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their

religious liberty. These features of the “preventive services” mandate amount to an unjust law. As

Archbishop-designate


2 Benedict XVI, Ad limina address to bishops of the United States, January 19, 2012.





William Lori of Baltimore, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, testified to

Congress: “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.”3


•   State immigration laws. Several states have recently passed laws that forbid what the

government deems “harboring” of undocumented immigrants—and what the Church deems Christian charity

and pastoral care to those immigrants. Perhaps the most egregious of these is in Alabama, where the

Catholic bishops, in cooperation with the Episcopal and Methodist bishops of Alabama, filed suit

against the law:


It is with sadness that we brought this legal action but with a deep sense that we, as people of

faith, have no choice but to defend the right to the free exercise of religion granted to us as

citizens of Alabama. . . . The law makes illegal the exercise of our Christian religion which we,

as citizens of Alabama, have a right to follow. The law prohibits almost everything which would

assist an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. This

new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize,

hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an

undocumented immigrant. Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is

illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school

classes. It is illegal for

the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for

them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches.4


•   Altering Church structure and governance. In 2009, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut

Legislature proposed a bill that would have forced Catholic parishes to be restructured according

to a congregational model, recalling the trusteeism controversy of the early nineteenth century,

and prefiguring the federal government’s attempts to redefine for the Church “religious minister”

and “religious employer” in the years since.


•   Christian students on campus. In its over-100-year history, the University of California

Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the



3 Most Rev. William E. Lori, Chairman, USCCB Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, Oral Testimony

Before the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, February 28, 2012.

4 Most Rev. Thomas J. Rodi, Archbishop of Mobile, August 1, 2011.





Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual

activity outside of marriage.


•   Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia,

and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing

adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts,

or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried

opposite-sex couples who cohabit.


•   Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City enacted a rule that barred the

Bronx Household of Faith and sixty other churches from renting public schools on weekends for

worship services even though non-religious groups could rent

the same schools for scores of other uses. While this would not frequently affect Catholic

parishes, which generally own their own buildings, it would be devastating to many smaller

congregations. It is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers.


•   Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Notwithstanding years of excellent

performance by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services in

administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed

its contract specifications to require us to provide or

refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious

institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and

they do not somehow lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. And yet

a federal court in Massachusetts, turning religious liberty on its head, has since declared that

such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government somehow violates

religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner

consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.



Religious Liberty Is More Than Freedom of Worship


Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home.

It 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 properly understood, 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, both here at home and overseas.


What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil

society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good,





and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes

neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and

youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do

not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack

on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.


The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement about the administration’s

contraception and sterilization mandate that captured exactly the danger that we face:


Most troubling, is the Administration’s underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be

a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its

“religious” character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with

broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration’s ruling makes the price of

such an outward approach the violation of an

organization’s religious principles. This is deeply disappointing.5


This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or

Muslim issue. It is an American issue.



The Most Cherished of American Freedoms


In 1634, a mix of Catholic and Protestant settlers arrived at St. Clement’s Island in Southern

Maryland from England aboard the Ark and the Dove. They had come at the invitation of the Catholic

Lord Baltimore, who had been granted Maryland by the Protestant King Charles I of England. While

Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in Europe, Lord Baltimore imagined Maryland as a

society where people of different faiths could live together peacefully. This vision was soon

codified in Maryland’s 1649 Act Concerning Religion (also called the “Toleration Act”), which was

the first law in our nation’s history to protect an individual’s right to freedom of conscience.


Maryland’s early history teaches us that, like any freedom, religious liberty requires constant

vigilance and protection, or it will disappear. Maryland’s experiment in religious toleration ended

within a few decades. The colony was placed under royal control, and the Church of England became

the established religion. Discriminatory laws, including the loss of political rights, were enacted

against those who refused to conform. Catholic chapels were closed, and Catholics were restricted

to practicing their faith in their homes. The Catholic community lived under these conditions until

the American Revolution.



5 Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, Statement, January 24, 2012.





By the end of the 18th century, our nation’s founders embraced freedom of religion as an essential

condition of a free and democratic society. James Madison, often called the Father of the

Constitution, described conscience as “the most sacred of all property.”6 He wrote that “the

Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is

the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”7 George Washington wrote that “the

establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the Motive that induced me to the field of

battle.”8 Thomas Jefferson assured the Ursuline Sisters—who had been serving a mostly non- Catholic

population by running a hospital, an orphanage, and schools in Louisiana since 1727— that the

principles of the Constitution were a “sure guarantee” that their ministry would be free “to govern

itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.”9


It is therefore fitting that when the Bill of Rights was ratified, religious freedom had the

distinction of being the First Amendment. Religious liberty is indeed the first liberty. The First

Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”


Recently, in a unanimous Supreme Court judgment affirming the importance of that first freedom, the

Chief Justice of the United States explained that religious liberty is not just the first freedom

for Americans; rather it is the first in the history of democratic freedom, tracing its origins

back the first clauses of the Magna Carta of 1215 and beyond. In a telling example, Chief Justice

Roberts illustrated our history of religious liberty in light of a Catholic issue decided

upon by James Madison, who guided the Bill of Rights through Congress and is known as the architect

of the First Amendment:


[In 1806] John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States, solicited the Executive’s

opinion on who should be appointed to direct the affairs of the Catholic Church in the territory

newly acquired by the Louisiana Purchase. After consulting with President Jefferson, then-Secretary

of State James Madison responded that the selection of church “functionaries” was an “entirely

ecclesiastical” matter left to the Church’s own judgment. The “scrupulous policy of the

Constitution in guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,” Madison

explained, prevented the Government from

rendering an opinion on the “selection of ecclesiastical individuals.”10


6 James Madison, “Property,” March 29, 1792, in The Founding Fathers, eds. Philip B. Kurland and

Ralph Lerner (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), accessed March 27, 2012. 

http://press- pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html.


7 James Madison, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment,” June 20, 1785, in The

Founding

Fathers, accessed March 27, 2012. 

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html.


8 Michael Novak and Jana Novak, Washington’s God, 2006.

9 Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States (Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1950),

678.

10 Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S.     _, 132 S. Ct. 694,

703 (2012).






That is our American heritage, our most cherished freedom. It is the first freedom because if we

are not free in our conscience and our practice of religion, all other freedoms are fragile. If

citizens are not free in their own consciences, how can they be free in relation to others, or to

the state? 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 Christian Teaching


During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, Americans shone the light of the Gospel on

a dark history of slavery, segregation, and racial bigotry. The civil rights movement was an

essentially religious movement, a call to awaken consciences, not only an appeal to the

Constitution for America to honor its heritage of liberty.


In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. boldly said, “The

goal of America is freedom.” As a Christian pastor, he argued that to call America to the full

measure of that freedom was the specific contribution Christians are obliged to make. He rooted his

legal and constitutional arguments about justice in the long Christian tradition:


I would agree with Saint Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.” Now what is the

difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a

man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is

out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint

Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.11


It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot

be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by

resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws,

then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to

obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we

must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith.


It is essential to understand the distinction between conscientious objection and an unjust law.

Conscientious objection permits some relief to those who object to a just law for reasons of

conscience—conscription being the most well-known example. An unjust law is “no law at all.” It

cannot be obeyed, and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal.



11 Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963.





The Christian church does not ask for special treatment, simply the rights of religious freedom for

all citizens. Rev. King also explained that the church is neither the master nor the servant of the

state, but its conscience, guide, and critic.


As Catholics, we know that our history has shadows too in terms of religious liberty, when we did

not extend to others the proper respect for this first freedom. But the teaching of the Church is

absolutely clear about religious liberty:


The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune

from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise

that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs …

whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. . .

. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law

whereby society is governed. Thus it

is to become a civil right.12


As Catholics, we are obliged to defend the right to religious liberty for ourselves and for others.

We are happily joined in this by our fellow Christians and believers of other faiths.


A recent letter to President Obama from some sixty religious leaders, including Christians of many

denominations and Jews, argued that “it is emphatically not only Catholics who deeply object to the

requirement that health plans they purchase must provide coverage of contraceptives that include

some that are abortifacients.”13


More comprehensively, a theologically rich and politically prudent declaration from Evangelicals

and Catholics Together made a powerful case for greater vigilance in defense of religious freedom,

precisely as a united witness animated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.14 Their declaration makes it

clear that as Christians of various traditions we object to a “naked public square,” stripped of

religious arguments and religious believers. We do not seek a “sacred public square” either, which

gives special privileges and benefits to religious citizens. Rather, we seek a civil public square,

where all citizens can make their contribution to the common good. At our

best, we might call this an American public square.


The Lord Jesus came to liberate us from the dominion of sin. Political liberties are one part of

that liberation, and religious liberty is the first of those liberties. Together with our fellow

Christians, joined by our Jewish brethren, and in partnership with Americans of other religious



12 Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), no. 2, in The

Documents of

Vatican II, ed. Walter M. Abbott (New York: Guild Press, 1966).


13 Letter from Leith Anderson et al. to President Obama, December 21, 2011 (available at 

www.becketfund.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/To-President-NonCatholics-RelExemptionSigned.pdf).

14 Evangelicals and Catholics Together, “In Defense of Religious Freedom,” First Things, March

2012.





traditions, we affirm that our faith requires us to defend the religious liberty granted us by God,

and protected in our Constitution.



Martyrs Around the World


In this statement, as bishops of the United States, we are addressing ourselves to the situation we

find here at home. At the same time, we are sadly aware that religious liberty in many other parts

of the world is in much greater peril. Our obligation at home is to defend religious liberty

robustly, but we cannot overlook the much graver plight that religious believers, most of them

Christian, face around the world. The age of martyrdom has not passed. Assassinations, bombings of

churches, torching of orphanages—these are only the most violent attacks

Christians have suffered because of their faith in Jesus Christ. More systematic denials of basic

human rights are found in the laws of several countries, and also in acts of persecution by

adherents of other faiths.


If religious liberty is eroded here at home, American defense of religious liberty abroad is less

credible. And one common threat, spanning both the international and domestic arenas, is

the tendency to reduce the freedom of religion to the mere freedom of worship. Therefore, it is

our task to strengthen religious liberty at home, in this and other respects, so that we might

defend it more vigorously abroad. To that end, American foreign policy, as well as the vast

international network of Catholic agencies, should make the promotion of religious liberty an

ongoing and urgent priority.



“All the Energies the Catholic Community Can Muster”


What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask

nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right,

be respected.


In insisting that our liberties as Americans be respected, we know as bishops that what our Holy

Father said is true. This work belongs to “an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity

endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture.”


As bishops we seek to bring the light of the Gospel to our public life, but the work of politics is

properly that of committed and courageous lay Catholics. We exhort them to be both engaged and

articulate in insisting that as Catholics and as Americans we do not have to choose between the

two. There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with Christians, Jews, and

others, to impress upon our elected representatives the importance of continued protection of

religious liberty in a free society.





We address a particular word to those holding public office. It is your noble task to govern for

the common good. It does not serve the common good to treat the good works of religious believers

as a threat to our common life; to the contrary, they are essential to its proper functioning. It

is also your task to protect and defend those fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Bill of

Rights. This ought not to be a partisan issue. The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans

or Independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected

representatives to ensure that it remains so.


We recognize that a special responsibility belongs to those Catholics who are responsible for our

impressive array of hospitals, clinics, universities, colleges, schools, adoption agencies,

overseas development projects, and social service agencies that provide assistance to the poor, the

hungry, immigrants, and those faced with crisis pregnancies. You do the work that the

Gospel mandates that we do. It is you who may be forced to choose between the good works we do by

faith, and fidelity to that faith itself. 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.


To our priests, especially those who have responsibility for parishes, university chaplaincies, and

high schools, we ask for a catechesis on religious liberty suited to the souls in your care. As

bishops we can provide guidance to assist you, but the courage and zeal for this task cannot be

obtained from another—it must be rooted in your own concern for your flock and nourished by the

graces you received at your ordination.


Catechesis on religious liberty is not the work of priests alone. The Catholic Church in America is

blessed with an immense number of writers, producers, artists, publishers, filmmakers, and bloggers

employing all the means of communications—both old and new media—to expound and teach the faith.

They too have a critical role in this great struggle for religious liberty. We call upon them to

use their skills and talents in defense of our first freedom.


Finally to our brother bishops, let us exhort each other with fraternal charity to be bold, clear,

and insistent in warning against threats to the rights of our people. Let us attempt to be the

“conscience of the state,” to use Rev. King’s words. In the aftermath of the decision on

contraceptive and sterilization mandates, many spoke out forcefully. As one example, the words of

one of our most senior brothers, Cardinal Roger Mahony, thirty-five years a bishop and recently

retired after twenty-five years as archbishop of Los Angeles, provide a model for us here: “I

cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today.

This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic community

can muster.”15



15 Cardinal Roger Mahony, “Federal Government Mandate for Contraceptive/Sterilization Coverage,”

Cardinal Roger Mahony Blogs L.A. (blog), January 20, 2012,

cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2012/01/federal- government-mandate-for.html.






A Fortnight for Freedom


In particular, we recommend to our brother bishops that we focus “all the energies the Catholic

community can muster” in a special way this coming summer. As pastors of the flock, our privileged

task is to lead the Christian faithful in prayer.


Both our civil year and liturgical year point us on various occasions to our heritage of freedom.

This year, we propose a special “fortnight for freedom,” in which bishops in their own dioceses

might arrange special events to highlight the importance of defending our first freedom. Our

Catholic institutions also could be encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation with other

Christians, Jews, people of other faiths, and indeed, all who wish to defend our most cherished

freedom.


We suggest that the fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St.

Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day, be dedicated to this “fortnight for freedom”—a great hymn

of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who

remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John

Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the

Church of Rome. Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis,

and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and

parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would

constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.


In addition to this summer’s observance, we also urge that the Solemnity of Christ the King—a feast

born out of resistance to totalitarian incursions against religious liberty—be a day specifically

employed by bishops and priests to preach about religious liberty, both here and abroad.


To all our fellow Catholics, we urge an intensification of your prayers and fasting for a new birth

of freedom in our beloved country. We invite you to join us in an urgent prayer for religious

liberty.


Almighty God, Father of all nations,

For freedom you have set us free in Christ Jesus (Gal 5:1). We praise and bless you for the gift of

religious liberty,

the foundation of human rights, justice, and the common good.

Grant to our leaders the wisdom to protect and promote our liberties;

By your grace may we have the courage to defend them, for ourselves and for all those who live in

this blessed land.

We ask this through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, our patroness,





and in the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, with whom you

live and reign, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.




Acknowledgments


Excerpts from The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, General Editor, copyright © 1966

by

America Press, Inc. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.


Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI, Ad limina address to bishops of the United States, January 19,

2012, copyright © 2012, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City. Used with permission. All rights

reserved.


Copyright © 2012, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC. All rights

reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and

retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.




The document Our First, Most Cherished Liberty: A Statement on Religious Liberty, was developed by

the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

(USCCB). It was approved by the Administrative Committee of the USCCB at its March 2012 meeting as

a statement of the Committee and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.


Msgr. Ronny E. Jenkins, JCD General Secretary, USCCB




Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty


Chairman


Most Rev. William E. Lori, Archbishop-designate of Baltimore


Bishop Members


Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap, Archbishop of Philadelphia

Most Rev. Wilton D. Gregory, Archbishop of Atlanta

Most Rev. John C. Nienstedt, Archbishop of St. Paul–Minneapolis

Most Rev. Thomas J. Rodi, Archbishop of Mobile

Most Rev. J. Peter Sartain, Archbishop of Seattle





Most Rev. John O. Barres, Bishop of Allentown Most Rev. Daniel E. Flores, Bishop of Brownsville

Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix

Most Rev. Thomas J. Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield, IL


Bishop Consultants


Most Rev. José H. Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles

Most Rev. Stephen E. Blaire, Bishop of Stockton

Most Rev. Joseph P. McFadden, Bishop of Harrisburg

Most Rev. Richard E. Pates, Bishop of Des Moines

Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, Bishop of Fort Wayne–South Bend


No comments



(optional field)
(optional field)
To prevent automated comment spam we require you to answer this silly question.
Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.