Daily Archives: July 5, 2017

ORLANDO, Florida Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, a former president of the U.S. bishops conference, said that while he fully supports the bishops recent battles over religious freedom, they havent yet been fully effective at getting across one key point: Religious freedom isnt about special privileges, its about freedom to serve, especially the most vulnerable.

In the wake of the recent Trinity Lutheran decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, permitting a religious school to receive government funds for resurfacing a parking lot, Kurtz said, there are others saying this is giving special privileges, that were instituting a certain state religion.

They dont get it right, but whose fault is that? Kurtz asked. Id like to take some of the responsibility and say, How do we get the word out that religious freedom is a gift to the whole of America?

He then referenced the Little Sisters of the Poor, the womens order at the heart of a legal challenge to mandates for coverage of contraception and drugs regarded as abortion-inducing as part of health care reform under the Obama administration.

Take the Little Sisters of the Poor. I think most people understand theyre not looking to have special privileges, theyre simply trying to serve the poor, he said, adding that what has to be gotten across is that we dont want the sisters on their heels having to defend their freedom, we want them free to serve.

Kurtz spoke to Crux during the July 1-4 Convocation of Catholic Leaders, a gathering of almost 3,500 bishops, clergy, religious and laity from more than 80 percent of the dioceses in the United States.

On other fronts, Kurtz said:

Crux spoke to Kurtz on June 30. The following are excerpts from that conversation.

Crux: When you were president of the conference, conversations were already ongoing about this convocation. Youve invested a lot of time and resources. What are you hoping to accomplish?

Kurtz: The idea pre-dates my service, probably by about six or seven years. I remember that what prompted the convocation was a) how do we have a narrative in which we are united in proclaiming the gospel, in the midst of all the challenges or what we would call the landscape? We went through a number of presentations on right-brain thinking and left-brain thinking, and what the best way to engage people is.

How do we reach out? Thats a real challenge, especially with some of the alarming statistics of growing secularism and the number of people whove drifted away from the church. Lo and behold, along comes Pope Francis and Evangelii Gaudium, which of course people forget was the apostolic exhortation at the end of the Synod on New Evangelization.

So the impetus becomes now, since we have a language that we didnt have before, what does it mean to be missionary disciples, to be someone who continues to follow Christ, to deepen our knowledge and our experience of Christ, but to go out? The momentum has built.

Just thinking about the diocese of Louisville, we have 15 members of our staff here, as well as pastoral leaders, whove come together. We dont want to think in silos, something weve been trying to fight in the conference for really ten years since the restructuring. But its not about what we dont want to do, but what we want to do positively.

Theres a momentum here. I like to say, in parishes in Louisville, [in the Church] there are trains already running. Theyre running at different speeds, theyre at different stations, and all the rest. So in a sense, we join the Church in progress. For me, the biggest event here will be the last day when our staff comes back together again and says, Ok, were going back to Louisville to the local church. What is it that were taking with us home. Whats the fire?

And I think its most the knowledge, a sense of enthusiasm that I think will come from the presentation and the interaction. I think it will happen with every diocese. The local church will somehow be singing from the same songbook.

You spoke about Evangelii Gaudium. Is it fair to say that this is in a way an attempt to see how best to apply it to the American context in the here and now?

I think it is, so long as we recall that the momentum and impetus came before and we joined it in progress. I would say Pope Francis gave language to what we were already attempting to do, so it fit like a hand in a glove.

This event is also taking place at the end of the Fortnight for Freedom campaign. This particular one occurs immediately after we got the Trinity Lutheran decision, which a lot of people would see as a major victory for religious freedom in America. A case of a school operated by a Lutheran church, that applied for public funding to resurface a playground. And there was an issue. And the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, decided that it was appropriate. Are you excited about it?

I am. Im excited about a couple of things. I hope it gives us an opportunity to speak about religious freedom as a freedom to witness and serve, that its not a self-serving gift.

Ive been reading the blogs and what-not, and most people say that this gives a chance for the children who come into the playground a chance to recreate. There are others saying this is giving special privileges, that were instituting a certain state religion. They dont get it right. And whose fault is that? Id like to take some of the responsibility and say, How do we get the word out that religious freedom is a gift to the whole of America?

The whole basis on which our country is built is the pluralism of people who dont necessarily share the same values, but who come together with a shared conviction that freedom is allowing us all to thrive. And I think that to the extent that we can keep saying and living the fact that this is a freedom to witness and serve, and not to preserve our church institutions, and its not about us. We need to be able to convey that in the way that we go about doing our ministry.

I hope that this convocation will help the people of the United States see that the Church has always, and wants to continue to be, of service.

You want to make clear that this is not a parochial or confessional issue? Its about freeing up religious groups and individuals to serve the common good without having to sacrifice their most cherished beliefs?

Thats exactly right. Its the important value that we offer when we bring our convictions, especially if its a conviction that we are not trying to impose on someone but simply live and propose. The more we can do that, my hope is that these kinds of decisions wont have the church on its heels.

For instance, take the Little Sisters of the Poor. I think that most people understand theyre not looking to have special privileges, theyre simply trying to serve the poor. And we dont want the sisters on their heels having to defend their freedom, we want them free to serve.

Recently you put out a tweet saying, Please contact your elected representative to talk about the importance of religious freedom for adoption agencies and foster care. What are you concerned about there?

You might remember that I was the director of Catholic Charities when I was in Allentown [Pennsylvania], so its dear to my heart. One of the first areas I was involved in was helping families. The Church wants to be true to the convictions of our faith, without losing our ability to serve.

You might also remember the trip I made to the Philippines. I like to connect these together, because they are of one fabric. Our ability with Catholic Relief Services to reach out to every corner of the world is of the same fabric as our ability to walk with a family of, perhaps, a woman whos made the decision that shes not able to parent a child and so decides for adoption. We want to be able to walk with that person, and place the child with a loving family.

And you see that at risk today?

I think that there have been situations in different parts of the country where certain restrictions do not allow a Catholic agency [to operate]. There are a couple of examples, where some of the regulations that came forward prohibited us from being able to place the children in a family setting.

And what was the reason for that?

I think the desire on our part to emphasize the need for a child to have a father and a mother.

Was it because you wouldnt serve same-sex couples?

Not so much refusing service, but giving preference to traditional families.

You also tweeted about the importance of religious freedom for Catholic schools, which is also part of that fabric. What would you see as the primary religious freedom problem areas in schools today. Hiring and firing?

No, I think the biggest issue with Catholic schools right now is to ensure that a person has the chance to enroll despite their economic challenges. I think the biggest issue with religious freedom at schools is the fact that people should have a right to choose, but right now it only applies to those who can afford it.

In Kentucky, were working on a scholarship tax credit. Especially with the cost of education rising and our need to be fair with teachers, we have to be creative. Our parents have been unbelievably willing to make sacrifices, but some of the laws are penalizing those parents, such as the Blaine Amendment, and that has a chilling effect. Every state surrounding us except West Virginia, I believe, has some opportunity for tuition tax credits.

We dont want a narrow view of religious freedom [that excludes support for faith based schools], which penalizes a family that thinks that their child can survive best and thrive best within a Catholic school.

And I think that, probably, is the biggest issue that were facing.

You also sent out another tweet, and many of your brother bishops have been doing this for quite some time, calling for prayer and solidarity with our suffering brothers and sisters in the Middle East, where the threat to religious freedom is far more lethal.

Life and death, yes.

Should the U.S. government be distributing some share of its relief budget for genocide victims in Iraq and Syria through the local churches, to make sure it reaches the Christians who need it but who wont go to the large refugee camps because theyre afraid of jihadist infiltration?

Let me say two things. First of all, we as the United States bishops, need to listen to the local churches, to the bishops in Syria and Iraq, to see what are their concerns, what can be of help. Thats the first thing.

In terms of governmental funds, the USCCB has long said that we want to serve all refugees, so were always reluctant when we start to say, Were going to serve this person, were going to exclude that other. I think that in a special way we would be looking for ways to partner with the local church.

Historically this may go down as one of the great rescue missions of the Catholic Church, because were it not for the Knights of Columbus, Aid to the Church in Need, CRS, CNEWA, most of the Christians in the Middle East would have been adrift a long time ago. But those resources arent infinite. Obviously, its desirable that public money that is being set aside for genocide victims actually reaches them, yes?

Absolutely. Sean Callahan of CRS came to Louisville some months ago and we met with majority representative Mitch McConnell precisely to talk about foreign aid. I think, in many ways, one of the things we talked about, is that you have to go upstream. Sometimes, were dealing with refugees after theyve already fled, but its also important to try to prevent refugee status in the first place.

In accompanying the suffering Church, we need to find ways to continue to assist, and government money is the only way. But by all means, help that local church survive in a sense, we have to create a safe environment where people can live in their own countries. That is always going to be the primary aim.

Theres sometimes a conflict with bishops from the local church who say, We dont want our people to leave the area. And I said: Well, we want to respect that, but if somebody is accepted within the United States, were going to serve them.

On the one hand, when you have a person desperately trying to flee for completely understandable reasons, you want to try to assist them in any way you can, but you also dont want to eviscerate the local church from which theyre coming. Sometimes its hard to know what to do.

If you talk to the local church, sometimes those who are displaced, are uprooted not only from their possessions, but their heritage. Its not like the United States, where people have had the land maybe for some hundreds of years. These are people whove had their land for generations and generations.

One way is to help them in every way possible when they come, but also when the situation in their countries stabilizes, if they want to go back, we should also do everything possible to help them return.

I would love that. I remember that in the 80s, I went to Israel. I remember talking with some of the Palestinian families, and their problem was the drain of talent. Some of the brightest would leave to become educated, but they wouldnt return. So, I think that any way in which we can be involved and help the local church, we want to do that.

Something were trying to do in Louisville, when a priest comes to serve from another locale, the first thing we try to do is look at the principle of mutuality. What are we doing in that local church from where that priest has come?

You came to this interview from being with the National Leadership Roundtable meeting, where you were presented with an award. Tell us about it.

We were honored. We were given a best practices award. That is always something to receive. I work very closely with our chancellor Brian Reynolds. One thing we were able to do is to get a $1 million grant from the Lilly Foundation, in order for us to deal with fiscal literacy. We did some studies, not only about our priests but also our laity, about their ability to care for themselves, to provide for their future.

One of the things we need to do is to assist our people in the way in which they provide for the future, including how they save, and in some cases deal with the debts that come from education.

The second thing, and this is especially important for me, the diet of a priest working in collaboration with lay leadership. So, were doing a lot to be able to find good models in which, as I say to my priests, we dont so much work harder, but we work smarter. Thats something that Im feeling pretty good about.

The big picture here is careful stewardship of resources?

I would say the big picture is collaboration, models of collaboration. Financial management is one aspect.

The Vatican too is trying to develop good practices for business management, though that effort seems to have hit some roadblocks lately. Are you all praying that the Vatican eventually will also be in a position to be a role model?

Absolutely. One of the best things we can do, I believe, is to continue in our local churches to be transparent and to have good practices. We always look at our neighbors to see how we can be of help to others, just as were hoping to benefit from other peoples approaches. I hope that for the Vatican as well.

Read the rest here:

Kurtz: Religious freedom not about privilege, but freedom to serve - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

The Federal Communications Commission recently proposed a regulation aimed at Restoring Internet Freedom, which is seen as a first step toward rolling back net neutrality rules enacted during the Obama administration. The rollback is welcome news. The last thing we want is to turn the Googles, Facebooks and Amazons of the world into dinosaurs like Con Edison or the old AT&T monopoly of the 20th century.

But there is an additional reason to resist net neutrality: Regulating the internet like the electric company has serious implications for future generations.

Related: How Amazon Could Dominate 3 Megatrends of the 21st Century

The Obama-era rules classified internet service providers as public utilities under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, bringing an end to the hands-off approach that has guided U.S. regulation of the internet since the Clinton administration.

The internet is one of the rare examples of what economists call a general purpose technology (GPT). Such technologies bring sweeping, revolutionary change upon their arrival, and come along at most a few times a century. The wheel, writing and the waterwheel are examples of early GPTs. At the dawn of human civilization, hundreds and sometimes even thousands of years passed between the arrival of new breakthrough technologies like these. In more recent times, the discovery of GPTs has sped up. The industrial revolution brought the arrival of the steam engine, railways and the spread of electricity, for example.

Unlike most innovations, which tend to bring small improvements that are limited in both scope and impact, the arrival of GPTs can hit the economy with a dramatic shock. These shocks spill over across many market sectors, and their effects can be disruptive, with the power to move the entire economy. Such changes are accompanied by both benefits and risks, and it is because of the downside risks that progress which is what the arrival of GPTs represents is often heavily resisted.

Related: The Net Neutrality Debate Explained

The Luddites, for example, were 19th century British textile workers who protested against the new equipment that could replace them in factories. In modern times, we see similar resistance to new technologies from groups like taxi drivers, whose livelihoods are threatened by new companies like Uber. It would be uncaring to ignore the harm that new technologies can bring to peoples lives. But to focus only on the downside risks associated with new technologies is also to ignore all their upside benefits.

The internet also brings risks. It makes it easier for potential terrorists to find one another and plan attacks. On a less serious level, online shopping outlets like Amazon threaten traditional brick-and-mortar retail stores. Dealing with these problems takes time, and real people are harmed as we learn to cope with the initial disruptions. But the internet also brings nearly infinite benefits. It is used by 911 operators to handle emergency calls, and it facilitates everything from shopping to entertainment to work.

It may not be obvious, but future generations stand to benefit the most, by being born into a world where technology is as advanced as possible and where the initial challenges associated with technologies have been dealt with and resolved.

Related: How Trump Could Make It More Expensive for Your to Binge-Watch Netflix

The invention of the automobile put a lot of horse-drawn carriage drivers out of work. But the fact that this upheaval was dealt with in the early 20th century and not postponed until later means we were all born into a better world, one that offers a more comfortable life with more opportunities to travel and explore the many wonders of our globe. In this sense, the sooner new technologies arrive, the better a world we leave behind for our children and grandchildren.

As the FCC moves forward with its effort to turn back net neutrality regulations, we should all appreciate the importance and fragility of a technology like the internet. Applying too heavy a hand on the internet risks destroying the innovation that will leave a better world behind after were gone. Recognizing this danger requires humility and selflessness from regulators, as well as from the public. Regulating new disruptive technologies with an iron fist may bring us short-term comfort. But this tendency is actually selfish when viewed from a long-term perspective.

The FCC received millions of comments in support of its initial net neutrality rules, which demonstrates just how powerful the urge to control new technologies is. But we must resist the temptation to be the Luddites of the modern age. If we wont do it for ourselves, perhaps we will keep the internet free for the sake of those who will inhabit the earth long after we are gone.

James Broughel is a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and author of the new book Regulation and Economic Growth.

Read more from the original source:

Why Our Kids Will Thank Us for Rolling Back Net Neutrality | The ... - The Fiscal Times