Washington D.C., Oct 9, 2017 / 03:59 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Two sets of announcements by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services issued Friday both promise to broaden religious freedom protections in the United States.
The first announcement, by the HHS department, broadens the religious freedom exemptions to the department’s contraception mandate, which has been facing federal lawsuits from conscientious objectors since its introduction in 2011.
The second announcement was a memo issued by the Department of Justice, in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained in a detailed twenty-point memo, the legal principles all government agencies should consider when dealing with religious freedom concerns.
Neither announcement will automatically resolve religious freedom cases currently within the court system.
In an Oct. 6 interview with CNA, Robert George, a professor of constitutional law at Princeton University and visiting professor at Harvard University, explained the implications of these two announcements for religious freedom supporters throughout the country.
According to the administration this has been a pretty big day for religious freedom. Can you provide a general reaction and walk us through an overview of what the new HHS mandate adjustment and DOJ rules mean for religious freedom?
Well I think this is a big day for religious freedom. I see much greater value in the guidance that been issued today than in the executive order on religious freedom from a few months ago, which I was very disappointed in, as you know. I felt that order was essentially meaningless. The guidance today I think is genuine and I think it is very likely to make a positive difference. The administration goes clearly on the record and instructs all relevant agencies of government that the [Religious] Freedom Restoration Act applies even where a religious assurance seeks an exemption from a requirement that the entity confer benefits on third parties.
This is point 15 of the 20 key principles for Religious Liberty issued by the Justice Department.
And this is a big point in dispute between the two sides in this debate over religious freedom. And the administration comes down squarely in favor of what I certainly believe is the correct view.
Another key point that the guidance makes clear in point 19 is that religious employers are entitled to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employer’s religious precepts. Now I interpret that to mean that an employer may, if the religious employer chooses, for religious reasons choose to employ only members of its own faith. But it also means that the employer, if it chooses on the basis of its religious faith, can choose to hire people who are not of the same faith, but limit those employment opportunities to prospective employees whose conduct is in line with the moral teachings of the faith. Now this is very important. It means for example that a Catholic school could say, “We don’t insist on hiring only Catholics to be teachers in the school. Perhaps we insist on Catholics as teachers of religion, since it’s a Catholic school. We are perfectly happy to hire a math teacher, social studies teacher, and literature teacher who are Hindu or Protestant or Jewish or Mormon or Muslim.”
But, even if they choose to do that [a Catholic employer] can choose to employ only people from their own faith or other faiths who live their lives in line with Catholic moral teaching. So if for example the school says, “We do not want to employ people who are living in a cohabiting partnership outside of marriage,” under this guidance, under point 19 as I interpret it, the employer is entitled to do that, and that’s protected as a matter of the employer’s religious freedom. This is a very important point.
You know, I do have a question about point 20 that has to do with the first word and the point – that what is “generally.” The point says, “generally, the federal government may not condition federal grants or contracts on the religious organization altering its religious character beliefs or activities.” What I don’t know is what the exceptions are. I assume “generally” is meant to state a rule, but to contemplate that there are exceptions to the rule. So I think we need clearer guidance from the administration and from the Justice Department about the conditions under which the federal government may legitimately condition federal grants or contracts on their religious organization altering its religious character beliefs or activities. Since it’s presented as a conditional norm not as an absolute norm we really need some clarity about what the conditions are, or what the exceptions are. And I cannot find that clarity in in the material released today. But I do think we need it.
I’m glad you brought up the Executive Order and its shortcomings. Could you briefly explain what your concerns with the order were, for those who are unfamiliar?
There was very little in the March executive order that was actually operative in such a way as to protect everybody’s religious freedom.
To the extent that there was much operative, it had mainly to do with the interpretation and application of the Johnson Amendment, which forbids political advocacy of certain sorts by churches.
I said at the time that the Johnson Amendment, while problematic both constitutionally and as a policy matter, was not among the top 20 items on a list of genuine concerns about religious freedom. It’s very rarely, if ever, enforced. It does have something of a chilling effect which is why would like to get rid of it. But, to those who have not been chilled by it, have by and large been left unmolested by the government. So it was not a problem in desperate need of fixing.
There were a lot of other things like the protection of employers against being forced to hire people who were in same-sex partnerships, for example, where the employers faith judged those kinds of partnerships to be immoral, or other sorts of sexual partnerships – perhaps co-habiting opposite sex partners without benefit of marriage.
That was nothing in there to protect employers in those domains. So, what what we see today goes in the right direction on a number of those issues, including you know those two areas – points 15 and 19 – that I already called attention to.
Now I know that the preparatory materials for the guidance points, says that this guidance does not resolve any specific cases. It offers guidance on existing protections in religious liberty and federal law.
Of course there are cases that are pending. So the proof will be in the pudding. We need to know whether those government officials – including those in charge of litigation matters who have cases pending that jeopardize the life of religious employers. We need to know whether they will interpret these guidance points in ways that will cause them to relent in attempting to limit the freedom of those employers. I certainly hope that they will, but this is by its own terms, this guidance does not dictate to any official that he or she resolved a specific case in a particular way. It says that it doesn’t do that. It says, “this guidance does not resolve any specific cases.”
So since that’s true, we’ll need to know how officials interpret the guidance and apply the guidance to specific cases. That will be the proof. That will be the proof in the pudding.
We’ll see whether these cases are resolved in ways that are respectful of religious freedom, or whether these guidance points are treated as if they’re meaningless and officials carry on with cases in the way that some have been carrying on with these cases: in ways that limit the religious freedom, or attempt to limit the religious freedom, of these employees.
There’s some important points that have been well-established, but it’s good to have them reiterated since they remain controversial. Point three is an example of that: the freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations. There’s there’s a view that’s been circulated by people who are in truth enemies of religious freedom, although they would not admit to being that – but they are.
There’s a view that says religious freedom rights extend only to individual persons and not to organizations like churches, schools, religiously based social service providers, and so forth. This guidance in point three makes very clear that this administration’s position is that freedom of religion extends to religious organizations and not just individuals, so that’s good. It’s not new, but it’s good.
Switching gears to the changes to the HHS mandate: how does this adjustment impact the longstanding battle over mandate we’ve been seeing for the past six years?
Of course, your best source of your best source of information on that, Addie, is the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom. I’m would certainly myself defer to what the lawyers there said because it’s their case and they have been completely on top of this, and they’re excellent lawyers. As you know I’m a member of the board of the Becket Fund, and a member of what’s called the Corporation of the Becket Fund as well.
I think our lawyers have done a fantastic job in these cases including Little Sisters of the Poor case, so I would really defer to their judgement.
I will say this though: I believe an authentic, faithful, honest interpretation of these guidelines by the government officials who have responsibility for that litigation would it cause them to basically concede to the Little Sisters, and to acknowledge that to the extent that the regulations purport to impose upon religious organizations a requirement that they provide, or in any way to implicate themselves in providing contraceptives or abortifacient efficient drugs in violation of religious teaching, that the government would simply concede the government has no right to do that. The regulations cannot be enforced against those religious entities. But again, the proof will be in the pudding.
We’ll see whether the public officials to whom this guidance is addressed apply the guidance in that way. That’s the point again about the guidance itself not resolving specific cases. So we’ll see.
There’s other point that’s worth making, just to step back from all this for a while.
Even as late as the middle 1960s there were still jurisdictions – including Massachusetts and Connecticut – that prohibited the sale, distribution, and even use of contraceptives. Those were longstanding laws put on the books by Protestant majorities in the 19th century to protect public morality.
The reason that efforts to repeal those laws consistently failed in the legislatures of Connecticut in Massachusetts and some other states, although they succeeded in some states, the reason they failed in other states is that some of the legislatures felt that the widespread availability of contraception would would weaken the public morality and open the floodgates to promiscuity, adultery, divorce, family abandonment, and all the things that comes in the wake of a collapse of sexual morality. The Supreme Court struck down the anti-contraception laws in 1965 in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut and in 1972 in the case of Eisenstaedt v. Baird and they did that at the request of liberals who insisted that contraception was a deeply private matter in which the public had no right to intrude.
The Supreme Court found a so-called right to privacy, according to the justice system the right to use contraception, because it was a private matter. One cannot help but notice how liberals have changed their tune. They no longer regard contraception as a private matter: once they broke down the laws against contraception on the grounds that it was an allegedly private matter, they suddenly shifted back to treating it as such a public matter that they’re going to force people in general to pay for other people’s private contraception. They’re even willing to force religious conscientious objectors like the Green family and Hobby Lobby and a Little Sisters of the Poor to make themselves complicit in one way or another in providing other people’s allegedly private contraceptives.
So, one cannot help but perceive a rather huge dollop of hypocrisy in the way the contraception issue has been treated by the progressive movement to from the middle 1960s to the middle 2010s.
If it’s private, leave it private. If it’s not private, then they had no business asking the Supreme Court to strike down laws prohibiting it in the name of a putative right to privacy.
They really should make up their minds whether it’s private or not private.
Another change is that the mandate now protects those with non-sectarian conscience objections to the mandate. Can you speak to the importance of this expansion for those who object to these issues for non-religious reasons?
Yes. Many people do not derive their moral convictions from a religion, and many religious people believe that even apart from divine revelation there are moral truths that can be known by the disciplined application of reason even apart from what might, in addition, be known by religious authority by virtue of the teaching of a church or a body of scripture or what have you.
In both cases it’s sometimes described as natural law.
It appears that in this guidance, it’s acknowledged that conscience formed on the basis of non religiously based, or not necessarily religiously based, on a moral reflection deserves conscience protection in the same way that religiously based moral convictions deserve conscience protection.
Back to the DOJ update … Can you comment on the DOJ guidance on how to address all religious freedom objections. What other cases or situations can this apply to outside of the contraceptive mandate or providing potentially abortifacient procedures? What are some of the other kinds of cases that the DOJ guidance might impact?
Yes, I mean I knew one thing would be in those states that have moved to assisted suicide, I think the guidance system provides some promise of protecting religiously based health care-providing institutions like Catholic hospitals or other religiously affiliated medical institutions from being forced to participate in assisted suicide or, for that matter, in abortion. The same with individuals as well as institutions: doctors in state facilities for example who cannot in conscience participate in assisted suicide or abortion in places like Oregon that have taken the step of embracing assisted suicide.
It could be that if there are some states or municipalities that move in the direction of banning male infant circumcision – there’s a movement that strongly is pushing for bans on male infant circumcision– the movement is called the intactivist movement– if such laws are adopted I think that this would strengthen hands of Jewish organizations and Muslim organizations that will seek to preserve the right on a religious basis to have their male infant children circumcised. We’ve seen this in Europe: some some jurisdictions in Europe have banned male infant circumcision and their movement is alive here in the United States. One can easily imagine certain jurisdictions, certain municipalities, maybe a state, banning circumcision, so it could become important in that area.
These these protections will protect not only Catholics and other Christians, but members of non-Christian faiths as well.
What else should our readers know about these two religious freedom updates?
Probably the most important thing to remind people in closing is that the guidance or principles designed to guide public officials but, they don’t dictate results. The same is true of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, by the way. It simply gives the religious claimant today in court and requires that the government prove that its imposition on a religious claimant is supported by a compelling state interest and represents the least restrictive or least intrusive means of prosecuting that interest. It doesn’t dictate the result.
So while I welcome and I think all friends of religious liberty and of conscience should welcome this guidance, we need to hold off cheering until we see how the guidance is actually interpreted and applied by public officials. It’s when we see actual cases being resolved – whether those cases are in litigation or whether their decisions about whether to bring a case or how to bring a case – until we see actual cases. Until we see the guidance actually applied to concrete disputes we won’t know whether to cheer. So what that tells us is there’s a human element. Rules don’t apply or interpret themselves. Human beings interpret and apply rules. So we need to see the human beings in the bureaucracy interpreting and applying the rules and then we’ll see whether there’s anything worth cheering about here.
But I do like to believe of the principals and I think if they are faithfully and authentically interpreted, it will mean a very desirable set of protections for religious freedom. Protections that are now many years overdue due to the assaults on religious freedom during the Obama administration.
[…]
Boldness at this stage of the game is really the option for awakening the laity to the reality of our faith’s eternal life eternal death consequences. Bishops united in concerns about Joe Biden and frustrations with Pope Francis are certainly aware, unless entirely dense of the link between Biden’s egregious assault on Catholicism while claiming Catholicism and this Pontiff’s admonitions, suggestions, ecclesial literature since 2013. As I noted in response to “German Catholic Bishops call for change to Catechism”, the Pontiff’s appointments of Cardinal Kevin Farrell prefect for the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, and Archbishop Vicenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life both vocal advocates for homosexual normalization. Jeffrey Sachs, a globally acknowledge proponent of abortion, contraception, homosexual rights was invited by the Vatican to the Amazonia Synod as well as its Dicasteries related to marriage and family. Bishop Marcelo Sorondo chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences [who lauded China’s enforced abortion contraceptive population control as an enlightened policy that parallels Catholic social doctrine] stated the academy had featured Sachs with such frequency at Vatican conferences, because he integrates the magisterium of the Church and of Pope Francis. Commentator Maier said a recurring criticism was interference with the selection process of bishops by another Am Cardinal. We can name at least three Cupich, Farrell, Tobin and throw in already named Gregory for undercutting USCCB policy on communion for Apostate Biden. As Cardinal Sarah wrote, the time is late, darkness descends. Indeed was it Mao Zedong who said, It is always darkest before dawn. At this rate of quibbling and extending the agony with the inconsequential dawn may catch us all unaware perhaps unprepared for Judgment.
Additionally on a significant perhaps the most in response to a cohesive faithful Catholicism is Maier’s, We’re generals without armies, and the civil authorities know it. That’s a myopic wishful assessment. The reason is the opposite is the truth, That we’re armies of the faithful without generals, that is real leaders. What we’re afflicted with are bishops [except for a very few] who are unwilling to face challenge to Apostolic Tradition, both from the Vatican and from Government. Although Maier has good intentions it’s the bishops who have both authority and responsibility to address the truth without fear of intimidation from either the Vatican or Government. It’s too late and evident from experience that the normal protocol and political correctness assuring the Pontiff how devoted they are to him and to Biden how proud they are of his faux Catholicism will not have the least positive effect. It simply reinforces the charade.
Exactly my thoughts when I read this article –thank you for expressing the points so well.
Great article from an a-one writer.
“[W]e’re generals without armies, and the civil authorities know it”.
I look forward to the report on the laity (erstwhile armies).
We read: “Maier said one recurring criticism from the bishops he spoke with was alleged interference with the selection process of bishops at the level of Rome’s Congregation of Bishops. ‘This typically involved an implied, and sometimes quite explicit, distrust of a particular American cardinal who will remain unnamed,’ Maier said.”
The long shadow of McCarrick and (in the incomplete McCarrick Report) his unnamed proteges. Can’t help but wonder if grave matter under the Eighth Commandment applies to such games. Eucharistic coherence? But, who am I to judge?
Was McCarrick ever a member of the Congregation for Bishops? There is only one American cardinal currently serving on the Congregation for Bishops, and it isn’t McCarrick.
I found this statement particularity telling but not surprising:
“When pressed, none of the bishops I queried could report a single diocesan seminarian inspired to pursue priestly life by the current pope. None took any pleasure in acknowledging this,” he said.
For those keeping score at home, this is after eight years as pontiff.
When you have a Pope whose public statements and documents need constantly to be explained (often rather tortously), you have a problem. Although I realize that we are all supposed to bow down before Vatican II, the simple fact is that the Church has been in decline ever since. The more you “modernize,” the less relevant you become to the profound human need for stability, ritual and continuity of doctrine,
that is nowhere to be found in the 21st Century. Man is a creature composed of body and soul. There was a time when the Church, whatever its flaws, could satisfy man in all of his needs, could appeal to his soul and his senses. New this and the latest that, however, just do not endure.
As a faithful member of the lowerarchy, my question has been and remains, “Why don’t the bishops stand firmly against those in public service (not power) who proclaim “devout” Catholicism and act contrary to Church teaching?
“Washington’s Cardinal Wilton Gregory for undercutting conference leadership on the issue of Communion and President Biden’s problematic sacramental status.” Why don’t Cardinal Wilton Gregory provide sacramental counseling to Catholic President Biden? Cardinal Wilton Gregory may have watched the Capitol incursion by criminal Trump loyalists and apparently did nothing. He and Trump could have made an appearance on the steps and may have stopped or mitigated the destruction of our symbol of democracy. The church may “reprimand” the Cardinal, but they are complicit when throwing their support to a madman, Trump!
Fake leftist accusations to the contrary, Trump did not orchestrate an “insurrection, nor approve of it. Three guys who never shot their guns and people wearing costumes like face paint and horns does not constitute an insurrection,no matter WHAT the media propaganda mill says.Meanwhile the capitol is still ringed with barbed wire like this is WW2. The left is the primary haunt of the godless, those who support not only abortion on demand but infanticide. Many of us are tired of hearing about how “nice ” Joe Biden is, for he is Catholic in name only, using our religion as a political chip, when it suits him.He is a major supporter of abortion, something VERY contrary to church teaching. There are worse things than being abrasive like Trump . Being incompetent like Biden is one of them. Nothing good for the church can come from more secularism and laxity.Stick with the truth. Those who have ears let them hear.
Amen!
Wow!
I certainly didn’t know that any Catholic commentator was interviewing our bishops. I think that is healthy. I also didn’t realize the tremendously “tied down” effect the administrative work had on a bishop. Being a parent and grandparent, I think our young people treasure us for clearly standing for what we believe in, not watering it down for their age. I pray our bishops will stay true to the Gospel and all that the Church teaches. The Christian life is one of commitment and loving service.
“Most bishops expressed satisfaction with the state of the U.S. bishops’ conference. […] In Maier’s view, bishops enjoy many fewer privileges and face many more demands than they once did. […] The remarkable thing is how many of our bishops, the great majority, are good men doing their best, and doing it well, as a ‘father and pastor’. […] Most bishops said they are ‘deeply satisfied’ with their ministry and think the selection process for bishops is ‘sound.’”
It’s all about them! And these gentlemen – these poor victims of the “abuse scandal” – are quite satisfied with themselves, with the terrific job they are doing, and with their response to everything. Plus, they are merely “frustrated” – but very supportive – with a Pope who, by their own admission, has not fostered a single vocation. The complete inability of these feckless, faithless bureaucrats to see beyond the tip of their nose… just incredible!
So, the interviews were confidential. Then, confidentially, they are “concerned about the presidency of Joe Biden.” And, these are the “many who do the jobs so well.” Forgive me for not being impressed.
I just reviewed the headlines on the USCCB web site. I will list the following:
1. U.S.Bishops’ Domestic Chairman Expressed Support of Executive Orders Protecting the Environment
2>USCCB Migration Chairman Welcomes Administration Actions to Rebuild Immigration System, Restore Due Process, and recognize Human Dignity of Immigrants and refugees
3. Bishop Chairmen Express Support for Additional COVID-Relief Package, Lay Out Priorities to Help those Most In Need
4 U.S. Bishop Chairmen Welcome Administration’s Racial Equity Actions on Housing and Prisons
5. U.S Bishop Chairman Grateful for Administration’s early Actions to Address Urgent Food and Housing Needs
6. USCCB Chairmen Affirm Administration’s Order ensuring All Persons Included in Census and Apportionment
and finally,
7. Bishops Decry Executive Order that Promotes Abortion Overseas
I think that the Biden administration will easily see where the bishops put their emphasis.
Informative post. Apparently the most important task of their teaching office, that of the salvation of souls, missed the list. Most of these prelates have bamboozled their own minds with issues that sidestep the responsibilities of their office—-while the hungry, thirsty flocks wander alone to find their own food. Priorities are completely upside down. When the laity are properly formed (fed) in the faith, the country thrives, because right order under God brings truth and justice.
Thank you to few the bishops that take their office seriously.
http://preghiereagesuemaria.it/DV-inglese/Divine%20Will%20prayer%20book.pdf –
A surprise find on line just the other day and hoping that the richness of the treasures through such would get taken in more all through – having become familiar a bit with such , even as one knows how putting same to use can be challenging 🙂 . The peaceful manner of the Holy Father , a good give away that he very likely knows how to live in His Will , with gratitude and love .
The power of one living in the Divine Will , to bring its blessings into generations even .. The Holy Father possibly also having willed to take up the sufferings of The Lord and His Mother ,to make reparations for the very little perceived value given to sufferings in most lives and thus the frantic efforts to avoid same – news the other day about 23 tons ! of cocaine headed for Netherlands -land rich in material blessings , yet the deep pain of emptiness in not seeing the dignity extended from The Lord who in His humility even desires the dignity for us miserable creatures to bring Him compassion in His sufferings …
May His Presence be there ever more in all our lives to help in the desert experiences of every life as well .
Secular society has had a much greater effect on Catholic Bishops, clergy and the laiety, than the Bishops and clergy have had on our secular culture.
When 75% of Catholics don’t honor the Sabbath by attending Mass, and are even less inclined to raise their children as Catholics, the Bishops have more than “administrative” problems.
Since Vatican II, the church has tried to be everything to everybody and has failed miserably to the point that even marginal Catholics — about 50% of those in the pews on Sundays — are best described as Protestants who make the sign of the cross.
I suspect most Bishops would agree that the average Catholic has a Third Grade understanding of our Faith. It’s time to become a smaller, more devout Church and abandon this “touchy-feely” approach. Even Jesus said, ‘if they won’t listen, shake the dust off your sandals and move on.’ What could possibly be clearer than that?
PS note to Bishops and Priests: let’s start by making our churches places of worship, reverence, and holiness, by putting a stop to the social gathering and yacking of many parishioners before and after Mass. “The coffee clatch meets in the church hall after Mass; please confine your gossip to whomever will listen over doughnuts and coffee.”
PPS: Put ALL nuns back in their habits and require them to live in community. Living on their own in civilian clothes has secularized too many of them.
Thank you!
It has been clear for a long time that the bishops are very satisfied with themselves. I don’t know what I find more irritating, their mediocre liberalism or their oblivious complacency in the face of an ongoing catastrophe. They seem content to preside over their rapidly shrinking fiefdoms as long as they continue to enjoy the perks and privileges associated with their office. Sure, they express “concern” about problems that have been growing unchecked for years, but they never take any action that might actually be effective in combatting them. If any priest attempts to confront people with the reality of their sinfulness, the hammer falls hard on them immediately. The case of Fr. Zuhlsdorf, thrown overboard by a “conservative” bishop, is perhaps only the most recent travesty. The example this week of the high school teacher in Columbus suspended for questioning the official account of the death of George Floyd shows how the laity who deviate from the line of the USCCB are treated.
“They seem content to preside over their rapidly shrinking fiefdoms as long as they continue to enjoy the perks and privileges associated with their office. Sure, they express “concern” about problems that have been growing unchecked for years, but they never take any action that might actually be effective in combatting them. If any priest attempts to confront people with the reality of their sinfulness, the hammer falls hard on them immediately.”
In a nutshell! The hammer does not fall swiftly on the likes of Martin, Jeannine Gramick, Biden, Pelosi, Durban, Murkowski, to name a few. Nor does the hammer fall on the Dolan (court Hilary, Obama) unholy fund raising dinners, nor on the profane modeling of priestly vestments at the museum show, with clergy applauding and grinning like primates. Again the list goes on and on.
When will the majority of prelates take on responsibility, for those to whom much was given, much will be expected, as the bible puts forth to us.
The American bishops’ suspicion that Francis despises them (with the exception of his pets) is correct. That this lackluster bunch engenders so much ideological hostility tells us something very alarming about this Pope.
This is too much for me. During the confusion of COVID, riots, quasi-elections, etc., I thought the Church was one place I could go to get “orthodoxy” without the plural truths, self-centered opine as gospel, and current trends changing doctrine. If I wanted all that, I would have stayed Protestant. At this point, my conversions appears to have been misguided. I am so disappointed to have lost my compass. Heck, with the shifting tides WITHIN the Church, I don’t even know what to pray for any more. Many of us converts feel this way. Betrayed. Yes, we talk amongst ourselves and it’s not good.
Take Courage, friend.
https://www.lectionarypage.net/YearA/Pentecost/AProp29.html
Christ the King
Year A
BCP
Ezekiel 34:11-17
1 Corinthians 15:20-28
Matthew 25:31-46
Psalm 95:1-7
The Collect
Almighty and everlasting God, whose will it is to restore all things in your well-beloved Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords: Mercifully grant that the peoples of the earth, divided and enslaved by sin, may be freed and brought together under his most gracious rule; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
Old Testament
Ezekiel 34:11-17
Thus says the Lord GOD: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the watercourses, and in all the inhabited parts of the land. I will feed them with good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down in good grazing land, and they shall feed on rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord GOD. I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice. As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats:
The Psalm
Psalm 95:1-7 Page 724, BCP
Venite, exultemus
1
Come, let us sing to the LORD; *
let us shout for joy to the Rock of our salvation.
2
Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving *
and raise a loud shout to him with psalms.
3
For the LORD is a great God, *
and a great King above all gods.
4
In his hand are the caverns of the earth, *
and the heights of the hills are his also.
5
The sea is his, for he made it, *
and his hands have molded the dry land.
6
Come, let us bow down, and bend the knee, *
and kneel before the LORD our Maker.
7
For he is our God,
and we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand. *
Oh, that today you would hearken to his voice!
The frustration currently experienced by many is expressed in a pontificate that seems one step forward and 12 back! That not one diocesan vocation has had its genesis from this current pontiff is crystal!! For me, any worthwhile experience from Francis ended after the beautiful year of mercy. But when one looks at over 200,000 Hungarians following their Eucharistic Lord, all is not all bad Christ is always showing us that were never alone! All Glory to Him!