Sisterhood of Saint Mary with bishops from the Anglican Church of North America’s Diocese of the Living Word. / Courtesy of Becket.
Washington D.C., Nov 1, 2021 / 15:56 pm (CNA).
Foes of mandatory coverage of abortion in New York State insurance law will have another hearing after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a New York state court to reconsider their decision. The law’s narrow religious exemption wrongly disqualifies many religious groups which object to providing abortion, critics said.
A group of Anglican nuns is among the objectors.
“We believe that every person is made in the image of God,” said Mother Miriam of the Sisterhood of Saint Mary, an Anglican body. “That’s why we believe in the sanctity of human life, and why we seek to serve those of all faiths—or no faith at all—in our community. We’re grateful that the Supreme Court has taken action in our case and hopeful that, this time around, the New York Court of Appeals will preserve our ability to serve and encourage our neighbors.”
The Sisterhood of Saint Mary, also known as the Sisters of the Community of St. Mary, is aligned with the Anglican Church in North America. It was founded in 1865 and claims to be the oldest Anglican religious order in the United States.
The Anglican sisters are part of a coalition of religious groups challenging the New York State mandate requiring employers to cover abortions in their health plans. They are represented by attorneys from the religious freedom legal group Becket and the law firm Jones Day.
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, alluded to the Little Sisters of the Poor who fought a years-long court battle to secure relief from a federal mandate to cover contraceptive drugs, including drugs that can cause abortions.
“New York clearly learned nothing from the federal government’s own attempts to force nuns to pay for contraceptives and is now needlessly threatening charities because they believe in the dignity and humanity of every human person,” Baxter said Nov. 1.
“Punishing faith groups for ministering to their local communities is cruel and counterproductive,” he said. “We are thankful that the Supreme Court won’t allow the New York Court of Appeals’ bad ruling to be the last word on the right of religious ministries to serve New Yorkers of all faiths.”
On Nov. 1, the Supreme Court vacated the state appellate court’s judgment in the case Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell. The lower court must now reconsider the decision in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia, a case in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the City of Philadelphia violated a Catholic foster care agency’s free exercise of religion by requiring it to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.
Becket said the religious exemption is “so narrow that Jesus himself would not qualify for it.” Only religious groups that primarily serve and employ people of their own religion are exempt.
The Anglican nuns’ sponsorship of a 4-H club and their agricultural outreach ministry program that allows local youth to lease their goats would disqualify them for the exemption, the legal group said.
The Sisters of the Community of St. Mary, Eastern Province have two houses: one in Greenwich, New York, and one in Luwinga, Malawi. They claim a Benedictine ethos, seeking to “draw near to Jesus Christ through a disciplined life of prayer set within a simple agrarian lifestyle and active ministry in their local communities,” their website says.
For over 150 years, the sisters’ province was linked to the Episcopal Church. In 2021 they affiliated with the Anglican Church in North America after controversies in the Episcopal Church, including the disciplining of an Episcopal Bishop of Albany who refused to bless same-sex couples.
The 2017 mandate from the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services required that employers cover “medically necessary” abortions in their employee health insurance plans. The stated justification was that the state’s insurance law bars limits on or exclusion of coverage based on medical condition or treatment, the New York Times reports.
At minimum, medically necessary abortions would include abortions of pregnancies conceived in rape or incest or those in which the unborn child is malformed. However, the superintendent said that the determination of medical necessity is made by a patient’s health care provider, in consultation with the patient.
“The mandate thus appears to cover abortions of babies afflicted with Down Syndrome and other maladies,” said the petitioners’ brief.
The coalition of petitioners against the New York mandate also includes the Catholic dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg; their Catholic Charities affiliates, as well as Catholic Charities, Diocese of Brooklyn; and the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm. The First Bible Baptist Church of Hilton, New York is also a petitioner.
If the groups do not comply with the mandate, they could face fines of millions of dollars per year. Their petition to the Supreme Court argues that the state is making religious organizations choose between violating their core beliefs, being financially crushed, or closing down services.
Attorneys for the state of New York argued that the mandate’s exception mirrors language used in other contexts. They argued that there is no evidence that health insurance plans that cover abortions cost more money.
“The record thus contains no evidence that by purchasing policies that include the subject coverage, a purchaser funds, even indirectly, medically necessary abortion services,” they argued, according to USA Today.
For his part, Roman Catholic Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger of Albany said he was “confident” that the regulation will be “completely overturned as incompatible with our country’s First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.”
“We are gratified and grateful that the Supreme Court has recognized the serious constitutional concerns over New York State’s heavy-handed abortion mandate on religious employers,” he said.
Some Supreme Court justices appeared more favorable towards giving the case a national platform. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the petition for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While religious freedom was for decades an unquestioned American principle, various controversies over health care mandates and LGBT rights claims have made it an area of dispute.
As CNA has previously reported, multiple wealthy donors have poured millions of dollars into a patronage network that aims to limit religious freedom protections that conflict with their vision of LGBT rights and abortion access. Some of these donors, such as the Arcus Foundation, have also backed religious groups that reject Christian teaching on abortion and sexual ethics.
The Covid-19 pandemic has also resulted in religious freedom debates and legal challenges about congregations and individuals who refuse to comply with pandemic mitigation measures and vaccine mandates.
[…]
“I don’t bless a homosexual marriage, I bless two people who love each other and I also ask them to pray for me.” Ruffled at our hypocrisy, His Holiness sticks to his guns. Righteous indignation or moral schizophrenia?
Exploitive entrepreneurs, what about them he queries? Why the difference hypocrites? After all Francis suggests, these are loving people. Isn’t that all that matters? We can put aside disordered behavior, called an abomination that transgresses natural law, behavior Christ identifies unworthy of heaven.
Nonetheless, Francis’ logic follows that we should knowingly bless any and all sinners for their friendships, confirm the love they have for eachother, and ask them to pray for us. Surely novel and paradigmatic.
“Righteous indignation or moral schizophrenia?”
Rhetorical question?
Yes. The comment is a satire.
Once upon a time, public sinners were required to do public penance before their sins were absolved and they received sacramental grace -blessing public sinners without confession and penance is the ultimate “hypocrisy”.
Michael, there has to be at least a manifest desire or interest to repent. The priest can bless the good intent of a prospective penitent. My comment above is sarcasm, in the event it was misunderstood.
Exactly!
We read: “Pope Francis this week again defended the Vatican’s controversial document authorizing blessings for same-sex couples [!], with the Holy Father arguing that humans [persons as such?] ‘must all respect each other’ and stating that blessings should be extended to ‘everyone’.”
Everyone as in Every One? Working both sides of the street, he equates blessing of individual “persons” with blessing not of persons but of “couples.” Case in point:
“Always in confessions [individuals?], when these situations arrive, homosexual people, remarried people, I always pray and bless,” he continued. “The blessing [so now it IS a sacramental blessing?] is not to be denied to anyone [as in Any One?] Everyone, everyone [as in Every One?]. Mind you, I am talking about people: those [individual persons?] who are capable of receiving baptism” Francis continued [say what?].
As in blessing every prostitute and her pimp. Or every wifebeater committed to continuing with wifebeating and his submissive wife. wiWhat could be wrong with any of this?
It is now long witnessed how leftists in the secular and ostensibly “religious” realms level accusations against those who resist their deconstructionism with charges that perfectly characterize themselves.
Hypocrisy indeed…his lack of self awareness goes over the boarder into mental disorder. Should anyone regard that as disrespectful it could be said that it provides him some pity. After all, it could just be bold nefariousness.
I’ve often thought that mental illness could be the most charitable interpretation in his case, but the episodes of mendacity are too calculating in their cynical manipulation. He is both a Peronist and an admirer of the late Cdl. Martini by his own admission. He has denied the bedrock faith principle of immutable truth many times. I hoped he would finally get a wakeup call from this FS arrogance launched just before Christmas, which placed a damper on the joy of the season for millions. Nope. It was launched one day after his birthday in the tradition of tyrants where particularly autocratic measures are performed to honor the dictator. I believe he is as bad as he seems.
“I believe he [PF] is as bad as he seems.”
You are not alone, dear Edward, in that godly discernment.
The alarm bells are waking up many a faithful & discerning Catholic. Even some of the episcopal hierarchy are opening their eyes to the anti-Apostolic pronouncements. Praise God, they’ll do more than just play politics and will organize themselves to do something constructive to keep the core truths of Catholicism intact until we have a godly Pope again.
It won’t be long for our LORD Jesus Christ promised to be with us to the end of time.
Dr. Rice, Please email me. Doing research on RCism. You seem lije a serious guy. JeffreyLahman@gmail.com
The only problem with “blessing” a couple an extramarital sexual relationship is that this is not a Christian practice.
God is love. Sin is not love. To call sin love is a lie, and the father of lies is Satan.
1 John 4:8, John 8:44, Matthew 16:23
Dear Pontiff Francis:
I am pleased to pope-splain you to yourself: “The Pontiff is NOT blessing a gay marriage, he’s only means that he is just spontaneously blessing people united in the sexually abusive act of sodomy. And he would likewise spontaneously bless any two people (two for now) who were united in other kinds of sexually abusive behavior. These other kinds will include for example “polyamorous unions,” which blessings had to be set aside for later promotion at subsequent “synods,” even though the Pontiff was pleased to see thst they were given explicit mention in his Synod working documents.”
And a final passing note regarding unwarranted fesrs of hypocrisy, because in our prevailing post-Christian, neo-pagan cult, it is impossible to be hypocritical, because hypocrisy is defined as “the tribute vice pays to virtue.” Now that Christian virtue is officially passe in Rome, there is no reason for anyone in leadership to pretend to give it homage.
No hypocrisy is possible anymore. A new PR jargon is in order.
Nicely done, Chris in Maryland.
The one standard that leftists like Bergoglio always fail to live up to is their own.
Sorry. Can’t get past the title.
Lord help us.
The Pope made a false parallel. He’s reported as saying that “I don’t bless a ‘homosexual marriage. . . I bless two people who love each other.”
He then makes a false parallel by saying that this is no different than blessing an entrepreneur who may exploit people. The problem is that the entrepreneur who is receiving the blessing is not even remotely in the act of exploiting anyone at the moment that he’s being blessed.
However, would the Pope bless the entrepreneur while he’s in his office either exploiting people or about to exploit people? The context is critical.
Right-on, dear Steve.
No financier presents themselves for a blessing on the basis that they are engaged in sin.
One witnesses shared:
Francis’ answer to Credere also appears to misrepresent both Fiducia Supplicans and the opposition which it has received. In the preview of his answers provided to the press, the Pope presents a scenario of blessing an individual on his own, whilst Fiducia Supplicans expressly speaks about the blessing of “couples.”
His complaint has already been swiftly criticized by clergy and lay commentators as being a “straw man” argument, for he was defending a form of blessing – of an individual on his own – which no one was opposing.
Years ago, I read that the demons do everything they can to incite man to sin, but when it comes to the sin of sodomy, the act is so heinous, that once it commences, even the demons leave because, by their angelic nature, it is too revolting to behold or endure.
PF, Biblical scholar that he is, consistently overlooks the recorded fact that God Himself nuked two cities off the face of the earth on account of this sin. I beg God have mercy on him.
The scandal is not in giving a blessing to a “homosexual” – it is in giving one to a same-sex “couple” jointly, so as to give the impression that their “relationship” / “marriage” / “union” is being blessed.
Re ‘I bless two people who [think / presume they] love each other’ – some may wonder if the [‘old-fashioned’] reference to ‘two’ is simply the thin end of the wedge for (say) https://www.yahoo.com/news/meet-people-quads-foursome-relationships-223200950.html
See the string of comments that I posted below the article at https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/02/01/living-with-same-sex-attraction-in-the-aftermath-of-fs/ to reflect on possible ways to tone down the confusion.
Recommended reading – “I Made a Promise to God” by Regis Martin about Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press in Today’s Crisis Magazine stop.
For which Jesuit do you have more respect?
I hate to bring this up but what of 3 people who say they love each other? Love is love…
A family member used to work with offenders in a correctional facility . Child molesters stated that they loved their victims and offered them real affection that had been lacking in the child’s family. Usually broken families.
Once you stray from a biblical perspective, almost anything can be rationalized.
Totally legitimate point. What if a “minor attracted adult” and a minor are involved in a consensual “loving”relationship? Would they be blessed as a couple? If not, why not?
Well, speaking of judgmental hypocrites. I just don’t pay attention anymore to his pronouncements and pretzel logic.
As the song says,”give me some of that ole time religion…”
Amen.
It’s good enough for me.
🙂
Walter Brennan as Pastor Rosier Pile, earnestly sang it in Sergeant York while converting Alvin.
The Pope keeps trotting out the straw man argument that, “moral perfection” is not required. It’s a thinly veiled shot at his favorite targets of castigation, those “rigid, legalistic, backwardist” Catholics who still bother with moral theology. This straw man appeals to people’s fallen sensibilities which chafe at being called to holiness and dealing honestly with their sins. However, as others have pointed out, a blessing of the kind described in Fiducia Supplicans, for a morally perfect person, would be a pointless gift. This pope is a theological and philosophical lightweight (at best) and a dissembler (at worst). I literally avoid hearing or reading anything he says anymore. It causes the opposite of edification.
here is a very good witness from:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/02/07/hypocrisy-and-same-sex-blessings/
Correction Francis: To not be scandalized by blessing gay couples is to be morally and spiritually bankrupt. At least it’s clear where Francis stands now.
Pope Francis in the past has denied blessing to the Mafia…..
Does this come under the same category as «blessing» armies, tanks, battleships and other weaponry or car parks, supermarkets and small furry animals?
I’m sure there is blessing for almost anything.
Familiarity breeds etc.
This hypocrisy highlighted by Pope Francis here is what most of us Catholics unknowingly have as a gap in considering bedroom sins from boardroom sins, the sexual sins from the social sins. Most of us have an unbalanced and faulty moral focus which most often only see sexual sins but are blind to social sins. The bedroom sins (or virtues) but not the boardroom sins (or virtues) of peoples are singularly focused upon so much and made the gauge of one’s Catholicity. Who is deemed worthy and deserving or not to receive the sacraments, here about blessings, is measured by the bedroom sins or virtues. The faithful, full and whole Catholic view entails a balanced complementarity of both these concerns: the sexual and the social sins and virtues. To be focused only on one makes the moral compass defective and incomplete. We find this neglected element of social justice in our Catholic faith dramatically contrasted as a reminder in the prophet Isaiah’s declaration that “the Lord is a God of justice” (Isaiah 30:18). On this matter, the prophet’s message from God stands out about making sure that our concern for the propriety of our spiritual life, prayer and liturgical worship (for example, Vetus Ordo or Novus Ordo?) is significantly lesser compared to God’s primary requirement as to whether we have fulfilled social justice (that is giving active care and voice to and in helping the lost, the least, and the last) first before offering our praises and worship to God: “When you spread out your hands, I will close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil; learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow” (Isaiah 1:15-17).
Very kindly intended but wildly heretical equivocations, dear ‘DD’.
Sadly, the intention in seeking a blessing is to show everyone in the Church & the world that their sinful homosexual coupling is not illicit at all; for GOD’s commandments & 2,000 years of Christian moral theology are actually misinformed!
By blessing them, PF, CF, JM and accomplices are simply sealing the terrible eternal fate of the unrepentant, God-despising homosexual sinners whilst – accompanied by their apologists – themselves slipping into the devil’s trap.
Hardly a pretty fate for disobedient clerics & lay, and stark evidence of God’s Justice to those Catholics & other Christians devoted to hearing and obeying our LORD Jesus Christ & His Apostles.
As has been said again & again, no financiers ever present themselves for a blessing as corporate sinners. The analogy is specious.
Ever seeking to hear & obey King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Deacon Dom!
How can you possibly talk about what “most of us Catholics” do or don’t believe?
Who are you to judge? You’ve never even seen or talked to the people you’re spouting these nasty comments about.
Your compulsive pope-splaining, even in the face of unprecedented Bergoglian heterodoxy, has resulted in you becoming a rigid, judgmental ideologue.
If your lashing out in this way is a fruit of this papacy, then I’m afraid it is not one derived of the Holy Spirit.
Those orphans, in today’s society, are primarily children from broken homes (sorry “blended family”), whose parents either never married, or divorced, or have had a succession of boyfriends/girlfriends.
That is what sexual sins do to children. And it is sufficiently widespread that it accounts for over 50% of children in our society. Sexual abuse of minors accounts for over 25%. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a similarly harmful “boardroom sins” at such high rates in our society. Even the abuse of illegal immigrants here is primarily “bedroom”, not “boardroom”. At what percentage do “bedroom sins” become important enough to merit primary attention?
Athanasius above (7:10) – “minor attracted adult” –
Get with it, Athanasius. It’s Minor Attracted Person (MAP) and it’s aleady a thing. Born that way, dontcha know.
So you’re saying that that’s an acceptable lifestyle?
Deacon Dom,
There are “bedroom” sins of the natural sort. and those that are unnatural. Scripture has plenty of strong words to say about those also.
Recommended reading – Linda Gray -‘I’m glad a Priest never blessed my irregular unions’ – Today – Crisis Magazine.
EVERYONE is welcome in Christ’s House – but it’s HIS House so He makes the rules.
There are those who are aware that they are sinners like everyone else and resolve to work at overcoming their sinfulness. Blessing such people does not signal the Church’s approval of their sinfulness.
There are also those who are resolved to continue engaging in sinful activity with another and the two of them wrongly desire that the Church appear to legitimize that sinful activity by blessing them. Bergoglio is happy to aid and abet them in scandalizing the faithful in this way.
And Pilate said to the Pontiff Francis: ‘I have heard it reported that this Jesus, whom some of your co-religionists say is The Son of God, has given a public sermon, commanding that even if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has committed adultery with her in his heart. And his apostle called Paul has written a letter to members of your Church, saying that our subjects who practice fornication and sodomy will not be permitted to enter this new kingdom ruled by this Jesus of yours. What do you say about this?’
And the Pontiff Francis said in reply: “We have no king bur Caesar.”
Discovering something is wrong and pointing it out, is not “being scandalized that reveals hypocrisy”. Attaching the description “disguised as angelic” to somehow prove that the worst of sins is at work and is discoverable and should be sought among the revelation, is an undue derision, not shown to be applicable, misrepresenting further what should have our attention. Such statements made in a disembodied way with no actual general pathology are inflammatory and degrading of everyone.
‘ The prophet Joel inspires us with words rich in pathos:
>> Between the vestibule and the altar let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep and say, “Spare thy people O Lord, make not thy heritage a reproach.” <<
This priestly intercession is a service to which all of us are called. It belongs to our baptismal covenant. By that covenant we open our hearts to pray with tears for the Body of Christ in all its members, so many of whom suffer outrage. we ask that our compassion may fan embers of hope into a living fire, to shed light within us and about us. '
– Bishop Erik Varden, O.C.S.O. – in MAGNIFICAT, Vol. 25, No. 12, February 14 2024 Meditation of the Day
https://aleteia.org/daily-prayer/wednesday-february-14-2/daily-meditation-1/