Part of me understands that the ACLU is just doing what they do. However, with the current suit it is painfully obvious that a deep rift exists in our nation in regard to the involvement of religion in the public sphere and in defining the rights of human beings.
BOSTON (Reuters) - A U.S. civil liberties group sued the federal government Monday, charging it violated the Constitution by contracting a Roman Catholic entity to help victims of human trafficking.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was imposing its beliefs on victims of human trafficking by not allowing federal grant money to be used for contraception or abortion.
When the bishops applied for the contracts, they said they would not work with subcontractors who provided abortion services or contraceptives, such as condoms, which conflict with Catholic teachings, according to the ACLU.
The suit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston said the Department of Health and Human Services violated the separation of church and state by giving the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops $6 million in grants from 2006 through 2008.
Many women victims of human trafficking are forced to work as prostitutes, and face a high risk of assault and rape, the ACLU said in court papers.
The Department of Health and Human Services permitted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops "to impose its own religiously based substantive restrictions on the use of grant funds," the ACLU argued.
The suit asks the court to stop the department from allowing its grants being spent in a way that is restricted by religious beliefs.
However, there is a great deal going on in the ACLU suit that the press isn't sharing yet, and it's going to be interesting--vitally important--to see what outcomes emerge and exactly what the particular facts and implications are.
Why I wanted to comment on this story is twofold, and it's something on which I could write about at length but I've decided to keep it brief because I'm not overly familiar with what all is involved in the suit. It would take more than a blog post to get at every question and concern to which such a story brings about.
One reason for my comments has to do with the role of religion in public life. I have a strong intuition that we're going to see more cases like this. It's part of the spirit of our times that the role of religion--especially Christianity--in the public sphere is being challenged more and more. The outcome of such cases as the current suit will be especially important in defining that role.
My second reason for commenting has to do with my interest in the question of how we define and determine the rights of all human beings. We clearly live in a world where political ideology determines the dominant view of what the rights of a human being are. Certainly we as Catholics have a responsibility to guard or protect human life as well as to see to the common good of all.
While I believe that it is appropriate to accept the restrictions that the separation of Church and state impose upon us in the US (if nothing else to protect the freedom of belief), at the same time I see a great challenge to educate and inform the world of the true rights of all human beings, which by no means should ever include the right to terminate human life.
The story brings to light not only the question of the public role of religion, but shows that when religion is rejected it's most strongly held values are often rejected along with it.
Comments