The Parable of the Kosher Deli: Bishop Lori Before Congress Defending Religious Liberty

By Deacon Keith Fournier
2/21/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity?

We can learn from this brilliant testimony as we undertake the struggle to defend the Church against this unjust Edict. We call upon all of our readers around the globe to pray for his Excellency - and for all of our Bishops. We pledge to stand in unwavering solidarity with them.

Bishop William Lori

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - On Wednesday February 16, 2012, the Most Reverend William E. Lori, the Bishop of Bridgeport and Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee for Religious Liberty, gave testimony before Congress. He appeared before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives.

Bishop Lori spoke on behalf of all of the Catholic Bishops of the United States. They are unanimous in their effort to have the HHS Edict which seeks to compel Catholic institutions and organizations to distribute contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs as well as offer sterilization rescinded. Now is not the time for Catholics to be critical of the US Catholic Bishops. Now is the time for all of us to stand with them.

The Bishop's testimony was brilliant. We want all of our readers to learn from it as we all undertake the struggle to defend the Church against this unjust Edict and a New Catholic Action. We call upon all of our readers around the globe to pray for his Excellency - and for all of our Bishops. We pledge to stand in unwavering solidarity with them. Here is Bishop Lori's complete testimony:

****
Bishop William Lori

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let's call it "The Parable of the Kosher Deli."

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community-whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides-expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork-not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths-because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.

They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced-under threat of severe government sanction -to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond "But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat." Other supporters add "So many Jews eat pork, and those who don't should just get with the times." Still others say "Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else."

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that's not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe-even if they believe in error-that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not-and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society-even large majorities within the protesting religious community-reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork.

That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed,
some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 30 Comments

Rob
1 year ago
I agree vance. The more they talk the more we see them for what they are. I wouldn't want to be out in public either. The public is better served by half truth attack adds and campaign slogans right?
vance
1 year ago
I hope this is the last debate conducted by the Marxist Media Complex. I'm sick and tired of the "Loaded Questions" and the "Diversion" of the issues to protect Obama. It is blatantly obvious that the Marxist Media Complex is for Romney and Paul. Both Gingrich and Santorum were slow on the draw against Romney and Paul. Ron Paul has spent over a quarter century but has not had a single piece of meaningful legislation passed. Romney "Voted" for Paul Songus, a full fledged Marxist, over a fellow GOP. Ron Paul opposes GOP BUT conspicuously never opposes Marxist Democrats. HMMMM!!
Rob
1 year ago
Andrew, you are right and I am not suggesting otherwise. But just because the "rule" is out there does not alleviate the clergy from responsibility. And to that point I would offer Matthew 23:4. "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." As we all know being a disciple is hard and it takes all parties involved to do it (laity and clergy). I don't think it's wise for our leadership to assume just becuse the teaching is out there people are following it, know how to follow etc. This "head in the sand" approach is not working, it didn't work for the abuse scandal, and it's not going to work for this.
Andrew
1 year ago
Rob, you seem to have forgotten that the Church is not behind the times, it is beyond the times. People of every age have chosen to make excuses for why they know better than God. It always ends the same way.
Honeybadger
1 year ago
Proof positive that Obama and his cronies have been telling 'porkies' to the world! It thinks it can get away with grilling, chopping and smoking the Roman Catholic Church into being forcefed their twisted, divisive and destructive policies...

Please God soon, the administration will be slipping on its own grease and they'll have no-one to blame but themselves!

It's a great analogy of the Kosher Deli. I got it straight away - what a pity the so-called politicians let it go over their heads!

How about another couple of parables - one called the Muslim Casino and another called the Hindu Beefburger stall?

It would be interesting to guage the reaction then!
Rusty Tyler
1 year ago
The Bishop's message is spot on, but I would propose putting the parable in the context of a Muslim religious practice. What would be considered outrageous and blasphemous to a Muslim? Make THAT into a bill and send it to the House and Senate, and let's see if it would still pass the Obama administration.
Rob
1 year ago
Tech, while the decision Diana is making has implications (all sex outside of marriage is a sin), I think she speaks to the disconnect between our politicians and our church leadership. I know we want to flip some switch and go back to 1950 or whatever date things were supposedly all right with the world. Not sure when that was as there seems to always be something terrible we are overcoming. But I think at some point our leaders need to acknowledge where we are and they need to meet people where they are. We seemed to have developed this all or nothing approach with everything we promote as of late. While there can be no negotiation with sin, we definitely need to acknowledge the real situation on the ground. And in this instance what the American women is up against. I think our continued lack of acknowledgement of these issues does not bode well for our evangelization efforts. I think we are sending people a lot of mixed messages and I think we are doing it because we aren't listening. On the one hand we want to remove the financial safety net for people but on the other hand we want them to honor life. On the one hand we want folks to have an ultra sound with every pregnancy, regardless of the outcome for the child (disease etc), but we absolutely reject any sort of national healthcare program. Again, I know we can't negotiate with sin, but I do think we need to work on creating a society where people's fears are causing them to use contraception or worse procure abortions. We continue to ignore all of the societal issues at our country's peril.
John Milo
1 year ago
The question is not concerned with who pays for these services; it is the providing of them that is at issue. Obama and Sebelius's attempts to deflect the objections over into a discussion of payment are simply a plan to obfuscate the actual concern of Catholics. This concern says that HHS can not mandate an action for the Catholic Church that is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Payment is irrelevant. Apparently Obama and Sebelius are too stupid to figure this out.
techwreck
1 year ago
Diana Strong, So you have chosen to teach your daughters promiscuity. Is that what Jesus would teach them to do? Or, would He teach them the path to self respect and good physical and mental health because He only wants what is best for them? Just asking.
Emma
1 year ago
Diana......"This is why the Catholic Church continues to lose followers in the US"..........where have you been? This is why the Catholic Church is beginning to gain followers. At least, where I come from. More and more young college students are entering into the Catholic Church. Do you know why? Because of it's authenticity. Because it is a mature religion. Because so many of us have lived through lives caused by just the type of pablum that you're feeding your daughters and we've chosen to turn our backs on that life style after seeing the damage it has caused in the lives of ourselves and our peers. My final "yes" to the Catholic Church came through my then future husband. Friends for some time before we started dating, I at one point asked him if he was gay. I was so used to wrestling matches on dates that one someone didn't maul me, I thought there was something wrong with him. His response left me speechless. "I respect you." It took me sooooooooooooo long to process that. That word, "respect". I realized that that was one word that our modern culture had not taught me. I excelled in studies, spoke all the right words, dressed correctly, engaged in social and environmental causes, but I had no self respect. Church or no church, you should be teaching your daughters to respect themselves and their own bodies. Then and only then will others respect them and treat them accordingly. But, no............among college age young people there is a revival within the Catholic Church. People my age are entering, not leaving.

Prev12 3 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment