Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Roman Curia, formed of the sacred congregations, the tribunals and the various other departments. Sometimes it designates the Pope in his role as visible head of the Church, possessing the apostolic primacy as successor of St. Peter. Finally, it sometimes indicates the spiritual organization of the papal government.-H. E. Cardinale, The Holy See and the International Order, (Gerrards Cross, England: Colin Smythe Publishers, 1976)."

Cogdell, Church of Christ:

"The Holy See is simply the administrative center and governing apparatus of the Roman Catholic Church. (1) The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the 'Holy See' is synonymous with the term 'Roman Church, in diplomatic usage.... Archbishop Cardinale in his monumental work. (2) The Holy See and the International Order, says, 'The Holy See is the juridical personification of the church in the same way the state is of the nation.'-Page 115. It is, he says, 'the supreme organ of the church universal in its contacts with other members of the international community.'-Page 85.

"Bishop Van Lierde in his book. The Holy See at Work, says that by the design of Divine Providence. The Apostolic See is the established center of the Catholic Church.-Page 43.

"References can be cited almost ad infinitum proving that the Holy See is in no sense a state, but is the world's largest church operating in its governing and administrative capacity-nothing more. nothing less.

"We submit to the honorable members of the Foreign Relations Committee that the official recognition by our government of the Papacy gives credibility to, and is a long step towards, legitimatizing these arrogant and despotic spiritual and temporal claims of the Pope."

We Did It Before and We Can Do It Again

Kelley, NCC:

"The contention that the present appointment restores a relationship that set the precedent in the 1800s (until broken off by Congress in 1867) is contrary to fact: Rufus King was minister-resident to the Papal States, an area of 16,000 square miles in central Italy, with over 3 million inhabitants, which the Pope actually governed as a civil ruler at that time. The Papal States are no longer in existence. The Vatican City today has an area of one sixth of a square mile and less than 1,000 inhabitants. It would be of no diplomatic interest if it were not also the headquarters of a great world church."

The Vatican in International Affairs

Senator Lugar:

"The Holy See maintains a diplomatic presence and has wide influence and unique access in areas of great concern to the foreign policy of the United States. Eastern Europe, Central America, Africa, and the Philippines offer several excellent examples.

"Vatican officials and diplomats are not simply observers or moral guides, but play an active role in international affairs..

"Over the past two years the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State. and other cabinet officers have had audiences with the Pope to discuss a wide range of political and moral problems which confront the world. . . .

"The fact is that in many ways the Vatican is a far more significant and wide-ranging actor than many of the other governments with which we maintain formal relations."

[blocks in formation]

Action Threatens Missionaries

Draper, SBC:

"We are disturbed by the threat this action poses to the 3,200 Southern Baptist missionaries in nearly 100 countries around the world. The implication that our government might use religious organizations for information, if not espionage, endangers not only the credibility of the message they deliver, but, in some war-torn countries. their very lives.

"Colorado's Rocky Mountain Baptist feared the indirect consequences to our missionaries in Latin American countries. ... It is already too easy for leaders in those countries to identify all missionaries as involved in their political struggles as spies or revolutionaries."*

Winning the Global Struggle Against Communism

Cogdell, Church of Christ:

"You are no doubt being told that our sending of an ambassador to the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church is important to our winning the global struggle against Communism. We ask you to look at the Latin American and European countries. including Italy itself, where Communism has gained the greatest influence, and see that the Church of Rome is far from being a bulwark against the inroads of Commu nism. Indeed, it seems in some cases to pave the way for a Communist takeover. Why is this? We believe it is because the Roman Catholic Church seeks everywhere, as it is seeking right here and now, to link and entangle itself with secular power and authority and to receive special preference, privilege, and support from governmentwhatever government happens to be i control, whether fascist, communist, socia list, capitalistic, dictatorship, or democracy. Discerning people soon lose respect for both the church and the state which enter into such relationships, and finally choose a government which is hostile to religion in preference to one which debases religion by using it for political ends and purposes and which in return allows itself to be used for ... ecclesiastical objectives."

Of Entangling Alliances and Controlling the Bishops

Dunn, BJC:

"The stated purpose of the ambassadorship is to tap into the Church's vast information network. This is patently entanglement. The editors (of America, a Jesuit magazine] expressed concern that an ambassador to the Holy See would seek to exert pressure on the Church to control the activities of the Church in America.

"It has been suggested that United States foreign policy would be set forward and that some intelligence network would become available to our nation by establishing such a formal relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. If any credence at all is to be given to these suggestions, they pinpoint precisely what we oppose. This entangling alliance would be the occasion for practical problems for all those engaged in the far-flung missionary venture in developing countries. Because of anti-American, antireligious, and antidemocratic sentiments in many of the developing countries, missionaries and other persons representing religious institutions would actually become symbols of American governmental interests. Should the United States

[ocr errors]

Senate follow the unwise course of the establishment of full diplomatic relations with any church, it would offer an occasion for misunderstanding, an invitation to chaos and confusion, and would place a burdensome albatross upon every American who represents religion overseas."

Kelley, NCC:

"The contention that the appointment of an ambassador will provide a channel for the flow of valuable international intelligence information not now available to the U.S. does an injustice to the ability of Mr. Wilson as the President's personal representative to the Pope, since it suggests that with the title of ambassador he could gain information that is not available to him now. It also inpugns the commitment of the Vatican to the cause of freedom that is ostensibly sought to be advanced by this appointment since it implies that the Vatican would withhold information important to that cause from Mr. Wilson unless he were a full ambassador. Furthermore, it misconstrues the role of an ambassador, which is usually more symbolic, formal, and ceremonious than it is facilitative of close communications. The United States is not without numerous channels for obtaining significant information via the Vatican and otherwise; an ambassadorship is not the missing link in intelligence transmission. And even if it were, that is not an adequate justification for flouting the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as we believe any appointment of ambassador to the Vatican would."

Swomley, ACLU:

"It is a violation of the free exercise of religion by American Catholics in that an ambassador to the Pope will permit the President regularly to interfere with statements or action of the Catholic bishops and priests who publicly differ with Administration policies. For example, President Reagan sent General Rowney to see the Pope on two occasions to curb the pastoral expression of the U.S. Catholic bishops in their Pastoral Letter on War and Peace. Unofficial but reliable reports indicate that the Pope did intervene with respect to that document along the lines of President Reagan's request. . .

"[Quoting National Catholic Reporter writer Peter Hebbethwaite:] 'In the future, a quiet word between Wilson and Casaroli (Vatican secretary of state) in Rome, or Laghi (papal nuncio) at the State Depart ment in Washington, could cool the [American] bishops' radical ardor. All in all, and especially in an election year, it is a good deal for President Reagan.'-National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 27, 1984, p. 5. . . . "The First Amendment clause protecting

the 'Free Exercise of Religion' was intended not only to prohibit direct government intervention, but also indirect overtures through a foreign prelate to stifle of alter the free exercise of religion."

Maddox, AU:

"Father Robert Graham, an American priest who works at the Vatican, expressed similar concerns in his book, Vatican Diplomacy: 'The presence of a representative of the White House at the Vatican, with direct access to the Holy Father, is almost a direct invitation to interference in internal American [Catholic] Church affairs' (Princeton University Press, 1959)."

Everybody's Doing It

Duna, BJC:

"One hundred six states now have relations with the Holy See at the ambassadorial level. 'Everybody is doing it!' is an argument that never persuaded my mother and probably not yours either. Even President Reagan, on November 4, 1983, said, 'One hundred nations in the United Nations have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them where we're involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast at all.' The important point is that the United States alone has a First Amendment which forbids this action."

No Union of Church and State

Cogdell, Church of Christ:

"Honorable Senators, you are being urged to violate your oath of office to uphold the Constitution of this great free nation, and to drive a dagger into the heart of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

"The divesting of the First Amendment of its strength and meaning by blatantly violating its plainest implications will be such a blow to this wonderful nation of ours as no alien power or ideology could inflict.

"It is the wall of separation between church and state and that alone which prevents the deep religious divisions of society from extending themselves into the public and political domain, and prevents the political divisions from being extended into the religious domain, to the detriment of church, of state, and of felicitous human relationships on every level..

"The late Cardinal Cushing of Boston said 'I don't know of anywhere in the history of Christianity where the Catholic Church, the Protestant church, or any other church has made greater progress than in the United States of America; and, in my opinion, the chief reason is that there is no union of church and state.'-Boston + Globe, Jan. 26, 1964, p. A-7."

JUANITA L. CLAY, Ph.D.

July 22, 1984

Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman

Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution'

THE UNITED STATES SENATE

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Hatch:

At the close of the Subcommittee Hearing on June 26th, you indicated that for thirty days, you would hold open the record for additional testimony about other incidents of governmental interference in church affairs.

I am enclosing the attached copy of a newspaper article about a case in the U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, which describes government interference in church affairs. Please insert this into the record of the Hearing. I had hoped for a written testimony from the minister involved; but have not yet received a copy so I am forwarding the information contained in the news article. Since the case is a matter of record in the Federal court, the facts are easily available to your staff.

Please send me a complete transcript of the hearing. I sincerely appreciate your efforts in behalf of religious freedom in our country.

Sincerely,

ita L. Cla

Janit

Juanita L. Clay, Ph.
P. O. Box 44615

Indianapolis, IN 46244

kyc

encl

[blocks in formation]

IN DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Special... Special. . . Special. . .

One of the most important cases in the defense of Religious Liberty will be heard in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Main Street Post Office Building, Richmond, Va., on Tuesday, May 8 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will be for one hour only before a three-judge panel. There will be no witnesses, and no one will take the stand. The attorneys will argue the case based upon briefs filed and answers already in the hands of the court. You are invited to attend this hearing and to encourage as many ministers and lay persons from your congregation as possible to attend.

What Is At Stake

The issue is whether the Commonwealth of Virginia has the constitutional or the judicial authority to interfere in the ecclesiastical affairs of a church. The Honorable Alfred W. Whitehurst, judge of the Circuit Court in Norfolk:

• Nullified duly-called church meetings at New Calvary Baptist Church.

• Ordered the church not to install duly-elected officers or ordain deacons elected by the congregation.

• Ordered the church to maintain the status quo. • Determined who could vote in the congregation and who could not.

• Invalidated the right hand of fellowship.

• Ordered a white man of the Jewish faith to conduct and oversee the annual meeting of New Calvary Baptist Church.

• Ordered the Pastor and four deacons to turn over the membership list of the church to Mr. Mazelle, the Jewish overseer and representative of the court, even at the objection of the church which voted overwhelmingly in two meetings that its membership list should not be turned over to a secular authority.

• Levied a fine of $1000 a day against the pastor and $25 a day against the deacons for not complying with his order and held the pastor and deacons in contempt of

court.

• Nullified church disciplinary actions against dissident members who have filed suit after suit against the pastor and officers of the church. The church first "silenced" 18 members. The church since (on April 8 during the annual meeting) has dismissed 31 dissident members from the church. The Honorable Judge Whitehurst has ruled the church out of order on all of its activities.

• Ordered the church to meet and set up the agenda for the meeting. Determined how long members could speak and who could speak, in complete disregard for church policy and practice.

•Ruled invalid and out of order a constitution and

bylaws developed and adopted by the church. The bylaws and constitution were read before the congregation each Sunday for a month. Members were given copies to read for themselves. Only two members out of 308 disapproved the constitution and bylaws. No member was prohibited from voting.

Hard To Believe

I know you find this hard to believe. This is the kind of religious oppression that went on in the Soviet Union during the reign of Khruschev. We would expect it there, but not here in America where we have the Bible as our authority of faith and practice and love, protection of the 1st Amendment, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

It is important that a significant number of clergy and members of the black church in Virginia attend this session of the Court on Tuesday, May 8. This court, 4th Circuit, has already ruled in other cases that the Constitution prohibits the state from interfering in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Church. Will the court uphold its own ruling or will the court reverse itself? Your presence will be of significance in the court's decision.

You know that the Black Church is the last of the institutions completely owned and controlled by black people. If we lose our basic rights because of the paternalistic and racist desicions of a modern- day Pilate, the black church will suffer greatly. Please do you very best to join with me and members of the New Calvary Baptist Church on May 8 in Richmond.

The Center for Constitutional Rights of New York has the case in charge under Attorneys William Kunstler and Betty Bailey of New York, and Attorney James Gay of Norfolk. Although the Center makes no charges for its services, the Church has spent over $10,000 in this twoyear-old battle with approximately $6000 in local attorney fees now due. If you cannot attend this Court hearing, the officers and members of the New Calvary Baptist Church would appreciate any contribution that you could make by May 8. You may mail your contributions to Deacon Dennis Perry, Treasurer, New Calvary Baptist Church, 800 E. Virginia Beach Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23504. As much as we need your financial support, your presence would mean much more. If you would attend with a check we would consider that a double blessing.

For All Of Us

This case, the first of its kind in the history of the world, is not just for New Calvary, it is for every church in American in defense of Religious Liberty.

JUANITA L. CLAY, Ph.D.

July 22, 1984

Honorable Orrin Hatch, Chairman

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

[blocks in formation]

Again I commend you for the excellent manner with which you conducted the subcommittee hearing on June 26th, regarding issues in Religious Liberty.

Prior to adjourning the hearing, you indicated that we had thirty (30) days in which to submit additional testimony for consideration by the subcommittee. Therefore, I am forwarding the attached testimony of Col. Robert L. Grete, director of the ROCKY BAYOU CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, in Niceville, Florida. This is only one of several situations I am concerned about, several of which I have forwarded to you already. However, I asked Col Grete to allow me to submit his testimony because it points up the problem of an althernative school, performing an excellent educational function, but subjected to repressive legislation and beaureaucratic interference, without the benefit of any

denominational sponsorship.

As an informed layperson, not representing any of the constituent groups identified at the hearing, I am nevertheless concerned about the extent to which congressional legislation is not aimed at precluding government animosity toward religious organizations or institutions. Neither the Supreme Court mor the Internal Revenue Service should be allowed the authority to foreclose the rights of individuals or instutions they were designed to protect. Nor should civil authority seek simultaneously to weild supreme authority to tailor religious destiny, whether the destiny of a church, or a religious organization, or a Christian school.

Please continue your efforts to pursue full knowledge in this issue, and to guide the legislative process preserving the structure of government that makes the very idea of religious freedom and rights meaningful.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »