The ArchAngel Michael
The last line should prove chilling to all professionals who are, like the applicant above, unwilling to pledge allegiance to abortion on demand. You, too, may find your Faith labeled “disqualifying.”
Did the Indiana Supreme Court understand that the applicant stood squarely within his heritage as a Roman Catholic Christian when refusing to pay monies to purchase abortions? Yes they did — it did not matter.
After the “processing” but before pressing the federal appeals the applicant sought to clarify his position via citation to this teaching of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church:
399. Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel. Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse. Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize and protect. “Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane”.
It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).
It mattered not to the bureaucrats doing the processing. And so more notice followed, explaining just why this teaching should matter to the government:
See here for that notice, a brief that was completely ignored, causing more federal filings to follow.
(The above linked document is a great read for those who appreciate Church teaching on church/state relations, MLK and double standards raised against Christians by their adversaries.)
The bar licensure issue went up to the Supreme Court twice, resulting in the following three briefs filed by the ArchAngel Institute. (Two by Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame.) These briefs, and the affidavit swearing to the facts, demonstrate that Christians can be persecuted in America — at least in Indiana, and at least when a Christian refuses to pledge allegiance to Big Abortion once misguided statists demand the burning of incense as proof of secularist loyalties.
Some prefer hearing to reading …. so here is the link to oral argument before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
BRIEF SEEKING REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
POSTSCRIPT… Both of these Supreme Court cases ended when certiorari was not granted.
Brown v Bowman complaint 12 09
Postscript: Juxtapose, by way of comparison, the fate of this Indiana attorney who was caught red-handed engaged in serial acts of drunk driving, violation of probation, and fighting with a former client while carrying an unregistered handgun (without a right to carry permit): http://journalgazette.com/article/20130807/LOCAL03/308079965/1002/LOCAL