Dionne: Obama botched contraception decision
We just posted E. J. Dionne’s latest column, in which he takes issue with Obama’s decision to force certain religious institutions to pay for employee health plans that include contraception coverage:
One of Barack Obama’s great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers. That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law.
His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus, strengthened the very forces inside the church that sought to derail the health-care law, and created unnecessary problems for himself in the 2012 election.
This might not have mattered if Obama had presented himself as a pure secular liberal. Before he was elected and after, he held himself to a more inclusive standard, reassuring many religious moderates.
Read the rest right here.
Update: New York Times tries to write an editorial applauding the HHS ruling, ends up writing about abortion instead.
And Martin Marty asks if we can have a do-over in this controversy.
And Cokie Roberts weighs in here (about 3 minutes in):
It’s sincerely wonderful to see Catholics united.
It is indeed, Kathy.
“Their friends”. Politicians don’t have friends, just allies.
Apparently, the iocese of Madion decided it was not sinful for it to provide insurance covering
“A state law is forcing the Madison Catholic Diocese this month to begin offering its employees insurance coverage for contraception.
However, a diocesan spokesman said employees will be warned against using the benefit and that open defiance of Catholic teaching on the issue could ultimately lead to termination….
.
The diocese’s commercial insurance policy now will offer birth-control coverage, but employees will be expected to employ their consciences in not using it, King said. “If someone were to misuse that freedom in this regard, it could be grounds for termination,” he said.
Such a step would be taken only if the employee, after being counseled, refused to get in line with Catholic teaching, King said. “It wouldn’t be the first thing we do,” he said…
The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is immoral because it diminishes God’s role as the giver of life and interferes with the full giving of each spouse to the other.
All diocesan employees sign a morals clause in their job offers saying they will abide by Catholic teaching, so the diocese expects them to follow the prohibition against prescription contraception, King said. He acknowledged that the diocese has no way to police the issue – an employee would have to offer it up, he said.”
Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_e1bbab64-a4c7-11df-b26c-001cc4c03286.html
The threat to fire people who use contraceptives is bizarre, but the more interesting thing reported In the rest of the article is that the diocese could have avoided covering contraceptives by self-insuring but decided it would be more expensive to do that – so it decided to buy insurance that covered contraception.
Checking the diocesan newspaper, the diocese says that the state mandate violates its religious and moral values, but that it was a matter of justice to provide health insurance to its employees. The termination threat is replaced by a “hope” that employees will follow church teaching:
“The Diocese of Madison had looked into self-insurance options but found them too costly. The diocese felt it was a matter of justice to provide affordable access to quality health care for those who work for the Church.
While being mandated to offer contraceptives as of August 1, the Diocese of Madison hopes its employees will follow Church teaching and not use them. One might even question whether contraceptives should be considered “health care”; in past years, it seemed as if birth control was considered an option to be paid for by those using it and not covered by insurance plans.
The state of Wisconsin should change this law to allow for the right of conscience of employers such as the Diocese of Madison not to be forced to provide a benefit which violates its religious and moral values.
http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/opinion/editorial/1595-2010-08-19-editorial.html
(Grant, the NYT “op-ed” is actually an editorial.)
Interesting front-page article, also: Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?hp
The article mentions the fact that Santorum “favors allowing states to decide whether to ban birth control.”
Also from the article:
“One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.”
You’re so right, Gerelyn. I’ve corrected my glaring error.
Today’s editorial in the National Catholic Reporter makes a lot of sense. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that Obama’s decision is not smart from an electoral standpoint. It remains arguable that it is defensible public policy. Or so I think.
Thanks, Grant.
The hatred of women and the contempt for women were dripping from the paper this morning. Scary and sad.
Good one by Martin Marty.
Those who insist that “the Church” actually means the people, women and men, instead of the handful of men who rule the institution, must wonder why, when 98% of Catholics limit the number of children they add to the planet’s population, the decisions of that vast majority are not respected.
1) I think most would agree that the NYT editorial sidetracked.
2)There are different questions raised here:
-is Obama hurt by the pressure of uSCCB and the Bishops’ letter?
Cokie could be right, but, I think remains to be seen as we’ve also heard that many in the church pay little attention to the hierarchy, right or wrong.
-is the message of the Church to the broader community enhanced by the religious liberty claim? I think many will doubt that because the Church’s stand on contraception has so litle credibility to many.
-Wil this have an impact inside the Church? my guess is that it will just reinforce the breach among Catholics about the role of the hierachy vis a vis them . I’m especially interested in how this may affect young Catholics who seem dissatifatied in general with the political approaches of our hierachy.
My general view is that whatever the political outcome, I think the continuing coming apart of our Church progresses -sadly to my mind.
One has to wonder how much of this USCCB indignation is fueled by the issue itself (which the Diocese of Madison managed to deal with in a low key manner) and how much is fueled by bruised egos. The hierarchy took a stand and was ignored, once again. For a group as invested in obedience as they are, that’s got to grate on their nerves.
Given the brouhaha around the topic of contraception and the constant references to the fact that most Catholics ignore the ban, this might be a good time for the faithful to attempt a re-opening of a conversation on the ban itself.
I think the assumption is that no evil flows from the ban. I don’t think this is the case at all. To me it’s worthwhile exploring not only the morality of contraception but the morality of the ban itself, because it can be argued that a great deal of evil flows from it (evil, ala Aquinas, being the lack of a good). I can think of at least five categories of evil that flow directly from the ban on contraception:
1) The harm experienced by good Catholic families in the decades before the faithful decided to ignore the ban. I can personally think of two families in my immediate circle that were effectively broken apart because the parents felt obligated to have more children than they could financially or emotionally handle. The survey done of married couples by the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control also testifies to the pain and frustration they endured. Prudence is a virtue, not a sin, and having more kids than you can handle is simply not prudent.
2) The harm done to the Church itself from the breach in trust in Church authority Humanae Vitae generated. This includes the almost complete disappearance of the sacrament of penance, at least in part affected by the disinclination to confess contraceptive use.
3) The harm done in the fight against AIDS through the papacy’s stand against condoms.
4) The harm done in the Philippines, currently in a fight about family planning. Again, good Catholics are having so many more children than they ever have the chance of feeding, housing or educating.
5) The ongoing harm done to the Church because this is a topic that cannot officially be discussed.
Fr. John Ford was the author of the “Minority Report” of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, which argued that the Church should not and could not change its long-standing teaching. In the encyclical, this point of view eventually prevailed. He said that “if the church reversed itself now, it would prove that the Holy Spirit had been with the Anglicans at Lambeth, not with the Pope in Rome. That was an admission Rome could not make.” (as quoted by Garry Wills in his book Papal Sin) This is hardly solid ground upon which to base a decision of such wide-ranging impact.
Jeanne F. (11:21am) —
You are on to the primary cause of pain, I believe. For 40 years, Catholic bishops have failed to implant their view against contraception in most of those Catholics whom they are bound to teach and govern. It would have been a sign in their favor, albeit mostly symbolic, to have their view reinforced outside the Church by a government rule. Their lobbying and rallying of the Faithful since last August have failed to bring about a desirable result. Their heated response is to send letters to be read at Sunday Masses, which most Catholics usually do not attend. University students and hospitals are working out ways to bypass their influence. (NYT link, Gerelyn 10:07am and http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19800103 )
Abundant grounds for bruised egos exist, given the current situation and apparent absence of promising paths forward.
.
The story by Denise Grady on the NYT front page (of the edition I saw–traveling) was an op-ed representing the editorial view of the NYTime: there goes the crazy Catholic church again!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?_r=1&hp
The bishops and the New York Times are made for each other!
What grabbed me about the Dionne piece (excellent as usual,) is the description of the Hawaii compromise:
I won’t rehash why I feel the HHS decision is a good one. But what do folks think about the Hawaii approach?
And yes, the Catholic position would have no objection to birth control pills used for a medical indication without contraceptive intent. (A fairly large % of those who take them do so for reasons not related to contraception.) It should be made clear in the policy that non-contraceptive use is covered.
As to the Diocese of Madison–one wonders how the diocese intends to determine who is in compliance and who is not? Medical records are private. A small family might indicate assiduous use of NFP, borderline fertility, or the like. Wonder who has to interrogate those employees. Perhaps this is why they changed their threat into a hope. However, given the religious liberty protections just affirmed under the recent Supreme Court case saying that churches can ignore the ADA, certainly this is covered by law as well.
@ Jeanne, As to changing the teaching, a huge amount of ink has been spilled since Humanae vitae addressing the teaching pro and con. If you want to read more, a good place to start is John Noonan’s Contraception (1965, so pre-Humanae vitae.) Some have noted that the debate seemed to hinge not on one question but two: the contraception question itself, and the effect changing the teaching would have on the teaching authority of the magisterium. I think it was Greeley who noted that after Humanae vitae, people stopped confessing contraception as a sin. Others ask more meta questions: what’s the effect of the widespread rejection of the teaching by the faithful? Paul VI seemed to be deeply affected by the negative reception of the encyclical–various bishops conferences went out of their way to describe the teaching as not binding the conscience of the faithful. Paul VI never wrote another encyclical after Humanae vitae. And a final note–another person on the side of the minority report upholding the ban was a fellow by the name of Karol Wojtyla…
As I said in an earlier post on this subject, the Hawaii model presents a method of funding segregation that satisfies Catholic principles of cooperation with evil. The same logic is used to segregate federal funding of Medicaid in states that provide elective abortions under the program, as required by the Hyde Amendment. If the bishops were comfortable with the status quo during the health-care debate, as their spokespeople often claimed, then they ought to be comfortable with something like the Hawaii compromise.
I presume the Diocese of Madison has no intention of determining who is following church teaching against contraception.
an op-ed representing the editorial view of the NYTime: there goes the crazy Catholic church again!
Margaret,
I am not quite sure why Catholics should object to that. Perhaps they should even welcome it. Jana Bennett says over on Catholic Moral Theology:
Exactly how easy should it be to be Catholic in 21st century America?
Grant Gallicho said “the Hawaii model presents a method of funding segregation that satisfies Catholic principles of cooperation with evil”
I think the HHS regulation, as it stands, does too. Unless here is some difference between it and Wisconsin’s law, apparently Bishop Morlino does, too. Similarly for New York and California.
Margaret, I don’t understand your assertion that the front-page article is an op-ed. It’s not opposite the editorial page, nor does it oppose the editors’ position. It simply provides examples of what the Catholic colleges teach. E.g., the young woman who lost an ovary learned an important lesson, didn’t she?
“The bishops and the New York Times are made for each other!”
The bishops have 200 diocesan papers which print exactly what they’re told to print.
http://www.catholicnewspapers.com/
Expecting the NYT to be another house organ is strange, imho. Was there anything untrue in Denise Grady’s article? (Interesting comments below the article at the web site.)
“But what do folks think about the Hawaii approach?”
Hi, Lisa, it’s not clear to me that the Hawaii approach results in less culpability than existing group-insurance arrangements with a mandated contraception subsidy.
Under the existing approach, an employer is subsidizing a lot of really good, necessary, and in some cases life-saving treatments – heart medications, asthma medications, contraceptive medication for non-contraceptive purposes, etc. – and simultaneously paying for one evil, i.e. contraception (which is the view of the employer, even if not everyone here agrees that it is evil, but I hope for the sake of discussion we can stipulate that the employer is not wrong in that moral judgment).
If the government requires that contraception be included in benefits plans, istm that the Principle of Double Effect can be invoked: the employer doesn’t intend to pay for contraception, but can’t legally avoid it; and the other goods that come from subsidizing medication outweigh the evil effect.
Under the Hawaii approach, the employer is telling an employee where to get cheap contraceptives. Is that more culpable, less culpable, or equally culpable to paying for the contraception? I’m not sure. Which is worse: to let a friend borrow your car to go rob a convenience store, or to give him directions to get there?
Grant, I agree that the Hawaii approach achieves funding segregation. But it also requires that the employee be provided with a list of providers. In reality, I suspect that’s not a morally weighty requirement, in that most people probably are capable of determining where to procure contraception without the employer’s help, but it does add an element of cooperation that wouldn’t be there if the Hawaii approach were only about segregating funds.
contraception costs $20 bucks a month .@PP… how many on the policy will use it?.. 1 out of 5 or 1 out of ten? . 1 out of ten is 2 bucks a month spread for insurance. is there any co-pay?
we’re not talking WWIII here are we?
I think it’s official: when Obama has lost Jonathan Chait, he has lost the argument:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/obamas-contraception-problem.html
My point: The front page is a news page. Was that a news story? Sure, it had news in it, news directed to one point of view…a view that the NYTimes happens to champion. Where were alternate voices? Other points of view? Presuming Grady was in the audience at the Fordham event she reported, did she interview anyone other than the law school student leading the protest? Didn’t see it.
In other posts and comments, I’ve said that I think the religious liberty issues are serious and real, and that I’m sorry the bishops have staked their argument on a teaching hardly observed by the Catholic community–a teaching that the church should revisit, or at least that part of the church that clings to its validity.
On the other hand, talking over the week-end with several people, I have come to wonder how the HHS regulators would act if the Institutes of Medicine issued a recommendation that abortion was a health measure that insurance companies should cover. Would HHS follow the path it has set down here.
And, of course, EJ is right: this was a terrible decision by the Obama Administration. Somebody needs to help them walk it back. Otherwise President Romney/Gingrich/Santorum will do far worse.
If the NYT gets side-tracked talking about abortion, Dionne gets side-tracked with his opening reflections on Obama’s political maneuvers as well as his assumed and expected commitments to his Catholic “friends.” Is it really “unconscionable” for Obama to have not helped out Sr. Carol Keehan by expanding the exemption? This is the same strange mix of politics, interpersonal obligation, and public policy that the Bishops are tripping over. One minute Obama is out to politically neutralize religion, then he’s leaving his “friends” hanging out to dry, and finally he’s assaulting basic freedoms of religion and conscience and undermining the ability of Catholics to obey Church teaching. The question is: What of all of this is relevant to determining whether it is in the interest of the common good to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare as well as determining when that interest might trump the rights of employers to determine, on their own, the health provisions that do or don’t trouble their, individual or collective, consciences?
Also, Dionne’s last paragraph is misleading:
“The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed,” Obama said back in 2006. “And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.” I wish the president had tried harder to find such rules here.
I think the president, and others, did find some rules, e.g. if you serve and employ the public you have to do so “publically” — a rule that I don’t think is so obviously outrageous. To suggest that Obama did not even try to find rules again plays on the same fear that one finds among the Bishops: “Since, we don’t agree with the rules, they must be some arbitrary imposition. Obama didn’t even try to listen to us. He doesn’t care about us. There’s no reason for him to be doing this! Why does he hate us?” How is it possible to have a reasonable dialogue when you don’t even assume that the other side might have actually put some thought into the position in question?
“if the church reversed itself now, it would prove that the Holy Spirit had been with the Anglicans at Lambeth, not with the Pope in Rome…”
The fact is that the bishops and the pope are wrong on birth control. Let’s stop burdening the Holy Spirit with upholding dogmatic bishops and popes. The Holy Spirit guides the church=people to live the Good News and to proceed to eternal life. When the popes and bishops decide to be shepherds rather than military leaders there will be none of these problems. It is the old story of the Church of Dogma versus the Church of The Way. Even Chesterton acknowledged that Christianity has not been tried. By the hierarchy first and foremost.
98% of Catholics oppose birth contro. Vox populi.
Eric: It’s rich for you to claim Dionne is distracted when you seem unable to comment on this controversy without getting side-tracked by the exaggerations of the ruling’s critics.
Mr. Gibson is right about Jonathan Chait, and Ms. Steinfels is right about the NY Times. As Jonathan Chait notes, contraception is cheap and readily available; there’s no need to force Catholic institutions to pay for it, other than a desire to rub their noses in it. And the NY Times very much wants those noses to be rubbed, as both its editorial position and its news coverage makes clear.
“98% of Catholics oppose birth contro. Vox populi.”
I know a lot Catholics who are pretty racist also. Is that vox populi too?
All of the rhetoric about contraceptive being wrong, and the Catholic bishops being wrong aside, it seems the government is being too heavy handed. I think James Capretta summed it up correctly:
“ . . . The central purpose of Obama-care, and the reason it was and is so strenuously opposed by so many Americans, is to transfer all of the critical decisions about how American health care operates almost entirely to the federal government. Despite what the president contends, it is a federal takeover; the federal bureaucracy is now firmly in the driver’s seat.
And, with the federal government now calling all of the shots, it is a foregone conclusion that a decidedly secularist and utilitarian point of view will be pervasive in everything that is done. It is simply beyond the capacity of the modern federal bureaucracy to even consider arguments questioning the wisdom of governmental policies promoting free and abundant contraceptives. Indeed, it is an article of faith in the modern bureaucratic context that pushing such “prevention” measures onto the American public is one more step on the long march to a more just and humane society. . . “
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289591/we-are-all-abortionists-now-james-c-capretta
“98% of Catholics oppose birth contro. Vox populi.”
—-
Agree. Obama has not “utterly botched” anything. Nor are “his progressive Catholic allies under the bus”.
Politically naive or dishonest to say otherwise.
Will any of the 98% of Catholics who limit the number of children they add to the planet’s population vote for Santorum/Gingrich/Romney because the President failed to join a charade?
Those pretending this is the reason they’ll vote Republican are . . . Republicans.
EG: contraception costs $20 bucks a month
JC: I think one relevant point here is that, by the standard of medical care, contraception is not terribly expensive. It’s not the sort of cost you need to insure against.
Yesterday I spent over $20 out-of-pocket for a month’s worth of decongestant. How horrible that I should be expected to pay for my own cold medicine. It’s not like a cold is an actual illness, unlike the disease that is a healthy and perfectly functioning reproductive organ.
I’ve been reading around a bit about the claim that oral contraceptives are very cheap and very easy to get. It’s true that big-box stores offer two or three generic pills for about $10 a month, but they are not the low-dose pills that cause fewer side effects and pose less risk for cancer. Many women (please correct me if I’m wrong) have to try a couple of formulations before finding one they can tolerate. I believe there are about thirty birth-control pills on the market. If the ones offered by Walmart, etc., are not the most prescribed (and I’m eager to learn which ones are, and how much they cost), and the ones not offered there aren’t terribly cheap (a friend’s insurance lists her generic pill as a tier 3 drug–it costs her $50 a month; $150 without insurance), then what’s settled by pointing out that women can get two of thirty-odd oral contraceptives for cheap at Walmart? Where does that leave the women who can’t tolerate those pills? Or the ones who want the low-dose pill to lessen their risk of getting cancer?
Being a Catholic in the 21st century requires ever greater degrees of tolerance for pretense. There is so much that we cannot discuss. Contraception is an “evil” -one that offends the conscience of the bishops, not the overwhelming majority of Catholics. We cannot talk about the rule of celibacy for priesthood – it’s been decided and cannot be changed, according to the hierarchy. We cannot discuss women’s ordination. That’s been decided too. Our priests pretend that the new translation is wonderful and will help us have a deeper understanding of the Mass. Gays living in committed relationships are involved in intrinsically “evil” acts. Hard for most Catholics to see gay friends and family as “disordered.” Ambiguity is a given this side of heaven, but really, where is the tipping point? When does this pretense turn into hypocrisy ? How does one keep pretending that the hierarchy are the good shepherds when bullying is what they do best.
In a secular state, why are bishops given any more consideration than non-bishops? And which bishops are best? Mormons? Romney was a Mormon bishop. Will he be expected to listen to other Mormon bishops when he becomes president?
Odd and interesting editorial. Apparently right-thinking NYT readers have absolutely no reservations about abortion. “Constitutionally protected” right to kill fetuses. Have the chattering classes really gone that far, or is this editorial a bit of a slip-up? Or a trial balloon?
And the Times seems to feel free to diss the bishops – and, by implication, the Vatican. Also interesting that the writer doesn’t feel obliged to give an approving nod to “liberal” Catholics. Are they writing off all Catholics?
G: Bishops aren’t necessarily given more consideration. But freedom of religion generally has been, and there’s good reason to argue that that is the real issue, not bishops, not contraception. The first amendment has two clauses, “freedom of speech and the press,” and separation of church and state as in freedom of religion. Too bad the NYTimes isn’t an ardent supporter of both clauses!
Since this post (and the comments) seem to be functioning as a clearinghouse of sorts for commentary, I thought I’d add a few pieces that introduced (to me anyway) a slightly different angle of this story: about the impact the HHS mandates means for the larger philosophical debate over the role and power of mediating civil institutions (such as those run by Catholics) vis-a-vis the government. To wit:
Douthat from yesterday’s Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-government-and-its-rivals.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“Critics of the administration’s policy are framing this as a religious liberty issue, and rightly so. But what’s at stake here is bigger even than religious freedom. The Obama White House’s decision is a threat to any kind of voluntary community that doesn’t share the moral sensibilities of whichever party controls the health care bureaucracy…. Once claimed, such powers tend to be used in ways that nobody quite anticipated, and the logic behind these regulations could be applied in equally punitive ways by administrations with very different values from this one.”
Yuval Levin weighs in a bit more precisely than even Douthat: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289647/religious-liberty-and-civil-society-yuval-levin
Interestingly enough, Levin seems to agree with a point Eric Bugyis made about the awkwardness of “conscience” language applying to institutions – but I think he offers a nice justification for why such language is appropriate.
Finally, Rick Garnett offers assesses the above from a more explicitly Catholic POV: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/01/government-and-its-rivals.html
I don’t get the sense that anyone here really understands the constitutional issues:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=455&invol=252
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/24/us/supreme-court-roundup-amish-must-pay-social-security-taxes-for-their-employees.html
“Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees. Congress drew a line in 1402(g), exempting the self-employed Amish but not all persons working for an Amish employer. The tax imposed on employers to support the social security system must be uniformly applicable to all, except as Congress provides explicitly otherwise.”
There is an interesting and detailed moral theology analysis re cooperation with evil here
http://catholicmoraltheology.com/hhs-roundtable-cooperation-with-evil/
God Bless
Grant: This is starting to feel like a game of wack-a-mole. You can’t set up a moving target and then criticize someone for changing his aim every time he takes a shot. We’re told this is a religious issue. So, which shell is the “religion” under: conscience protection? free exercise? disestablishment? the “right” of religious groups to run “non-religious” institutions (i.e. providing non-religious services to non-adherents) “religiously”? medical necessity/neutrality/harm? economic burden? political strategy? judicial precedent? “helping out” your political allies who also happen to be religious? participation in evil? anti-religious prejudice and persecution? not listening to all the voices? not obeying all the voices?
I’m happy that Obama is trying to walk by this particular carnival game. Unfortunately, the carnies running it might be too obnoxious to ignore, and he might be forced to try to win all of his Catholic friends a big stuffed animal and waste some serious capital in the process.
Eric: This is not a carnival game. It’s just one you’re having trouble playing because you’re too pissed off at some of the players to see straight.
Grant: I really don’t feel angry. I honestly think Obama is right on this, and I think I’ve offered some pretty straight-seeing arguments.
Jeanne –
Fine post on the evil effects of the bishops’ teaching re contraception.
But what do you think about the bishops’ claim that they have the same right to religious freedom as anyone else and that this decision of HHS violates their reliigious rights? It’s not like Obama to miss the point of an argument, but this time I think he has missed the bishops (though I wonder how effective Bishop Dolan was in presenting his case. How smart is he?).
The issue is NOT people’s right to contraceptives, the issue is the bishops’ right not to sign the checks that pay for other people’s contraceptives, that being too direct cooperation with something against their religious beliefs. It is not the right of the others to contracept. Their right is not threatened, only their pocketbooks, if that.
Do you think the bishops’ claim has any merit? Why or why not?
I keep thinking of the historical results of “laicite’” in France, that government’s squelching of religious freedom in the wake of the French Revolution, an official policy that still in operation to some extent today. And remember how the Jesuits were thrown out of many European countries because many did not like their sort of conscience? Not to mention the restriction of Catholicism in Protestant countries and vice versa? It is only in the last year that a Catholic may marry an English Prince of Wales! To show how deep these things run in a culture, I read just *yesterday* that a city in Sweden is finally getting another Catholic bishop — after being without one for 500 years. Yes, 500.
No, that is not likely to happen soon here, but anti-Catholicism among many Protestants is alive and well, especially outside of large cities in certain areas of the country, and it’s rife among many, many academics in the large cities. The latter, of course, are extremely influential with the young. So freedom of religion — even of wackos — must be scrupulously defended against both misunderstanding and calculated enfringement.
Yes, some of my example are trivial, but when feminists won’t put up with the slightest enfringement of women’s rights or the slightest sort of sexual harrassment, they know what they’re doing. There is such a thing as a slippery slope, and some of them are terribly important.
And why do you think the Founders begin the First (the FIRST) Amendment by guaranteeing with freedom of religion and freedom of speech? I say beware of slippery slopes affecting them. (Well, anyway, they *tried* to guarantee them.)
You can say this is hysteria. I say tell that to Graham Greene’s whiskey priest. Martyrdom did happen just next door, and not very long ago.
the issue is the bishops’ right not to sign the checks that pay for other people’s contraceptives, that being too direct cooperation with something against their religious beliefs.
Ann,
One of the major question in my mind is whom the bishops claim to be speaking for, and what is the real opinion of those people. I think it is rather unlikely that there will be many (or any) situations in which bishops themselves will be signing checks that pay for other people’s contraceptives. Bishops don’t have financial responsibilities for Catholic hospitals and universities. As I understand it, a parish, diocese, or archdiocese would be covered by the religious exemption that already exists.
Here’s a bit more about Mexico and “freedom” of religion there even during the lifetime of many on this blog..
“Present-day
The Mexican constitution prohibits outdoor worship, which is only allowed in exceptional circumstances, generally requiring governmental permission. Religious organizations are not permitted to own print or electronic media outlets, governmental permission is required to broadcast religious ceremonies, and ministers are prohibited from being political candidates or holding public office.[25][dubious – discuss]
[edit]Aftermath of the war and the toll on the Church
The government allegedly did not abide by the terms of the truce and, in violation of its terms, shot some 500 Cristero leaders and 5,000 other Cristeros dead.[26] Particularly offensive to Catholics after the supposed truce was Calles’s insistence on a complete state monopoly on education, suppressing all Catholic education and introducing secular education in its place: “We must enter and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth.”[26] Calles’s military persecution of Catholics would be officially condemned by President Lázaro Cárdenas and the Mexican Congress in 1935.[27]
Between 1935 and 1936, Cardenas had Calles and many of his close associates arrested and forced them into exile soon afterwards.[28][29] Freedom of worship was no longer suppressed, although some states still refused to repeal Calles’ policy,[30] and relations with the church improved while Cardenas was president.
Government disregard for the church, however, did not relent until 1940, when President Manuel Ávila Camacho, a practising Catholic, took office.[26] Church buildings in the country still belonged to the Mexican government[30] and the nation’s policies regarding the church still fell into federal jurisdiction. Under Camacho, the bans against church, though lawfully required either throughout the country or in just some Mexican states, were no longer enforced anywhere in Mexico.[31]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero
If you think Americans these days support religious freedom in Jefferson’s and Madison’s sense, just look at the trouble that the Muslims often have here when they try to build a church.
But what do you think about the bishops’ claim that they have the same right to religious freedom as anyone else
Well I don’t think that the bishops right to conscience stacks up against the poor parent’s right to exercise their own conscience in deciding how many mouths they can afford to feed, clothe, house, and educate. The Catholic doctrine of Preferential Option for the Poor and of Conscience argue for that.
And neither do I think that the bishops right to conscience stacks up against the state’s obligation to provide what the Church teaches is health care as a right and the state authorities’ right to follow their conscience on that.
It seems to me that the Obama administrations position here is very squarely within Catholic doctrine and that the US Bishops exaggerated stand on “principle” is a very weak one indeed, especially given that compliance with HHS would be at worst rather remote material cooperation (diocese of Madison has recently complied with a similar new state law) and that the Church does not appose contraception in general, only in marriage, not outside marriage, after rape, for hormonal treatment, to prevent HIV infection etc.
It seems to me that this is very much politically motivated hysteria.
God Bless
Of course not. The test has to be based on reasonableness. Polygamy was an unreasonable stretch. This one is not. No one is being deprived of anything – or if we use a very loose definition of “deprived” and say not paying for a pill is depriving of a pill, it’s a tiny deprivation, indeed – as Jonathan Chait remarks in David’s quote above.
“Where does that leave the women who can’t tolerate those pills? Or the ones who want the low-dose pill to lessen their risk of getting cancer?”
I agree that more facts would be helpful.
Among the facts that would fill out the picture, I’d think, would be: for how many women are subsidies already available outside of their employer’s group plan, e.g. through a Planned Parenthood clinic or a local government agency? Or Medicaid?
“One of the major question in my mind is whom the bishops claim to be speaking for, and what is the real opinion of those people.”
David N. –
Of course the bishops are speaking for themselves. There is no blanket-blank reason to think that they believe that most American Catholics are anti-contraception. Who could possibly believe that they are so stupid as to believe that they are reflecting the beliefs of the Faithful. But all of that is totally irrelevant to the issue: are THEIR rights being violated?, and, secondarily, do we have an obligation as Americans to respect their rights?
They are speaking against what *they* believe on religious grounds is evil. In fact, I don’t agree with them — I”m pro-contraception. But I’m also pro-freedom of religion, so I have to agree with the bishops in this particular matter. Do we liberals have to think in lock-step? Has independent judgment become sinful?
Any other considerations besides freedom of religion side-step the issue, at least as I understand what the bishops are saying. *They* claim it is religious, and they are the ONLY authorities about hat their religious beliefs actually are. Do you have reason to think that they are lying — that they don’t really believe that contraceptions are wrong? I find no evidence for that whatsoever.
Matters of religious freedom should NEVER be a matter of whether or not we admire the players. I mostly don’t admire our bishops very much, and I despise some of them. But I do respect the First Amendment, including BOTH the freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses. You really can’t have one without the other. Like it or not. And as the old saying goes — if they can to it to them, they can do it to us.
Actually, Catholic teaching on contraception does not claim to be a religious teaching at all. It claims to be an application of natural law, applicable to all regardless of religion.
So, to claim a “religious exemption” here is quite as odds with Catholic thinking about the morality of contraception.
God Bless
When the church-going and non-church going Catholics go to the polls in November and decide for whom to vote, I doubt sincerely that this brouhaha that seems to be of high concern in blogs like this, and most likely in diocesan papers, will have much bearing one way or the other when someone decides whether to vote for or against Obama.
In the list of important things that will cause people to vote as they do, this matter will not make most people’s Top 10.
” — the issue is the bishops’ right not to sign the checks that pay for other people’s contraceptives, — ”
If the bishops drop healthcare because of this they will have to increase employees’ salaries and wages commensurately. Some of that increase may indeed go to purchase the things that bishops don’t like. Are they going to stop “signing the check” for salaries and wages as well?
The church, i.e., the bishops (sorry JAK) is not going to win this one. They can only shoot themselves in the other foot – and the only one they have left is the right one, the one that governs their politics.
But all of that is totally irrelevant to the issue: are THEIR rights being violated?, and, secondarily, do we have an obligation as Americans to respect their rights?
Ann,
First, let me say upfront that I agree the current situation is unacceptable. I do believe the contraceptive mandate infringes on religious freedom. However, I do not think it violates the rights of the bishops unless they are in a position, themselves, to be required to provide insurance with contraceptive coverage. I am sure they believe they are speaking on behalf of Catholic hospitals, universities, and so on. But what I am wondering is (1) how many of these organizations already provide contraceptive coverage, either through their own choice or because of a state mandate and (2) how many of the organizations they are speaking on behalf of actually are themselves opposed to going along with the mandate.
I am not questioning the right of the bishops to speak out. And they have a right to speak out even if they are speaking only on principle. I am just curious to know how many of the people they believe themselves to be speaking for actually want to be spoken for.
” — for how many women are subsidies already available outside of their employer’s group plan, e.g. through a Planned Parenthood clinic or a local government agency? Or Medicaid? ”
Are you or any other man really going to tell the women of the world that, because some men don’t want to “write checks” for insurance that provides contraception, these women have to go elsewhere?
And how to you equal that out for men? Get you little blue pill elsewhere? Your vasectomy?
If I were a women and you or any other man told me what you mentioned above, I’d tell you where you could stick your advice.
Re Ann: How is one to understand freedom of religion,if the rank and file of the religion have no problem with a particular policy regarding contraception, but the enforcers, aka, the bishops (leaders) do? It seems to me that this is the heart of the question. The freedom of religion in question relates only to the bishops, who are a small minority and not to the majority of the religion’s adherents.
While the Catholic religion has an answer to the question of the Bishops claim to speak authoritatively, that certainty, and the degree to which it is certain on particular matters, are matters of faith.
I do not know how state authorities in a secular democracy can possibly be in a position to arbitrate matters of faith.
They best they could do might be to ask how central to Catholicism is the teaching against contraception ? That 98% of Catholics contracept has to weigh rather heavily for such decisions of the secular state authorities.
God Bless
Grant, in reply to your question about what contraceptive pills people actually buy (vs the generics at Walmart), the most recent (2009) report I can ind says that Yaz leads the market. It costs just under $100/month at an online pharmacy
Regarding The Hawaii plan, it looks as if the employer’s plan subsidizes the individual policies. Employees wanting contraception coverage must be allowed to buy individual contraception policies from the company that sells the employer its health insurance. To pick a number, assume that the insurance company would have charged the owner $300/yr more per employee to cover contraception without any copay, assuming that only 25% of the employees would use contraception. The employer would then pay the insurance company $300,000 to cover 1000 employees.
Now, if contraception isnt covered but employees are entitled to buy individual policies for the same $300/yr, and the same 25% buy policies, the insurance company gets only $75,000.
The shortfall has to be buil into the pricing of the employer’s policy, so the employer is subsidizing $225,000 of the cost of the individual contraception policies.
The Hawaii law says
“(e) Accident and health or sickness insurers, mutual benefit societies, and health maintenance organizations shall allow enrollees in a health plan exempted under this section to directly purchase coverage of contraceptive supplies and outpatient contraceptive services. The enrollee’s cost of purchasing such coverage shall not exceed the enrollee’s pro rata share of the price the group purchaser would have paid for such coverage had the group plan not invoked a religious exemption.”
As to why the Obama administration didn’t go with the Hawaii plan when it was proposed to them, I suspect that 1) it left he employee paying more; 2) going the Hawaii route would have required getting Congress to pass an amendment to the Health Care Act, which could have been difficult to do in an election year.
I think one of the worst arguments in this entire debate is that contraception is not “health care” and that this is a plot by the Obama administration against the Catholic Church. Obama and HHS did not invent the contraceptive mandate. It came as a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine.
If you question the medical reasoning of IOM, you can download their 225 page report titled Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps from their web site.
Here is information pertinent to the risks of oral contraceptives, which we have discussed elsewhere:
I assume people might be unlined to debate the numbers. However, please notice that he employer subsidizes the employees individual plans regardless of what numbers you use.
Unlined = inclined
So, what do folks here think about the provisions in the Alabama anti-immigration law that penalize religious bodies if they are found to be aiding undocumented (aka “illegal”) immigrants?
Is that legit or is the impinging on the religious freedom of churches et al?
Chris –
It has been the assumption of the Church since at least Aquinas that laws can overlap — there are both religious and civil prohibitions of murder, for instance. Being one sort of belief doesn’t preclude a second sort of assent – a religious one.
David,
I’m not familiar with the details the Alabama anti-immigration law, but if it infringes on the Church’s ability to administer the sacraments then I think that would violate freedom of religion.
I don’t see how the HHS decision violates freedom of religion.
In the Catholic understanding, contraception is not a “religious” matter, it’s not an article of faith, it’s a matter of a particular understanding of natural law. It’s a freedom of conscience issue, not a freedom of religion issue.
God Bless
“Re Ann: How is one to understand freedom of religion,if the rank and file of the religion have no problem with a particular policy regarding contraception, but the enforcers, aka, the bishops (leaders) do? It seems to me that this is the heart of the question.”
Holloway –
It is individuals who have first amendmenet rights, not organizations (unless they happen to be commercial corporations and then they can do pretty much what they feel like doing :-(
Ann,
Humanae Vitae does not base itself on divine revelation or on faith.
It’s argument is squarely a particular understanding of applying natural law.
IF the Church claimed that contraception was a divinely revealed truth of the faith THEN the argument that this was a “religious” matter might carry some weight.
God Bless
That’s a lawyer question, isn’t it? There’s nothing religion-specific about helping fellow humans in difficulty.
David N. has been asking an important question: Who are the bishops speaking for when they speak of “we Catholics” and “our consciences”. As appointed authorities over their dioceses, they are in a position to speak that way for the Catholic Church as an organization and for its membership as a whole. At the same time, if (or when) somebody adds up the numbers on the often-mentioned 90+% of sexually active Catholic women and associated men and on the Catholic organizations that are already paying for contraceptive insurance coverage for numbers of employees, it would not be surprising to me to find that “we Catholics” isn’t anywhere near as comprehensive as the bishops make it sound. The net result is likely to be embarrassment which they can ill afford at present. I’m somewhat surprised the numbers haven’t shown up already, since they are lying around somewhere nearby.
“I am not questioning the right of the bishops to speak out. And they have a right to speak out even if they are speaking only on principle. I am just curious to know how many of the people they believe themselves to be speaking for actually want to be spoken for.”
David N. –
I don’t think for one New York second that any of the bishops think that they represents the thinking of the Faithful. They’re not that dumb. They think that their views are what the Faithful *ought* to think, but they know full well that that is not the case.
I think it is much more likely that there are some bishops who actually agree with the Faithful, and you won’t find them joining in the fray. Some might even find ways to side-step the issue in good conscience, as the Hawaii bishops seem to have done, and more power to them. But it seems clear to me that Bishop Olmsted and Archb. Dolan and others are totally sincere in their beliefs and what their course of action should be. I’d be very happy if Bishop Olmstead and Dolan and Chaput resigned tomorrow for some reason or other == they’re all on the board of Catholic U. and as such are a threat to American Catholicism’s part in the development of dogma. But I still have to respect their right to follow their religious beliefs even though I think they’re wrong and their beliefs are highly detrimental to the Church itself.
As to their paying for the contraceptives, no, the money doesn’t come out of their personal checking accounts or retirement monies, but as I understand it they are on the boards of all these major institutions in their dioceses and de facto have veto power. In other words, they ultimately have the say as to what shall be done with the institution’s money. (Just look at the recent flap with Bishop Olmstead and the abortion at the Catholic hospital. The head of the hospital was excommunicated and lost her job.) If I”m wrong, correct me. I’ve never ever heard of a bishop *not* having the ultimate authority to make such decisions. Have you?
Chris –
True, Humanae Vitae claims it is based on natural law, and no doubt by JP II’s lights it is. But it also appeals to religious premises. That makes it theology which overlaps with philosophy, psychology, and the other disciplines it appeals to. And it is called “dogma”, not philosophy.
I mention JP II because apparently Paul VI was inclined to accept the report of the commission which studied the issue before Woytila persuaded him not to accept it, or so I’ve read. Don’t remember where.
Ann O. —
Re bishops and such on the board, Catholic Healthcare West hospital system is changing to a nondenominational board to create “a tremendous opportunity that will help accelerate our growth”. (The previous board was nuns from 6 orders. The new one has 2 nuns and 7 lay people.)
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19800103
Jack B. –
Thanks for the article. Looks like the Catholic system will be dominant — the secular hospitals have to agree to a code of medical ethics provided by Catholic Healthcare West which prohibits abortion, etc. It doesn’t mention contraception, though.
Also, it says, “They [the nuns] said they consulted with Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco and he determined the governance change was consistent with the church’s teachings and that it could proceed.”
Ann,
I’m curious as to what you meant by
“And it is called “dogma”, not philosophy.”
Surely you don’t mean to imply that Humanae Vitae is dogma ?
If the Church doesn’t see contraception as a central dogma of the Catholic faith, it’s hard to see how the secular state authorities in a democracy ought to consider it a violation of religious liberty.
God Bless
Chris –
What I mean is that HV is what the last three popes and the hierarchs under them maintain is dogma. They view HV is a hybrid of theology, philosophy and science, and think that its conclusions are settled Catholic teaching (i.e., “dogma”) and, therefore, it must be accepted by the Faithful. JP II went so far as to call its conclusions “definitive”, which for him practically meant “infallible”. No, “dogma” doesn’t always refer to an infallible teaching. Dogma also includes what that Rome thinks is settled, i.e. part of “the magisterium”. The theologians will correct me if I”m wrong, I’m sure.
True, in matters of natural law Rome could offer purely philosophical/scientific arguments, but so far as I know it also offers theological grounds. It’s the introduction of theological grounds that makes their arguments into theology. Granted, their arguments are hybrids. But that’s not unusual. Physics, for instance, generally includes math in its arguments, and we still consider the argument physics.
Don’t get me started on what “the magisterium” means other than simply meaning “teachings of the Church”. That’s a rat’s nest.
Chris –
About the state trying to decide what is dogma — I don’t know that the Court has ever tried to decide that question, but its very recent decision (Hossana Tabor) about who is and who is not a minister of a church surely indicates an answer. In that case the Court said explicitly that it is not for the Court to decide who is a minister of a church, that that has to be defined by the church itself. A fortiori it would seem that the same should hold for dogma — only a church can say what its own teachings are.
Bishop Bruskewitz has entered the fray. He starts by calling Secretary Sebelius a “a bitter fallen-away Catholic” and concludes “Like the martyrs of old, we must be prepared to accept suffering which could include heavy fines and imprisonment. Our American religious liberty is in grave jeopardy.” It’s too bad he didn’t feel so virtuous about crime-related coverups of child sexual abuse.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120128/NEWS01/701289898/
If I’ve been confirmed, and I haven’t formally severed my relationship to the church, it seems to me that it’s difficult, to say the least, to claim that the bishops’ religious authority doesn’t apply to me. Part and parcel of being Catholic involves acknowledging the bishops’ authority. I know that many people struggle with this – certainly, I do, too, from time to time and in certain matters. But the bishops’ authority can’t be separated from the Catholic faith. When we profess our faith in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church, this is one of the things we aver.
The bishops can’t (and don’t) order us how to vote. They certainly can define what is or what isn’t Catholic teaching.
If, in my marriage, we used contraception while knowing that it’s against church teaching, certainly that would be disobedient to church authority, but disobeying legitimate authority is not exactly the same thing as claiming that the ruler’s authority doesn’t extend to me. I can break into a house an steal the silver without claiming that the law against burglary is unjust.
In a way, it would seem to me to be much more serious to claim that the bishops have no authority over me.
the bishops’ authority can’t be separated from the Catholic faith
That is because it is not really “the bishops’” authority. Rather it is the authority of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, which is conferred upon them by Jesus Himself (see John ch. 16).
Again, as authoritatively stated by the Holy Council in Lumen Gentium 20, “the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.(149)(16*)”
Either you accept the Council, apostolic succession, the Holy Spirit, and the word of Christ, or you do not.
As for Humanae Vitae, the teachings on love contained therein are and have been the consistent teaching of the Church since the beginning, and such was the teaching of the Council before Pope Paul wrote HV. The Church has never taught otherwise on the matter of marital love and contraception.
I’m a physician myself, and I hate abortion. But the statistics are that 1/2 of the pregnancies in this country are accidental/unwanted and, of these, 40% end in abortion. That’s more than 1 million abortions per year — for the purpose of contraception!
These are the words of Pope Paul VI (from HUMANAE VITAE):
“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.”
Now, His Holiness acknowledges that lesser moral evils may be lawful to (1) avoid a greater evil or (2) to promote a greater good. He goes on to state that “artificial” contraception (an evil) can’t be justified to “protect or promote the welfare” of individuals, families, or society. He does NOT address the issue of whether or not contraception is, _at the level of government policy_, tolerable to avoid a greater evil, if it reduces abortions (which it clearly would, if 50% of pregnancies are unwanted and if 40% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion).
If ever there was a case where a lesser moral evil avoids a greater evil, it is in this case. At the level of the individual or family, artificial contraception is, according to church teaching, evil and the Church does not tolerate this evil (even though it is an evil practiced, at one time or another, by 98% of Catholics and on a continuing basis by more than 90% of Catholics). But surely the evil of abortion is 1,000 times worse, and government policies (applying to the entire population of US citizens) are a different form of morality than are individual decisions. Good government officials, in response to arguments made by the Institute of Medicine, may believe that voluntary contraception is preferable to a million abortions, without wishing to mount a frontal assault on the Catholic Church.
The point is that “This President” may have been wrong, but this was not as a consequence of his being at war with the Catholic Church, but because this is a very complex issue, with legitimate points of view which are in conflict with one another (i.e. the Institutes of Medicine vs the Catholic Church) and he is responsible to all citizens. Again, maybe he made the wrong decision, but it wasn’t out of an agenda to make war with the Church.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
P.S. For anyone who remembers my prior comment on this issue, I’m happy to report that I received a very gracious and welcoming email from the pastor of the church in question, and I am now happy to be attending this church.
Per Larry – “…artificial contraception is, according to church teaching, evil and the Church does not tolerate this evil (even though it is an evil practiced, at one time or another, by 98% of Catholics and on a continuing basis by more than 90% of Catholics…”
I have heard that and similar claims breezily repeated time and again on this blog, and I always have the same thought; you have no way of knowing that to be true.
While obviously if one repeats a lie or erroneous information often enough, people will begin to believe it is true, the repetition alone does not make the statement actually true.
Dr. Weisenthal, let’s stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that the Obama Administration’s intention is as you’ve described it – to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that fewer pregnancies end in abortion.
Suppose it develops, in practice, that the new policy doesn’t have the desired effect of substantially reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies – perhaps because there are still many women who don’t receive group coverage from employers; or because getting women to obtain and correctly use contraception is more complex than simply making it available for free. (Or perhaps there would be other reasons).
In your opinion, would this sort of empirical data change the moral calculus? If something is evil itself but is intended to avoid a greater evil, but in practice doesn’t avoid the greater evil (or its avoidance effects are negligible), then I’d think we should be cautious in pursuing it.
If I’ve been confirmed, and I haven’t formally severed my relationship to the church, it seems to me that it’s difficult, to say the least, to claim that the bishops’ religious authority doesn’t apply to me.
———-
If you’ve been confirmed, then the Holy Spirit has given you Her gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. You should not be afraid to make use of them.
Larry, I’m glad that you found a place where you feel welcome!
Ann, you asked what I think about the bishops’ claim that they have the same right to religious freedom as anyone else and that this decision of HHS violates their religious rights. I think they do have a right to religious freedom and if you argue only within the context of rights, there are some good points to be made. My problem is that I can’t just look at it from the point of view of rights. I think we should also look at it from the point of view of responsibilities and morals.
What is their responsibility, given that their religious rights may have been bumped into, is? Is it to act emotionally because their egos have been bruised, issuing press releases and letters to be read at Mass and to imply threatening actions like withdrawing insurance support from their employees? Should they also withhold Communion from all the contracepters they know are in their congregations? Should they advise their faithful of the current teaching and leave it at that? Should they engage in a little soul-searching on the question of whether contraception is in fact immoral or whether its their ban that’s immoral?
Most importantly, I think we need to look at whether the ban itself is immoral. Talk about rights only goes so far. If the exercise of a right involves an immoral action, that depreciates the weight of the argument about the exercise of that right.
Responsibilities and the basic morality of the actions in play must be addressed. Otherwise we sink into the swamp of moral relativism!
Jim P, you say the bishops’ authority can’t be separated from the Catholic faith. Let’s look at what we mean by that word authority. To me it has two parts. One is the right to compel — the police will pull me over and give me a ticket if I’m speeding, to compel me to follow the law. The other part is trust. As Fr. Joe Komonchak has pointed out in the past (hopefully I’m paraphrasing correctly), a large part of authority is made up of trust. In the analogy he uses, when he teaches a class on Vatican II, his students don’t go to the library and fact check everything he says. They trust that he knows what he’s talking about. Because he has their trust, he has authority. Anyone you don’t trust lacks sufficient authority, except of they possess the power to compel. This seems to be the state of many faithful today. They simply do not trust the bishops. I certainly don’t.
To me, it simply doesn’t make sense to say that *every single marital act bar none* must be open to procreation. It’s like saying 2+2=5. It just doesn’t compute. It puts this absolute rule above the virtue of prudence, which says we should use our brains to think well about what is to be done. It puts this rule above charity. Aquinas says “the ultimate goal of man is to enjoy God, and to this charity directs him.” This is in agreement with Augustine: “Charity I call a movement of the soul towards enjoying God for his own sake.” Also with Jesus Christ, since the first law is to love God with your whole heart and soul.
If practically speaking, you are constrained from pursuing your own spiritual life because you have so many kids you can’t think straight, then something’s wrong. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me and has caused me to lose trust in the papacy and hierarchy.
I think Jeanne’s point is very relevant: you can asert a right, righ tor wrong, bu tif you damage your own credibilit yfurther and cause further division, is that the right thing??????
Agree, Jeanne’s point is VERY relevant.
If practically speaking, you are constrained from pursuing your own spiritual life because you have so many kids you can’t think straight, then something’s wrong. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me and has caused me to lose trust in the papacy and hierarchy.
———
Women and men who are interested in helping girls might take a moment to read about the Girls Scouts. Today the organization launched ToGetHerThere.
http://www.girlscouts.org/news/news_releases/2012/togetherthere.asp
“…only a church can say what its own teachings are.”
Ann Oliver,
I think our president is trying to make his social policy part of an internal Catholic religious question (as if religion [like politics] can be a science of exigencies, usefulness and convenience. He presumes, for example, that by siding with the 90% or so Catholics who “practice” artificial birth control, he will be able to press the church internally (from within her own institutions) to go against her teaching. He also presumes the church can pull up her teaching (without a church council) as kids pull up the things, the plants they planted earlier in the day. So should we be surprised that he doesn’t want such church teaching to take root at Notre Dame or at Georgetown any longer?
Now President Obama is acting like Romney, who was a Mormon bishop years before entering politics. At least Romney has currently put aside embroiling himself in the internal affairs of his church (to enter politics). President Obama should do likewise. He shouldn’t embroil himself in the internal affairs of the Catholic Church, or take sides, or try to make one side of an internal quarrel inside the church a government imposed policy.
To Ken (who questioned me about the statistics regarding Catholics who do not observe Church teachings on contraception): I got the statistics from the following source — http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/macfarlane/bright-future.html
To Jim Pauwels: The Department of HHS decision was primarily motivated by the analysis of the non-partisan, non-governmental Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/health/policy/20health.html
However, in the present context, what is relevant is this: 50% of all pregnancies are unwanted and 40% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion. As I pointed out previously, in Pope Paul VI’s famous encyclical, he stated that lesser evils may be tolerated to prevent greater evils. He did not address the issue of secular government policies which promote primary contraception in an era where abortion is routinely used — essentially — as a secondary contraceptive.
The average size of a Catholic family used to be on the order of 5-7 children per family. Now the average size is close to 2 children per family. It is a certainty that the average Catholic family is not having 3 to 5 abortions; so it would appear that “primary” contraception is highly effective, on a population basis. I think it is a certainty that the availability of primary contraception has to be highly effective in reducing the number of “secondary contraceptive” abortions. Over one million abortions per year for the purpose of “secondary contraception.” Just think of that and think about the most immediate thing which could be done to reduce that number. Dissuade people from having sex? Teach them natural family planning?
We are talking about non-Catholic employees of hospitals and schools. Many of these people are unmarried. Many are sexually active. Virtually none of them are going to be using “natural” methods of contraception, and these “natural” methods are, in any event, ineffective for the majority of people. The net result of protecting the “conscience” of Catholic hospital and school administrators would be to increase the number of abortions (or murders, if you prefer). Consider this and also consider Pope Paul VI’s statement that, sometimes, a lesser evil may be justified to prevent a greater evil and ask yourself if this is not one of those occasions.
To Eric Bugyis: Thank you for your kind wishes. I’ve been to mass 3 times in 4 days now (I’m a long ago fallen away Protestant who is seeking spiritual renewal and self-improvement in through my local Catholic parish, and, thus far, beginning to find that which I sought).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
“If ever there was a case where a lesser moral evil avoids a greater evil, it is in this case.”
But, hasn’t the number of abortions increased significantly since contraceptives became readily available? Could it be lesser evil leads to greater evil?
Hi Mark: The number of abortions went way up, following Roe v Wade. But the number of abortions has been steadily decreasing for some time now. Today, there is a greater availability of contraceptive services and options than ever before, and the number of abortions continues to go down. The linked graph is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops web site.
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/images/stats_by_year.jpg
The number of abortions has dropped by 380,000 since the peak in 1985. This is impressive, as the population of sexually active people has increased considerably, since then. The decline was particularly impressive during the Clinton years.
Both common sense and the available data make a very strong case that contraception prevents abortions. Contraception may be evil, as an abrogation of natural law, but abortion (i.e. murder, if you will) is a violation of the 5th Commandment. Which is the greater evil?
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
P.S. to Mark: Adjusting for population growth, the declining US abortion rate is now approaching that which existed prior to Roe v Wade.
The greatest evil is that contraception and abortion have become more important than the beatitudes. You may postulate that these two political footballs are part of the beatitudes. But the fact is that most of those who abuse us with these subjects usque ad nauseum, do not love their enemies, the poor, their neighbors , justice, meekness etc. They really should go back to being fervent anti-communists and to chasing other red herrings.
Hi Bill: Your statements are a bit harsh, but I’d like to comment.
As I mentioned, I’m a long ago fallen away Protestant who finds himself in need of spiritual renewal and moral improvement. I’m not, at this point, seeking comfort, absolution, healing, or salvation. I just want to become a better person. I can’t control what I believe, but I can control my actions.
Protestantism is based almost entirely on self-guided personal responsibility. I think that I need to be told what to do and then just do it. If faith follows, then so much the better (is my thinking). Anyway, I’ve always admired the tradition of Good Works within Catholicism. My favorite parable is the Good Samaritan, where Jesus directly addresses the issue of what is required for salvation (i.e. more than mere belief, it seems to say to me). Reinforcing this are the writings of Pope John Paul II, who seems to me to come across as decidedly left of center with regard to social welfare issues. Anyway, I agree with you that there does seem to be a moral disconnect regarding umbrage over health insurance paying for contraception and lack of umbrage over the fact that millions of people have no health insurance.
In the meantime I have been, as previously noted, very happy with my introduction to Catholic worship. I am hardening not my heart to the possibility that faith will one day follow. For the time being, I am pleased with the degree of self-improvement which I would like to believe is occurring.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Hi Larry,
You are right that the “saved” notion in Protestantism is one of the dumbest things to ever happen. The Catholic tradition, tho weak in the Liturgy of the Word up to V2 has kept the integrity of the Eucharist better than that of our Separated Brethren. The discipline within Catholicism has prevented many charlatan preachers from going wild. But at the same time it has impeded genuine prophetic voices. My main criticism of the Catholic hierarchy is that they have become feudal Lords and that they stress dogma over the Beatitudes. Many feel as I do that John Paul II appointed the worst bishops in history as his sole criteria was obedience. So we have to have balance. As Paul corrected Peter we must correct and uplift each other.
Per that website Larry “…surveys showing that almost all (perhaps up to 98%) actively rejected the Church’s rich teaching regarding the transmission of life. …”
“Perhaps up to 98%” is the key phrase. The context is about the Church in the 1960’s and 70’s (some people it seems, cannot leave those two decades), about how people were leaving the church, priests and nuns abandoning their vocations in droves, abandoning the confessional, the Catholic Church reeling, and that “Perhaps up to 98%” were on the pill (I assume they were only referring to Catholic women).
In any case, while the story on that site is interesting, the “data” does not sound reliable at all.
Hi Ken, I hope you’ll at least acknowledge that I didn’t make up the number. I didn’t like the use of the “to lie” verb. My reference was a conservative Catholic essay. Statistics like that are probably squishy, but the best evidence is what’s happened to the average number of children in the average Catholic family. It’s pretty hard evidence that most Catholic families are using “artificial” contraceptive methods.
- LW/HB
Hi Larry – Of course I can acknowledge that much; the statistic came from that web site. I do not the verb “to lie” either; that is why I did not use in the active sense.
Also, that not a few Catholics violate this church teaching is not relevant. They are wrong and the Church is correct.