Distancing and Dissing?
For those who missed last evening’s PBS “Newshour,” Mark Shields was typically forthright in commenting upon the HHS decision:
what President Obama has done with this policy, and Secretary Sebelius, quite bluntly, is they have taken those Catholics who took a risk to support them, Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, and Sister Carol Keehan, who is the president of the Catholic Health Association, and Father Larry Snyder, who is president of Catholic Charities, who have taken on orthodox, more conservative groups within their own Catholic Church to support the president, especially his efforts on the poor, and he has left them out to dry.
And he concluded:
I’m just saying that this appears to be distancing, if not dissing Catholics.
The full exchange is here (towards the end of the transcript).
The Komen Race for the Cure dissed Planned Parenthood. There was a great howl from bloggery and tweeterdom and the media, and Komen reversed itself.
The Obama Administration dissed Catholics.. There was a great howl from the Catholic bishops and… nothing. Just as interesting as Shields’s comment, I think, was David Brooks saying he thought the Catholic story was undercovered and belonged on page 1 with the women’s organizations.
Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, and Sister Carol Keehan, who is the president of the Catholic Health Association, and Father Larry Snyder, who is president of Catholic Charities, who have taken on orthodox, more conservative groups within their own Catholic Church to support the president, especially his efforts on the poor, and he has left them out to dry.
—-
President Obama honored Notre Dame by appearing there. To call those who hate him “orthodox” is baloney. They’re Republicans, so of course they hate him and are willing to lie about him and about everyone who fails to join their chorus.
As to Keehan et al., no one forced them to tell the truth. If they somehow found the courage in the Republican Church to back the president on a given issue, he is not required to lie or pretend about other issues as payback. Let everyone tell the truth about everything. Simple.
Obama has not left anyone out to dry or thrown anyone under the bus. All are adults, responsible for their own words, votes, decisions.
Mark Shields is exactly right.
The fallout is cataclysmic for the White House and for the president.
–Mark Shields
Groveling for approval from Republicans.
I absolutely think Obama hung progressive Catholics out to dry. While our President often speaks very idealistically, his actions usually reflect political expediency. What his administration did here just reflects how inconsequential we progressive Catholics are as a voting bloc.
Shields also, with Brooks agreeing, suggested that the President might be suffering the same kind of memory lapse that hit Romney when he said he didn’t care about the poor because they’ll make out OK with the safety net.
Too bad that our episcopacy has so squandered its authority that few take them seriously any more, on this or most other questions.
Hi, Irene:
I wonder what the term “progressive Catholics” means. Is progressive a euphemism for liberal? Or does it mean something else?
Imho, a President’s “actions” always “reflect political expediency”. A President is a politician, not a bishop.
When the Republican Catholic “voting bloc” succeeds in electing Romney, there will be a bishop in the White House. That will be interesting to watch.
Hello Gerelyn- Not to go too off thread, I liked this little essay on progressive v liberal : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/28/466044/-Progressive-vs-Liberal-Whats-In-a-Name
(I must confess that I use both terms pretty nterchangably). I don’t see much difference between Obama or Romney; I wouldn’t characterize either as liberal (or progressive).
Thanks, Irene. I agree with the writer to some degree.
Progressive has a specific meaning in American history (like “Nativist”, another term that some Republican Catholics are misusing as they denounce Obama), a meaning that does not apply to much of what non-Republicans believe (or should believe).
But it seems as though Democrats, including Obama, bend over backwards, twist themselves into pretzels, in vain attempts to appease Republicans. E.g., the Repubs insist on saying the “Democrat Party”, and no one objects or corrects them. I think the use of “progressive” is another vain attempt to look less evil/liberal to Republicans.
(The last time I linked a Daily Kos article, one of the Republican Catholics here asked, “why did you broach the topic by linking to that pseudonymous, unsupported and scurrilous Daily Kos post?”)
Agree that Romney is neither liberal or progressive. As to Obama, I think he’s VERY liberal, but must suppress much/most of it, given the climate.
I wouldn’t take Jim Jenkins bet on another thread but I wil bet that the topic wil be a (sore) source of division within the American Church.
Nothing new about that but IMO the bishops think they have levrtage for their voice in this -a voice that was diminishing.
That’s one frame to look at the division and apart from politics what the fallout winthin Church will be is another.
Mark Shields’ comments made me see just how politically potent this HHS decision is. The bishops now have an issue that may well give them the capacity to decisively affect the outcome of this coming presidential race.
I for one would hope that they would handle this power very carefully and pay attention to the public policy positions that the Republican candidates are espousing concerning poverty, immigration, the environment, health care, etc. Those positions, in my view, cannot be squared with Catholic social thought. If the bishops do not do what they can to avoid turning the HHS decision into a partisan issue they will, in my view, be engaged in the proximate material evil of having these Republican policies put into place.
Nicholas Clifford,
though I would not be as blanket in assessing the seriousness with which bishops’ pronouncements are taken, even today, it is heartening to me to see Mark Shields and E.J. Dionne speaking so forcefully. I certainly hope that Democratic members of Congress follow their lead.
Bernard Dauenhauer,
all the more reason for the Administration to “reconsider,” avowals to the contrary notwithstanding.
Bernard:
Most Catholics who post here, and Mark Shields himself, will in all likelihood vote for Obama again notwithstanding this issue.
The decisive turn will be from Independents. Personally, I consider myself Independent and have supported conservative and liberal candidates in the past. I have not ever voted party line and subscribe to Nietzsche’s dictum that the party person is, by necessity, a liar.
The relevant question is what impact this will have on Independent Catholics?
I would be interested to hear from American Catholic Independents (i.e. people who have voted BOTH Republican and Democratic) who post here regarding the impact that this decision, if any, will have on them.
I have a brother in the US and he is a very devout, traditionally pious who regularly recites the rosary and attends daily mass where possible. He is a recent convert to Ron Paul all the way!! He sees no conflict between that and his Catholic faith. I personally think that his brand of libertarianism is a stretch for a Catholic but his conscience dictates that Paul’s approach is the appropriate fix at the time.
George–
By that definition, I am an American Catholic Independent. The decision will not affect how I vote in the upcoming election. Frankly, I’m surprised by the liberal response to it.
I, too, am an American Catholic Independent. I am very much anti-war, and very concerned what Israel will do and pull US into war with Iran. This issue along with economic/poverty issues will affect my vote. Not the HHS decision, which I support Obama on. I am surprised by Mark’s comments, and from a fellow Shields.
Re Fr. Imbelli’s 12:36 pm of today: What do you mean, Father? Is the burden of preventing the bishops from mishandling this issue on the government?
Frankly, I’m surprised by the liberal response to it.
———-
Ditto. The men writing on the blogs of once-liberal Catholic periodicals are revealing a lot about themselves.
Bernard Dauenhauer, I’m suggesting, in the spirit of Galatians 6:2, that the burden be more widely shared; and that Catholics in public office bear a commensurate responsibility.
As a flaming pinko and a lapsed Catholic who believes Chuch teaching on birth control within marriage is draconian–
I really don’t see an employer’s refusal to cover certain medical procedures on religious grounds as much different from my non-religious employer’s imposing dress requirements, a code of conduct, or certain parking restrictions. These terms of employment were made clear during the hiring process, and I was free to decide whether I wanted to buy in or not.
As I understand it, Catholic organizations are simply asking not to have to pay for things they teach are immoral–and wouldn’t they look like hypocrites if they did?
It’s not as if Catholic organizations are asking to impose a ban on using birth control or any other legal medical procedure as condition of employment, are they?
Jean — would that your common sense could find a hearing among more hot-headed bloggers and commenters.
What a nasty little barb, Gerelyn.
I think it is fascinating, and perhaps telling, that the focus of this debate among Catholics is about oral contraceptives, when sterilization (tubal sterilization and vasectomy) outranks oral contraceptives 37 to 28 in numbers of users.
No, Grant, stating the obvious is not “nasty”. In many decades of reading the once-liberal Catholic periodicals, I’ve never before seen such hysteria, so much dissimulation. The depth of anti-woman bias is being sounded.
-
Agree, David Nickol. What’s sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the squawking ganders.
As I understand it, Catholic organizations are simply asking not to have to pay for things they teach are immoral–and wouldn’t they look like hypocrites if they did?
Jean,
There are two questions that might be raised here which make the issue a little more complex. First, how Catholic does an organization have to be to be a “Catholic organization.” There is an exemption for Catholic organizations. The problem is that many people do not think it is broad enough. Second, is paying part of the cost of an insurance policy (how many employees don’t pay at least some of the cost?) that covers contraception and sterilization actually paying for contraception and sterilization?
Careful, Gerelyn. You just used a term of derogation strongly associated with misogyny.
Also: Instead of implying Commonweal and those who agree with its view of the HHS mandate are anti-woman, why don’t you try making an argument?
Good for Shields – and Noonan and the others who have said, simply, that Obama has – I think – showed his true colors. It’s a pity that Keenan and company were taken in in the first place. The despised bishops, it seems, saw more clearly. Hope dies hard, reluctantly. Wishful thinking probably too often takes the rightful place in our minds of honest appraisal, willingness to look for flaws in our most cherished beliefs, realizing that belief can easily become illusion, or illusion belief.
The tragedy here, I’m afraid, is that the alternative to Obama this fall makes Obama the only sensible choice, still, unless we’re willing to abstain from voting or to make a protest vote for an unelectable fringe candidate. But how can you vote for someone like this?
Sr. Carol Keehan’s statement nails it:
“The impact of being told we do not fit the new definition of a religious employer and therefore cannot operate our ministries following our consciences has jolted us.”
Her reaction reminds me of the classic Flannery O’Connor riposte to Mary McCarthy regarding the Eucharist – “Well if it’s just a symbol, to hell with it!”
Likewise if our hospitals, schools and charities are not religious employers, to hell with them! Or, to come to a preferable conclusion, if the Obama mandarins cannot recognize a religious employer even if it’s not a clearly marked place of worship, to hell with them! (I hope I didn’t just commit a hate crime.)
For me, “progressive” is a fairly accurate appelation for those who would like to call themselves “liberal” because it has a nicer sound but are scarcely liberal in the sense of being open to a multiplicity of valid possibilities. They seem to me charactized principally by their narrow focus on the exclusive correctness of their positions that emphasize a radical rejection of any present system, along with the traditions that have fed into it, and its replacement with an ideologically pure system of their own devising, usually if not always replacing flexibility with rigidity and freedom to fail and reform with a tight orthodoxy that excludes the possibility of deviation. Classical revolutionaries, not liberals at all.
Of course, an occasional revolution can be a salutary thing in any society overgrown and choked with bureaucratic entanglements, but revolutionaries have an unfortunate and deadly penchant for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Instead of implying Commonweal and those who agree with its view of the HHS mandate are anti-woman, why don’t you try making an argument?
Grant,
I would not accuse any specific individuals of being anti-woman, although I think some of the comments here (e.g. about women going out to the gas station to buy their own condoms) have been offensive. But in focusing so narrowly on oral contraceptives when 50 million men have had vasectomies, and when more people of childbearing age rely on sterilization than oral contraceptives, shows a prejudice that fertility control is a matter of women taking birth control pills, and also a mindset that something specifically Catholic (Humanae Vitae) is under attack.
And of course the “contraceptive mandate” is about women’s health. Whatever one may thing of the Obama administration and HHS Secretary Sebelius, they “contraceptive mandate” is based on medical recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, and I do not believe those recommendations had any anti-religious bias.
If one believe that the “contraceptive mandate” is a positive proposal to promote women’s health and women’s rights, then this controversy does have to be seen at least in part as the Catholic Church’s opposition to a proposal to promote women’s health.
So there is a dilemma for “progressive Catholics” (or at least those who disagree with Humanae Vitae) in how to push the religious liberty issue purely as a matter of religious liberty, without actually approving of the way Catholic organizations might exercise that liberty.
I think it is probably the case that if women had more status in the Church (historically and currently), various Church positions, including positions on contraception, might be different. So in some sense, to defend the religious liberty of the Catholic Church is to defend its liberty to treat women as less than equal to men. Now, taking a stand for religious liberty may very well be justified, since religious liberty is an important concept in and of itself. But I don’t see why feminists should be thrilled to see what they see as anti-feminist policies defended in the name of religious liberty.
What’s offensive to me is the presumption that one or one’s group has the right to speak for all women.
“First, how Catholic does an organization have to be to be a ‘Catholic organization.’ There is an exemption for Catholic organizations. The problem is that many people do not think it is broad enough. Second, is paying part of the cost of an insurance policy (how many employees don’t pay at least some of the cost?) that covers contraception and sterilization actually paying for contraception and sterilization?”
Good questions.
I could probably be persuaded that a “Catholic organization” is any entity that doesn’t receive tax money.
I’m not sure what you’re saying about insurance policies. It seems to me that finding a policy that meets the moral standards of a “Catholic organization” is the organization’s problem. If they can’t find an affordable policy they can live with, they have to stop offering that benefit. If this makes it harder for the organization to recruit good employees, so be it.
David:
I see you’re quite taken with that Guttmacher figure. It’s intriguing, I suppose (although I find it surprising, and I’d like to see supporting data), but I don’t know where you’re getting you’re data about those who are allegedly “focusing so narrowly on oral contraceptives.” Sterilization is a contraceptive procedure.
I don’t ask anyone to be thrilled by my criticism of the HHS mandate. I only ask that people refrain from maliciously inferring that it’s motivated by disdain for women.
Usually like to listen to Brooks/Shields but would not agree (IMO) with their projections or conclusions.
Sorry, just think that they have weighed in on a “potential” political tug of war that probably will focus on political points rather than the merits or demerits of the HHS decision.
Brooks is famous for supporting the second Iraq War – and that got him where?
This issue needs to be negotiated calmly by folks such as Sr. Carol and on the very narrow aspect of the definition of a religious organization that meets the exemption or exception.
Think the arguments about the actual contraceptive decision will go the way that FOCA and some bishops went – nowhere and you hear nothing about it.
IMO – the bishops are all over the place on this historically and currently. You have the usual extreme cohort who state that this is “war”; you have the usual cohort that will ignore and say nothing; then you have a small % that will look at this complex issue with reasoned questions, suggestions, and compromises.
Examples that weaken the USCCB – 28 states have the same HHS limitation (roughly 19 of these do permit wider church exemptions). But, have we heard or seen any bishops from the remaining 9 states say anything or did we hear any bishops from the 19 states when these decisions wer being voted? So, how consistent are the bishops?
Some bishops have already moved to comply with the HHS decision – examples are Morlino because of the cost of diocesan medical coverage – his only public response was to explain remote cooperation to justify the decision. Some catholic hospitals long ago moved to the HHS decision; more and more catholic hospitals are having the struggles that occurred last year in Phoenix and have continued their “catholic” mission without the blessing of the bishop.
So, before the USCCB gets on its high horse (too late), they need to get their own house in order.
but I don’t know where you’re getting you’re data about those who are allegedly “focusing so narrowly on oral contraceptives.”
Grant,
There is no data. It is just my observation that a very large part of the discussion has been the cost of oral contraceptives, who sells them cheaply, how women could afford to buy them without insurance, how allegedly dangerous they are, and so on. No one has focused on women having their tubes tied or men having vasectomies.
In any case, it’s just a fact that the “contraceptive mandate” is a proposal to promote women’s health, and the Bishops oppose it. They oppose it on religious grounds, but they still oppose it. And I think it’s fair to say that if they thought they could successfully oppose it totally, rather than just press for exemptions, they would do so.
I think most people would make a distinction between contraception and sterilization.
I see you’re quite taken with that Guttmacher figure. It’s intriguing, I suppose (although I find it surprising, and I’d like to see supporting data) . . .
Questioning data from the Guttmacher institute is a standard tactic.
Jean, the government’s made it nearly impossible for any large organization not to take its money. Then, once that’s accomplished, its hooks are in and it claims the right to control.
About the meanings of “progressive” and “liberal”==
Western education has trained people to argue using Socrates’ analysis of what a definition is. Socrates thought that definitions ideally included the genus and species of a particular kind of thing, and that a common noun signifies some combination of gnus and species — e.g., “bachelor = unmarried man”. Man is the genus, unmarried is the species, and now you know exactly what a bachelor is.
In practice, our thinking and our use of words is not so precise. It seems that our thoughts and their correlative words are regularly used highly ambiguously — and different people give different instances of a word slightly different meanings. Sometimes we even use a word ambiguously ourselves — i.e., give it more than one meaning.
Take “liberal”. What does that mean? Well, if you’re talking about, say, FDR, then “liberal” probably means someone who defends the rights of the poor against predatory rich people, AND who is willing to go to war when necessary, AND who is for Keynesian economics, etc., etc. A contemporary “liberal” would probably agree with *most* of FDR’s principles but not all. She might be a pacifist — but she would still call herself a “liberal”. The ambiguity of such words is also why we can talk of people being more or less liberal — that just means that they hold more or fewer of the many different principles that most people call “liberal”.
Does that mean the contemporary liberal isn’t *really* a liberal? Only if you think that “liberal” can have only one useful meaning.
Unfortunately, the past sometimes influences us badly. For instance, Plato thought that each common noun signified *one and ONLY one kind of thing*, so if you wanted to know *the* meaning of “bachelor” — or “ant hill” — or “progressive” — you should go looking for one and only one meaning. that signifies “the real thing”. That’s what Southerners used to call a “snipe hunt”, a hunt for something that is not going to be found. The way we actually use words is to give a word many slightly different meaning, and note well: ALL of those meaning are real meanings. Our own meaning is not “the real one”.
Moral: quit looking for what a “progressive” really is in every case. You won’t find it. Choose your own meaning if you want to, and when necessary let others know what it is. That works quite well.
Is Romney a liberal? Well, what do YOU mean by “liberal”?
Agree that liberal means whatever the claimant wants it to mean. E.g., the name of a poster here at Commonweal who often claims to be liberal appears online on lists of registered Republicans and donors to Republican candidates.
“Careful, Gerelyn. You just used a term of derogation strongly associated with misogyny. ”
—–
True. Sorry for using a word traditionally used to demean women.
I think it was in the other thread that you referred readers to Bryan Cones? When I clicked on it, I saw that he was praising the men at Commonweal and at America. Nice, the mutual admiration society.
Gerelyn,
You are an arbiter of nothing here. Conduct your denouncements and witch hunts on your own blog.
“The government’s made it nearly impossible for any large organization not to take its money. Then, once that’s accomplished, its hooks are in and it claims the right to control.”
Your claim that the government makes it “nearly impossible” for large organizations not to take public tax dollars is bereft of any cogent example.
However, it seems to me that it is in the public’s interest to have rules about how its money is spent, and that organizations that take that money should follow those rules or go without. This is called accountability and oversight.
Would the apologists for the bishops come clean, by telling their readers whether they themselves have used or would use contraceptives or condoms?
Not only have I used them myself, but I have pushed my daughter to use contraceptives. I don’t want her to find herself pregnant et be faced with the agonizing choice of abortion or of unexpectedly having to change her career plans radically, abandon her dreams of changing the world by her work, and finding herself linked to a boyfriend without being ready for a lifelong commitment. It’s a choice between options that are all potentially bad. Young people make mistakes, but the implications of that particular mistake are too serious for me to be willing to let her take chances.
Gerelyn –
Both the Democrats and Republicans are heirs of the “liberal” Enlightenment tradition, so principles of one are often the principles of the others. They overlap. And maybe some just don’t care whether or not they are called Republican or Democrat by people who seem to have a tribal identity. By that I mean the people whose principles are determined by membership in a group which they call “us”, as in “us against them”. For such people to disagree about anything is treason to the group/tribe/party. Pity.
Read the Piagetian psychologist Kohlberg who developed Piaget’s insights about such thinking. It is typical of adolescents and is one of the stages in the development of the individual’s rationality. It’s why people like Hitler can gain control of large masses of people whose ultimate criterion of trugh is what the group tells him/her it is. Their first rule of conduct seems to be: don’t diverge from the group/tribe/party line.