‘A Bad Decision’
From our new editorial on the HHS’s contraception-coverage mandate:
The administration’s decision raises deep concerns about its understanding of the fundamental corporate and institutional nature of the Catholic Church and similar religious communities. The HHS decision comes perilously close to insisting that the government should determine what is or isn’t a religious organization or ministry. The reasoning behind restricting the exemption to institutions that primarily employ and serve coreligionists appears to be based on an essentially sectarian, and historically Protestant, understanding of “religion.” The Catholic Church, which understands its public presence to be vital to its identity and mission, should not be forced to abide by such restrictions.
Read the whole thing here.
I think you need to add a “like” button, like Facebook has. Great editorial!
Yes, job very well done! Sober yet strong
This is a characteristically measured editorial, and I am totally on board for everything that comes after the paragraph you quote here. My problem with this paragraph is: Is not the very notion of “religious exemption” in which the Church is seeking shelter “based on an essentially sectarian, and historically Protestant, understanding of ‘religion’?” You can’t simultaneously claim to be a “public religion” and opt out of your “public obligations.” You can engage in public debate over the specific obligations that are expected of those serving and employing the public or you can claim that they don’t apply to you as a privileged religious group, but you can’t do both.
I disagree with the conclusions of the editorial.
I see the Obama Administration as trying to balance the First Amendment’s dictum of not “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion with the demands of the constitutionally protected right to privacy and the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that all citizens enjoy “equal protection of the laws.”
In this case, those citizens are women who just happen to be employed in a Catholic hospital or university or service agency. Catholic “ministers” [i.e., priests, parish and diocesan workers] are exempted from the ACA Act.
What is wrong with that compromise? This arrangement the President is offering under the ACA Act is similar to ones that have been operative in 28 states for years. What has changed that so unnerves the hierarchs?
Besides, by standing firm President Obama has contributed to further reducing the need for abortions, therefore abortion itself, by insisting on reliable birth control services to all women- something that the hierarchs are incapable or unwilling to endorse.
You’d think that reducing abortions would be viewed by the hierarchs as the morally “greater good” especially since they lost the contraceptive argument with especially Catholic women decades ago. [And, Catholic women are not going back to pre-contraceptive days!]
I believe that this political gambit to push back against President Obama by the hierarchs is really a vain attempt to reassert their squandered and corrupted leadership in the Catholic community, and impress their Roman patroni at the same time. Most Catholics today find the hierarchs irrelevant and alienated from their lives.
While we’ll have to wait and see if the hierarchs play havoc with the president’s reelection chances, given this year’s freak show in the Republican primaries, chances are the hierarchs will not be successful. President Obama hasn’t gotten to where he is in life by not being able to count.
The hierarchs may be able to rally those fewer and fewer folks left in pews. However, most voters, and definitely most Catholics, stand with president on this issue.
I fear that the hierarchs will once again reinforce the impression among Catholics and the public alike that they are “all Chiefs, no Indians.”
Kudos and thanks.
” The hierarchs may be able to rally those fewer and fewer folks left in pews — ”
A very debatable bit of wishful thinking at best.
As a man I do not see why I should be expected to make life difficult for women who use contraceptives. The bishops have picked a horrible issue on which to take their stand. If you have to prove your Catholic loyalty by trampling on women and gays, then Catholicism begins to look unpleasantly like the Republican Party. I agree with the following: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/5655/four_catholic_men_v._obama/
Fr. O’Leary: When was the last time you set foot in the United States? What rights are being trampled? That Posner piece is unserious.
I think people have a right to health care (of which contraceptives and/or condoms are an essential element for, I would guess, the majority of people).
I think people have a right, if they so choose, to live with the person they love.
The latter right has limitations, to be sure, but as a general rule the “natural right to marriage” should be extended more generously than it has been.
Lots of “right”s and “should”s building up in our enlightened societies. Will those keep increasing as we wander forth into history? How many rights and shoulds do you imagine we’ll be gifted or burdened with in, say, five hundred years? I shudder to think. (It’s cold in here.)
I wondered how a Catholic University presents the fact that it provides student insurance that covers contraception. Checking the Fordham website, I found:
The insurance policy says (see page 19):
“Contraceptive Services Expense Benefit: The Insurer is required by law to offer this coverage and pay the Covered Percentage of the Covered Charges for Contraceptive Drugs and Devices. Such Drugs and Devices must be approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and prescribed legally by an authorized health care provider. Covered services are subject to applicable copayments under the Prescription Drug Benefit Plan. (Questions concerning these benefits should be addressed to the Insurer’s Third Party Administrator, Administrative Concepts, Inc.)
http://www.collegiateinsuranceresources.com/sip/plan_summary/booklets/860_plan_summary_booklet_2011-12.pdf
On the University Health services site they explain they follow Catholic teaching and will not write prescriptions for contraceptives (you have to go outside to find a private doctor)
“Neither contraceptives nor birth control are distributed or prescribed on premises as a standard practice. Student Health Services does make limited exceptions for the treatment of medical conditions accompanied by supporting documentation. There is a nominal charge for GYN exams, and associated laboratory fees are the responsibility of the student. Discounted rates are available if students do not have private insurance (please contact the office for a fee schedule).
For students enrolled in Fordham’s Optional Sickness Insurance Plan administered by Collegiated Insurance Resources, please see the section on “Contraceptive Services Expense Benefit”, pages 19-20, for information on coverage and deductibles (note: covered services are subject to applicable co-payments of $100 under the Prescription Drug Benefit Plan portion of the program). For general insurance questions on this coverage, please feel free to contact the broker at (800) 322-9901.
As an institiution in the Catholic, Jesuit tradition, Fordham University follows church teachings on reproductive issues. Additional Information on our mission can be obtained within the FAQ section of the Student Health Services website (Policy on Sexual Issues) and the link to the Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, also located within the FAQ section on the Student Health Services website.
http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/student_services/student_health_servi/medical_services_1524.asp
It did seem to me that Fordham has managed to get across that providing coverage for contraceptives doesn’t mean that it endorses their use. The FAQ referred to above goes into that in quite a lot of detail.
No doubt Big Pharma loves this too. Develop a pill that is not too expensive and then via decades of industry propaganda and adoring media coverage, not entirely unlike the old Virginia Slims commercials; “you’ve come a long way baby”, convince women not only that they need the pill in order to live free and happily, but that in fact they have a “right” to the drug. Finally, convince the federal government to consider this pill as an essential service and mandate that women can get them for free, that either their employer or the government will pay for them.
Good for business.
Let’s see; when something is provided free, do people use more or less of it?
The fact of the matter is that pregnancy is not an illness, and that non-contraceptive, therapeutic application of BC pills is minimal. Most women who use BC pills or IUDs do so not for therapeutic reason, but simply to avoid getting pregnant. If someone wants to avoid pregnancy i.e., if the pills are not for a therapeutic reason, they should pay for the pills, IUDs or condoms themselves.
I’m with Anthony, Lisa and Bill. Very well done.
I fervently hope that such good sense will echo far and wide. We need to move on. I fear that shrill culture warriors on both sides of this issue have exactly zero interest in nuance. Why would they want to let go? Inflamatory sound bites from this controversy can be played over and over…and raise huge sums of money all around.
“I think people have a right to health care (of which contraceptives and/or condoms are an essential element for, I would guess, the majority of people).”
And on what basis is an employer whose moral beliefs contradict that for whom you have chosen to work for is required to cover such things?
Many Catholics continue to see this as a second (or third? fourth?) front in the war against hierarchical domination; yet are ok with political domination – which is what this situation is really about.
The editorial is well-done.
How dare the Editors tell religious groups to violate their consciences (“under durress”) for an indefinite period of time while something might be worked out (when the administration refused for 6 months to listen to their pleas)? Don’t you see you are supplanting their consciences with yours? How can you claim to defend the right of anyone’s conscience? What happened to the liberal defense of the primacy of conscience? What right do you have to tell anyone, much less Church institutions, to obey a government mandate against their consceince? You don’t want to officially adopt the Bugyis’ begging-the-question view that religion means almost nothing anyway according to the secularist who gets to define what religion means, but there’s no other way for you to get to your conclusion of telling religious groups to violate THEIR consciences–you are deigning to tell them what their consciences should say. How dare you?
A sober and pointed editorial.
Ken’s remarks only underscore the difficulties of politiciizing the issue from a partisan perspective.
I think the Church’s policy makers have to some degree damaged themselvces already in that context.
I should have added Bob that the beauty of BC pills, from Big Pharma’s point of view anyway, is that they are a consumable item in that “patients” (users) need to take one pill each and every day.
In sales, volume is very important. Multiply one pill per day per person (take it out to the millions), and make the pills free to the users by forcing employers or the government to pay for them, and the just money rolls in.
Women are happy because to them the pills are “free”, Pharma and their shareholders are happy because profits are up. Pro-choice crowd is happy because it helps them fulfill old Margret Sanger’s twisted dreams, the government is happy because it gets to expand its powers. It goes without saying that hedonists like this sort of thing. Almost everyone is happy except those stubborn Catholics, but they are foolish because they listen to a Pope in Rome and sometimes babble in Latin and we all know what that means . . .
Nice.
“It did seem to me that Fordham has managed to get across that providing coverage for contraceptives doesn’t mean that it endorses their use. ”
I agree. Of course, I would like to see a much stronger ‘unendorsement’ :-), but there is a vetted-by-the-Legal-Dept reticence to what is presented on the site that probably is appropriate.
As an aside, it’s not clear to me that the HHS regulations apply to student plans, as presumably students are a different class than employees. What would be really interesting is to see how a university like Fordham complies with state mandates in its employee benefits, and how it’s presented.
First, I applaud your support on this, and thing that taking this position does demonstrate some courage.
After watching the success of Planned Parenthood supporters in getting results last week on the Komen decision by flooding the zone with outrage, leading people to believe that Komen was essentially sentencing millions of women to a terrible death by withdrawing its PP funding, I find it difficult to accept the advice that “adopting a more measured tone”
And I mean “I find it difficult” sincerely — I think this is my problem. I should probably be taking my cues from Jesus’s Passion and Death rather than the activities of the supporters of an organization I believe kills hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn children a year. And it is unlikely the media would be as willing an accomplice to cranked up outrage from Catholics over this as they were to PP supporters.
Still, it does seem that the success in opposing policies does not seem to be dependent on how measured then tone is of those opposing it, or even the accuracy of the claims being made.
That’s frustrating.
- This HHS ruling is an abortifacient mandate as well as a contraceptive mandate.
– The religious exemption is meaningless.
– Health Benefits? Contraceptive drugs carry risks of being carcinogenic. It’s one thing for Secretary Sebelius to champion the pill for what she sees as reasons of women’s freedom and autonomy, but she goes beyond that and claims that artificial contraceptives “have significant benefits for women’s health, as well as the health of their children”. No they don’t , and she must know that combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (COCs) are classified as “Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. The American Cancer Society website has published that list and BC pills rank alongside asbestos, coal tar, and benzene products.
Thanks for this editorial. It’s very well done.
For reference:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/GeneralInformationaboutCarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens
Ken — Please note that the Group 1 list to which you refer also includes sunlight and drinking alcohol, which you ignore. It is not meant to be a no-shopping list; understanding is required beyond reading the title if it is to be of credible value in evaluating combinations of benefit and hazard to humans.
Ken,
We’ve had the discussion about cancer before, and it is really pointless. The risk from oral contraceptives is small and well known. It is difficult to find a drug that does not have potentially serious risks. All you have to do is listen to television commercials for antidepressants, asthma drugs, and smoking-cessation drugs, and you know they all can kill you in one way or another (or what is even more disturbing in the case of antidepressants, cause you to kill yourself). Except in women who smoke, the risk of taking the pill is less than the risk of having a baby. The issue is religious liberty, not the health hazards of the pill.
“Group 1 list to which you refer also includes sunlight and drinking alcohol”
It seems to me we have no right to ignore evidence that is counter to our moral positions, and we have a moral duty not to misrepresent it to ourselves or others. Yes, it’s human nature to discount such evidence, but that doesn’t make it morally acceptable. And that “everybody does” it has never been an excuse.
Jack – Not sure if sunshine = solar radiation exactly, but you are correct about the list including alcohol. I did not “ignore” that; I gave the web-link with the complete listing so you or anyone else could review it. In any case we were not discussing alcohol.
The point is that BC pills do not, and the HHS secretary claims; “have significant benefits for women’s health, as well as the health of their children”. For the most part BC pills are not used as a treatment or therapy. They are mainly used to avoid pregnancy; not to make women healthier.
Now that you mention it though, the federal government does not provide access to free alcohol.
With this (and more) in mind, it is even less clear why should the federal government mandate that all American women have access to free BC pills.
David – I agree this is about freedom of religion, of conscience (sort of like freedom of choice isn’t it), and for Sebelius to try and say that oral contraceptives somehow improve women’s health is laughable – what a whopper!
Jim Pauwels said:
“As an aside, it’s not clear to me that the HHS regulations apply to student plans, as presumably students are a different class than employees. What would be really interesting is to see how a university like Fordham complies with state mandates in its employee benefits, and how it’s presented.”
Fordham was able to to explain it’s Catholic position because it has an in-house Health Service for students. It got to explain that even though it was doing what the state required by including coverage for contraception in its insurance, it’s medical staff wasn’t going to provide any services related to contraception.
I don’t know if they have any equivalent in-house Health Service for employees where thy could make similar statements. I didn’t find any full insurance policies on the employee side of the site and the only mention of contraception i saw was a $25 co-pay for a month’s supply of contraceptives for clerical employees.
I suppose any Catholic Hospital would be able to take the same approach with employees that Fordham takes with students – “Because the government requires it, we cover contraceptives under your insurance, but you’ll have to find a private doctor to write a prescription for them because this is a Catholic Hospital and our doctors don’t do that”.
It is one thing for folks to want BC pills and other contraceptives, or even to abort their babies. It is quite another matter when those same people are so cheap that they want someone else to foot the bill, to pay for their BC pills, morning after pills or other contraceptives, and for their abortions.
It is one thing for society to tolerate the nonsense (at best) and moral nightmare (at worst) that most artificial birth control amounts to; quite another when the recipients of contraceptives pills, devices and procedures arrive at the point where they refuse to pay for the products or “services” themselves.
Not only do some want extreme liberty when it comes to contraception, aborifacients, and abortion (some no doubt still think they have a “right” to have partial birth abortions), but now they want all that stuff for free; they want the taxpayer to pay for it, they want me to buy it for them.
Wow – some Libertines are real tightwads – Whew!
I just want to add that the reports I’ve reda on Komen were that the funds withdrawn were targeted for breast cancer screening for poor women.
How that sends women to their death is beyond me and is IMO another example of political canards; similarly reports of bein g”chiled” by the happenings there.
Handel was a major GOPer there and sources say she pushed thePP cutoff.
Some big GOP names remain there, but the lesson IMO was how partisan politics can ruin a good mesage.
Ken, the “abortifacient” usage reflects a difference between the FDA and the Church on the definition of “abortion.”. For the FDA, an “abortion” is something that happens after implantation; for the Church, an “abortion” happens anytime after fertilization.
Both agree that some contraceptives do, and others may, prevent implantation. They don’t agree on whether preventing implantation constitutes an abortion.
Bob,
I will amend myself to say that the response to the Komen decision by PP supporters was not characterized by measured rhetoric or a firm commitment to factual accuracy.
It’s not encouraging that Richard Doerflinger is now speaking for the bishops. In the Affordable Health Care Act negotiations He always seemed to come up with yet more-convoluted reasons why whatever was proposed was unacceptable.
“a key official in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says the Hawaii bill — repeatedly cited in media commentary — would not resolve the conference’s concerns and would, in any case, be overridden by the federal rule.
“I’ve reviewed the Hawaii law, and it’s not much of a compromise,” said Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities and the bishops’ chief lobbyist on life issues in the nation’s capital. “The Hawaii contraceptive mandate has many of the same features as the new federal mandate.”
Like the federal rule, he said, the Hawaii bill “covers all FDA-approved ‘contraceptives’ (including drugs that can cause an abortion); and the religious exemption is very narrow (though it does not include the requirement that the religious organization serve only people of its own faith to be eligible).
“It adds an extra feature — the requirement that any religious organization that is exempt must still tell all enrollees how they may directly access contraceptive services and supplies in an expeditious manner.”
In other words, the Catholic Church must directly send women to drugs and devices that are morally wrong and can do harm to them.”
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-bishops-spokesman-hawaii-bill-not-much-of-a-compromise-to-fix-
As I understand it, the interest in the Hawaii bill has been that it allows an employer with religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage to exclude it, as long as individual employees can buy a rider from the employer’s insurance company to add that coverage with their own money. It’s not clear to me from the Hawaii language (“pro-rata share”) whether the employer indirectly subsidizes that price to the employee.
Based on his objections to the abortion insurance issue in the original Affordable Healthcare Act, Doerflinger will probably point out that if the employer is subsidizing the price of the employee’s rider that is not acceptable (in his view).
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-bishops-spokesman-hawaii-bill-not-much-of-a-compromise-to-fix-contrace/#ixzz1lowjcptI
Re the first paragraph of the latest commonweal editorial on this issue:
It might be useful to recall thatthere has been a long history in the Christian West concerning the relationships between the religious powers (popes and bishops) and the secular powers. Late in the %th century Pope Gelasius talked about the “two swords.” Tensions between the religious authorities and the secular authorities have recurred in many ways ever since.
Think Pope Boniface VIII, Charlemagne, the Reformation era, the papal states, etc.
These two powers have different goals or ends, but the people are subject to both of them in some important respects.
Whether there is any theoretical way to resolve the tensions between these two powers, the historical record show no end of practical problems between them. When dealt with constructively, the tensions are managed rather than resulting in the “triumph” of one side or the other.The Constitutional history of the two clauses of the first amendment reflect this practical tension.
For the common good, both authorities, the religious and the secular need to acknowledge the tensions and avoid trying to “have the last word,” to “prevail over against the other.”
I agree with the editorial because it reflects the reality of this tension and the importance of managing it instead of trying somehow to “win.”
The editorial urges the bishops to protest the HHS ruling vigorously. At the same time they are sternly warned to avoid pitfalls, at least six by my count, into which the editorialist fears the hapless bishops will stumble. The editorial reminds me of signs in some NYC parks which list say 22 disallowed activities in detail, none of which, however, are to prevent one from thoroughly enjoying a day in the park. So, bishops (and laity and non-Catholics too?), vigorously behave yourself or the ever-watchful gotcha exegetes will sadly have to expose your failings to the anxiously waiting world.
The editorial also calls to mind the forceful condemnation of Joe Biden. The lovable, scrappy kid from Scranton, famously proclaimed: ”If I’m the nominee, Republicans will be sorry. The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat. I am so sick and tired of this pontificating about us not being the party of faith.” He was severely reproached but I can’t seem to locate the sage words about this incident from the Commonweal watchman.
John – You can stand around and try to refine your definition of abortion all day; many scholars had long and interesting discussions about just how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. But that dodges a key point; since non-therapeutic use of BC pills and abortifacients on balance do not make women healthier, why then should we all have to pay for them?
These are not antibiotics, insulin, or polio vaccines; most often BC pills and abortifacients are not used to treat any illness.
Why should these drugs, which are mainly non-therapeutic drugs, be covered by any health insurance plan, let alone allowing federal bureaucrats dictate that all of us pay for them?
Hmm. Methinks the Hawaii plan has the potential to split progressive and conservative Catholics, who thus far have unexpectedly managed a front of mutual solidarity, or at least slush-idarity.
Therefore, here is the way I predict this scenario will play out: CHA and many universities will signal that they will settle for the Hawaii plan, and in a statesmanlike and shrewd bow of acquiescence, the President will order Secretary Sebelius to modify the regulations accordingly. The bishops will protest that this is insufficient, but the political game will effectively be over.
The denouement will feature several rounds of intra-church recriminations by church conservatives, who will wonder publicly whether universities and hospitals who settled for this half a loaf really are Catholic anymore.
Incidentally, it’s not clear that Doerflinger’s objection is far-fetched. Is a referral to a bad thing bad worse, better or the same as paying for the bad thing? I’m not sure. I guess it’s less bad than paying for it, because the person being referred needn’t act on the referral. (As I’ve stated previously, I doubt many women in the US don’t know where to get birth control without their employer’s help).
Also: the NC Register story states that there are issues with morally illicit referrals in Sebelius’ existing mandate, but I don’t think it spells out what they are? Anyone know?
Ken,
“abortion”, “abortifacient” and “health” are all terms that people define differently.
If you and your neighbor are arguing about whether a shape is a hexagon, you can waste a lot of time if one of you believes a hexagon has five sides and the other believes it has seven sides.
You’ll make more progress if you either agree on a definition or agree just to call it a polygon
Or “that shape with six sides”
Jim P.
Ah — that would get us to ACA debate 2.0. A victory for Obama, deeper rifts in the Body of Christ.
It does seem more likely that President Obama and his team is smart enough to play out this whole scenario than tone deaf enough to implement this without anticipating the reaction.
And then we’ll probably get it again until it stops working.
I hope you’re wrong.
Here’s the Hawaii Health Plan.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session1999/acts/Act267_sb822.htm
I think the important point about it is selling a separate rider to each employee who wants contraception coverage.
There are other things in it that you could spend a long time arguing about, but it’s possible to take the rider idea without copying the whole deal.
Some of the things you would probably want to change are :
- the definition of “religious employer” – “For the purpose of this definition, any educational, health care, or other non-profit institution or organization owned or controlled by the religious employer is included in this exemption” Not all Catholic hospitals and universities are “owned or controlled” by an entity that would meet the Hawaii definition of a “religious employer.”
- the requirement that even if elective contraceptives are excluded, the employer must still cover contraceptives that are medically necessary. The description includes “contraception that is necessary to preserve the life or health of an enrollee”. The definition of “health” has always been a stumbling block in regulations concerning abortion because it can include mental health, social issues, etc.
- The amount the employee must pay for the rider and whether it is being subsidized by the employer in the pricing of the main policy. Any amount the employee pays is more than the “no deductible, no-copay” in the HHS regulation.
All these issues would be solvable if both sides were determined to arrive at a compromise – but they also can be used to make any agreement impossible if one side wants to do that.
Jake Tapper on ABC News:
“Obama administration officials say that insurance company officials say it’s actually cheaper to provide women with birth control than not – because of unintended pregnancies and complications. Meaning: insurance companies may want to help find a compromise here because it can help their bottom line.
In economics there may be a solution.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-signals-willingness-to-compromise-on-contraception-controversy/
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT (see my preceding “Jake Tapper” post where he reports that it costs the insurance company less overall if they provide contraception).
1. If insurance companies offered to provide insurance including contraception cover at no additional cost, would the bishops accept that ? My guess is “no”, even though they would have to reframe their objection because they would no longer be paying (extra) for people’s immoral meds or devices.
2. If insurance companies offered to sell individual riders for a penny a year so employees were paying at least a symbolic amount to add contraception coverage, would the bishops accept that?
Possibly, but they might push for a larger payment for the rider – as they did for elective abortion services included in government subsidized policies provided under the AHCA (basically, that says that, in calculating the add-on separate premium, you can’t take any credit for amounts you would otherwise have spent for a normal pregnancy and delivery).
“many scholars had long and interesting discussions about just how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. ”
Some seculars have been trying to find even ONE instance of this silly question ever having been discussed by philosophers. I read on one of the philosophy sites just last week that they still haven’t found one.
Catholic universities are putting their students’ health at risk in hypocritical subservience to a papal document that the vast majority of Catholics see as a dead letter. Catholic parents might be advised to send their children to more responsible universites.
David Smith, you worry about the accumulation of “rights” but rather than a quantitative accumulation we are seeing a qualititative deepening. There were many more rights around in the 18th century — the rights of the King and the nobility. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a simple and luminous document when compared with the vast tissue of privileges woven in the past.
The right to health care is advocated by the Vatican, I think, and the “natural right to marriage” is basic in Vatican teaching (I got the phrase from Pius XI).
Fairly good editorial, but it would be refreshing if it concluded not as it does, but by defending the merits of the Church’s teaching, akin to what these guys wrote for a secular website. http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2
Is it an allusion to Thomas’ discussion of whether several angels can be in the same place at the same time?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm
Sorry, forgot to say that was in response to Ann Olivier
John Hayes –
Maybe Thomas’ question gave rise to the silly question, both being concerned with the presence of angels in space. But the silly question is specifically about angels dancing — it assumes that they have bodies, which by definition of “angel” is nonsense to start with.
Thomas’ question is, I would say, a very important one, considering as it does the question of the presence of a non-material being in space, specifically a presence in *more than one place* at a time. This is quite a contemporary issue — I mean the possibility of a *anything* being in more than one place at once. One of the newer physics theories (John Bell’s?) says that certain sub=atomic particles can be present both here and at the outer reaches of the cosmos at the same time. This is, of course, controversial among the physicists.
The issue is also important in the question of the nature of human consciousness. Consciousness seems to be present *to* if perhaps not *in* all parts of our bodies. We suffer, for instance, pain in both our feet and head simultaneously, which seems to be a matter of consciousness being present in both feet and head == two places — at the same times. The neurophysiologists who try to reduce all reality to material reality (“consciousness is the brain”) have a hard time explaining this. It is, of course, evidence for the non-materiality of our consciousnesses. It’s a raging philosophical problem at the moment, with John Searle trying to avoid saying that consciousness is just a brain
Catholic men, who of course would never use contraceptives, are feeling punched in the nose by Obama. But I am sure Catholic women will feel the punch more keenly. Not to mention those in the Philippines: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/churchs-ban-contraception-starves-families-and-damages-ecosystem