The Picture of Opposition to the Mandate
This photo of the US House Oversight and Government Reform hearings yesterday is making the rounds of the social media these days, summing up for many the truth of the anti-mandate crowd:
This from HuffPo:
The morning panel at the hearing consisted exclusively of men from conservative religious organizations.
“What I want to know is, where are the women?” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked [Chairman Darrell] Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. “I look at this panel, and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?”
10 witnesses testified in all–few women, and none in favor of the Obama administration’s stance. One proposed Democratic witness, Sandra Fluke, a third year Georgetown U. law student, was not allowed to testify because she was going to speak about the consequences to women of denying contraceptive coverage.
The Democrats have started a petition asking where the women are. Have the bishops noticed the dearth of women’s voices against the mandate? Will they object to the dearth of women’s voices at the hearings? Waiting…Waiting…
Just like Commonweal.
You, Lisa, have been the only woman among the few women contributors to the mostly male site to open threads on the anti-contraception crusade.
All the other threads have been by men, and most of the comments are by men. (47 out of 50 in Grant’s latest.)
I wonder if any young women are shocked by this demonstration of solidarity.
I found I interesting that Issa said that the reason Sandra Fluke wasn’t allowed to speak was that he issue was not about contraception but religious freedom
Thinking that men have no vested interest in contraception is like thinking foxes have no vested interest in the key to the hen house. It’s like thinking competitive swimmers have no vested interest in the all-you-can-eat salad bar. It’s like thinking that CEOs have no vested interest in offshore accounts.
Sandra Fluke’s prepared testimony, not delivered, is at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81978568/Testimony-Sandra-Fluke
most of the comments are by men
_________
That’s right. The men need to just shut up . . . and pay up. They need to open their wallets, not their mouths.
” That’s right. The men need to just shut up . . . and pay up. They need to open their wallets, not their mouths. ”
By golly, there’s hope for you yet!
They need to open their hearts, Bender.
Is this post meant to embarrass women as a gender for failing to take a stand in favor of religious liberty? That’s not very nice. In fact, there are plenty of women on the pro-liberty side of this issue:
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Garvey-Glendon-George-Snead-Levin-stmt-Feb-11-2012.pdf
Jean Bethke Elshtain (Chicago)
Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard)
Amy Barrett (Notre Dame Law)
Jacqueline Nolan-Haley (Fordham)
Helen Alvare (George Mason)
Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith (President, Aquinas College)
“Thinking that men have no vested interest in contraception is like thinking foxes have no vested interest in the key to the hen house. It’s like thinking competitive swimmers have no vested interest in the all-you-can-eat salad bar. It’s like thinking that CEOs have no vested interest in offshore accounts.”
Foxes, hens, offshore accounts–theft, violation, predation, sordid monetary exchanges! Yes, those are all things I think of when I think about contraception, though swimming and salad bars rarely comes to mind …
Back to topic from that strange interlude:
As I see it, this situation isn’t about men or women’s interests or feelings about contraception, or about how many men or women of a certain type are represented in discussions about it. This is a purely legal question about whether the state has the right to require the Church to offer contraception coverage to Church employees through its health insurance policies.
Vixens and roosters, foxes and hens,
How many bishops are dancing on pins?
Cheap shot.
The missing women? Here are two of them.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/02/the-women-that-testified-to-congress-that-planned-parenthood-missed.html
Gerelyn: Please, send women our way. In the meantime, quit implying that the magazine is misogynistic. It’s a baseless smear.
@ Frank: like I said–few women, no one in favor of the Administration’s policy.
On another thread I mused about what the “reverse scandal” of this situation is. The widespread re-posting of this photo tells part of the tale–it makes the GOP look hostile or at best indifferent to women’s interests. The USCCB should be careful how this all looks to Catholic women, if they value their continued presence in the Church.
Who testified at the hearing in support of the HHS regulations?
Grant, I didn’t listen to the all-male panel. If I had known they would be testifying (another masculine word) about foxes and hens, I would have.
It’s like Our Gang. No grils aloud. Bros before ___.
(As to “implying that the magazine is misogynistic”? It’s a baseless smear to accuse me of doing that. A magazine that was guided through its best years by the great Margaret O’Brien Steinfels is hardly misogynistic.)
I don’t think Gerelyn had baselessly smeared Commonweal in general on women’s issue, but she has a point on this one concerning the mandate.
I think it’s important for the church to give faithful women forums to testify to their faith and fidelity to church teaching. Among the many good things to come from such an openness would be to dispel the misimpression that women are any more monolithic than, say, Catholics or African Americans.
Jean, you might be interested in your state legislature’s opposition to the mandate: http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/577139
Jim P. ==
How do you identify a “faithful woman” when you find one?
Jim P – PLEASE read the Georgetown Law student’s statement she could not give to the House Committee.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81978568/Testimony-Sandra-Fluke
The idea that birth control meds are freely available at an affordable cost is not true, period.
Also, the Georgetown student who was denied bc for medical reasons despite notes from her doctor — the univ thought she might be lying — and then ended up in emergency surgery that compromises her ability to have children should have a tremendous lawsuit to file against Georgetown.
I hope she considers it, and nails their liability with a large settlement. There’s nothing like money damages to wake up hierarchy fast, a major lesson of the abuse scandal.
In the 60′s we had Cardinal Suenens who made sure women were invited to the Council. And there was an extraordinary quality amont the first ones invited. As daunting as they saw their task they would be surprised that the bishops would still be holding on to Ottaviani’s position 55 years later.
Just for the record, Bill, John, David, David, etc., I’m a woman. So…
Bill M. —
Patty Crowley d. Nov 23, 2005
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_20_29/ai_n15977467/
Imagine the courage it took in the 1960s — not only for her to go to the Commission — but for a cardinal to invite a woman to attend. Is there a cardinal that brave around today?
Please stop trying to claim that you speak for all Catholic women, Lisa. You do not represent them and your reframing of the issue away from religious liberty violations by the current administration is a dead give away for your bias. I have many YOUNG Catholic female friends who are against the Obama’s mandate.
And, as Stuart said, there are plenty of female Catholic leaders who are against this government over-reach and social/theological engineering:
Jean Bethke Elshtain (Chicago)
Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard)
Amy Barrett (Notre Dame Law)
Jacqueline Nolan-Haley (Fordham)
Helen Alvare (George Mason)
Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith (President, Aquinas College)
The Cardinal Newman Society complains that when John Garvey testified that Catholic Colleges couldn’t provide contraception coverage, one of the committee members produced a list of Catholic Colleges that do. The article is worth reading. It includes the list and CNS hope that the bishop’s will crack down on the colleges
John Hayes: Toward the end of the article, the author makes it sound as though the various state mandates came into existence without any legal challenges. However, other articles I’ve read have reported that lawsuits were brought against the state mandate in different states, or at least in some of them. In each lawsuit, the state mandate was upheld.
I would like to see a schematic chart regarding state mandates of contraception coverage, including the names of the states that have such mandates, the year in which each state legislator passed the mandate, relevant exemptions, and information about lawsuits filed in each state against the contraception mandate.
Perhaps the editors of COMMONWEAL should compile such a chart and publish it in the print edition and also make it available on the website.
Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett and Dr. Laura Champion are women.
Dr. Garrett’s interventions concern the mandate forcing her (Protestant) college to pay for abortifacients. She argues that cooperation is mandated even under the revision, as arrangements–sharing of plan dates of coverage, for example–is necessary for the system to work.
This is interesting. So far the Catholic response has taken the mandate as a whole to be objectionable, and of course it is, because the use of artificial birth control is not something that we as Catholics can participate in. For other Christians who do not object to birth control, the problem is focused on the abortifacient drugs. Catholics haven’t separated this problem out as much, because we reject all of the anti-life aspects, including both birth control and abortifacients. So the cooperation with abortion hasn’t been emphasized as much by us.
In her testimony, Dr. Champion of Calvin College, a medical doctor, echoes these concerns about abortifacients, and adds “The government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, should not force people to violate their conscience.”
http://youtu.be/uj1l8suFE68
Thomas Farrell, here is a chart of the states that require employer health insurance to cover contraception:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
The Califonia and New York laws were appealed to the Supreme Court which refused to hear the appeals.
Here is a similar chart of states that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/emergency-contraception-state-laws.aspx
I’m bemused that all on the right who usually cry out in the media for ‘balance” son’t want it here.
On the mandate, Gerelyn has repeatedly implied that those of us who opposed the original version did so for dark motives.
“The men writing on the blogs of once-liberal Catholic periodicals are revealing a lot about themselves.”
“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.”
What else could “just like Commonweal” mean if not just like these guys Lisa points to who don’t really want to hear what women think about this issue?
That is not true of the magazine. Just last year, how many thousands of words did we run criticizing the USCCB Committee on Doctrine for its ugly attack on Beth Johnson? Gerelyn implies the male writers act in “solidarity,” which is a lie.
I understand why this issue is so neuralgic. But it does not serve anyone to spray indiscriminate accusations of sexism–especially at people who are sincerely interested in, and have worked to expand the voices of women writers in Catholic publishing.
Of course you are right, Grant. Gerelyn has a knack for this sort of jab. It’s ludicrous and I wouldn’t take it seriously. Doubtless no one else does.
@Kathy, If I understand you correctly, we might agree here. The question of cooperation always considers whether there is proportionate cause for cooperating. Abortion and contraception are thought to be different kinds of acts by almost everybody. Evangelicals oppose abortion, but most embrace contraception as preventing abortions, e.g. Catholic magisterial teaching leaves no difference in gravity between the two, which, given contemporary biology, is silly. (it made more sense back when people thought thesperm was the entirety of the baby, needing only nutrients to grow from the mother.) Indeed, if you look up the canonical penalties for abortion, there are so many reasons listed that diminish the gravity of the act that it almost seems like there’s more flexibility there than in cases of contraception. If the bishops had chosen to make their public stand against abortion, the moral calculus vis a vis cooperation should be different. They chose to do this about contraception, leaving them at odds with a huge majority of Americans, and American Catholics too.
Lord, Kathy, we agree twice in the space of 10 minutes! Of course there are many men, here and elsewhere, who stand with and for women. And women are not monolithic. But on the question of contraception, women’s thoughts are both largely in favor of contraception and see it as more important than many men do. For example, speaking of contraception as if it were trivial, likea ham sandwich or a cup of coffee, is profoundly offensive to many women. Does Bishop Lori, he of the sandwich reference, even know that?
Lisa, I couldn’t disagree with you more strongly. (Sorry, it would be nice to be on the same side, but we aren’t, except re: Gerelyn’s silliness.) Contraception is not trivial, not in Catholic moral theology. Nor are the dietary laws of any religion, and I doubt our “elder brothers in the faith” would like your characterization of their religious practices as “a ham sandwich.” And the gravity of the evil is not even the most important issue here. The issue is whether the state can force any religion to disregard one jot or tittle, in favor of its policies, its secularist agenda, and its alliances with aggressive special interests.
Dr. Champion is responsible for signing off on the student health insurance plan. The federal government of the United States of AMERICA, for crying out loud, would compel her to sign and order something that her religious beliefs forbid. The First Amendment protects her from having to do that.
John Hayes: Thanks for those two links. The listing at each is helpful and informative.
However, I am really looking for further information than each of those two listings provides.
I would like to know about lawsuits that were brought against the legislation in each state.
I’ve read articles in which lawsuits were mentioned in connection with two states. In those two states, the courts upheld the state legislation.
So in how many other states were lawsuits brought against the state legislation? And did the courts uphold the state legislation?
The ham sandwich example was Bishop Lori’s, not mine. If you want to accuse someone of anti-semitism for such a remark, go talk to him. And the state does, in fact, interfere with the practice of religion in any number of instances. We do not permit peyote or marijuana use on religious grounds. We take children away from parents who will not get them medical care, and we jail them if the state acts too late and the kids die. Peyote smokers, Rastafarians and JW’s have gone to jail for their beliefs, rather than violate conscience.
Bt sorry to disappoint you, but we did agree. I stated that catholic magisterial teaching thinks abortion and contraception are equally grave. I pointed then to the high proportion of people of good will who do not find that convincing.
On the mandate, Gerelyn has repeatedly implied that those of us who opposed the original version did so for dark motives.
“The men writing on the blogs of once-liberal Catholic periodicals are revealing a lot about themselves.”
Hi, Grant: Still not sure why you object to the obvious point I made about how you and the men on the other once-liberal Catholic periodicals are revealing a LOT about yourselves. I said nothing about “dark motives”. If what you’ve said is what you believe, which I think it is, then why is it “neuralgic” to notice that? Why aren’t you PROUD of it? Proud to take your place with the bishops at the “barricades”?
“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.”
True. Pretending that it’s about religious freedom, Nativism, etc., etc., etc., etc., instead of about birth control and controlling women is dishonest, imho. I think the editors of the no-longer-relevant periodicals are eager to protect their sources in the hierarchy, maybe eager to score some brownie points, and this is an easy way to do it.
What else could “just like Commonweal” mean if not just like these guys Lisa points to who don’t really want to hear what women think about this issue?
Not sure why you try to read more into what I said than what is there. I meant the picture of the all-male panel was just like dotCommonweal, where nearly all of the many threads on the issue are started by men, and nearly all of the many comments are posted by men. Anyone who can count can see that for HIMself. Why does it bother you to have the obvious pointed out? Why do you want/expect agreement from everyone? Don’t the many comments in support of your position satisfy you?
That is not true of the magazine. Just last year, how many thousands of words did we run criticizing the USCCB Committee on Doctrine for its ugly attack on Beth Johnson? Gerelyn implies the male writers act in “solidarity,” which is a lie.
I don’t read the magazine, Grant. (That’s not a lie.) How many of those “thousands of words” were by women?
I understand why this issue is so neuralgic. But it does not serve anyone to spray indiscriminate accusations of sexism–especially at people who are sincerely interested in, and have worked to expand the voices of women writers in Catholic publishing.
What percentage of articles in a typical issue are by women, and what percentage by men? (Just curious.) How many books reviewed are by women, and how many are by men? How many reviewers are women, and how many are men? (Etc.) How many contributors to dotCommonweal are men, and how many are women?
(I never see any nuns, e.g., posting here. Why is that? Have you invited them to contribute?)
See? Just jabbing.
I think that Gerelyn is raising good points.
I don’t know what’s more disappointing, Gerelyn, that you feel so free to denigrate a magazine you don’t even read, or that you think the best way to expand the voice of women is to impugn the motives of men who support that aim. (Please stop pretending that when you say we men who disagreed with the original mandate — have you even kept up with my analysis of the proposed revision? — are revealing a lot about ourselves that you are not implying that what’s revealed is an anti-woman bias.)
If you really think we’re irrelevant, then why do you spend so much time here?
Lisa, we do disagree. Not about the facts, granted, but about how to respond to them. For me, if the fact is that Catholic moral tradition holds contraception to be evil, then it is. It’s not silly. That’s where we disagree.
Lori’s example is apt on so many levels. First, it’s not at all clear how much scope the health care legislation affords the executive branch. That this drastic overreach is somehow allowed by the legislation is really scary. The HHS already inspects children’s school lunches and overrides parents’ wishes without notification or consent http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002313727
What’s next? Why couldn’t the next unilateral executive decision involve forcing delis to offer the full range of recommended foods? Secondly, the dietary laws don’t seem, to anyone else, to make much sense. And plenty of Jewish persons ignore them. But in a free society, we still cannot compel disobedience with them by law, because of the First Amendment. Thirdly, although I apologize for my second Godwin’s Law alert within a week, I would think he chose specifically Jewish dietary laws (not Muslim or Hindu but Jewish) for a very good reason having to do with our collective societal memory. Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
This is an interesting opinion.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291309/kulturkampf-public-health-rich-lowry
Contraception is not trivial, not in Catholic moral theology. Nor are the dietary laws of any religion, and I doubt our “elder brothers in the faith” would like your characterization of their religious practices as “a ham sandwich.”
Kathy,
I agree with your comment, and I think Bishop Lori’s testimony was an embarrassment.
Thanks, Thomas. Thanks, Alan.
—–
Grant, I spend time here for the same reason I spend time at joshreads.com. Among the chaff are some tasty bits of wheat.
David,
Lori’s example did not trivialize anything. Religious observance often comes down to the most ordinary things of life. For an observant Jew, a ham sandwich isn’t just a ham sandwich. For most of humanity sex is not just sex. That’s the whole problem of communicating about this in public. The secular powers that be do not (perhaps will not, but who can say?) see the whole of existence as permeated with divine light.
Kathy,
You seem to have changed your tune very fast over ham sandwich analogies.
By the way, when there was a draft, I am pretty sure Orthodox Jews were not exempt, and they were expected to eat non-kosher food in the military. It is only very recently that the military has begun to provide kosher food to Jewish soldiers.
Ok, so I’m confused. Lisa Fullam makes a dismissive “ham sandwich” reference to the Jewish practice of eating kosher. Bishop Lori shows his respect for the practice by analogizing it with what he considers to be important Catholic teaching. Only in la la land (and on this blog?), would the good Bishop be considered the bad guy.
Gerelyn, do you consider him the bad guy?
Mark Silk points out that Bishop Lori’s analogy doesn’t function as he thinks it does: http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/mark-silk/loris-kosher-deli
David and Lisa,
Apparently my first note on the ham sandwich was not well-expressed. I’m singing the same tune. I think respecting the Jewish dietary laws is essential. I don’t think they’re trivial, and I don’t think comparing contraception to a ham sandwich trivializes contraception. I thought (could be wrong) that Lisa claimed that comparing contraception to “a ham sandwich” trivializes contraception. From my p.o.v., ham sandwiches are important to Jews, and life issues (all of them) are important to Catholics. The right to observe both is and ought to be protected by law.
Hi, Mark:
I didn’t watch the all-male panel.
But I read Simon Schama’s beautiful article, “Matzo Ball Memories” in the Financial Times this morning.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/80598e76-572d-11e1-be25-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ml2EWQfq
(It might be subscription only.)
I turned off the t.v. when the white male who seemed to be running the show did a little schtick about the rabbi’s name. Awk.
Mark Silk works hard to miss Bishop Lori’s point, but I give him credit: He does succeed.. The Bishop’s point is that if the government can force a Catholic to act against his religious beliefs there’s nothing to stop it from forcing a Jew to act against his.
Come on, Gerelyn, there must be some instances when you enjoy watching just males. Didn’t you enjoy the Super Bowl this year? If 2 male cops came to protect you from an intruder, would you tell them to go back to the station house and send a female cop?
Kathy ==
You say a government shouldn’t force someone to act against his/her conscience. This absolute statement has not been the teaching of the Church. TThe Church has taught that here are times when, for instance, to preserve the existence of the state consciences must be violated to some extent. When the alternative to violataing conscience would be the chaos of anarchy, then we must violate conscience. (Anyway, that is what I was taught. I don’t know what JP II was being taught in Poland)
Determining when exceptions to the general rule should be made is not easy, and we need to recognie that opinions can vary honorably. This, of course, goes against the tribalists in the Catholic Church who alaways want clear cut enswers from their elders. But the Church has never promised us such answers except under tribalist popes and hierarchs. Unfortunately, Cardinal Dolan (I expect he is a cardinal now :-) seems to be something of a tribalist and, instead of reviewing the problem using the traditional concepts of the Church is looking at the world with just one eye.
Pope Benedict is passionate about his new program to re=evajgelize the world. Would that he emphasized programs like his own Courts of the Gentiles in which there will apparently be real dialogue about current moral problems. — abut those dialogues will be with the unchurched. Unfortunately, his assumption seems to be that if the priests will only preach the Old News to the faithful and former faithful with conviction and enthusiasm in contemporary language then that will be enough to re-convert those who have drifted away from the Church.
But few people will listen to the priests unless they dialogue about the solutions to the moral problems which ordinary people meet everyday. I mean the sort of stuff we argue about on the blogs. That means listening to ordinary people as well as to the theologians who already seem to understand the problems of ordinary people. Yes, Rome must listen carefully to the dissident theologians and even change as necessary. Yes, change. (Is that really so terribly scary? Why?) Until the Church can meet new problems such as contraception head on there is no reason to think this re=evangelization is going to work. And Cardinal Dolan is going to be a very disappointed man.
Christ answered the peoples’ questions. Rome doesn’t. The saddes thing is that this “re-evangelization” might do more harm than good.
Taking a hint from the opening of Ann Olivier’s latest message, I would urge Lisa or Grant to start a new thread about the fine article at the website of AMERICA magazine: “A Balancing Act” by David Hollenbach and Thomas A. Shannon.
Even though Hollenbach and Shannon are men, Gerelyn, they do not stand in solidarity with the Catholic bishops regarding the contraception mandate.
Bishop Lori is infamous for banning Catholic VOTF from meeting on any of HIS property. Protestant churches, the people who gave you, I, and everyone else the idea of religious liberty gave VOTF a meeting space.
It’s been noted w/o denial that bishops before ordination have to specifically promise that they will forever hold fast against women’s ordination and uphold the BC ban. Would that their promises to dead popes instead would be that they would hold fast on condemning preemptive war[ in 6 weeks?]and always uphold a preferential option for the poor. no chance of that..
“Jean, you might be interested in your state legislature’s opposition to the mandate.”
Thanks, Big Sister Kathy! I sure am lucky to have you tell me how things are going in my state, seeing as how I’m usually out in the henhouse swimming through the salad bar with the offshore CEOs.
I have been all over this here blog opposing the government’s mandate on grounds of conscience, though I disagree with the Church’s teaching on birth control.
I don’t see the mandate (or ensuing accommodation) as the forum by which teaching against contraception gets changed. That only gets changed when the bishops and the pope are middle-aged women faced with trying to live up to their own teachings. And I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
Gerelyn says she doesn’t read Commonweal. Now I know not to pay any attention to her.
Bye, Gerelyn
Thanks, Thomas. Good article. (Good comments beneath, too, including yours.)
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13262&comments=1#readerscomments
I think the charade that it’s about religious liberty, etc., is meant to bamboozle the credulous (and the clueless about American Catholic history) into voting for Santorum.
Here’s two more weighing in:
Dr. Stephen Schneck of the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: http://catholicsinalliance.org/cgf21512schneck.php
and
Anthony M Stevens-Arroyo, writing in the WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/catholic-america/post/the-theology-of-birth-control-politics/2012/02/17/gIQA3UMHKR_blog.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1
Stevens-Arroyo’s conclusion is too good not to quote: “Choosing the theology of the pope and Doctors of the Church about such political matters is something the USCCB should seriously consider.” Yup. Absolutely.
Grant, thanks for the link to Mark Silk’s article. He points out accurately the owner of the kosher deli wouldn’t have any hesitation in giving his employees lunch vouchers that they could use for anything – including ham sandwiches from the Irish pub next door.
Requiring that ham sandwiches (or milk for that matter) be served in every restaurant would, while possible, create a lot of logistical problems for the owner of a kosher restaurant and I would recommend exempting kosher restaurants from that requirement – just as, for a more specifically religious reason, Catholic hospitals, doctors and nurses are exempted from performing abortions.
I agree with Silk that Bp. Lori’s analogy is bad enough “to make David Tracy wish he were a Protestant”
Tangential, but not irrelevant:
The new (Feb. 27) issue of “Time” has a striking article on medical advances in the prenatal detection of Down syndrome. This is an important piece that may well foreshadow huge problem. I quote only a fragment here:
“If prenatal screening continues to reduce [Iadd: through abortions] the size of the Down population, will policy makers decide they simply can’t afford expensive programs that fewer and fewer people will ever need? ‘It’s a scalable issue,’ says Ruth Faden, director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University. ‘But it’s ethically wrong to fail to attend to the needs of these children.’ As with so many other situations in which morals, medicine and emotion collide, there are no easy–or painless– answers.”
I take it that all of us agree that abortions are wrong. If civil society decides not to provide the assistance that families with Down children need, I take it that we as Christians have a duty to do everything we can to make sure that they get the help they need.
Obviously this would be a huge pastoral, practical challenge. At my age, it’s unlikely that I will have much to say or do about this matter, but I think that all of us, bishops, moral theologians, and the rest of us would do well to start thinking this complicated matter through. Just calling for making abortion illegal won’t do.
I always find it rich that, whenever an actual financial supporter of the blog calls out a crank nonpayer (Kathy, Gerelyn, Bender, Studebaker, et. al.), he’s accused to only wanting the blog to “preach to the choir.”
Sorry, but there’s a difference between cogent, thoughtful disagreement and disruptive insults that stem from lack of respect for those of us who subscribe or contribute to the magazine.
Back to the henhouse.
And here’s Bill Moyers: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/16-11.
The pic of the congressional hearing is easier to look at for those of us hoping for a change of Church stance, then the pic of Cardinal Dolan emerging from the consistory.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/ [scale to 400%']
surrounded by well off old, gray haired or bold white men, a couple of nuns in habit and one young man looking into the crowd who I bet is security. Republican demographic?
Jean, what exactly is your dealio? Do metaphors make you angry? Or salad bars, or what exactly is your problem?
Lori was testifying before a US Congressional committee to deliver a message for US Catholic bishops, not giving a sermon. He chose a literary form, the parable, rare in Congress because of its high potential for diverse misinterpretations. He (not Lisa) chose the pork-eating problem as a substitute for the one he was there to address. The deep religious significance of pork-avoidance is instantly meaningful to a quite small fraction of his audience. The majority may or may never come to appreciate it and translate their thoughts and his appropriately.
The same Lori was notably unprepared to distinguish same-sex marriage and interracial marriage cogently at a Congressional hearing in October (10/26/11). (A few miles from where he sat, interracial marriage had been a criminal offense punishable by prison until 1967.) His response to the obvious question on the difference essentially amounted to asserting that they were different. The clear sharp Catholic answer he needed was evidently not in hand. http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishop-faces-tough-question-difference-between-interracial-same-sex-marriage
CUA President Garvey’s problem with Elijah Cummings’s list of Catholic colleges, from publicly available information, was his to avoid if he had dealt with it somehow in his prepared remarks. By ignoring it, he invited in Cummings and many others henceforth who are now alerted to that complication.
If the USCCB plans to fight for religious freedom in “a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions” like the one Abp. Dolan foresaw in his Sep 20, 2011 letter to Pres.Obama, major improvements are needed in their messages and methods.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/dolan-to-obama-doma-letter-sept-20-2011.pdf
“…I’m usually out in the henhouse swimming through the salad bar with the offshore CEOs.”
???
I think that Gerelyn is right-on about the political objective of the hierarchs is to push the Santorum candidacy. It’s pretty obvious, if the gods are really cruel and by some catastrophe of nature Santorum got his clutches on the presidency, Santorum would push a social and cultural agenda that would make the hierarchs celebrate here in the US and on the banks of the Tiber.
In that albeit improbable event, the hierarchs would have a governmental partner to impose their will on a Catholic population and the general public that long ago stopped listening to them, and who consider the hierarchs are in no position to lecture them about morality, especially after the hierarchs’ complicity in the serial rape, sodomy and sexual exploitation of children by priests and bishops.
Santorum denies that he is a member of Opus Dei. However he sent his boys to the all-male OD school, The Heights, in suburban Maryland outside Washington. Santorum celebrated in Rome the 100th anniversary of OD’s founding. Santorum belongs to St. Catherine of Siena Parish, an OD favorite spiritual watering hole. As my sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, often opined: “Birds of a feather, stick together.”
I will readily acknowledge that I’m very suspicious of OD’s long history of ties to fascist politics in Europe and South America. I certainly hope that both secular and religious journalists [especially at Commonweal Magazine] will throughly deconstruct Santorum’s association with and the influences of OD on his thinking and attitudes during this election season.
Santorum, writing in 2007 in the Philadelphia Inquirer after Mitt Romney’s delivered a speech on his Mormon faith, stated: “Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.” This same standard should be applied to Santorum and this bizarre variant of Catholicism in OD.
P.S. @ Gerelyn: Don’t despair that the “boys” are sometimes thinned skinned when especially a woman points out the pervasive and pernicious influences of sexism, patriarchy, and even misogyny, in Catholic culture and institutions.
President Harry Truman during his whistle-stop campaign in the 1948 election was confronted with signs and shouts from the crowds that gathered to hear him speak with “Give’m Hell, Harry.” The President would readily respond: “I don’t give’m hell. I just tell the truth. And they think it’s hell.”
Santorum’s denying he is OD, if he ever was, is not lying to him.. It’s the Catholic quibble known to the ‘elite’ as mental reservation.. it means none of your business. It used all the time in ‘elite’ Catholic circles but will not fly with 97% of US voters. who think a candidates backround is their business. { ask Tom Jefferson!]
” How do you identify a “faithful woman” when you find one? ”
Back in my days, she was usually barefoot, pregnant and had a (clean) hanky bobby-pinned to her head while in church.
I know that times change though. Now they wear shoes.
Important Disclaimer: I only wrote this. It doesn’t necessarily reflect my views. :P
Agree, Jim J., that it would be great to see Commonweal investigate. But it’s a tough nut to crack. Others who set out to do so were easily disabused of any negative presuppositions by the smooth handlers who gave them “unprecendented access”.
(Thanks for the kind words. Oooh, how I love Harry Truman!)
—-
Agree, Ed. The many degrees and layers make deniability simple. Although why anyone would want to deny being part of a group founded by a saint, adhered to by popes, etc., etc. is hard to fathom. He should shout it from the rooftops.
“…I’m usually out in the henhouse swimming through the salad bar with the offshore CEOs. ???”
I have no idea. I’m just tickled by Kathy’s non sequitur metaphors. She may enlighten us dumb bells with an answer, but she’s sure to have her Poor Picked On Kathy hat when she does it.
Ok, you’re just in that kind of mood. Or if you ask a direct question I’ll answer it. Whatever. Anyways, where were we?
This is getting to be a trange mixture of politics and religion
Santorum says Obama’s theology isn’t based on the Bible
Wherher or not that’s true, is it supposed to be?
The Catholic bishops’ silliness about freedom of religion has given Santorum just the kind of opening he needs.
Metaphors matter. Zenit posts a headline:
NO ‘PORK MANDATE,’ BISHOP LORI TELLS CONGRESS
Unfortunately, the full parable is compressed into 3 sentences.
http://www.zenit.org/article-34308?l=english
Santorum is such a demagogue that he makes me wish Sarah Palin would get back in the race. He will say &anything* to further his ambition.
“[The Catholic Church] also fights for vouchers that give tax dollars to parents to send their children to religious schools. The theory is that this is not government support of religion, which would violate the First Amendment, because the money is given to parents, and parents, note the government, decide how the money is spent. So it’s not government money. However, somehow when an employee of a Catholic organization uses an insurance benefit for coverage of contraception, it’s still “Catholic dollars” that are paying the bill.”
Hi, David N., did you write this? Whoever wrote it, it’s an interesting parallel.
Government dollars-> parents -> private schools. Therefore, the government is cooperating in children receiving a Catholic education.
Catholic employer dollars -> insurance company -> employees – > contraceptives. Therefore (say the bishops), Catholic employers are cooperating in employees using contraception.
I suppose the difference is that private school education (including Catholic education) is not sinful in the way that contraception is usually sinful; in a lot of urban school districts, it’s substantially superior to public schools. So what the government is cooperating in is not evil.
The parallel does serve to illustrate, though, that the choice of the employee to buy contraception is as independent as the choice of the parent to use a voucher to send his kid to a Catholic school.
Interesting.
Jim, Please don’t say bishops will trade BC for Catholic school vouchers. Who will they get to make the ‘deal’ with HHC? …..don’t say Donald Trump.. (-:
Jim,
I did write it, but the thoughts are not original. There has been a great deal of discussion about it on Mirror of Justice. The point is not whether religious education is sinful—although it is. :P The point is that government money is not supposed to go to support religion. The conservatives over at Mirror of Justice acknowledge that the comparison makes sense, but they have answers that they think satisfactorily make a distinction between the two cases. I don’t find their answers satisfactory. I think the insurance situation actually puts more distance between the religious employer and contraception than vouchers put between the government and religious education.
“I don’t find their answers satisfactory. I think the insurance situation actually puts more distance between the religious employer and contraception than vouchers put between the government and religious education.”
I agree.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t find the employer->insurer->employee link being proximate cooperation to be a compelling argument, although it’s certainly being pushed right now. There are other, better reasons to oppose the mandate.
Brett and Grant:
Brett:
You wrote, “Please stop trying to claim that you speak for all Catholic women, Lisa.”
I don’t recall her making that claim. If she did, please furnish the quote where she makes it. If she didn’t, please retract your accusation and apologize for having falsely accused her.
Grant:
If it turns out that Lisa never made this claim, and Brett refuses to retract and apologize, please bar him until he does so. When people put words in others’ mouths, we need to hold them accountable. If we don’t, we’re giving them impunity. In my opinion, that kind of impunity shouldn’t exist on Commonweal’s blog.
Thank you, Gene.
Grant, you said: But it does not serve anyone to spray indiscriminate accusations of sexism–especially at people who are sincerely interested in, and have worked to expand the voices of women writers in Catholic publishing.
–
Clicking on the current issue lists the names of the fourteen writers whose work appears in the issue. Only two are women. (Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, former editor, is writing her column. The other, Bethe Dufresne, is reviewing a book.)
Both poems published in the current issue are by men. The anti-Obama article is by a man. (There’s good comment under that, by a man. William.) All three books being reviewed are by men.
http://commonwealmagazine.org/current-issue
So it’s not only dotCommonweal that resembles the Picture, but the magazine, too.
Gerelyn: Do you imagine yourself to have found evidence that Commonweal is sexist? Do you actually think we don’t have more women writers because we don’t want them? And how would you know, not having read that irrelevant rag in years? Quick, everyone count up your minority friends to determine whether or not you’re a racist.
This is sort of old news (so two days ago) but shocking, in a separation-of-powers kind of way:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/politics/contraception-dispute/index.html
Gerelyn: Check out the website of the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER. If you scroll down the left-hand side of the screen, you will see the names and photos of NCR columnists, including a number of women.
But stand forewarned: Phyllis Zagano stands in solidarity with the Catholic bishops regarding their silliness about freedom of religion. Alas, she is not alone. Michael Sean Winters of NCR and the editors of NCR also stand in solidarity with the Catholic bishops regarding their silliness about freedom of religion.
Nevertheless, Jamie Manson has recently published a couple of excellent critiques in NCR of certain Catholic practices. In addition, NCR has published two essays by two different Catholic men trying to argue within the Catholic thought-world against the most recent grandstanding by the Catholic bishops about the contraception mandate.
So you need to understand that the spectrum of Catholic thought regarding Catholic natural-law moral theory runs from the paleo-conservative Catholics at one end of the spectrum to the non-paleo-conservative Catholics at the other end of the spectrum.
I called your attention to the fine article in AMERICA by David Hollenbach and Thomas A. Shannon. Their article would be an example of non-paleo-conservative Catholic thought, as would the two recent articles in NCR by Jamie Manson that I mentioned above.
Now, if an author should dare to criticize Catholic natural-law moral theory strongly and cogently, as Garry Wills has, for example, then such an author runs the risk of being considered to have fallen off the spectrum of Catholic thought.
Next, I want to turn to your concern about women authors. Let’s consider the possibilities for Catholic women in the context of Catholic thought that I have just described.
One possibility for Catholic women would be to write stuff about Catholic natural-law moral theory that stays on the Catholic spectrum of Catholic thought, the spectrum that runs from paleo-conservative Catholic thought to non-paleo-conservative Catholic thought.
Another possibility for Catholic women would be to write stuff about Catholic natural-law moral theory that does NOT stay on the spectrum of Catholic thought, in which case they would run the risk of being shunned by their fellow Catholics.
Yet another possibility for Catholic women would be to avoid writing about Catholic natural-law moral theory. This kind of avoidance should leave a wide spectrum of other topics for Catholic women to write about, if they choose to write and publish.
But are Catholic women seriously under-represented in the overall Catholic population of writers, compared to men? They probably are. That’s probably why women appear to you to be under-represented in COMMONWEAL.
However, if I am correct in surmising that Catholic women writers are seriously under-represented in the overall Catholic population of writers, compared to men, then this pattern of under-representation probably extends far beyond COMMONWEAL.
Next, I want to discuss non-Catholic writers. If we were to categorize COMMONWEAL as a magazine of political commentary and opinion, then we would be able to examine it in comparison to other magazines of political commentary and opinion.
My general impression is that men are over-represented as writers of political commentary and opinion, compared to women writers.
If this is the case, why is it the case? I don’t know why. But it surely appears to be the case.
Gerelyn: Do you imagine yourself to have found evidence that Commonweal is sexist? Do you actually think we don’t have more women writers because we don’t want them? And how would you know, not having read that irrelevant rag in years? Quick, everyone count up your minority friends to determine whether or not you’re a racist.
—-
Hi, Grant.
1) Evidence that Commonweal is sexist? Two out of fourteen?
2) Do I actually think . . . whatever? Yes. You could easily find women writers. Put ads in every diocesan paper in the country. Ask women to submit articles, book reviews, poetry, etc. Write to every religious congregation in the country. Explain to women religious that you need submissions. Ads in Catholic college papers. Ads in parish bulletins. Posts on other Catholic web sites. Etc.
3) How would I know? As I said, I clicked on the current issue icon at the top of the page. I could see how closely the magazine resembles the Picture. Two out of fourteen? And one of the two is Margaret?
4) Count friends to test racist attitudes? Another ham sandwich analogy. Women do not comprise a race. Women are half of all races. Half of all Catholics are women, not two out of every fourteen.
I have to admit, I do smile when I see the liberal project turn in on itself. If you’re going to be critical of the idea of an all-male priesthood, paternalism in the Church, etc., you better first make sure you have proportional representation in your own hierarchy, no?
What’s sauce for the goose…
Agree, Thomas, about NCR. A great newspaper that has published many women writers from its earliest days. (I grew up in Kansas City and read NCR from the first issue. Robert Hoyt was the speaker at my high school graduation.)
Commonweal is a magazine devoted to religion and culture, as well as to politics. Men dominate all areas.
One of my favorite books ever is here on my desk, Catholic Authors, by Matthew Hoehn, OSB, 1947. One thing that stands out is how many authors, male and female, mention their publication in Commonweal. Two of the many who do so are Sr. M. Angelita, BVM, and Fr. Joseph H. Fichter, SJ. More women were published in Commonweal sixty years ago than are today.
At the risk of dragging the thread further off the tracks, singling out C’weal as some sort of bastion of misogyny by merely measuring the male/female ratio of writers in a single issue strikes me as dirty pool.
Of the 26 bloggers here, I count 7 women (I’m including The Editors b/c the editorial board includes women). (Over at First Things, there is one woman blogger out of 15 men.)
Moreover, the blog comments are open to any woman who cares to post, not that that always makes for more enlightened conversation (mea culpa).
Two of the six regular columnists on the pub’s masthead are women, though not all of them contribute a column every issue. (Neither do the male contributors.)
Of the 16 staff positions, 7 are held by women.
Of the 16 Commonweal Foundation Board Members, five are women, and most of them are powerhouses in writing and publishing, none of whom seem to be the type of women who would be shy about pushing for gender parity if they saw that as a shortcoming.
Historically, Commonweal has also given voice to important and influential Catholic women writers like Dorothy Day and Flannery O’Connor.
Over the years, the magazine has been criticized for having too many Catholics of a certain stripe, too few clergy, too many writers from academia, not enough writers from Catholic academia, and blah blah blah. You can’t achieve perfection in any publication, nor can you dig deep into cultural issues without offending some people, and the magazine offers the blog and online letters as pressure valves for those who ARE offended.
One of the recent innovations I like a lot is the magazine’s offering up a topic (abortion was a recent one) and allowing several writers with different points of view to discuss it. Women are always well-represented in these exchanges.
I really don’t see anything to dislike since the print pub added color pictures.
Who criticized Commonweal for having “too few clergy”? Where and when?
If it’s dirty to count the contributors to a single issue, find one with the opposite ratio. Or even with 50/50.
Your complaint yesterday about cranks who comment on dotCommonweal in spite of not subscribing to the magazine was strange, too, imho. The editors “welcome thoughtful comments”. They say nothing about from subscribers only.
dotCommonweal and Commonweal Magazine are separate. The threads here are not about articles in the magazine. The articles in the magazine have their own comment space beneath them, and there, too, non-subscribers as well as subscribers may comment.
Thanks, David for referencing MOJ and the school voucher parallel view.
Jim – what is highlighted in this parallel example is the “inconsistency” and “poorly thought out and expressed” religious liberty argument of Lori and company. It puts the lie to their position – when you get down to it; they want exemptions that are so broad as to be ridiculous or they want “special” treatment because they are catholic bishops – not exactly an award winning justification of their issue. It weakens their argument – if they are unable to articulate a solid explanation for religious liberty exemptions in a pluralistic society, then it fails and should. To date, we have Lori’s testimony using an almost funny parable about Jewish Kosher Diner….as if that relates to the current HHS decision. Our Dallas bishop wrote in the local catholic rag using a parallel story about media who are invited to a hearing but then the powers to be disinvite some because they don’t agree with the powers to be and concludes that the HHS decision is like this story and the powers to be are rejecting the constitution’s free speech declaration. How free speech and the HHS decision has anything in common is a “reach” and it is another episcopal analogy that makes little to no sense.
Sorry, their arguments do not resonate because they are unable to articulate a reasoned, solid analysis and conclusion. What it boils down to is – we want this way and when pushed to explain, we fall back on – because it violates our conscience or it violates the First Amendment (forgetting that the First Amendment is made up of two principles on separation of church and state; not just one). And the church is a person just like corporations are persons – and how is that working out in today’s electoral process.
Gerelyn, I have been reading C’weal off and on for more than 40 years. I’ve given ample evidence that Commonweal pays attention to women now and has in the past (and that it has weathered criticism from many directions about the nature of its contributors). If the evidence I’ve offered doesn’t persuade you that Commonweal pays attention to women and women’s issues, I doubt I can provide any that will.
I don’t know exactly what you mean by saying the blog and publication are “separate,” but it seems to me that you’re not observing what’s going on very carefully. Sometimes threads are about a piece in the magazine (a recent one refer’d the editorial in the print version about the HHS mandate), sometimes they’re inspired by something in the magazine. Sometimes they’re completely independent of anything that has been in the publication.
However, the blog and print/online publications are run by the same group of people, and paid for by the subscribers and contributors whom you see here.
I’m sorry you found my comment about non-subscribers odd. But I’m not surprised. In my experience, people who show up at a party wearing masks, giving fake names, offering untraceable addresses, and toting a bag full of unsubstantiated claims and accusations are usually not there to engage in thoughtful discussion. As someone who helps pay for the party with my subscription and, when I can afford it, with associate’s donations, I have far less patience for this nonsense than our excellent editors and bloggers.
Thomas F. ==
You seem to be assuming that to be a liberal means having a certain set of opinions about a certain set of topics, and when a self-named liberal to disagrees with his/her fellow liberals about one of those defining topics the dissenter is tossed out of the group. For instance, when someone who considers him/herself a liberal agrees with the bishops about their religious freedom claim, then that so-called liberal lreally isn’t a liberal and should be tossed from the group.
Is this your position? Must one always agree with one’s group (e.g., the group called “liberals”) or be liable to expulsion? If so, that sounds like tribalism to me. Unfortunately, there are some self-styled liberals who think like that. Adolescents still arguing with Papa.
Yes, this is about religious freedom, but not in the way the bishops think. What happens when an employer decides, for religious reasons, on a 1 child policy? He’ll pay for an abortion after the 1st child, but won’t pay for healthcare for a 2nd. Or what happens when a Muslim employer, acting entirely within the Muslim tradition, decides to enact dhimmitude in his place of employment, and starts treating Jews and Christians as 2nd class employees? Will Christians be willing to defend his religious freedoms?
This charade on the part of the bishops is merely an end run around the 1st amendment. It’s designed to force employees into serfdom in the same way medieval Europe made serfs follow the religious beliefs of their Princes. It’s arrogant and ugly.
I await the bishops’ defense of Sharia!
Gerelyn, I have been reading C’weal off and on for more than 40 years. I’ve given ample evidence that Commonweal pays attention to women now and has in the past (and that it has weathered criticism from many directions about the nature of its contributors). If the evidence I’ve offered doesn’t persuade you that Commonweal pays attention to women and women’s issues, I doubt I can provide any that will.
And I’ve been reading it “off and on” for more than FIFTY years.
I didn’t ask about your claims about the women of Commonweal, but specifically about your claim that someone had criticized the magazine for “too few clergy”. I’m not surprised you can’t back that up.
(But I don’t blame you for attempting to defend a magazine you obviously love. I did the same when a poster misrepresented an article from my favorite magazine.) (Harvard Magazine).
I’m sorry you found my comment about non-subscribers odd. But I’m not surprised. In my experience, people who show up at a party wearing masks, giving fake names, offering untraceable addresses, and toting a bag full of unsubstantiated claims and accusations are usually not there to engage in thoughtful discussion.
Another truly strange remark. I’ve never been to a party where people wearing masks gave fake names and offered untraceable addresses. And if you have, what is the connection? (Surely you’re not insinuating that I’m using a fake name or an untraceable address.)
Now, if an author should dare to criticize Catholic natural-law moral theory strongly and cogently, as Garry Wills has, for example, then such an author runs the risk of being considered to have fallen off the spectrum of Catholic thought.
Forgot to respond to this, Thomas. I love Garry Wills. That article the other day was great.
“Freedom of Religion”: A Non- Christian Response
February 19, 2012 — Terence Weldon
In the midst of Catholic Bishops’ hysteria over contraception and “religious freedom”, it’s worth considering the perceptions from other faith traditions. At Saira Khan’s femi–blog (http://sairasays.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/freedom-of-religion-but-for-christians-only/) , Saira shifts the discussion from contraception to abortion, even more of a hot button issue for Catholic bishops. After considering the issue from Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist perspectives, she says this call for religious freedom looks suspiciously like – freedom for Christians (specifically, Catholic), only:
“ Freedom of Religion… but for Christians only.
This whole contraception debate has gotten completely out of hand. In light of the Obama Administration’s decision regarding birth control access for women employed by Catholic organizations, Catholic’s have been kicking and scream about Freedom of Religion. It seems that their main argument is that by forcing Catholic organizations to provide insurance that has the option of covering birth control for women who want it violates their religious beliefs and therefore violates the notion of religious freedom.
With that in mind, let’s turn to the even more controversial topic of abortion. Catholic’s and conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they believe and that their religion states that life begins at conception, therefore making abortions murder. This is what their religion dictates.
However, there are other religions that do not share these views.”
(Read the blogsite link above for her entire exposition)
To return to the all-important analysis of the photo — by my rough count there are 57 individuals behind the 5 witnesses. Of the 57 at least 38 are female (I can’t decide in all cases), or 66.6666667% of the total.
And for the statistically alert, 20% of the 5 witnesses are Jewish and another 20% are black. clearly an unrepresentative selection. On this basis alone one need pay no attention to the substance of the testimony.
I believe Foster Friess is also in the picture. He is partially obscured but if you look closely you can see that he is passing out aspirin tablets.
Gerelyn, I leave the insinuations and inferences to you.
Jimmy, honestly, if I were the secretary at my local parish or worked for the diocese as an NFP instructor, I would not expect the Church to provide coverage for artificial birth control for me, and I don’t think it should have to.
I find the claims of conscience less compelling when religions take tax money to administer programs which are not aimed at the propagation of the faith.
Many years ago under President Reagan, the county I lived in gave over its family services and administration of adoption to Catholic Social Services–along with tax dollars to do so. CSS was challenged by a local group of atheists who suggested that it would discriminate against non-Catholics who wanted to adopt. The nice Methodist man, who was director of CSS, said that CSS had to follow state regulations on adoption, and that discrimination on the basis of religion (or lack thereof) was illegal.
In my view, there is a difference between a church agency that acts on the public behalf with tax money the public is compelled to pay, and a church that neither pays nor accepts tax money to propagate its faith.
Whatever your opinion on the matter of Freedom of Religion, all must agree that Dolan and company go against Augustine who wrote that those who objected to being forced to be Catholics were really being done a favor. And Pius IX who wrote that error has no rights. Can you imagine Obama saying he was really doing Catholics a favor etc. What an ironic twist.
In this discussion there seems to be an assumption by a lot of people that the government is doing the religious organizations a favir when it gives it money to perform a public service. It seems to me that, the organizations are not the beneficiaries but, rathr, thier clients are. One might argue that thee religious administrators get a great deal of satisfaction out of thir work, ad ultiately their work is good PR for its organiation, so to speak.
But if the religious organizations did not do the administering of the services, then the government would have to In other words, there is some mutual benefit there, with more of it on the sude if tge government’s than the religious organization’s side. services.
I’m intrigued by one argument in the post Jimmy Mac linked to above. Indeed, it is my understanding that in Jewish tradition, in cases where a woman’s life is threatened by her pregnancy, she is to err on the side of her life and terminate the pregnancy. The very minute I hear a bishop stand up for the right of Jews to have abortions (safely and legally, in non-Catholic hospitals,) under such circumstances is when I’ll take seriously that this whole matter is really about freedom of religion for them. Or at least that their “freedom of religion” argument is really the argument they want to make. I could offer more prizes, but that was so depressing last time…
“In this discussion there seems to be an assumption by a lot of people that the government is doing the religious organizations a favir when it gives it money to perform a public service. It seems to me that, the organizations are not the beneficiaries but, rathr, thier clients are.”
I don’t look at this in terms of “favors,” but at how “Catholic” an agency is when its main mission is no longer the propagation of the faith, but to serve qualified clients without discriimination on the taxpayer’s dime. This means that they have to play by different rules. They oughtn’t to be allowed to proselytize, to disqualify clients based on religious preferences, nor should they be allowed to put strings on their employee benefits when they are functioning primarily as a public entity. Again, IMO.
Perhaps my views aren’t good legal logic, and if not, I await someone setting me straight.
“They oughtn’t to be allowed to proselytize, to disqualify clients based on religious preferences, nor should they be allowed to put strings on their employee benefits when they are functioning primarily as a public entity.”
Hi, Jean, I agree with your first two “shouldn’ts”. And in point of fact, organizations like Catholic Charities and Catholic hospitals don’t proselytize or disqualify clients based on religious preferences.
Regarding “putting strings” on their own employee benefits: I think this “shouldn’t” requires some thought and examination. My own view is that the wages and benefits of its employees is an internal affair between the organization and its employees, and has no bearing on faithfully fulfilling its government contracts.
To illustrate why employee wages and benefits may not be relevant to federal contract fulfillment, consider this somewhat benign hypothetical example: suppose there are two Catholic hospitals, both of whom receive federal government grants to purchase cutting-edge MRI equipment. Catholic Hospital A offers an employee benefit of free health club membership to its full-time employees, whereas Catholic Hospital B doesn’t offer free health club membership. Does A’s health club benefit have any bearing on its ability to purchase and maintain the MRI equipment? I’d suggest that it doesn’t. Assuming both hospitals are competently run, it seems to me that both A and B are capable of responsibly fulfilling the grant requirements.
I’d argue that religious freedom should give Catholic organizations sufficiently wide scope to structure their wages and benefits in ways that allow the organizations to conform to Catholic teaching; and that this freedom doesn’t unduly restrict the organizations’ abilities to fulfill whatever legitimate requirements attach to government funding of their activities.
in ways that allow the organizations to conform to Catholic teaching
Jim,
What is the “Catholic teaching” about the morality of including coverage for contraception in employer-provided insurance? We all know that the Catholic Church condemns the use of artificial contraception for married couples. But as far as I can tell, up until very, very recently, there has been no attempt to formulate a Catholic position on the morality of health insurance. And given the fact that many Catholic organizations have already complied with state laws, it does not seem there is a clear position.
1) Nothing is “free”; somebody must pay.
2) Generally things work best when people finance their lifestyle choice by paying for things themselves.
3) Contraception is relatively cheap (about $1 per day) and the vast majority of women can afford it. In any case, the tiny number of poor women who cannot afford BC pills have recourse to more than a few federal and state programs to get free contraception.
No need to shred the First Amendment.
It is also worth noting that the main reason businesses got into the business of paying for employee healthcare as part of a benefits package, is that back in the 1940’s specifically during WW2, the federal government had caps on what employers in certain sectors could pay employees.
In order to around the federal wage caps then, some employers offered, in lieu of higher pay, to instead pay the employee’s health insurance premium. This eventually blossomed into what we have today.
And so one could say that our patch-work healthcare set-ups today are the result of government meddling that dates back over 50 years. Nowadays most employers will admit they do not like being in the business of shopping for employee health insurance plans.
Now we need to find a way to provide minimum, basic healthcare for all, at a price we as a nation can afford; on that much most Americans have come to agree. However we need to do so in a manner that does not trample civil liberties.
Religious liberty involves organized churches and their social work of course, but we Americans as individuals also have religious liberty. As such, any arrangement where the federal (secular) government is telling churches or individuals they must buy something that goes against their religion simply is not viable.
If the government wants to have a say-so in what will be included in healthcare policies, it should be the payer. As long as individual employers are paying the premiums for their employees, they should have the say-so as to what the policy will cover.
He who pays the fiddler, gets to call the tune.
“What is the “Catholic teaching” about the morality of including coverage for contraception in employer-provided insurance?”
David, if you go to http://www.usccb.org, there is a lot of material on this accessible from the landing page.
In not-entirely-unrelated news, Cardinal Dolan has had a facebook page up for about an hour now, with 1700 “likes” so far. In an hour.
Can anyone explain, in clear, concrete terms (not metaphors, not abstractions) just what a Catholic university, say, must now do–what actions it will be required to take–under the HHS-accommodation, that continue to be objectionable? This is an honest, non-rhetorical question, btw.
John, Generally of course, a Catholic institution should follow the applicable doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Regarding the recent HHS ruling, since this matter is far from being settled, maintaining the status quo seems reasonable and prudent.
Ken, thanks, that’s helpful, but I’m still wondering what, concretely, do the new regs ask a Catholic institution to do?
John Haas – I don’t know how concretely your question can be answered, as the accommodation is still not written, as far as I know.
Ken,
I’d add the following to this part of your comment: ‘…the tiny number of poor women…’
The proposed HHS regs affecting health insurance provided by religious institutions cannot have much effect on the poor since, by definition, these affected group is employed and provided health insurance.
Jim, well, people are objecting to it, right? They’re objecting to what the president said in his annoncement. So they must have some idea of what it is they’re objecting to. If the rules, when written, correlate with what the president said, what will be the actions required of Catholic institutions that violate their conscience?
This comment from Bishop Lori gives an apt description of what I think being Catholic means. And it encompansses a much larger universe than the small exclusion included in the HHS regs.
Lori said the bishops would have explained that Catholic “ministries of charity, health care and education flow from what we believe and how we worship and how we are to live.” As he told the Catholic News Service, “These are not side businesses that the church runs … they flow from our discipleship. Therefore I do not think the government should be intruding in these things.”
Rules and laws which impinge on how we worship and how we are to live also impinge on our freedom of religion.
Good point Bruce – And so HHS regulation requiring employers pay for contraceptive coverage is not meant to “help the poor” now, is it?
With this crowd, it never has been just about “helping the poor”.
Jim, well, people are objecting to it, right? They’re objecting to what the president said in his annoncement. So they must have some idea of what it is they’re objecting to
John Haas, the problem is that they really don’t know what they are objecting to. Just about all of the material published by the USCCB, including Cardinal DiNardo’s Letter to Senators, misstates one or all of the three points from the government’s proposal shown in bold face in the quote below.
The quote is from Professor Timothy Jost’s “Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Updated Contraception Rule”*
*i’ve added extra paragraph breaks to make it more readable
Thanks, Mr. Hayes. But those objecting must believe there’s something they must do that violates their conscience? Right? What do they believe it requires? Is it just about fungibility? Or, are they objecting to the insurance companies “reaching out” to their employees?
|They’re objecting to what the president said in his annoncement. So they must have some idea of what it is they’re objecting to. ”
John Haas==
Look at what we know: the President presented a mandate. The bishops objected to having to pay for the contraceptives. The President said, OK, you won’t have to — the insurance companies will pay. Apparently the bishops — or some of them — seem to think that this implies that *other*, *non-religious-employers* should also be excepted from the mandate.
When the bishops offer such non-sequitures, don’t expect a rational answer to your question, or even any answer at all.
Initially I sympathized with them — the original rule was indeed unconstitutional, I thought. But they have really gone round the bend in their reaction to the President’s reaction. Downright weird.
John Haas, here is Cardinal DiNardo’s Febuary 15 letter to all Senators explaining that USCCB believes that the “accommodation” is unacceptable and that Congress should pass a law allowing any person or organization to refuse to provide or buy insurance covering anything required by that section of the Affordable Health Care Act that is contrary to their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/DearSenatorfeb151.pdf
S. 1467, the bill Cardinal DiNardo recommends passing is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1467:
Lisa: we have a friend in common — Jim Mitulski. I presented him his Pax et Bonum award last Saturday night.
Small world!
Thanks, Ann and John. The key sticking point seems to be that employer moneys will go into the insurance fund, and will come out to pay for contraception. But that’s actually more indiract than if the employee uses their slarary to purchase contraceptives. I’m wondering if we’re not running up against some peculiarly Catholic distinctions and ways of thinking–involving material or formal cooperation and all that–that thosenot accustoimed to thinking in Aristotelian terms are simply deaf to?
“The key sticking point seems to be that employer moneys will go into the insurance fund, and will come out to pay for contraception.”
No, the situation is substantially more complicated than that; that is one sticking point but by no means the only one. You could disagree with the bishops’ analysis on that point and still have ample reason to oppose the mandate and the promise for an accommodation. If you haven’t done so already, please do read Cardinal DiNardo’s letter to which John Hayes provided the link above, as it touches on some of the other objections.
“But that’s actually more indiract than if the employee uses their slarary to purchase contraceptives.”
I think the above is fundamentally wrong. When paying wages, the employer transfers complete responsibility for how the funds are spent to the employee. However, when supplying a health insurance policy, the employer is intimately involved in determining who and what will be covered and at what level. Without the employers active involvement, there is no medical policy. US Income Tax laws make this necessary. The proposed Obama policy is a subterfuge, that doesnt eliminate the requirement for the employers involvement in the underlying policy. So the church is left with the decision of not providing any medical insurance, which is contrary to its belief and actions that all are entitled to basic health care, or active involvement in an insurance policy which includes abortifacients, sterilization and contraceptives which are also contrary to its beliefs.
John Haas, a lot of the discussion recently has been about the “accommodation” announced by the administration on February 10.
However, in the discussion here prior to February 10, many people felt that even the pre-accommodation version of the HHS Requirements required at most remote cooperation in evil and was allowable under Catholic moral theology if necessary in order to achieve the good of providing health insurance for employees. As pointed out by one of the committee members when Bishop Lori testified before Congress last week, many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide contraception coverage in their insurance to meet state laws.
I think the USCCB’s concerns are:
1. Allowable or not, it is still cooperation in evil and the government should not force anyone to do that.
2. Not providing coverage for contraception for employees is a way of making known the church’s teaching that contraception is wrong – the regulation interferes with making that point (with or without the accommodation)
3. By providing a full exemption for churches, etc, a different one (under the accommodation) for non-profit organizations, and no exemption for individuals or for-profit organizations, the regulation suggests that freedom of religion is limited to just worship.
The USCCB’s request to Congress is to pass a law that would allow anyone (organizations and individuals) to refuse to cover or pay for items required by the HHS regulation that are contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Those are all reasonable concerns. The issue in a diverse country like ours is how you balance them against the concerns of other people with sincerely held opposing beliefs.
I think that is a political (in the good sense) question rather than a religious one.
Jim, Bruce and John, thanks. I have read the letter (and lots of other things), and am just trying to get a bead on it all.
Bruce’s point seems important: “When paying wages, the employer transfers complete responsibility for how the funds are spent to the employee. However, when supplying a health insurance policy, the employer is intimately involved in determining who and what will be covered and at what level. Without the employers active involvement, there is no medical policy.”
I wonder if that stands up?
“Imagine the courage it took in the 1960s — not only for her to go to the Commission — but for a cardinal to invite a woman to attend. Is there a cardinal that brave around today?”
Jack – you assume that bravery has anything to do with it. An actual desire to do so might be lacking in this crowd of Vaticanistas. The independent cardinal of long ago is just that – long ago.
One of the problems with the idea of “remote cooperation with evil” is the assumption that contraception is evil. Far from a proven, supportable, sustainable, believable, commonly accepted fact.
Heres an excerpt from the website below. Point 2 seems to be where we actually are in the process right now
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2012/02/obamacare-anti-conscience-mandate-an-assault-on-the-constitution
Trampling Religious Liberty
1)The Anti-Conscience Mandate: Under Obamacare, all insurance plans must cover, at no charge, abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, sterilization, and patient education and counseling for women of reproductive age. Religious employers such as Catholic hospitals, Christian schools, and faith-based pregnancy care centers will have to provide and pay for such coverage for their employees regardless of their religious beliefs. In what some have called the narrowest religious exemption in federal law to date, only houses of worship are exempted.
2) The Controversial Mandate Remains Unchanged: President Obama’s February 10 press conference announcing an “accommodation” did not change actual policy. In fact, the final rule filed later that day is exactly the same as the controversial version that created the controversy in the first place. That version of the rule now has the force of law. Everything else, including the President’s proposed changes, is only a promise.
3) Obama’s “Accommodation” Is Unworkable: Even if the Administration were to move forward in the future with new rule-making to accomplish what the President outlined on February 10, it would not solve religious liberty problems, nor is it clear whether the policy would actually work for many self-insured groups and others.
4) Adding Insult to Injury: The Administration also published guidance on February 10 giving one year for religious groups to “adapt” to the rule that runs counter to their religious beliefs.
Bruce — That Factsheet to which you link is from the Heritage Institute, “whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” They say they are “policy entrepreneurs”, which could possibly have some influence on the text you quote.
http://www.heritage.org/about
John Haas –
I think you’re right about the technical terminology putting off a lot of people. It’s really unfortunate because, I think, the material-formal and proximate-remote distinctions are in fact quite common sensical notions. For instance, if you asked me if torture is right or wrong, I’d say “Wrong!” And if you asked me, “WEll, why?” I’d answer, “Just look at it!! Do you mean to tell me you can’t SEE that its a bad thing?” This, of course, reflects the notion of an intrinsic/formal evil — something wrong because of *what* it is.
And I’d say everyone has at strong notion of remote material cooperation, even if they don’t call it that. For instance, if my friend Jane Doe served her grossly obese husband potato soup, pasta, and chocolate cake and ice cream every day for dinner because otherwise he’d go to his meddling mother’s house for it and miss dinner with his children, I wouldn’t fault her for it.
Ann,
I think chocolate cake strikes at the heart of this problem. It’s good, or appears to be. And at the same time we know it to be evil. When people want to say that a chocolate dessert is amazingly good, they call it the most peculiar adjectives: tempting, decadent, sinfully rich. The worse, the better.
It’s the same way with another strong drive, sex. What is the word? “Bootylicious.” Very reasonable moral objections do not always hold sway when it comes to sex, any more than they hold sway over food choices. Desires can run roughshod over morals.
That’s why I’m not at all sure that the “just look at it! It’s wrong!” test is going to work when it comes to sex. It should, but it doesn’t. Look at the things people do with one another sexually. Some secual activities look exactly right, like yin and yang. Others look quite wrong, especially on the level of purposiveness. But people want so much to do them.
The Church’s authority to promulgate dogma about contraceptives or cake amongst the faithful is not in danger.
At issue is whether the state can impose regulations that the Church construes as material cooperation in its own definitions of evil.
Certainly, the Church ought to challenge such regulations. But it might be a mistake to assume that issues like these can be resolved quickly (and probably not by the quantity of verbiage expended on this here blog, including mine).
For example, it took the Amish nearly 100 years (between the Civil War and the war in Vietnam) to hammer out accommodation with local draftboards and the feds re their teaching about pacificsm. Conscientious Objector (CO) eventually became a recognized draft status later on, but the Amish could still be relegated to non-combatant duty, which many saw as remote cooperation.
“The Amish and the State,” by Donald Kraybill is a most interesting study for those interested in how these religion-state tensions play out over time.
OK, so from what I can see, we have employers electing (the ACA doesn’t say they must) to compensate employees with a health insurance plan. The government has mandated that the insurance company “reach out” to their employees and offer contraceptive etc. coverage.
I find this to be a very gray area. The employer is NOT (contra Bruce above) “intimately involved in determining … what will be covered” in this situation–the government is, the insurance company is, and the individual is.
The employer IS involved insofar as, if they weren’t compensating the employee with an insurance program, the insurer wouldn’t be “reaching out” to that employee in this case.
I could see this going either way, and I don’t see a slam dunk case for either interpretation.
It does seem to me that the bishops are absolutely right in saying that, since this is an issue of conscience, any employer with a religious or moral objection to any coverage should be included in the exemption. That seems to be required by a) the inviolability of conscience and b) the fact that “Catholic employer” is a somewhat gray designation itself.
And that way lies anarchy. Perhaps this is why, twice, state mandates have been brought before SCOTUS, and in each case the court refused to hear them?
Rocco Palmo has a fine historical post on Catholic Church-state American history: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-presidents-day-atmosphere-of-liberty.html
Yes Jack, the source is The Heritage Institute and I agree you should always consider the source. But I dont think there is really any different way to interpret point 2. The only question is whether you trust the administration will fulfill its promise to make changes and whether those changes will remove the cooperation with evil. imho they will not.
” Desires can run roughshod over morals.
“That’s why I’m not at all sure that the “just look at it! It’s wrong!” test is going to work when it comes to sex.”
Kathy –
I didn’t mean to apply that test to either chocolate cake or sex. I applied it to torture because it seems to me that the *cruelty* of torture is one of the few things that can simply be looked at and we know immediately and without a doubt that it is a bad thing.
I certainly don’t think that the look-at-it-test applies to the pleasures of either chocolate cake or sex. One looks at them and knows that they are *good*, not evil. But there is more to sex than physical pleasure and therein lies its moral good or evil. (Granted, “sex” can be a very ambiguous term.)
Ann,
I think that there are sexual acts that pass the “look” test quite easily, and other acts that really don’t. Think about the different possibilities and combinations. What would Aristotle say?
John Haas, ACA doesn’t require employers to provide health insurance for their employees – but if they have 50 or more employees they have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per year per employee if they don’t provide qualified health insurance. No penalty if under 50 employees.
John Hayes, yes, I’m aware. I wonder how that compares to actual insurance costs? Also, would THAT be a conscience-problem? Ie, where’s that money go then, and what’s it do?
John Haas, you pay the $2,000 to the IRS and, as I understand it, I goes into the great general pot of the nation.
As I recall, if none of your employees obtains government-subsidized insurance from an insurance exchange, you don’t have to pay the $2,000, but if even one does, you have to pay the $2,000 for all.
Perhaps that’s intended to symbolize that the $2,000 offsets part of the government’s costs of subsidizing insurance for low-income people who don’t receive insurance from their employer.
@Jimmy, 12:05, Indeed, a small world. Sorry I missed the festivities!
It does seem clear that demanding such a broad exemption (anybody who doesn’t like something can refuse to pay for it,) would completely gut the ACA. How will the bishops make clear they’re not simply shills for the GOP? How will they respond to the scandal that they are undercutting the first big expansion in health care coverage we’ve had in a long time? Sexism, partisanship, and being actively opposed to expanding health-care coverage for millions–aren’t these scandals?
I think if I were the Obama admin., I’d call them out on all three of these.
It does seem to me that the bishops are absolutely right in saying that, since this is an issue of conscience, any employer with a religious or moral objection to any coverage should be included in the exemption. That seems to be required by a) the inviolability of conscience and b) the fact that “Catholic employer” is a somewhat gray designation itself.
–john Haas,
Post-accomodation, the categories are:
- churches, etc.
- non-profit religious organizations with religious objections
- others (other non-profits, individuals, for-profit organizations, etc)
The first and second categories don’t have to include contraception in their insurance.
Insurance companies offer free coverage of contraception to employees fo the second category only.
Catholic hospitals, universities, charities, etc would fall in the second category, but the word “Catholic” is not used anywhere in the definitions.
While it is an issue of conscience for all three categories, I have not seen an official statement from the USCCB that it is not licit to provide coverage of contraception in insurance if necessary in order to provide health insurance or employees.
The government has to balance the competing intrests.
John Hayes, yes, I’m not sure how official it is. I first heard it from the USCCB’s attorney, who was on PBS Newshour last week (?), and here’s a similar reference:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=17352
Other denominations, and lots of groups of Catholic sisters, (and others) sign an amicus brief in support of the ACA: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/21/429184/religious-groups-line-up-to-support-affordable-care-act/.
John Haas, the USCCB statement on the “accomodation” you referenced says “Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral:”
Not the same thing as saying that providing coverage of contraception in insurance is immoral
If they did decide that, they would have to start by telling all the Catholic institutions that are already doing it to stop.
” Look at the things people do with one another sexually ”
Yes, Kathy – WITH each other, not TO each other.
There is a definite material difference there.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. (H. L. Mencken)
John Hayes, I think you’re losing me. Isn’t the meaning there that “those who consider such “services” immoral” would include the very Catholic institutions and employers (and perhaps others) who have been demanding a broader exemption since the HHS announcement–and who are unsatisfied with the accommodation, too?
And does it not also mean to say that to “impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences” of these folk is to force them to violate their consciences, and, by implication at least, to say that that would be immoral, ie “wrong” for the governement to do?
If not, why would they even be talking about it? The whole intent of their verious responses to these rules is to get them changed because they are coercive of the consciences of the kind of folk they describe there.
John Haas, it is possible for both of these these statements to be true at the same time:
1. This action is immoral.
2. Under certain conditions, assisting someone else to perform this (same ) action is allowable (it’s not immoral).
Catholic Moral Theology provides a structure for determining what those “certain conditions” are. That has been discussed in detail here on dotCommonweal several times during the past month. I don’t want to rehash that discussion again.
The illustration that has been most often bought up is Bishop Morlino of Madison. Faced with a choice of self-insuring without contraception coverage or buying commercial insurance with contraception coverage, he bought the commercial insurance because it was less expensive.
Clearly, he didn’t think that providing insurance that covered contraception was immoral.
Got ya, John Hayes, and I understand what you’re referring to, but it seems to me, still, that what’s being said there is “this is objectionable.”
” (I never see any nuns, e.g., posting here. Why is that? Have you invited them to contribute?) ”
Gerelyn: I know of one who does post (not as a contributor, but as a subscriber), but she obviously chooses not to identify herself as such. Maybe she has reason to fear a Personal Visitation by the Holy Office if she does.
This IS Catholicism, you know – not the UCC.
John Haas, I agree that providing insurance for contraception is objectionable for Catholics in view of the Church’s teaching. But “objectionable” doesn’t get you a free pass to have the law changed – or not comply with it – just as you can’t refuse to pay income taxes to support an unjust war.
Changing the law would requiring balancing a lot of conflicting interests, of which the USCCB’s position is an important one but not the only one.
And in the end, there is the issue of anarchy that you mentioned in your post last night.
Hi, Jimmy:
I can understand why a woman religious posting here would hesitate to mention her profession.
I liked seeing the name of the great Patty Crowley mentioned above. Young Catholics undfamiliar with her could read about her testimony about birth control here:
http://tinyurl.com/82jpftq
And on this page and the following page is a summary of Colette Potvin’s testimony about the rhythm method.
http://tinyurl.com/7k75fmg
(Bruskewitz, of course, called Patty Crowley a “degenerate”.)
I continue to see this comment as though the situations are somehow similar
just as you can’t refuse to pay income taxes to support an unjust war
But they are fundamentally different. Paying taxes involves transferring money to the government. That is the morally correct action. Now that the funds are in ‘government ownership’ some of them are then used to fund an unjust war. That fact does not make the original payment of taxes somehow immoral. Even if you can foresee that your taxes will be used immorally, that does not excuse you from the moral obligation to pay your taxes. Furthermore, because money is fungible, it is impossible for a taxpayer to say that their actual tax payments are funding the unjust war.
Paying taxes to fund an unjust war is directly comparable to the bishops paying wages to their employees which the employees then use to purchase contraceptives. Since the employees exercise full control over how the wages are spent and the wages were paid for a licit reason, no immorality can attach to the original source regardless of how the funds are used.
However, the health insurance issue is completely different. When supplying a health insurance policy, the employer is intimately involved in determining who and what will be covered and at what level. Without the employers active involvement, there is no medical policy. US Income Tax laws make this necessary. The proposed Obama policy is a subterfuge, that doesnt eliminate the requirement for the employers involvement in the underlying policy. Since the immoral act of supplying contraceptives is part and parcel of the policy, all the actors are involved in some level of immorality.
The comparable health insurance situation would be something like a second insurer with no relation to the first insurer nor the employer agreeing to supply the contraceptives for free.
Bruce: with this–”Furthermore, because money is fungible, it is impossible for a taxpayer to say that their actual tax payments are funding the unjust war”–you have the moral import of fungibility exactly backwards. “Fungible” in this context means, eg, if I give Planned Parenthood money because I like their offering mammograms, that money also will support abortions, whether I like or intend that or not. Even if the money I give is in a hermetically sealed “lock-box,” dedicated to mammograms and mammograms only.
“Fungibility” while a somewhat abstract concept, helps us understand why it makes no sense to say “it is impossible for a taxpayer to say that their actual tax payments are funding the unjust war.” The money you actually give to the government–if it’s even concrete money in these days of electronic transfers, witholdings, etc.–needs to be seen as supporting everything the government does–because it is.
Now, with this–”Without the employers active involvement, there is no medical policy”–I think you’re on firmer ground. Under the accommodation, it is true that IF the employer wasn’t compensating the employee with health-insurance, the employee wouldn’t have THAT insurance policy.
But I don’t think you’re right that “the employer is intimately involved in determining . . . what will be covered.” At least, not under the accommodation. The employer contracts with the insurance company to cover certain things, and these exclude contraceptives etc. Under the accommodation, the company and the employee contract separately, without the employers involvement, for the contraceptive coverage.
What the bishops are saying (in part) is that this will cause premiums to rise, and hence, the employer will be paying for this contraceptive coverage. The Obama administration is saying, no, premiums won’t rise (because of this) as the money will be freed up since it isn’t covering as many pregnancies.
Two problems: 1) Premiums will rise, for a host of factors, and it will be impossible to prove contraceptive coverage isn’t among them. 2) What about the “self-insured”? But then, we’re back to fungibility with that, aren’t we?
” (Bruskewitz, of course, called Patty Crowley a “degenerate”.) ”
Well, that is certainly another star in HER crown! Anyone vilified by Brusquewits has got to be doing something right.
I wonder how he will enjoy being looked down upon by her when they both have gotten their ultimate just desserts?
What do I mean by that? “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” (St. John Chrysostom). Who am I to question the wisdom of a saint of the church?
” Paying taxes involves transferring money to the government. That is the morally correct action. Now that the funds are in ‘government ownership’ some of them are then used to fund an unjust war. That fact does not make the original payment of taxes somehow immoral. Even if you can foresee that your taxes will be used immorally, that does not excuse you from the moral obligation to pay your taxes.”
Hi, Bruce, I don’t think this is wrong. But if you’ll permit, I’ll do a little (semi-)clever substitution, and see what we end up with:
“Paying for employees health care involves transferring money to the insurance company. That is the morally correct action. Now that the funds are in ‘insurance ownership’ some of them are used to fund contraceptives. That fact does not make the original payment of insurance premiums somehow immoral. Even if you foresee that your premiums will be used immorally, it doesn’t excuse you from the moral obligation to pay for your employees’ health insurance.”
This line of thought is not far from the analysis put forth by Commonweal’s editors in support of the accommodation. In my opinion, it’s defensible.
FWIW – Cardinal-designate Dolan (president of the USCCB) and Bishop Lori (Chairman of the USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty) have sent a letter on the letterhead of Office of the President of the USCCB, dated 2/22/2012, to the American bishops. The purpose of the letter is to update them on the controversy. I have looked around a very little bit on the USCCB website and the Archdiocese of NY website but don’t see the letter posted there.
I’m calling attention to it because it outlines what may well turn out to be the line of attack/defense that the bishops intend to pursue. Note that the claim ‘Catholic employers will still be paying for contraception under the accommodation’, of which I have been somewhat critical, is not their lead argument. In my opinion, the bishops are on more solid ground in stating their position as they do in this letter. Here is the key passage:
“Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any
government’s decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations.
“Recent actions by the Administration have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a
“privilege” arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing, extreme form of secularism. The exemption is too narrowly defined, because it does not exempt most non-profit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self-insured employer, the for-profit religious employer, or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily.
“In the United States, religious liberty does not depend on the benevolence of who is
regulating us. It is our “first freedom” and respect for it must be broad and inclusive—not
narrow and exclusive. Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second class citizens. And it is not for the government to decide which of our ministries is “religious enough” to warrant religious freedom protection.
“This is not just about contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilization—although all should recognize the injustices involved in making them part of a universal mandated health care program. It is not about Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. It is about people of faith. This is first and foremost a matter of religious liberty for all. If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end? This violates the constitutional limits on our government, and the basic rights upon which our country was founded.
“Much remains to be done. We cannot rest when faced with so grave a threat to the
religious liberty for which our parents and grandparents fought. In this moment in history we must work diligently to preserve religious liberty and to remove all threats to the practice of our faith in the public square. This is our heritage as Americans. President Obama should rescind the mandate, or at the very least, provide full and effective measures to protect religious liberty and conscience.”
Hi Jim,
I like your clever transposition of terms. Here is where I think you line of reasoning falls down.
In the case of a general tax, like the income tax, the government makes two distinct decisions: 1) imposing a tax to raise revenue and 2) a series of separate decisions about how to spend the revenue. The two are almost completely divorced from each other as our current excess of spending relative to tax revenue shows. And perhaps more importantly, it is licit for the government to tax its subjects so it can provide services which it believes enhance the common good.
In the case cited about an unjust war, I think there is a further justification for the moral payment of tax even if that was the only expenditure the government was making. I think that justification lies in the principal of subsidiarity. The government is charged with protecting its citizens. As such, it is charged with the authority and responsibility, using its prudent judgement, to decide when and how to wage war. The pope, bishops, citizens, etc may disagree with the governments judgement, but they don’t get to make the ultimate decision on whether the war is just or not.
Its equivalent to wages (tax revenue) and spending for an individual. As far as I know, the bishops may not like their employees spending wages on contraception, but the bishops are not claiming it violates the bishops conscience when the employees do so. I believe its because the bishops have no control over how the wages are spent.
The difference in the health care issue is that the bishops are purchasing a package of benefits which their employees can access by contacting the insurance company. As benefits change the cash the bishops pay to the insurance company change. If the bishops choose not to buy the insurance policy, there are no benefits for the employees to access. So the bishops are being required to cooperate in immorality.
Now some I’m sure will argue that the government has the authority to decide what health services are necessary for common good, so this mandate would fall under that authority. I dont believe the bishops would be claiming religious freedom if the government said we are going to impose a tax on all employers to fund a government program to supply ‘reproductive services’ for free to women.
Kinda a long-winded answer.
Here is another point of view on the coercion
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4777
The linked article is inflammatory and misleading. First, as has been shown many times, the question here is contraception, not abortion. Second, the parallel of the Jews being forced to eat pork–come on–no one is shoving contraception down the mouths of bishops or anybody else.
The bishops are not, in fact, asked to pay for contraception. The contortions the USCCB is going through at present are just that–contortions intended to shore up by fiat what they could not effect by persuasion–that peope, would buy the idea that contraception is evil. The vast majority of women and men know better. Once Obama made the revision to the mandate, the question shifted from religious liberty, (doubtful even then,) to contraception itself.
If the bishops want to put their guys to work figuring out what insurance savings they reap by covering contraception, then great. They can take that money and put it toward some worthy cause, like real post-natal help for mothers. Affordable day-care. Lower parochial-school tuition, or, God willing! a living wage for all parochial school teachers. Right now they’re spending far more on the lawyers they pay to fight this losing battle.
Lisa F. —
More like the llnked article and the Heritage one Bruce contributed earlier should be expected as the Republican-USCCB anti-Obama campaigning proceeds with its fertile religion theme, Not far behind Santorum, Dolan, Gingrich, and Lori is a large number of partisan think tanks eager to enter the fray in support of their ideological allies and backers. (They should not be confused with others that try to be more-or-less non-partisan.) File separately from the uninflammatory and not too misleading material.
Jack,
Name calling like this – Republican-USCCB anti-Obama campaigning- really adds nothing to the debate. Perhaps you could try adding some ideas and thoughts which address the situation.
And Lisa, I appreciate your opinion but respectfully disagree. There is coercion, if there wasnt then there would be no reason for the mandate. After all, one definition of the word mandate is ‘require something to be done’. Thats always coercion, which maybe good or maybe bad.
Bruce —
Debate???
Here’s the full text of Cardinal Dolan’s letter that Jim Pauwels mentioned above:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=44884
I feel a kind of continuing frustration when I read text like the second paragraph below that says that the administration did not make any change on February 10. It leaves me wondering if the bishops really do not understand what has been proposed.
Since January 20, the reaction was immediate and sustained. We came together, joined by people of every creed and political persuasion, to make one thing resoundingly clear: we stand united against any attempt to deny or weaken the right to religious liberty upon which our country was founded.
On Friday, February 10, the Administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed “without change.” The mandate to provide the illicit services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite the outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain.
John Hayes,
This link is to the Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-15/pdf/2012-3547.pdf
Two relevant points:
1) Exactly as portraied in Dolans letter:
SUMMARY: These regulations finalize,
without change, interim final
regulations authorizing the exemption
of group health plans and group health
insurance coverage sponsored by certain
religious employers from having to
cover certain preventive health services
under provisions of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
2) What changed:
During the temporary
enforcement safe harbor, the
Departments plan to develop and
propose changes to these final
regulations that would meet two goals—
providing contraceptive coverage
without cost-sharing to individuals who
want it and accommodating non-
exempted, non-profit organizations’
religious objections to covering
contraceptive services as also discussed
below.
I think there is a trust deficit and I’m not surprised by it….
Bruce, I hope the bishops didn’t stop reading at the point you did.
Here’s the “accomodation” from the same Federal Register
With respect to certain non-exempted, non-profit organizations with religious objections to covering contraceptive services whose group health plans are not grandfathered health plans, guidance is being issued contemporaneous with these final regulations that provides a one-year safe harbor from enforcement by the Departments.
Before the end of the temporary enforcement safe harbor, the Departments will work with stakeholders to develop alternative ways of providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing with respect to non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to such coverage. Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employer’s plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage. Actuaries and experts have found that coverage of contraceptives is at least cost neutral when taking into account all costs and benefits in the health plan.16 The Departments intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for self- insured group health plans sponsored by non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.
A future rulemaking would be informed by the existing practices of some issuers and religious organizations in the 28 States where contraception coverage requirements already exist, including Hawaii. There, State health insurance law requires issuers to offer plan participants in group health plans sponsored by religious employers that are exempt from the State contraception coverage requirement the option to purchase this coverage in a way that religious employers are not obligated to fund it. It is our understanding that, in practice, rather than charging employees a separate fee, some issuers in Hawaii offer this coverage to plan participants at no charge. The Departments will work with stakeholders to propose and finalize this policy before the end of the temporary enforcement safe harbor. Nothing in these final regulations precludes employers or others from expressing their opposition, if any, to the use of contraceptives, requires anyone to use contraceptives, or requires health care providers to prescribe contraceptives if doing so is against their religious beliefs. These final regulations do not undermine the important protections that exist under conscience clauses and other religious exemptions in other areas of Federal law. Conscience protections will continue to be respected and strongly enforced.
This approach is consistent with the First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a law that is not specifically targeted at religiously motivated conduct and that applies equally to conduct without regard to whether it is religiously motivated—a so-called neutral law of general applicability. The contraceptive coverage requirement is generally applicable and designed to serve the compelling public health and gender equity goals described above, and is in no way specially targeted at religion or religious practices. Likewise, this approach complies with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which generally requires a federal law to not substantially burden religious exercise, or, if it does substantially burden religious exercise, to be the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest.
John,
You made a wrong assumption. I read the entire filing.
Bruce, of course you are right – I can’t know how much you actually read. My first sentence should have said:
“Bruce, I hope the bishops didn’t stop reading at the point your quote ends”
John,
Most of your quote from the register is just verbiage in my estimation. This is the one substantive piece I see:
the Departments will work with stakeholders to develop alternative ways of providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing with respect to non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to such coverage.
The key words seem to me to be ‘without cost sharing’ as though that solves the problem. Personally, I dont think it does because the underlying medical insurance policy is still the source of the benefit. Without it, the contraceptive services go away. So that policy is the source of the ‘cooperation with evil’ not just the money.
Finally, I note that if the department does not actually issue any new rules, which they are not required to do, then the original version stands as law…
The next sentence is: “Specifically, the Departments plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor)
Which is a response to the issue the Bshops raised before February 10.
The point in my original post was that Cardinal Dolan’s letter created the impression that there had been no response.
That”s a standard political technique that you see in television ads that say about an opponent “he voted for….”, or “in 2006 he said…” and it works because most people won’t take the time to investigate and will accept it as the whole story.
Too bad to see the bishops doing it, though. That’s why I raised the question of whether they really understand the details of the “accomodation”
plan to initiate
There is no accommodation just the promise to work on one. And there is no downside for the government if they fail in their efforts. In an arm’s length negotiation, that would not work for me.
Thats why I said there is an absence of trust.
“I feel a kind of continuing frustration when I read text like the second paragraph below that says that the administration did not make any change on February 10. It leaves me wondering if the bishops really do not understand what has been proposed.”
John Hayes – I agree with Bruce’s interpretation. At this point, the government has stated that they intend to come up with an accommodation. But nothing has been “locked in” to law in the same sense that the original regulations have. Perhaps it will at some future time – clearly, the Administration has said this is the case. I take the point of that paragraph of Dolan’s/Lori’s letter to be, ‘don’t let up on the gas pedal – continue to fight for a more just outcome. Nothing has been officially determined yet on the accommodation.’
In this regard, it’s important to keep in mind that the President reportedly had assured Dolan during a one-on-one conversation, prior to the announcement of the new regulations, that the final regulations would be unobjectionable. Dolan apparently believes, with some justification, that the President did not keep his word. It’s not surprising that Dolan may now be operating from the premise that the White House’s ‘statement of intent’ for an accommodation at some future time is not to be accepted with complete trust.
… [Trackback] …
[...] Read More Infos here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=17514…