Bishop Lori on the contraception mandate talks
I interviewed Bishop William Lori, head of the USCCB’s religious freedom committee and a leader in the battle against the contraception mandate, and he indicated that the bishops would like to see the difficult dialogue with the White House over modifying the mandate re-started. But he didn’t sound terribly optimistic, and, he added, “to use a very good Rahnerian phrase, any discussion has to have the conditions for the possibility of success.”
It’s not clear those conditions are there yet — perhaps not within the church or without. From my RNS story:
“I think the hardest thing is that the administration deals with us in a segmented way,” said Lori, who has testified before Congress three times in opposition to the mandate.
“If there is really going to be a solution to things, we ought to all be in the room,” he said.
Lori said the bishops “do not have a monopoly on the church” but are nonetheless “responsible for a large part of how this works and for the Catholicity of all the institutions. So there ought to be an attempt to have an inclusive conversation with the Catholic Church, and not a segmented one. And I think that is in part why we are in a fairly unhappy spot right now.”
Lori and some 40 other leading bishops will meet in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday (March 13-14) for discussions expected to focus on relations with the White House and, in particular, the contraception mandate.
Lori said that the bishops “are not looking for a fight with the administration.” The bishops, he said, “are painfully aware that it is awfully difficult, in an election year and in the culture we have now, to have that conversation” about birth control.
“Are we doing it perfectly? No, of course not. But that’s certainly our intent.”
Read the rest here.
Thanks, Mr. Gibson for your balance and openness to hearing both sides. Sorry, my cynicism comes from watching Lori during three committee meetings basically fumble and contort what the bishops are looking for. The goal posts continue to shift and the tendency to lay the blame at the feet of the administration -well??
If there will be any hopeful progress in this arena, the USCCB needs to get more educated and moderate/thoughtful bishops involved in the process.
You end your interview with statements that the bishops support healthcare reform – really? which bishops? or they support based upon their formulas only? But, that being said, it would be a helpful starting point that needs to encompass the social justice imperatives of the church and its history of serving the marginal, poor, immigrant, women and their health needs. (there has been little of this narrative to date despite mr. history, cardinal dolan)
Then, you raise two “competing” notions – religious liberty and birth control. The bishops only appear confused on these two goals and then you throw in the hospitals, social agencies, universities, state laws, and what has and has never been done before on these issues – so, why now?
Finally, it appears that significant hospital associations (catholic) and catholic charities/social agencies have been involved – is there a reason why the USCCB has not been? Again, is the pattern to blame the administration? Something is missing from this narrative.
That being said – my cynicism ends by saying that I have now read Lori’s statements and wonder what the sound of “back pedalling” by a bishop sounds like? (and the reasons are more than just Limbaugh, or loss of some Republicans….he needs to look in the mirror)
I live outside the city now, but for 25 years I owned a house in Boston which had two rental units in addition to my own space. Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits discrimination in renting:
(5) Unlawful Housing Practices
(a) It is unlawful to refuse to rent or lease or otherwise to deny to or withhold from any person such housing, space or land because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status, children, handicap or receipt of public assistance or housing subsidy.
Over the years I rented to a mixture of people – married, single, cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
I must say that it never occurred to me that my religious freedom was being infringed and that I was cooperating in evil by doing what the state law required in renting to cohabiting and same-sex couples.
I don’t remember ever hearing of more than two or three cases in which a landlord claimed that his religious beliefs did not allow him to rent to unmarried or same sex couples – and all of those lost in court.
It seems to me that this is part of living in a diverse society.
P.S. for those who wonder, there is an exception in the law for owner-occupied two (not three) family houses.
John Hayes you are different than a church sponsored institution. And your religious freedom probably was being infringed.
Re: Bishop Lori’s comment that in order to reach a solution on this issue, “we ought to all be in the room,” it would be awfully nice if the bishops would let some women in the room when the subject of contraception and health care reform comes up. Of course they would have to allow women to speak and express opinions, especially poor women.
Valerie Schultz who has taught NFP for ten years writes: “The stark reality is that, in a parish of more than 800 families, we taught about 20 couples in 10 years. Twenty. And not all of them were even Catholic. Despite bulletin blurbs, newsletter articles and weekly announcements, our classes were usually individual tutorials. Judging by our experience, the reported statistic that 98 percent of Catholic couples at some point use artificial birth control rings true.”
How long will the bishops continue their hypocrisy? As long as they can get obsequious and/or opportunistic Catholics to echo the party line. Here is the rest of the Valerie Schultz article. http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/lifestyle/local/x2097370274/VALERIE-SCHULTZ-Why-is-contraception-suddenly-a-big-Catholic-concern
–The bishops, he said, “are painfully aware that it is awfully difficult, in an election year and in the culture we have now, to have that conversation” about birth control.–
I’m curious about the quotation marks in the above quotation, and especially about “about birth control” being a summary and not a direct quote. Would the bishop have agreed that the “conversation” he wants to have in an election year is about birth control (and not, say, religious freedom)? I’m not suggesting you’re being dishonest in your story; more like wondering how “out there” the bishop is about what’s legitimately on the table here.
As American citizens, the Catholic bishops are free to speak in public about public policy issues. At the present time, contraception coverage in insurance under Obamacare is a public policy issue that is being debated. As American citizens, the Catholic bishops are free to join in the debate.
But their arguments regarding their scruples about contraception are based on the Catholic tradition of so-called “natural law” moral theory regarding sexual morality. By entering the public arena with the dubious claims of the Catholic tradition of so-called “natural law” moral theory regarding sexual morality, the Catholic bishops are inviting other people in the public arena to debate the claims of the Catholic tradition of so-called “natural law” moral theory regarding sexual morality. I hope that others in the public arena rise to the occasion and vigorously debate the claims of the Catholic tradition of so-called “natural law” moral theory regarding sexual morality.
Well said, Thomas. Catholic moral theology seems to have been frozen since HV. Perhaps this dialogue in the open would soften the ground for other theologians. Also, the bishops speak of “artificial contraception” with poor reference to the medical and technological developments of the past 40 years. Their time warp leaves them unhelpful. They lost the moral argument with Terri Schiavo and now they’re re-fighting this one.
While I think Bishop Lori “backpedalled”, the meeting starting in Washington today will point to where our hierarchy is going.
They cant take a tough “non altar boy” (see Laurie Goodstein on the SNAP push by Wm. Donahue) or they can play it more softly, or try nice guy/bad guy with Cardinal Dolan et al as”nice” and Donahue and some others as “bad.”
But I read E.J. Dionne’s analysis of the curren tsituation as correct and thank David G. for his coverage.
this battle in their continuing war on all things feminine
Grant, I know how readily you delete comments. Do you mind cracking down on some of the more offensive anti-Catholic stuff that is said?
Doctor’s appointment this morning. Happy to delete that, but not because I find it anti-Catholic.
I am curious as to what the bishop means in his (twice mentioned) talk of “a segmented way.” (E.g., “an inclusive conversation with the Catholic Church, and not a segmented one.” Does he mean bishops plus university and hospital administrators? Or actual laypeople? Maybe even women, if he wants to be inclusive–imagine that! If “segmented” means representative, will we be proportionately represented–e.g., for every bishop opposed to birth control, bring in 98 lay Catholics who approve? Or even if the new poll is correct, bring in 51 Catholics who disapprove the mandate, 49 who approve it, and let us all discuss?
Whatever he means, I really don’t think this conversation should be had only from the p.o.v. of employers, but also of regular working folks, who might not want their medical care coverage determined by the religious leaders of their bosses.
50% of workers kick in on their health plans costs. Will the anti-mandaters tell us how a bishop’s liberty is infringed upon when a worker pays for his spouses and adult childrens health care? It’s not even remote remote remote cooporation! It’s more like paying to be on a bus that has a stop by a porn movie house.
with poor reference to the medical and technological developments of the past 40 years.
There have been only incremental medical developments in artificial birth control in the last 40 years. And they are all still artificial. The only real development is social acceptance and expectations and that does not really move the moral compass.
Lisa,
I cannot understand why women think they need to use the coercive (ie laws) powers of the government to force someone else to pay for something that is readily available at Target and Walmart for $9/month. We arent talking about poor women because by definition, all these women have employer provided health care.
Ed, heres the employers involvement, no employer health care policy then no ‘reproductive benefits’; with a policy then there are benefits.
Bruce: I have tired of pointing this out, but I think if men are going to opine on prescription drugs that only affect women, they ought to do some homework beforehand. One more time: Not all women can tolerate the cheap, old-model birth-control pills available at Target, etc. Those pills contain higher doses of hormones than more recent, more expensive formulations.
Bruce —
FYI: An indication of current birth control methods in addition to what you have found at Target and Walmart is in a table, with references, at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods
The information ethically required before selecting and proposing a method for an individual is readily available online from manufacturers and major medical organizations, among others.
Grant and Jack, Lets also remember that there is another person involved, the male, and condoms are even cheaper. And there are other products available for women including spermicidal creams, sponge’s etc, with costs above and below the number I used. Btw, the cheap generic drugs you deride were prescription drugs not so long ago.
Bruce: Yes, let us all pause for a moment to emphasize the biological necessity of men in conceiving a child. And then let’s remember that the woman has to carry it. Condoms have a higher rate of failure. A lot of women are allergic to spermicide. The cheap generic drugs have a higher dose of hormones that correlate with increased risk of breast cancer. Not that long ago lithium was prescribed for pregnant mothers. That turned out well.
Thank you, Grant, for educating those in need.
Dionne quotes Bishop Lori that he “added that rallying Catholics “and public opinion in general” around the theme of religious freedom remains the church’s best chance for changing the mandate.”
I don’t think so.
Ah, Lori on religious freedom. Here is another interpretation of his, after the Supreme Court refused to act on Lori’s request to keep church documents secret:
From the NYT:
If Catholic values of forgiveness and redemption are among the considerations employed in deciding whether priests accused of sexual abuse work again — even priests known for a certainty to have committed abuse — juries “are not to be allowed, in retrospect, to conclude that the diocese’s weighing of these factors resulted in a misguided or negligent decision,” the diocese argued in its petition.
To do so would constitute government interference in “ecclesiastical policy decisions,” the diocese petition maintained. To release church documents concerning such decisions to the public, it added, would undermine the diocese’s “right to function as a religious institution.”
Lori’s elastic definitions of religious freedom mean IOW that he is above child protection laws, exempt from any legal accountability for failure to honor them. Otherwise he can’t practice his Catholic faith.
Bishops need to stop twisting and distorting the First Amendment for their self-serving interests.
Thanks, Carolyn – a graphic example that this issue can be a slippery slope going both ways.
carolyn –
Bishop Lori confuses forgiving and forgetting. Some theologian.
I just want to point out that laws which require permanent registration and community notification (so called Megan’s laws) and the extensive use of pre-employment background checks make it nearly impossible for some people to rise above their worst mistake. Without and end at some point to punishment there is no real forgiveness.
NYT editorial this morning on the bishops’ attack on SNAP:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/hurting-advocates-of-victims-abused-by-priests.html?ref=opinion
Thanks, Geryln.
A while back, we had a thread on a meeting at the North American College on Sex abuise and listening to victms, ending secrecy, being accountable, etc.
But the affair in KC and the major defense of Msgr.Lynn by diocesan paid attorneys in Philly make one more than wonder about honesty!
Now the Cardinal Abp. of Ny is metin gwith governor there.
Fighting SOL legislation of course.
Is the meeting of the bisop’s administrative comittee secret in its decions?
We say lots of things that sound nive……
Bruce, we’re not talking about never forgiving the perverts. We’re talking about never uncovering their crimes and shifting them around from parish to parish to commit more crimes.
Stopp making excuses for relons.
I’ve just discovered that the USCCB has its own blog – although all the blog contributors are members of the P/R Department there. They have just announced that they are starting a new series of posts that “will unpack and explore the themes addressed by the U.S. bishops in “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”
This blog should be interesting to follow since one of my questions about the contraception issue has been how much pressure the bishops will put on Catholics to vote in a specific way.
With Super Tuesday now behind us, more and more Americans are turning their attention to politics, specifically, to the local, state and federal elections on November 6, and as they do so, one in four of those Americans is Catholic.
In the 2008 election, Catholics comprised a quarter of the electorate, by far the largest single religious denomination. They achieved this statistical feat in spite of making up less than a quarter of the total population. So not only are they are a formidable demographic, but an over-represented one at the polls. We’d like to think this is a sign that U.S. Catholics tend to be civic minded and informed when it comes to the issues that affect them, their country and the rest of the world. In short, hopefully it’s because they care.
To feed this demand, this blog is entering the election year fray with a weekly series, “Catholics care. Catholics vote,” which will run from now through May. As the politicians and pundits ramp up their rhetoric, this series will will unpack and explore the themes addressed by the U.S. bishops in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, their document on political responsibility. This will include everything from issues affecting human life and dignity, to hot-button social concerns in our country today, to the principles that shape the conscience formation and civic involvement of Catholics.
This series will be freely available to diocesan and parish leadership for use circulation/re-posting in newspapers, bulletins, websites, workshops, etc.
http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/03/catholics-care-catholic-vote.html
“United for Religious Freedom — A Statement of the Administrative Committee Of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops”, March 14, 2012
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Admin-Religious-Freedom.pdf
It’s clear that unity is one of their principal concerns. The paper draws one’s attention to six subjects the debate is _not_ about before getting to its point. The latter appears to be a summary of objections made in recent weeks with particular attention to the government definition of religion. The segmentation Bp. Lori referred to is not mentioned. Rather, continuing acceptance of any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch is affirmed. If or how this advances the bishops’ cause(s) is not clear to me.
John Hayes,
I checked out the bishops’ blog. You might know, there’s no provision for feedback. And they call it a blog!
The bishops’ statement today reaffirms that their goal is to exempt not just church-related institutions but every individual with objections based on “religious beliefs or moral convictions”.
As to where things go from here, they say (I have added he numbering):
we want to indicate our next steps.
1. We will continue our vigorous efforts at education and public advocacy on the principles of religious liberty and their application in this case (and others).
2. We will continue to accept any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch to protect the religious freedom that is rightly ours.
3.We will continue to pursue legislation to restore the same level of religious freedom we have enjoyed until just recently.
4. And we will continue to explore our options for relief from the courts, under the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws that protect religious freedom.
All of these efforts will proceed concurrently, and in a manner that is mutually reinforcing.
The statement calls upon “the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer and penance for our leaders.”
The statement calls upon “the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer and penance for our leaders.”
The bishops must be referring to themselves, right?
Prelates need an education in the First Amendment that they so conveniently distort. From the NYT’s
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/opinion/clerical-abusers-and-the-first-amendment.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
EDITORIAL
Clerical Abusers and the First Amendment
Published: March 14, 2012
“Religious institutions have constitutional protections, but they are not above the law… ”
Credibility for bishops? It’s not really, really about the First Amendment after all.
The NY Times is virulently anti-Catholic IMHO. Their ‘reporting’ and editorials transparently reflect that bias.