NPR on the Fortnight.
June 21, 2012, 1:06 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
It begins:
Read the statement by some parishioners of Blessed Sacrament Parish (mentioned in the NPR story) right here.
Undoubtedly this thread will draw many posts – probablt alomg predictable lines.
My short take: Abp. Lori is right – this is about protecting the institution (as is the management of sex abuse and even more yje “communio episcopi” where the word frp, top down,covering a host of issues) is what matters.
The message is both highly political and divisive.
It’s the kind of thing that drives many(especially the young) away.
But they don’t care necause it’s now (as Abp. Chaput boted in his confernce with the Philly press, ot’s a battle amd about winning and losing.
Talk about predictable
“Catholics are divided”? There are tens of millions of Catholics in the U.S., and there are exactly zero issues on which 100% of them agree. The question, instead, is are they more or less divided on this issue than others. In fact the federal government’s coercion against Catholics and others has united Catholics in more ways than most controversial issues. Even some liberals are dissenting from the dissent now, to a degree–which is more than usual. I’d say Catholics are significantly less divided than usual, and are on the side of the U.S. Bishops who aren’t divided in any significant way, which is also new.
“Divided” parisioners in this story claim such things as “Nobody’s religious freedom is at stake”. Really. If religious freedom doesn’t include the ability to have the federal government not force you to violate your beliefs, then I guess “nobody’s religious freedom is at stake”. But of course that is the issue, and it is clear from Catholic teaching that religious freedom includes far more. The same such persons cite “Our religious freedom, our ability to simply go to church.” Well, that is the question again, isn’t it: whether religious freedom is more than our ability simply to go to church. It used to be that liberals took the lead in saying it was. Many still do, on issues they like.
That is how the media cover religious “issues.” Get something controversial (a charge that religious freedom is being lost is a good one) and then find someone to speak for the “other side.” It doesn’t matter if the two sides are not equivalent — frightened parishioners + bishops (including the nutty one) vs unfrightened parishioners. Then get someone to be the the fulcrum. Scott Appleby played that role very well. He sounded as if he was on both sides without saying anything unqualifiedly in support of either side.
In the end, NPR never addressed whether there is a threat to religious freedom, and, if so, whether the bishops are part of the problem or part of the solution, but it did touch base with the child abuse scandal, which is what distracted non-Catholics think of when they hear that the Catholic Church is in the news again.
I counted seven allegations by the various voices that could be easily refuted or that needed an easy clarification that they didn’t get. But, hey, the distracted listener knows something is going on, and the story covered both “sides.”
This is some marvelous free publicity for the Fortnight for Freedom.
Jim Pauwels, I have to disagree that this is “marvelous free publicity.” It does seem that the campaign has stirred up animosity among Catholics in some places and is likely to stir up more. If that’s great for the Gospel we’re supposed to follow, then, as we said when i was a kid, I’m a monkey’s uncle.
I’m the distracted listener and all I heard was Obama this and Obama that and it’s all his fault. It sounded a lot like Fox News.
And try as I might, I still don’t understand the threat to religious freedom that is being posed. I mean, I’m still free to refuse contraception. Yet I pay a zillion dollars in taxes to support wars and weaponry that I am morally opposed to, but no one seems concerned about that.
… and the executions. I forgot all the money that the state uses to kill people in my name. As a tax paying citizen, I HAVE to be complicit in this killing. How come only contraception warrants an all out rally against the government??
Beth you are not free to refuse to pay for contraception in your health coverage, because of what the federal government has mandated. And it is not the Bishops fault that Obama is the one who did this–the New York Times explains specifically that Obama is the one who did this. If you like Obama and don’t like Fox News’s attacks on Obama that doesn’t make it partisan when people complain about things Obama does do–contraception coverage mandate, drone strikes, etc. Maybe you don’t have a religious objection to paying for this stuff in your health coverage, or maybe the federal mandate doesn’t really hit you the way it hits Notre Dame. But religious freedom is not about whether people agree with you or are in your exact situation, it is about whether the government forces them to violate their beliefs as a condition of being a citizen. You are free to claim that taxes also violate religious freedom, but not to say that just because one religious freedom attack exists there is no such thing as other religious freedom attacks including those of a more specific nature.
Gosh, Anitra, it’s very late in the Outback. How do you maintain such a high level of output at such an hour?
Anitra, Beth never said anything about refusing to pay for contraception coverage. She said she was free not to use it — as she is free not to use coverage for her appendectomy if she never needs one. I am totally unable to understand this whole foofaraw because, as far as I know, I or my employer has been paying coverage I’d never use all my life. And, as Beth said, I have been paying taxes for a lot of immoral stuff that was used in my name as well.
the campaign has stirred up animosity among Catholics in some places and is likely to stir up more
Bernard,
I think this is exactly what Christ prophesied when he said “Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.
You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end* will be saved.’
Christ didnt want his disciples to ‘go along to get along’, He wanted them to bring His message which He knew would be hated by many.
Yet I pay a zillion dollars in taxes to support wars and weaponry that I am morally opposed to
Beth,
The Catholic Church teaches that you are morally responsible to pay your taxes however the funds are ultimately spent. And no one is saying that you should refuse paying taxes on moral grounds if the government decided to offer contraceptives to everyone and pay for it out of the government treasury.
Both you and Tom fail to appreciate that the government requiring you to purchase a product is fundamentally different from requiring you to pay taxes and the moral analysis is completely different. You are not morally responsible for the government executing people or conducting war. At most, in our democracy you have a moral obligation to vote against people supporting such policies. However, you are morally responsible if the government ‘requires’ you to execute someone and you do.
Bruce, try real hard: The government is not requiring me — or Beth, or you, or the bishops — to buy contraceptives. It is trying to require us to have insurance policies that cover eventualities we may or may not need or want. That is how insurance works. Insurance worked like that in the Hoover and Truman and Reagan administrations. This is not something invented in President Obama’s back room.
Anitra, bruce, etc. thanks for yout predictable responses also.
Keep going at it if you wish.
” It does seem that the campaign has stirred up animosity among Catholics in some places and is likely to stir up more.”
Then let us work together to fix the problem that instigated the campaign: the contraception mandate. It may be worth noting, though, that religious freedom is a good deal broader than the HHS mandate, and folks who aren’t personally concerned about the mandate should still be able to see that religious liberty is a foundational liberty – one that is worth celebrating, and that shouldn’t be taken for granted.
Worth a read
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/06/launching-the-fortnight-for-freedom
Nice of NPR not to mention that the Jim Zogby we hear from is a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee. Where wer all these people complaining about how partisan the church was becoming when the Bishops rightfully announced support for Obama’s immigration proposal or criticized Paul Ryan’s budget.
Nice try Tom. I suggest you try a little harder because your description fails. The sponsor of your health care policy receives a bill from the insurance company. That bill is based on expected uses of various products based on the underlying population covered. (Thats how insurance works). When one of those items is contraceptives, the sponsor pays for that. That is the problem. Even HHS agrees with that analysis. Their ‘solution’ has been to try to shift the cost onto other entities, which should also have the same religious conscience claims, but our society ignores.
The problem has nothing to do with forcing you as a beneficiary of the health insurance policy to consume contraceptives because as you correctly point out, no one is forced to consume the product.
Bruce:
Your comment 12 states:
Christ didnt want his disciples to ‘go along to get along’, He wanted them to bring His message which He knew would be hated by many.
Well said. Now, the question is: What is Christ’s message as concerns the church’s position on contracettion and the “Fortnight for Fredom,” and who are those who hate the message. Both of us would have to admit that we don’t know with certainty, although we do know that many of those who hated Jesus’s message most forcefully were the religious leaders who held fast to the laws and practices of the past. Is it possible that some of our religious leaders are the ones who hate the message that, if it wants to be the light in today’s world, the Church must tone down its divisive rhetoric, stopped wining about how persecuted we all are, and work constructively with those with whom the leadership may have disagreements. (And it wouldn’t hurt if the church brought its thinking on contraception into the late 20th century, if not the 21st.) Honestly, at times it seems as if some of our church leaders think that being a Catholic is really only worth something if most everybody disagrees with us. That wasn’t Jesus’s way.
Jim Pauwels, see the NCR report on Archbishop Chaput’s speech at the Catholic Press Association. How can this kind of rhetoric help unite us in this or any other matter,
By the way, when you say that “religious liberty is a foundational liberty,” are you speaking in the terms of the Constitution? If not, please say what you mean by “foundational”? I have no problem with the First Amendment and may have no problem with some other definition of “foundational liberty,” but can’t be sure until it’s spelled out.
I accept Max Weber’s conception of an ethics of ultimate ends. For us Catholics, this would call for us to accept death rather than deny some infallible Catholic doctrine. But that’s hardly the kind of thing at stake in the HHS issue.
I do not get the hype and inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the F4F that seems to me to be designed to evoke fear and anger (against the erosion of religious freedom? NO. against the President? Yes.)
The presentation given at the USCCB meeting by Bishop Shlemon Warduni in which he described the persecution of the Church in Iraq and, by the way, put the blame on the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, should have shown the bishops what “real” religious persecution is. Were they listening?
Excuse me. The fact that our bishops can preach, sometimes from a pulpit, and write all sorts of vicious attacks against our present government with no retaliation is a perfect example of our first amendment cherished freedom. I attended (to see first hand what was happening) one of the “Stand Up for Freedom” rallies on June 8 What did I see and hear? – harangues against Obamacare, a banner with Socialist Obama on it, etc. Was anyone arrested?
What audacity to protest our government when so many bishops disrespected our civil law by protecting predator priests.
Praying for the best but expecting the worst pretty much sums up my frame of mind on this. I pray that genuine concern for all aspects of religious freedom in our country and around the world will be nourished by this fortnight, but I expect that the effort will continue to be cramped by a religious right framework that feeds a sense of unique victimhood. My concerns are heightened by this leading evangelical supporter of the Fortnight comparing the Mandate to early Nazi legislation. http://debatingobama.blogspot.com/2012/06/metaxas-mantra.html
Bruce, I probably still don’t get it because you pare cheese thinner than I do. But your last effort seems to be saying that even the possibility that someone somewhere in the universe covered by my insurance provider might use a contraceptive means I can’t morally pay that insurance provider, or presumably, allow someone to pay the provider for me. “That is the problem.”
I think my secondary is handled by such a verboten company. Should I confess it?
Bernard Dauenhauer: Please value your life over any supposedly infallible Catholic doctrine. Please do not give up your life rather deny any supposedly infallible Catholic doctrine.
The Philly court attendees are saying after 2 weeks that they ‘see’ a couple of jurors looking like they are definitely going for a hung jury.
The defense lawyer in Sandusky trial compared Catholic Sandusky to Mother Teresa in his summation today.
Both these juries might report being hung by a few Catholic jurors right in the middle of the silly Fortnight of Freedom…. If that happens expect some of the whining bishops will be chased right out their robes by a howling public and a crosier waving will not fend off these howls either.
Bruce 06/21/2012 – 3:53 pm
Worth a read (First Things)
Rarely.
Friends:
Anitra/Nancy/Amy/etc. shows up periodically under a variety of names. But now you should know what to expect from her/him/whatever.
You know what to expect from me, but I don’t keep changing my name.
Jim
Ed, Check out the Rt. Rev. Justice Alito’s decision today, the one in which he says we have tolerated unions long enough. Of course, that won’t be a religious issue.
Jim, I don’t think Anitra is Nancy. She doesn’t use the same style of English, istm. Or am I blind to it?
Bernard -yes, I meant religious liberty in the Constitutional sense, but would also note that religious liberty is not peculiar to America. Vatican II issued a famous document in support of it. It is a human right.
even the possibility that someone somewhere in the universe covered by my insurance provider might use a contraceptive means I can’t morally pay that insurance provider,
Tom,
Why should you be required to buy a policy that covers abortifacients? If someone wants those services then they can buy a policy that covers them and deal directly with the morality of their decision. But people who have moral objections should not be required to purchase that coverage. That is all I’m saying. And HHS understands the issue exactly the way I described it. Thats why their rule has a conscience clause and they made a number of proposals to change how the policies are purchased.
As for your rectitude, thats between you and your confessor.
An interesting question, since one can ask whose medical benefits are they? If they are part of the overall compensation, then they already belong to the worker. And if this is the case, are we not talking about a religious principle that claims that one should have a right to prevent non-Catholic workers from consuming contraception?
I hope they don’t turn the Mass into a political rally the next couple of weeks, I hate having to listen to this kind of stuff in Church.
Bruce — You over-simplify. To date, the bishops have focussed on not contraception in the campaign against the HHS health insurance mandate. Their emphasis may reflect efforts to compensate for the results of their past 40 years of teaching on the subject.
Consider health insurance providing coverage for employees who may choose to submit, for example, a claim for pre-natal care for a pregnant unmarried woman, STD therapy, or treatment of cirrhosis from intentional alcohol abuse. All can be linked to official Catholic teachings against the behavior involved, at least as directly as paying for contraceptive goods, and would not be predicted in the case of a person living strictly by a well-formed Catholic conscience. Do these and similar possibilities need to be excluded from an acceptable policy?
Irene;
That is why I am attending my nearby Catholic University Campus Ministry open-to-the-public Mass. I know there I will be spiritually nourished and not harangued. Of course you could bring a pair of ear plugs and your iPhone (silenced) so that you can read some the homily of a priest or deacon who knows what a homily means.
I see the Legionnaires are getting into the brouha. Pray to Father Maciel. He can help. Offering freedom for all victims of abuse. http://live.regnumchristi.org/
f they are part of the overall compensation, then they already belong to the worker
Of course, that is not true until they are purchased by the employer…
Bill Mazzella: Please say you’re being facetious, or that you’re not referring to the Father Maciel who abused young boys and fathered two children out of wedlock.
Here’s a magisterial statement (or is it simply an ironic statement) on the obedience due to governmental authority, and a warning to those who would undermine confidence in such authority:
17. We have learned that certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes; the torches of treason are being lit everywhere. Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that “there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation.”[27] Therefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who strive by treason and sedition to drive the people from confidence in their princes and force them from their government.
(Gregory XVI, Mirari vos, 1832).
We are all urged to say a prayer for the success of this venture: Cardinal Weurl mentioned it tonight on Raymond Arroya’s “World Over”. It is called “Minute to Win It”.
Somehow it is difficult to have sympathy for “fat balding bishops” when so much of the world lacks freedom and are hungry and sick. Where is their vigil. their advocates, their voice?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2011/08/03/captured-somalia-famine/4538/
Bill:
Our bishops haven’t a clue and it is very discouraging.
And in the NPR picture’s background, behind Cardinal Dolan in his riotous laughter, stands Francis’ San Damiano crucifix asking us to rebuild His Church.
Tom, it is true that the current mandate doesn’t require people to use contraceptives. Your conclusion from that fact is that there’s no religious freedom violation involved. But you assume the major premise that only use of contraceptives is prohibited by religious belief. That premise is incorrect. There are lots of things that religious belief prohibits, at least for some people, beyond using contraceptives. Paying for other people’s free contraceptives is one of those things. Again maybe this would not be a religious qualm for you. But it is for others, including many Catholics. Those people should not be forced to conform their religious beliefs to your or Grant’s conscience, to the effect that if you declare something to not be against “right” religious beliefs then they can be forced to participate in it.
“Anitra” and Bruce, I’ll try it one more time. “Paying for others’ free contraceptives” is something everyone with insurance has been doing since day one, or at least until the amount of his/her benefits exceeds the amount of his premiums. Think of insurance as a form of socialism: Everyone puts in according to the insurance company’s needs, and everyone takes out according to his needs. You seem to think your individual nickel is distinguishable once it gets into the pot. Money, my friends, is fungible.
And by the way, “free” contraceptives are not “free.” If they were, we wouldn’t be arguing about who is paying for them. would we?
“And if this is the case, are we not talking about a religious principle that claims that one should have a right to prevent non-Catholic workers from consuming contraception?”
YES! Whose religious freedom is at stake now?
Anitra: are you spoofing your IP address? If so, why? Answer the question.
Tom, You dont get it. Consider these 2 alternatives
Alternative 1: Your employer buys a policy for you which does not cover contraceptives. No moral issue
Alternative 2: Your buys a policy a policy for you which covers contraceptives. Potential moral issue.
If your employers religious belief is that using contraceptives is immoral, why force the purchase of the policy including contraceptives. The argument has nothing to do with money or its fungiblity. The Bishops would be objecting to alternative 2 even if it substantially reduced their costs of insurance. Morality is not dependent on money. Its dependent on the availability of the services.
I’ll repeat myself again. Even HHS acknowledges a potential moral issue because they included a conscience clause in the regs. When you figure out why they did that, then you will understand the issue.
Any Catholic institution, or any other organization, can opt out of providing employer health insurance. Individuals can buy insurance through State insurance clearinghouses, established under the law. The companies can pay a relatively modest fine, and save money, which they can invest in Johnson and Johnson to manufacture and sell contraceptives. Win-win.
““And if this is the case, are we not talking about a religious principle that claims that one should have a right to prevent non-Catholic workers from consuming contraception?”YES! Whose religious freedom is at stake now?”
This is an absurd suggestion, from a logical or a Catholic position. It is false to say that an employer who compensates employees has no interest in what items she uses to compensate her employees. If the government forced employers to pay 10% of what they owe their employees using not money but land mines or powdered fetus pills or gift certificates to Planned Parenthood or NRA membership, it is irrational to say the employer is not being coerced against his beliefs against directly promoting one of those things, or to say he doesn’t even have an interest because it is something the employer owes to the employee anyway. It is Orwellian to assert that an employer who says I want to give you compensation but not offensive product X is violating the rights of the employee to obtain or use product x. That is not even factually accurate. The employer has nothing to do with whether the employee can obtain or use product x ecause the government is the one who sets rules about obtaining or using that product, and in this case the government has made the product 100% legal. Finally, from a Catholic perspective it is perverse to say that an employer’s duty to justly compensate his workers permits the government to force the employer to give his workers intrinsically evil products. That makes a mockery of Catholic social teaching and is really nothing more than an assertion that Catholic teaching isn’t really against contraception. It also utterly destroys the Catholic teaching of religious freedom.
Anitra: Are you spoofing your IP address? How many times do I have to ask?
I’m confused (I know, what else is new?).
I’ve been away for a few days, but I was surprised to read this piece by NPR.
This isn’t how Fortnight for Freedom was pitched in the local parish; we’re all supposed to be thankful for our religious freedoms and figure out ways to exercise them. It all seemed so positive–if a little startling, since the local parish generally ignores secular holidays like the Fourth, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Thanksgiving, etc.
Certainly nothing was said about “strangling” the church, and there were certainly no references to Stalin and Hitler in the bulletin.
Grant, is that your best defense of Eric’s and uni’s confounding assertions?
They can speak for themselves. Time for you to speak for yourself. You keep avoiding my question. Your IP address resolves to the Australian desert. I don’t believe you are posting from that location. I want to know why you’re spoofing your IP address. I suspect you’ve been banned from dotCommonweal and have created an account to avoid detection. It’s clever. But if you have been banned, you’re not welcome back. Now answer my questions.
I must say that I am rather pleased to hear you say you’ve been confounded.
It’s paternalism for management to determine what their workers will and will not consume. You happen to agree with the paternalism in this case. But this paternalism is the source of opposition to the bishops. Management does not have a religious right to manage their workers’ consumption. Insurance benefits are not something that management purchases and then presents as a gift to their workforce. If management has scruples nonetheless, I don’t see why they are not met by the proposed compromise that the reproductive coverage will come from elsewhere.
This week the matter will likely be settled by the Supreme Court.
Assuming (which I do) the court with toss this nonsensical program in the garbage entirely, then – thankfully – we can get to the business of setting up a basic federal health care program that covers everyone living here. Place a small federal health care tax on everyone’s income tax and define what basic medical services that will pay for.
Everyone deseves basic medical care, which as Christians we should all help provide and the federal plan would provide that. Richer folks who are willing and able to pay for better care also deserve that option if they wish.
With the basic (minimal) federal plan is in place, we can all set about obtaining riders to that plan to provide our own families with the sort of healthcare we want and can afford.
And then we can all get back to living our lives.