Fortnight for Freedom moves ‘Commonweal’ to offer June 15 issue for free.
June 21, 2012, 2:46 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Every last bit of it:
Commonweal June 15, 2012 Issue: The Bishops and Religious Liberty
Congrats! This is a good move
Thank you. With permission, we had distributed saome articles and appreciate this gift. An excellent edition.
A very good decision. Commonweal’s editors can stand tall. I’ve depended on it in a letter I wrote to my bishop. And I will spread the word to others.
But wait, I already paid for it…what do I get?
Interesting move, Grant.
But just how do the editors of COMMONWEAL plan to make this offer known to people?
Are the editors going to rely on the readers of dotCommonweal to make this offer known to people?
Hey, Mark, you’re kind of like the guy who pays Catholic school tuition and also pays property taxes to support the public schools. Kind of.
Grant: I hope that you and the editors email a copy to each bishop’s office.
I second Anthony’s congratulations. This is a very generous thing to do.
“This brings me to the bishops’ statement, which goes well beyond Pope Benedict in a key respect. While the pope focuses on claims of conscience, the bishops emphasize the distinction between conscientious objection and an unjust law: “Conscientious objection permits some relief to those who object to a just law…. An unjust law is ‘no law at all.’ It cannot be obeyed.” They insist that “If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America…must have the courage not to obey them.”
This is a remarkable argument on several levels. A difficulty lurks at the surface: in our pluralistic society, agreement on what justice is and what it requires is incomplete. Each individual and group is entitled to make a public argument about justice, and there is a place for civil disobedience. But to avoid anarchy, public decisions about justice—embedded in law—are entitled to substantial deference. As far as I can see, the bishops make no effort to understand why their antagonists think that justice requires what the Catholic hierarchy thinks it forbids.”
The above is from Galston’s article. A church which bent over backwards not to confront Hitler in the most damnable act in World history, now favors anarchy to protest a law they are not even sure of. While thousands of Jews were sent deported to camps minimal protests were made. Now in a case which is not that clear the bishops propose defiance. Looks like there might be a prodigious backlash against the bishops on many fronts.
Do we even have fortnights in America?
Wonderful idea, and yes indeed generous. But how do you get those who should read it actually to do so?
This is probably totally impracticable, but might it be possible to open up a page on this website inviting responses, and in particular encouraging responses from those who might disagree with Commonweal’s authors? Civilly of course. No comparisons, please, to Stalin and Hitler. Or even Genghis Khan.
LOVE IT!!!!!
Though I shiuld confess that I am a bit disappointed that I will not be able to say, “I am observing thebfortnight…”. Sounds so fancy, so British, so whatever…
Excerpt from Archbishop Chaput’s speech at the Catholic media convention at Indianapolis last night:
“Tomorrow we start the Fortnight for Freedom. It’s a moment for each of us to be grateful to our bishops for doing the right thing–the important and urgent thing–at the right time. If we don’t press now and vigorously for our religious liberty in the public arena, we will lose it. Not overnight and not with a thunderclap, but step by step, inexorably. And each of you as a Catholic media professional plays a key role, a really vital role, in that effort because our prestige news media, with very few exceptions, simply will not cover this issue in a fair and comprehensive way.”
Thomas F. –
If your bishop has a mind that is open at least a little crack, go for broke and send him a subscription. Consider it the equivalent of a work of mercy :-)
So all they have to do is ask, and you give them the Commonweal issue for free if they want it? As if it was contraception? But maybe they think Commonweal is immoral. Isn’t that an infringement of their religious liberty?
Claire–an analogous infringement would be if politicians who are propped up by the contributors to Comonweal got a bunch of their bureaucrats to force those who disagree with Commonweal to pay to send Commonweal’s magazine to other people for free. Actually, since the HHS mandate requires objectors to pay for “education and counseling” in favor of contraception, that is basically what is happening. Print extra copies of this one: Sebelius is shipping one out with every box of Ella.
Anitra Williams- Can you give us a little background on where you’re coming from with your objections to the mandate? Does it violate your own religious beliefs? Are you a Roman Catholic here in the US? Or are your objections primarily around the legality of the mandate?
Yes Irene–I think the mandate is illegal and violates religious freedom, both at the same time for inseparable reasons. Federal law says the government can’t go around forcing people to do things in violation of their religious beliefs. That is especially true when the government could achieve the same goal by providing such services itself, and when the government’s policy exempts lots of people for secular reasons but refuses to exempt religious objectors. If you look at Grant’s announcement on this blog of Cathy Kaveny’s article, you will see some discussion in the comment box of the fatal flaws and inexcusable omissions in her punditry. There have been a host of religious objectors from different backgrounds demonstrating that the mandate forces them to vioate their beliefs. It is simply illegal, and is offensive to respect for religious freedom. I think religious freedom is not about what I believe, though I do share the Catholic religious beliefs of many of those objectosrs. Religious freedom is about protecting people even if I don’t agree with them, because if we stand by and let the government come for everyone else, sooner or later it will come for us. So that means religious freedom is about protecting mandate objectors even if people here disagree with their moral cooperation analysis, like claiming that the fictitious accomodation arrangement would be morally acceptable. Religious freedom means nothing if the federal government can fine them because they disagree with liberal moral theologians and agree with conservative moral theologians. Liberals used to be the champions of that idea. It is tragic that they have adopted a contrary posture when support for their political party became inconsistent with their historically vibrant support for religious freedom. Commonweal of all places should be leading the charge in defense of robust religious freedom. Instead it is the headquarters for undermining a unified Catholic campaign in support for religious freedom. That is an extremely troubling result of liberal Catholic alignment with Obama.
Thank you, Anitra. I think it is important to support religious freedom, and the freedom of others, but most of these threads focus on whether the mandate violates Catholic religious beliefs specifically.
So, as a Catholic, I’m still trying to figure out if my own religious freedom is being violated. I think government should not define what are my religious beliefs, but nor should individuals who are not themselves Catholic. I think we Catholics need to have an “in-house” conversation, so to speak, to resolve whether the mandate violates our religious freedoms, and Catholics are not unified on that, it seems to me. I know the bishops oppose artificial contraception, but a lot of other Catholics don’t, so I think we still need to figure that out before we can say it violates Catholics’ religious liberties.
But I certainly think we should support the religious liberties of others, though I wish we could prioritize a little better. Other people have said it much more eloquently, but I think we should be more concerned about moslems being prevented from opening and about attacks on synagogues than we should worry about birth control pills.
Irene you are free to decide that the mandate would not violate your beliefs. But the religious freedom issue of the mandate isn’t really about whether it violates Catholic beliefs. First, because non-Catholics have objected too. And second, because the government can’t be in the business of deciding which Catholic beliefs are right and which ones it can impose fines and lawsuits against. Religious freedom means that we can’t say we will be more concerned about this or that violation because those beliefs really don’t get us stirred up. In fact, there is very broad consensus on the violation of Catholic beliefs here, when Notre Dame and Fr. Jenkins go so far as to file suit against even the accomodation. This is no fringe claim. People here don’t have to agree, that isn’t the point of religious freedom. To call it insignificant when even the Obama-inviting Notre Dame sues would render everything insignificant just because someone doesn’t share those beliefs. And in this case, the federal government has imposed a mandate directly on citizens on a national level, knowing it violates their religious beliefs, knowing it has other options, and knowing it is letting lots of people off for secular reasons. If we can say that is low priority because of (which?) attacks on others (conducted by whom? on what scale?), there’s nothing left of religious freedom. For Commonweal to beat the drum against the defense of religious freedom on this issue is a reversal of everything liberal Catholics have claimed to stand for since Vatican II–except their acceptance of contraception and of Democrats.
“Do we even have fortnights in America?”
In many househoulds in America there are many fightnights. And some happen more often than every 2 weeks, too.
“Federal law says the government can’t go around forcing people to do things in violation of their religious beliefs.”
1. The government isn’t forcing the bishops to do a darn thing. They’re EXEMPT from the mandate, as are all churches.
2. As for individuals, I’m afraid you have your facts wrong. Federal law has been requiring that religious people pay for things they don’t believe in ever since the Constitution was signed….the most often-cited case being Quakers and other religious pacifists who have to support the military. On the other hand, Quakers aren’t forced into military service just as Catholics aren’t required to engage in contraception.
I find it noteworthy that, while US bishops are making such a fuss over an insurance requirement, many other countries offer contraception under their tax-supported national health services, and the Church in those countries hasn’t made an issue of it. Why?
And why did the US bishops at first complain only about certain church-related institutional employers being required to offer the coverage, and then, when the President came up with his compromise proposal to have insurance companies deal directly with employees so that the institutional employers wouldn’t have to pay, only then object to individual employers having to pay? It seems as if they keep looking for something, anything to use against this administration…first this, then that.
“…there is very broad consensus on the violation of Catholic beliefs here, when Notre Dame and Fr. Jenkins go so far as to file suit against even the accomodation. This is no fringe claim. People here don’t have to agree, that isn’t the point of religious freedom. To call it insignificant when even the Obama-inviting Notre Dame sues would render everything insignificant just because someone doesn’t share those beliefs.”
Only in America and only in these extremist times would the fact that a university president once invited the President of the United States to speak and receive an honorary degree during commencement be a sign that he’s such a gung-ho partisan so committed to the man politically that no other interest can ever prevail over his commitment to him. That is, at the very least, weirdly presumptive.
But aside from whether or not Jenkins is a hardcore Obama fan, there are many reasons why Catholic universities and other Catholic institutions might bring lawsuits under these circumstances, not the least of which is the mess the bishops’intransigence has left them in. Since the USCCB has refused to adopt the President’s compromise, these institutions are going to have to pay for employee contraception coverage if they don’t work something out. To sue is one way for them to take the matter into their own hands and let the government negotiate directly with their lawyers instead of waiting for the bishops to come up with something workable, which hasn’t been happening and at the rate they refuse to negotiate, possibly never will.
Beverly your facts are wrong on many levels. It is not at all clear that churches are exempt since they are not self-focused; in any event many church entities are not exempt like Catholic charities not to mention a multitude of non”individuals” like colleges and other religious entities not run by the bishops, as well as entities that aren’t even Catholic. Federal law signed by president Clinton imposes strict circumstances for forcing people to violate their religious beliefs, and therefore for example pacifists cannot even be denied unemployment benefits if they refuse to work in munitions factories. The HHS mandate utterly fails this strict standard for reasons I explained elsewhere showing how Kaveny’s analysis is paper thin, omits the most relevant cases and facts, and fails to respond to those flaws. Finally, the idea that the US Bishops pressured Notre Dame to sue is absurd, since obviously it doesn’t succumb to bishops’ pressure such as in the Obama graduation debacle. Nothing the bishops have done have made notre dame’s position worse–you are factually wrong about that. The Obama’s administration’s coercion on Notre Dame is entirely the administration’s invention. It had to sue because Obama is violating the law and the constitution. Again, and again I will say it, you don’t have to agree contraception is against Catholic teaching. But if you say anyone who disagrees with you on that can be coerced by the government in the opposite direction, you have abandonned religious freedom.
Anitra, the idea that churches might not fit the “religious employer” definition of exempt organizations is just another of the red herrings floated about by rightwing “friends” of the USCCB after the President attempted to negotiate last February. Before that, the clear issue under discussion was that church-related institutions such as hospitals and social agencies weren’t included in the HHS definition, certainly not that churches weren’t. After the President announced his compromise, a whole bunch of new *issues* suddenly sprung to the forefront, from phony “concerns” about the status of churches and ultimately the complaint that not even individual Catholic employers should have to pay for contraception coverage.
Catholic institutions, including a handful of dioceses, that had self-insured to escape state laws that give no exemptions in requiring contraceptive coverage were the only a real problem, and one the President said would be worked out at the time he announced the compromise on church-related institutions. The Catholic world is a complex and complicated maze federal bureaucracies have long found challenging, and self-insurance only added another layer, but one the President expressed a willingness to work around. Unfortunately, first the USCCB’s hostility and now the filing of of all these lawsuits has pretty much stymied the negotiation process.
As for the lawsuits, I don’t recall claming the Notre Dame lawsuit was a result of pressure from the bishops. As I said, there are a number of reasons why universities might do this, although I think they’re ill-advised, to say the least. The status of church-related institutions might be considered up in the air, since the President’s compromise has certainly not been officially accepted. Is it still in effect? Will it be so months from now when the mandate finally goes into effect? Universities would undoubtedly like to know. In the meantime, the idea argued by the bishops that institutions merely paying premiums to an insurance company for plans that don’t cover contraception are cooperating in evil when the insurance companies negotiate directly with their employees for contraception coverage (the way it would work under the compromise) seems more than overly scrupulous to me. It’s crazy. Are they also morally liable when their employees, say, buy condoms at a drug store with the money they earned from them on job?
Right now, American Catholics, like most Americans, get their access to health care via employer-paid health insurance, and most are almost certainly paying into plans that cover contraception. Moreover, I’d bet most Catholic employers have purchased employee insurance plans that cover contraception, not because they intended it that way but simply because most plans do. Many states have already passed laws requiring it, but even if they hadn’t, most insurance companies consider contraception cost-effective medical care and simply offer it without fanfare. If the bishops are now claiming all Catholics who have or pay for these plans are cooperating in evil, they’ve moved the moral goal posts, which might be considered laying on extra burdens, a no-no for folks in their line of work.