332-206
The editors on President Obama’s reelection:
Some important questions have been answered. Because Obama was re-elected, the Affordable Care Act—vociferously and mistakenly opposed by the U.S. bishops—will not be repealed. Forty million uninsured Americans will now have access to health care. Although much more needs to be done, the Dodd-Frank Act will begin the process of more effectively regulating the financial industry. Like the bailout of the auto industry, these signature achievements of the Obama administration have been affirmed by the president’s re-election, sending a clear signal that Americans still want government to solve problems.
Among those who should be chastened by this election are the U.S. Catholic bishops. There is little evidence that Catholics or others were persuaded by the bishops’ arguments against the ACA or its contraception mandate, let alone their exaggerated claims about threats to religious freedom. Voters also dealt the bishops’ ongoing campaign against same-sex marriage a series of setbacks. Perhaps it is time for the bishops, like the Republican Party, to rethink their increasingly confrontational approach to divisive social and political questions.
Read the whole thing right here.
There is little evidence that Catholics or others were persuaded by the bishops’ arguments against the ACA or its contraception mandate, let alone their exaggerated claims about threats to religious freedom.
There is evidence that you were persuaded. http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=16449
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/obama-catholic-bishops-2012
This is wishful thinking. These bishops still think like Cardinal Law and as long as they can keep the wealthy supplying them with money they will not change. The bankers who were chastened by the Obama victory are facing reality and are working on mending with the re-elected president. The bishops will keep Fox News as their mentor and will privately cheer for Russ Limbaugh. They will continue to assert that eternal damnation awaits those who vote for the democrats while their salvation is more to be worried about. Clearly this is not an edifying bunch, the Catholic bishops of America. They have lost their voice. Few take them seriously except for those they employ or who stand to profit from them.
If we have anyone from Maine, I’d welcome some thoughts about this year’s same-sex marriage referendum. Bishop Malone and the diocese played a leading role in the 2009 referendum to overturn the legislature’s approval of same-sex civil marriage. This year, the Catholic Church played little or no formal role in opposing the referendum to reverse the 2009 decision.
In his statement after the election, Bishop Malone expressed his disappointment at the outcome and reiterated the Church’s teaching on marriage. http://www.pressherald.com/politics/marriage/Bishop-Malone-deeply-disappointed-in-Question-1-results.html However, that’s a long way from leading the opposition, contributing $250,000 and loaning diocesan staff to a campaign commitee, as he did three years ago.
Why would Obama exempt religious institutions from the HHS mandate? He and Biden both emphasized, repeatedly, their fealty to legalized abortion and Planned Parenthood. These are not things their campaign hid; these are things their campaign trumpeted.
Thorin –
Obama has already offered to adjust the HHS mandate to accomodate the consciences of the bishops and others. The reason, no doubt, is because the Catholic social programs operate for the common good and form a significant part of the nation’s system of caring for the poor.
The bishops so far have found the President’s offers unacceptable. Let us pray that they come to their senses.
Ann Olivier:
As I read it, I believe the Commonweal editorial would like to see the president, as a magnanimous gesture, move beyond the compromise offered earlier this year to a full acceptance of the bishops’ opposition to requiring Catholic institutions to comply with the ACA’s mandate regarding the provision of contraceptives.
Quoting from the editorial, “As for the president, victory should bring magnanimity. In his election night speech, he eloquently said that his opponents have taught him to be a better president. Exempting religious institutions such as universities and hospitals from the ACA’s contraception mandate would be a dramatic way to show what he has learned from those who in good conscience object to his policies.”
I join the editors in this hope, but is it realistic? The president is making it clear that he will not change his position regarding increased taxes for those in the highest income bracket. He sees his stand as being faithful to the will of those who voted to give him a second term. But couldn’t he say the same with regard to the ACA mandate? After all the editorial itself states:”There is little evidence that Catholics or others were persuaded by the bishops’ arguments against the ACA or its contraception mandate, let alone their exaggerated claims about threats to religious freedom.”
Magnanimity over the will of the electorate? It’s possible. But as my esteemed boss through most of the 1990s, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, was wont to say, “If I were a betting man, ….”
But it’s certainly worth a try. Perhaps the bishops could begin by modeling magnanimity during their meeting in Baltimore this coming week through issuing a more positive statement on the president’s re-election and expressing their desire to open new conversations with the Administration. More positive that is than Cardinal Dolan’s grudging letter of congratulations of Wednesday last. A delicate moment to be sure.
Saint Leo the Great, pray for us.
John Page –
I think you’re probably right that the President is not going to do what the bishops are asking. The reason I think he won’t is because, like most liberals, he thinks that contraceptives are a health issue for women and should be covered by health plans. It’s a matter of principle on both sides, and Obama has the people with him, including most Catholics.
Obama has been willing to compromise on his part, but the bishops have escalated the issue far beyond its proper limits claiming that the seculars are out to suppress religious practice and this is an instance of such suppression. Some secularists no doubt are trying to suppress religious practice, but I don’t think Obama is a secularist any more than he is a Muslim. He’s just trying to provide equal contraceptive care for all women who want it.
The next move is up to the bishops, I’d say. Let’s pray that somebody talks some sense to them in Baltimore this coming week. Granted, they’ll have to do some thinking about moral theology and material cooperation.
(See thw article about Obama’s
religious practice over at the CNN Religion blog.)
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/27/in-obamas-first-term-an-evolving-christian-faith-and-a-more-evangelical-style/
The bishops fought against divorce legislation. Also fought to keep BC illegal in Connecticut. Fought against abolishing adultery and sodomy laws Now against SS civil marriage. They also fight tooth and nail to NOT change Statute of Limitations laws short on abuse cases.,…I and most Catholics don’t need civil laws to keep our morals or our faith.. believe it or not we use the Gospel as our guide.