On April 12, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops published “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” its latest statement decrying alleged governmental attacks on religious freedom. Responding to the federal regulations requiring certain religious employers to include contraception coverage in employee health plans, the bishops declared that accommodation is not an option. E (...)
Short Take
A Cherished Accommodation
When the Bishops Surrendered Their Religious Liberty
The remainder of this article is only available to paid subscribers. If you’re not currently a Commonweal subscriber in print or online, an online-only subscription costs just $34 a year. Click here for immediate access.
just fyi--the word Accommodation, spelled correctly here, is misspelled in the email you sent. :)
This article ought to be required reading for all those participating in "religious freedom" movement orchestrated by the USCCB.
Not, of course, that they would likely give you the courtesy of an answer. Far better to avoid difficult questions.
(accommodate): for years I spelled it accomodate, and not until I had a secretary who patiently corrected it every time I wrote it, did I learn how to do it properly.
Yet another example of the blindness and incompetence of these men. So reactionary, partial and basically unintelligent.
I think that the Bishops would argue that giving up "religious freedom" in the name of cooperating with law enforcement to investigate and prevent crimes does not require further actions on the part of Catholic institutions which conflict with Church teachings. Giving up "religious freedoms" in the name of even indirectly facilitating contraception does -- according to the Bishops -- requires actions on the part of Catholic institutions which conflict with Church teachings.
Personally, I think that the Bishops are, in fact, being entirely unreasonable and are actually cheapening the concept of religious freedom by asserting that the contraception mandate requires any Catholic-affiliated institution to violate Church teachings. I've explained and argued this before, in response to other articles and editorials. But in this case, I believe that Mr. Cafardi's comparisons are odious.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA