Obamacare’s Great Gift: Clarification
Jan 31, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
Recently we have learned that under Obamacare—that is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—employer insurance plans must provide free non-medical contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization for their employees.
Free is as affordable as it gets; for an accountability-spurning culture, it’s just the right price, indeed. Let us pay nothing in order to beget nothing and, says this government, let us force those interfering “churchy” institutions—who keep insisting that there is something worth contemplating beyond ourselves—to pick up the tab, for good measure.
There is an odd “we are nothing” philosophy behind this HHS decision and the Secretary who made it, and the President who supports it—a chilling promise of emptiness where tomorrow should be. Humanity, cajoled away from fertility and trained in sterility, is being weaned from those thoughts that travel beyond the present moment; we are self-interested beyond reason, and thus profoundly bored; condom-strangled, tube-snipped, and detached from the essential materials of reproduction either through artificial means or artificial equivalencies, our vision of the future is as limited as a pay-telescope’s viewer: tick, tick, tick and then a resolute click!, and it is gone.
With the administration’s decision, the covert culture of death has finally made a truly overt move against the culture of life. On one side, there is cheering. “Women’s groups” are happy. Anti-religionists, particularly those with an animus toward the Catholic church, are nearly delirious. On the other side, there is a grimness that is interesting in its unity, particularly as it is playing out in Catholic media. The furor of more conservative Catholics is unremarkable, but the reactions of the so-called “progressive” church may surprise some for the intensity of their disappointment. At the National Catholic Reporter Michael Sean Winters—furious on behalf of those Catholics who “took some punches” for the sake of President Obama—declares he cannot, in good conscience, cast another vote Obamaward. He now suggests that the bishops chain themselves to the White House fence in order to bring attention to the direct assault this administration is making against the church’s constitutional right to its own conscience—its right to be what it is.
Some, just as disappointed, but looking for a way to continue supporting Obama, are calling the decision “botched,” as though the thing simply wasn’t sufficiently thought-through. Others are hoping that one state’s exemption rules might somehow be adapted to Obamacare, so consciences might be assuaged by November. On NPR, Cokie Roberts expresses concern that Obama may have “created problems” for himself and his re-election.
But HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President Obama “botched” nothing. The decision put forth is a purposeful one, transparently provocative. If the administration had simply wanted to provide free contraception and sterilization to those who want it, they could have inserted that notion into any one of a number of spending or entitlement bills. Had they meant to demonstrate respect for conscience–and according to Archbishop Timothy Dolan the president said he “considered the protection of conscience sacred”–the administration could have taken the advice of others and looked closely at how Hawaii managed conscience exemptions under their law.
There are questions as to whether HHS has authority to issue exemptions to Obamacare, although quite a few have been issued for reasons other than conscience. There appear to be no questions in the president’s mind, or in Secretary Sebelius’, that they have the authority to intrude on freedom of religion. With this ruling they insist that church-affiliated institutions either act against their own belief or so narrow the scope of their community service as to be removed from the public square; either way, the government is deliberately affecting the free exercise of religion. Considering some Catholic schools, hospitals and charities were serving their communities before the secular governments even thought to follow suit, that is a damnable, and damning, legacy for a president who once taught constitutional law.
To be sure, this situation is cause for concern, but there are some bright spots in all of this. Although the mainstream press has reported very little about this event—a close examination might prove uncomfortable for their own worldviews—the unified public expression of righteous defiance by the U.S. bishops is a powerful development.
Just as importantly, the laity—divided for decades on issues ranging from felt-banners to dress to dogma—has found a line in the sand upon which they can come together; “conservative” Catholics are reassured to see their more “progressive” brethren defending the church’s right to be who and what she is; more “progressive” Catholics may be coming to realize that—as relentlessly single-minded as some of their opponents could be—had they not held the line all these years, much could be crumbling at this moment.
Now is the time for all good Catholics to come to the aid of providers—the schools, hospitals, charities, and soup kitchens who serve communities in need without asking affiliations. And, in coming together, perhaps now is the time to ponder their long-held presumptions, each about the other, and broaden our own outreach as well.
If nothing else, in declaring war against our consciences, the Obama administration has given American Catholics a great gift of clarification; a fractious family we may be, but—as the saying goes—we are church. And we have the right to be who we are.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
HHS’s ABC’s; Anybody but Catholics
American Bioethicists: “not really wrong” to take a life
Michael Sean Winters
Obama has “botched” it
What about Hawaii
Cokie Roberts on NPR
Unified Bishops
Sebelius' Contraception Mandate and the Media
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.31.2012 | 9:18am
Jim says:
I wonder how all the folks who championed his getting an award at Notre Dame feel now? One by one, progessive Catholics lectured us about pluralism, toleration, and respectful listening, while touting his "deeply Catholic" instincts. I think we can all see what his instincts toward the Catholic Church are now
1.31.2012 | 9:26am
maineman says:
Thank you, Ms. Scalia, for your clarification of this clarification - and thank you to First Things for addressing the meaning of this monumental event in detail.
Another way to phrase this, of course, is that we are engaged in a religious war. Catholics who choose to support the administration are implicitly in league with the state religion, Secular Humanism, and must begin to think in depth about what this says about their theology and faith.
I suspect the problem comes from the longstanding affiliation of working class immigrant families, many of them Catholic, with the Democratic party. Many Catholics may have failed to note that, beginning in the late '60s, the Democratic party was infiltrated and cannibalized by the left and the atheistic foundation that pervades it. It's a hard thing to have missed, but maybe this will wake up some folks.
Another way to phrase this, of course, is that we are engaged in a religious war. Catholics who choose to support the administration are implicitly in league with the state religion, Secular Humanism, and must begin to think in depth about what this says about their theology and faith.
I suspect the problem comes from the longstanding affiliation of working class immigrant families, many of them Catholic, with the Democratic party. Many Catholics may have failed to note that, beginning in the late '60s, the Democratic party was infiltrated and cannibalized by the left and the atheistic foundation that pervades it. It's a hard thing to have missed, but maybe this will wake up some folks.
1.31.2012 | 10:10am
The moral case is clear. but even from a practical standpoint, do women really need free contraceptives? A Guttmacher Institute study found that 89% of women who wish to contracept are already doing so (“Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States,” June 2010. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html accessed August 15, 2011). This degree of use strongly implies that most women already have access to affordable birth control. If the federal government is so keen on helping the other 11%, it could target that population and leave Catholic and other religious institutions out of the picture.
The HHS mandate is part of a larger movement to dismantle Catholic instituitons. Consider the periodic attacks to remove tax exempt status. In the past vigorous protest kept the religious employer definition pretty broad, but now we will have to fight in the courts for freedom of conscience.
The HHS mandate is part of a larger movement to dismantle Catholic instituitons. Consider the periodic attacks to remove tax exempt status. In the past vigorous protest kept the religious employer definition pretty broad, but now we will have to fight in the courts for freedom of conscience.
1.31.2012 | 10:14am
MJL says:
As to Obama's stint as a constitutional law professor: Why do I feel all the class discussions were about the Commerce clause, as that's the gaping hole (created by an FDR-fearing SCOTUS in the late 30's) through which the trucks of federal interventionism have driven ever since.
1.31.2012 | 10:22am
harry says:
"Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."
-- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in a 2004 letter to the U.S. Bishops
Providing abortifacient contraception for free would be "formal cooperation" in the "grave sin of abortion."
The HHS mandate isn't just an assault on the official Church. It requires formal cooperation in grave evil of Catholic small business owners providing health insurance to their employees.
Caesar, in asking for compliance with the HHS mandate, is once again asking the Christians to burn incense to him, claiming for himself god-like authority over innocent human life in blatant defiance of the law of God. It is time for the Church to take a stand, beginning with the denial of the Eucharist to Caesar's agents who, while pretending to be Catholic, insist that we render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God.
-- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in a 2004 letter to the U.S. Bishops
Providing abortifacient contraception for free would be "formal cooperation" in the "grave sin of abortion."
The HHS mandate isn't just an assault on the official Church. It requires formal cooperation in grave evil of Catholic small business owners providing health insurance to their employees.
Caesar, in asking for compliance with the HHS mandate, is once again asking the Christians to burn incense to him, claiming for himself god-like authority over innocent human life in blatant defiance of the law of God. It is time for the Church to take a stand, beginning with the denial of the Eucharist to Caesar's agents who, while pretending to be Catholic, insist that we render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God.
1.31.2012 | 10:32am
Craig Roberts says:
As long as pro-death Democrats (Pelosi, Biden, Sebilius, etc.) can claim the mantle of Catholicism, the Church will lack the moral authority to make an impact on our political culture.
1.31.2012 | 10:33am
ricko says:
Catholic Health Care Sister:
Yes, "we will have to fight in the Courts for freedom of conscience." This is the method of destroying opposition that has been honed to a science by Planned Parenthood. Engage in drawn out lawsuits about everything in order to exhaust the opposition's money and will to fight. And about 40% of the money that PP has used to litigate with other non-profits and individual citizens is our tax money that has been given to it by the Feds and by the various States.
Now, we have the Federal government adopting the same tactics. While PP was a nearly one billion dollar in annual income entity, the Fed government has unlimited income to litigate with its "enemies" who all happen to be citizens.
It is not important if the government takes illegal or unconstitutional positions- they have the funds to keep their constituents in Court till the cows come home...
Yes, "we will have to fight in the Courts for freedom of conscience." This is the method of destroying opposition that has been honed to a science by Planned Parenthood. Engage in drawn out lawsuits about everything in order to exhaust the opposition's money and will to fight. And about 40% of the money that PP has used to litigate with other non-profits and individual citizens is our tax money that has been given to it by the Feds and by the various States.
Now, we have the Federal government adopting the same tactics. While PP was a nearly one billion dollar in annual income entity, the Fed government has unlimited income to litigate with its "enemies" who all happen to be citizens.
It is not important if the government takes illegal or unconstitutional positions- they have the funds to keep their constituents in Court till the cows come home...
1.31.2012 | 11:30am
Jorge Lavanderia says:
The bigger issue, which the bishops still have not grasped, is subsidiarity. Even if Catholic institutions get a waiver, via a new Congress or the courts striking down these regs, the reason why the regs ever could be issued in the first place was Congress abdicating responsibility to write real laws and, instead, passing shell-legislation with blank checks to unelected bureaucrats (Sebelius) to do the actual law-writing.
In this case, the law is not about contraceptives. It's about mainstreaming abortion via pharmacy shelves and getting it out of the clinics. They can do this because they now define as "contraceptive" anything before implantation and, once RU-486 comes to be seen as a "contraceptive" (for them, contra-birth equals contra-ception), then its use on fetuses long past implantation just comes along for the ride.
Catholics need to fight against the massive usurpation of power by unelected bureaucrats and judgers, a usurpation made possible by Congress's fecklessness.
If we really took subsidiarity seriously. . . .
But no, the bishops seem focused on getting a waiver, an exemption for Catholics from these regs.
Sorry, but 3 years from now it will be another set of conscience-wrecking regs and then another and then another.
We are fighting the wrong war with the wrong tactics.
In this case, the law is not about contraceptives. It's about mainstreaming abortion via pharmacy shelves and getting it out of the clinics. They can do this because they now define as "contraceptive" anything before implantation and, once RU-486 comes to be seen as a "contraceptive" (for them, contra-birth equals contra-ception), then its use on fetuses long past implantation just comes along for the ride.
Catholics need to fight against the massive usurpation of power by unelected bureaucrats and judgers, a usurpation made possible by Congress's fecklessness.
If we really took subsidiarity seriously. . . .
But no, the bishops seem focused on getting a waiver, an exemption for Catholics from these regs.
Sorry, but 3 years from now it will be another set of conscience-wrecking regs and then another and then another.
We are fighting the wrong war with the wrong tactics.
1.31.2012 | 11:44am
J R Yankovic says:
A most moving, rousing, convicting piece, besides being (IMO) a so far incomparable rallying cry for Catholics. As nearly always Ms Scalia grips you, in her gentle way, and doesn't let go. One small point though:
". . . Those interfering 'churchy' institutions—who keep insisting that there is something worth contemplating beyond ourselves . . ."
I wonder if the focus of our (hyper)modern culture isn't so much upon the contemplation of ourselves as it is upon the exaltation of the oh-so-important and demanding things we make. Those things of which we are the center and the gods (even as we allow those same things, ironically enough, to invade, occupy, and dictate to more and more hitherto "private," unoccupied segments of our lives).
Of course by "things we make" I mean the whole gamut of everything from ideas, agendas and organizations to cell phones and contraceptives. After all, Progress forbid we should meditate too much on the possibly unsearchable mysteries of our own creaturehood, as distinct from the more transparently manageable(?) glories of our modern "creativity." So much better to keep the focus on what the Self thinks and makes and DOES - with little or no help from ANYBODY else, you understand - than upon that Divinely humble and renewable place whence those same "self-sufficient" acts originate (the ACCURATE contemplation of which - egads! - might actually throw us back on our Maker).
"Many Catholics may have failed to note that, beginning in the late '60s, the Democratic party was infiltrated and cannibalized by the left and the atheistic foundation that pervades it."
Great metaphor. And scathingly on-target.
". . . Those interfering 'churchy' institutions—who keep insisting that there is something worth contemplating beyond ourselves . . ."
I wonder if the focus of our (hyper)modern culture isn't so much upon the contemplation of ourselves as it is upon the exaltation of the oh-so-important and demanding things we make. Those things of which we are the center and the gods (even as we allow those same things, ironically enough, to invade, occupy, and dictate to more and more hitherto "private," unoccupied segments of our lives).
Of course by "things we make" I mean the whole gamut of everything from ideas, agendas and organizations to cell phones and contraceptives. After all, Progress forbid we should meditate too much on the possibly unsearchable mysteries of our own creaturehood, as distinct from the more transparently manageable(?) glories of our modern "creativity." So much better to keep the focus on what the Self thinks and makes and DOES - with little or no help from ANYBODY else, you understand - than upon that Divinely humble and renewable place whence those same "self-sufficient" acts originate (the ACCURATE contemplation of which - egads! - might actually throw us back on our Maker).
"Many Catholics may have failed to note that, beginning in the late '60s, the Democratic party was infiltrated and cannibalized by the left and the atheistic foundation that pervades it."
Great metaphor. And scathingly on-target.
1.31.2012 | 12:00pm
Matthew W says:
Everyone should write to his or her Representative to support H.R. 1179. Everyone should write to his or her Senator to support S. 1467. These bills are both called the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.
Also, you can go to the White House's website and sign an online petition asking the Administration to rescind this rule. It might not work, but at least it will make our voices heard.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petitions
We need to do all we can as laity to undo this rule.
Also, you can go to the White House's website and sign an online petition asking the Administration to rescind this rule. It might not work, but at least it will make our voices heard.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petitions
We need to do all we can as laity to undo this rule.
1.31.2012 | 12:10pm
RL says:
MJL: I would think exactly the opposite. The Commerce Clause is a hangup of the Richard Epsteins of the world, conservative and libertarian-leaning folks who think constitutional structure and division of powers as between the federal government and the states is meaningful. I'm confident Mr. Obama views that debate as having been over for about 80 years and the clause itself as moribund. I'm reliably informed that most of his classes at Chicago were basically about race, or at least about the constitutional, legislative and administrative structure that's been erected since the Civil War in the name of racial equality, and lately pressed into the service of the women's and gay rights movements. When I was a student there some years ago, he taught a seminar class (which I didn't take) on the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th amendment. The constitutional preoccupations are, at least in Mr. Obama's case (and Mr. Epstein's as well, in fairness), predictive of the policy preoccupations.
1.31.2012 | 12:25pm
Simon says:
Craig Roberts is right. Until the bishops act, until they excommunicate the self-described Catholics who they say are at war with the Church, their rhetoric will continue to appear empty, and we will still not have clarity. The bishops' words say that this is unconscionable, but their refusal to act against public dissent makes it very clear that this is perfectly unconscionable. The bishops must act. Not litigate, not pontificate from the pulpit or fire off another press release—they must ACT. Then, and only then, will there be undeniable, unambiguous clarity.
1.31.2012 | 12:28pm
mcasey says:
While the administration definitely botched this decision, from a religious standpoint, and they deserve all the railing they're taking about it, a couple quick reality checks might be in order:
1. This silly "culture of death" talk really undermines an otherwise smart article. Fact: The world population has increased exponentially in the last 40 years, not visa versa. If there is a culture of death it is magnificently unsuccessful. Overpopulation threatens our lives much more than anything Obama could dream up.
2. When a writer uses the term "Obamacare" (even if she then cleverly corrects herself: wink, nudge) people with intellectual self-respect should stop reading. The term is just an cheap, low rhetorical trick that undermines any real thinking in an article (and hums with low-level racist vibrations). Ms. Scalia is generally much more honorable and mature in her writing.
3. Where was this howling outrage from the bishops and writers when another recent president started a massive, unprovoked war that killed thousands of innocent civilians (and made no bones about it)? The whole shock and awe (fun euphemism for burning people alive) business had a nasty 'culture of death" taste to it. I must have missed the wave of protests from the bishops.
1. This silly "culture of death" talk really undermines an otherwise smart article. Fact: The world population has increased exponentially in the last 40 years, not visa versa. If there is a culture of death it is magnificently unsuccessful. Overpopulation threatens our lives much more than anything Obama could dream up.
2. When a writer uses the term "Obamacare" (even if she then cleverly corrects herself: wink, nudge) people with intellectual self-respect should stop reading. The term is just an cheap, low rhetorical trick that undermines any real thinking in an article (and hums with low-level racist vibrations). Ms. Scalia is generally much more honorable and mature in her writing.
3. Where was this howling outrage from the bishops and writers when another recent president started a massive, unprovoked war that killed thousands of innocent civilians (and made no bones about it)? The whole shock and awe (fun euphemism for burning people alive) business had a nasty 'culture of death" taste to it. I must have missed the wave of protests from the bishops.
1.31.2012 | 12:38pm
Bill Daugherty says:
Thanks to Mr. Winters and the rest of the "progressive" Catholic cheering section, we have arrived in 2012 pretty much where we all predicted in 2008. Perhaps it would be fitting for him to join the bishops at the barricades and chain himself to the White House fence.
1.31.2012 | 1:05pm
MG says:
Here's something Catholics (and others) need to start thinking about now. Suppose Obama is re-elected, and suppose all the legal challenges fail. These are not far-fetched scenarios. The regulations will then be enforced. What to do?
(1) Require Catholic institutions to cancel their health coverage (which would be a hardship in many ways, and would bring a heavy fine). That strikes me as the minimal response. But should we go farther? A few possibilities to ponder, in no particular order:
(2) Refuse to pay the fine, with certain institutional officials then doing jail time? (3) Engage in serious civil disobedience on a large scale? (4) Simply close the Catholic institutions? [Or should we start doing it now, as a warning--think Internet Blackout.] (5) Develop black-market alternatives to health insurance so that Catholics can have their own underground healthcare system? (6) ? (7) ?
One last thought. It's true enough, as AB Gomez suggested, that this is the hour for lay people to do their thing. But Catholic schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, orphanages, charities, etc. are very very numerous. If each acts individually, each will be crushed. We have to act all together, and that can happen only under the guidance of our bishops. They have to get us all on the same page.
(1) Require Catholic institutions to cancel their health coverage (which would be a hardship in many ways, and would bring a heavy fine). That strikes me as the minimal response. But should we go farther? A few possibilities to ponder, in no particular order:
(2) Refuse to pay the fine, with certain institutional officials then doing jail time? (3) Engage in serious civil disobedience on a large scale? (4) Simply close the Catholic institutions? [Or should we start doing it now, as a warning--think Internet Blackout.] (5) Develop black-market alternatives to health insurance so that Catholics can have their own underground healthcare system? (6) ? (7) ?
One last thought. It's true enough, as AB Gomez suggested, that this is the hour for lay people to do their thing. But Catholic schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, orphanages, charities, etc. are very very numerous. If each acts individually, each will be crushed. We have to act all together, and that can happen only under the guidance of our bishops. They have to get us all on the same page.
1.31.2012 | 1:11pm
Mike Anthony says:
This policy may be even more cynical than it readily seems.
First, studies show that self identified Catholic women contracept at about the same rate as the population generally. By offering "free" contraception, the administration is (deliberately?) driving a wedge between the bishops and the flock.
Second, the implementation of this exemption will be exceedingly intrusive. Just to suggest one example: to confirm that an entity is sufficently "religious" to be exempt, will the governemnt require that the entity poll the religious affiliation and practices of the persons they serve? For example, the students at a Catholic university?
This policy is exceedingly dangerous.
First, studies show that self identified Catholic women contracept at about the same rate as the population generally. By offering "free" contraception, the administration is (deliberately?) driving a wedge between the bishops and the flock.
Second, the implementation of this exemption will be exceedingly intrusive. Just to suggest one example: to confirm that an entity is sufficently "religious" to be exempt, will the governemnt require that the entity poll the religious affiliation and practices of the persons they serve? For example, the students at a Catholic university?
This policy is exceedingly dangerous.
1.31.2012 | 1:24pm
sally rogers says:
It's worth remembering that Congress can very simply settle this problem by passing a statute that over-rides the regulation created by HHS. It could be done in a matter of days through the normal democratic function of our legislature without involving the courts at all. Happens every day.
The question is whether Congress will be brought to address the matter? There are lots of ways to stall and avoid the issue. But if it did, I would be greatly surprised if a majority of elected politicians are willing to go on record as requiring religious institutions to violate their doctrines on this matter. It's one thing to hide behind a huge "omnibus" bill that includes many measures that might be thought to be good. It's another to squarely support a bill that directly addresses a single issue of religious liberty.
Time to get in touch with your Senators and Representatives. It's really not that complicated. Every religious group in this country knows how to start a legislative campaign, and it does not require getting people to chain themselves to anything.
The question is whether Congress will be brought to address the matter? There are lots of ways to stall and avoid the issue. But if it did, I would be greatly surprised if a majority of elected politicians are willing to go on record as requiring religious institutions to violate their doctrines on this matter. It's one thing to hide behind a huge "omnibus" bill that includes many measures that might be thought to be good. It's another to squarely support a bill that directly addresses a single issue of religious liberty.
Time to get in touch with your Senators and Representatives. It's really not that complicated. Every religious group in this country knows how to start a legislative campaign, and it does not require getting people to chain themselves to anything.
1.31.2012 | 2:14pm
Martha Martin says:
I would like to see this crisis affect the Church in another positive way. As a 50-something who wandered away from the Church in her youth, I never could figure out why contraception was such a big deal. Now I'm in a small group (Catholics for the Common Good, ccgaction.org) looking into Catholic teaching on marriage in the context of John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Wow. If, in addition to penalizing the Pelosis, we asked every Catholic to read Humanae Vitae and ToB - now there's how to turn this crisis into an opportunity!
1.31.2012 | 3:55pm
RSC says:
So many Catholic charitable institutions operate under government contract and/or payment and act like arms of the government already. It would be nice if we could take care of Catholics first, then whomever we can on our own terms.
1.31.2012 | 4:36pm
Tony Esolen says:
On "culture of death": The phrase is apt. It may be synonymous with "anticulture," a programmatic evisceration of genuine culture, in favor of individual (and ultimately nihilistic) autonomy and the mass phenomena of the media and the entertainment industry (a perfectly horrid and telling phrase, if you think about it for a moment). The basis of the culture of death is the refusal to affirm that human life is good. Yes, the population has risen; but in most of the "developed" world it is about to collapse like a bad souffle.
There is, in this culture of death, a deep antihumanism that parades under its antonym; a "humanism" that hates the simply human; that rages against the embodiment of our beings as male and female; that rages against all those local and personal institutions that curb both statism and nihilistic individualism; that reduces children to "lifestyle" choices, or wards of the state, or, ugly phrase, "our greatest resource;" and an absolutely craven and supine submission to technocrats, while we refuse to ask that simple question, "What does a good human life look like?"
The sheer gratuitousness of the insult to Catholics should not go unnoticed. It is exactly like what Massachusetts did a few years ago to the Catholic adoption agency working in the state. It wasn't that homosexual couples didn't have plenty of places to go, to adopt a child. It was rather that the homosexual activists wished either to bring the Church to heel, or to drive it from the public square -- and to hell with the children who would be harmed by the decision.
We can see the nastiness of it all if we imagine a comparable action directed against a different church. Suppose a right wing nationalist government said to the Quakers, "You want accreditation in our state? You'd better sponsor ROTC programs, or else." As if there'd be any lack of schools with ROTC programs.
One last thing: my dear Catholic friends on the left, attempting to be loyal sons and daughters of the Church: it is surely high time that you discovered how the principle of subsidiarity unites us both, against the threat of statism from those who are falsely called liberals, and the threat of nihilist individualism from those who are falsely called conservatives. And high time that you admitted that Pope Paul VI was right, and the sexual revolution has been a moral and cultural disaster.
There is, in this culture of death, a deep antihumanism that parades under its antonym; a "humanism" that hates the simply human; that rages against the embodiment of our beings as male and female; that rages against all those local and personal institutions that curb both statism and nihilistic individualism; that reduces children to "lifestyle" choices, or wards of the state, or, ugly phrase, "our greatest resource;" and an absolutely craven and supine submission to technocrats, while we refuse to ask that simple question, "What does a good human life look like?"
The sheer gratuitousness of the insult to Catholics should not go unnoticed. It is exactly like what Massachusetts did a few years ago to the Catholic adoption agency working in the state. It wasn't that homosexual couples didn't have plenty of places to go, to adopt a child. It was rather that the homosexual activists wished either to bring the Church to heel, or to drive it from the public square -- and to hell with the children who would be harmed by the decision.
We can see the nastiness of it all if we imagine a comparable action directed against a different church. Suppose a right wing nationalist government said to the Quakers, "You want accreditation in our state? You'd better sponsor ROTC programs, or else." As if there'd be any lack of schools with ROTC programs.
One last thing: my dear Catholic friends on the left, attempting to be loyal sons and daughters of the Church: it is surely high time that you discovered how the principle of subsidiarity unites us both, against the threat of statism from those who are falsely called liberals, and the threat of nihilist individualism from those who are falsely called conservatives. And high time that you admitted that Pope Paul VI was right, and the sexual revolution has been a moral and cultural disaster.
1.31.2012 | 5:06pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Sally Rogers, here is the link I think you wanted:
http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm
http://usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm
1.31.2012 | 5:12pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Provide "free" medical care? How will they manage to do that? If it is provided free to employees, then the employer will have to show that he hasn't figured in medical costs to his accounting bottom line, or else he's not providing it free. But if he does that, he'll be breaking god knows how many laws.
1.31.2012 | 5:51pm
Dan on the Left Coast says:
A really eloquent piece.
I offer my comments in a provocative sense and not as a religious hating person because I believe God exists but as one who has seen over the last 50 years a religion that has seemed to lose it way to political correctness especially in the USA and not stand for much.
As a lapsed Catholic watching this issue I wonder what the Catholic hierarchy and media will do to make things uncomfortable for a number of high visibility cafeteria Catholics such as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Mathews,, et al who love to wear their religion on their sleeves when it's convenient and preach their beliefs?
I've heard the arguments about not wanting to cast sinners aside but at what point does the Catholic Church decide that certain "members" are causing harm to the faith and should be ostracized until they mend their ways?
It seems to me that if the Catholic Church wants to stand for something they should direct that the faux Catholics, like Joe Biden, Chris Mathews and Nancy Pelosi are denied the sacrament of Holy Communion until they repent for their heretical positions and preachings.
Yes I know it's not for me to judge but in my simple mind if you reject a central teaching of your faith are you a member of that faith? Based upon their actions many of these people due to their positions are involved in preaching and are involved in heresy.
So what will it be? Wring your hands or actually standup and fight the cafeteria Catholics who for the last 50 years weakened a religion with their feel good mindset.
Someone watching from the sidelines to see what the Catholic faithful stands for.
I offer my comments in a provocative sense and not as a religious hating person because I believe God exists but as one who has seen over the last 50 years a religion that has seemed to lose it way to political correctness especially in the USA and not stand for much.
As a lapsed Catholic watching this issue I wonder what the Catholic hierarchy and media will do to make things uncomfortable for a number of high visibility cafeteria Catholics such as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Mathews,, et al who love to wear their religion on their sleeves when it's convenient and preach their beliefs?
I've heard the arguments about not wanting to cast sinners aside but at what point does the Catholic Church decide that certain "members" are causing harm to the faith and should be ostracized until they mend their ways?
It seems to me that if the Catholic Church wants to stand for something they should direct that the faux Catholics, like Joe Biden, Chris Mathews and Nancy Pelosi are denied the sacrament of Holy Communion until they repent for their heretical positions and preachings.
Yes I know it's not for me to judge but in my simple mind if you reject a central teaching of your faith are you a member of that faith? Based upon their actions many of these people due to their positions are involved in preaching and are involved in heresy.
So what will it be? Wring your hands or actually standup and fight the cafeteria Catholics who for the last 50 years weakened a religion with their feel good mindset.
Someone watching from the sidelines to see what the Catholic faithful stands for.
1.31.2012 | 6:30pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Over at dotCommonweal, they have video of Jay Carney being grilled on this issue by the WH Press corp
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=17042
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=17042
1.31.2012 | 7:05pm
Steve M says:
Amen Tony, Simon, and Craig. It's time for the bishops to do something. We need to know they are not the aforementioned nihilists or statists, and find out who is "for" and who is "against".
1.31.2012 | 8:34pm
Mike says:
Maybe we should all just start doing something, whatever is within our own power. I do an hour at a local church's Perpetual Adoration and I will make it my intention that this will not stand. What will the rest of you do?
1.31.2012 | 9:14pm
Gail Finke says:
I agree with the poster above who said that a conscience clause or exemption is NOT ENOUGH. I have contacted my representatives and asked them to demand that the rule be rescinded. It is flawed in every way.
Mcasey is wrong; "culture of death" is exactly right. Overpopulation is not any sort of problem in the West, which is enjoying itself to death. Long before the world overpopulates itself, something that (given demographic projections) is unlikely to happen, the West will have committed population suicide in an orgy of gleeful self-hatred. Prevent anyone from getting in the way of your plans, and kill if necessary. That's death, and our culture has embraced it. There is nothing silly about the phrase "the culture of death," its aptness is what sounds so appalling.
Elizabeth is right, this is our chance to be united. Those of us on the "left" must remember that political opinions and solutions, like political problems, change with the decades. Christ's Church is eternal and demands our lives. Those of us on the "right" must not be Donatists and treat people who change their positions as second-class citizens who didn't jump quickly enough. Remember the parable of the vineyard -- some of the workers came at the last hour but the received the same wage. If it's good enough for God, it ought to be good enough for us. Stand together, welcome each other, and stay strong.
Mcasey is wrong; "culture of death" is exactly right. Overpopulation is not any sort of problem in the West, which is enjoying itself to death. Long before the world overpopulates itself, something that (given demographic projections) is unlikely to happen, the West will have committed population suicide in an orgy of gleeful self-hatred. Prevent anyone from getting in the way of your plans, and kill if necessary. That's death, and our culture has embraced it. There is nothing silly about the phrase "the culture of death," its aptness is what sounds so appalling.
Elizabeth is right, this is our chance to be united. Those of us on the "left" must remember that political opinions and solutions, like political problems, change with the decades. Christ's Church is eternal and demands our lives. Those of us on the "right" must not be Donatists and treat people who change their positions as second-class citizens who didn't jump quickly enough. Remember the parable of the vineyard -- some of the workers came at the last hour but the received the same wage. If it's good enough for God, it ought to be good enough for us. Stand together, welcome each other, and stay strong.
1.31.2012 | 11:11pm
Mdepie says:
this is really a lot simpler than the Bishops chaining themselves to fences. We have a year and an election. If Obama is defeated this all goes away. It is obvious that it is a sin to support Obama. I can not think of what proportionate reason there would be to support someone who so vehemently supports abortion and seeks to dismantly conscience rights. Since there is no proportional reason to support him against any potential Republican candidate, then the Bishops should come out and say so, it is a sin. ( tax exemption be damned) Moreover Kathleen Sebelius needs to be excommunicated as should anyone who assists her in carrying out this edict. The Bishops need to do this publicly. Lets see if we mean business. All the strum and drag means little unless the Democrats are hit hard.
1.31.2012 | 11:52pm
Bill Russell says:
In the real world we can't expect our bishops to be perfect or prophetic, but it is hard to understand how anyone can become a bishop if he is naive. How then can we explain that Archbishop Dolan was taken in by Obama and emerged from his White House meeting not long ago feeling "more at peace?" Have our bishops never heard of Chamberlain? Munich?
2.1.2012 | 12:06am
aj says:
There is an old Spanish saying, Mike:
"Pray to God and swing the mullet"
Now, if you want to be more PC, the English saying:
"God helps those who help themselves"
will work too.
Whether in prayer on in action, me must be together
"Pray to God and swing the mullet"
Now, if you want to be more PC, the English saying:
"God helps those who help themselves"
will work too.
Whether in prayer on in action, me must be together
2.1.2012 | 1:58am
Bender says:
**now we will have to fight in the courts for freedom of conscience**
Good Sister -- How is it that courts should be supreme in the matter? Why should we hand over our freedoms to the judiciary, to protect or to reject? Why should courts be the judges of our consciences?
It is not "in courts we trust," but "in God we trust."
Did Thomas More go and file a lawsuit against King Henry, begging judges to protect him? Or did he simply assert his freedom and conscience?
When one is enslaved to courts for protection, it is not really freedom, is it?
The proper response to tyranny of any sort, and to religious persecution in particular, is to resist, to say "no," and to refuse to go along, refuse to comply. And if the king's henchmen come and throw us into prison, and confiscate our goods, well, that is the price of being a Christian.
Good Sister -- How is it that courts should be supreme in the matter? Why should we hand over our freedoms to the judiciary, to protect or to reject? Why should courts be the judges of our consciences?
It is not "in courts we trust," but "in God we trust."
Did Thomas More go and file a lawsuit against King Henry, begging judges to protect him? Or did he simply assert his freedom and conscience?
When one is enslaved to courts for protection, it is not really freedom, is it?
The proper response to tyranny of any sort, and to religious persecution in particular, is to resist, to say "no," and to refuse to go along, refuse to comply. And if the king's henchmen come and throw us into prison, and confiscate our goods, well, that is the price of being a Christian.
2.1.2012 | 8:06am
Joe DeVet says:
Bill Russell, point well-taken about naivete. For an even worse case, see the pastoral letter issued by Dolan's colleague, Cardinal George, shortly after Obamacare was enacted and Obama made his sham promise of an executive order designed to make Catholics feel "more at peace." George promised he and the other bishops would be watching closely to make sure Obama kept his word. No one else in the country was fooled. Blind guides!!
Re the article, I'm gonna show how cynical I am. Mrs. Scalia is heartened by the whole of Catholicism finally in unity about a line in the sand. I say, if the dissenting Catholics (sometimes called liberal or progressive) were not able to find a line in the sand over the killing of innocent babes in the womb, what can if possibly mean that they have now found that line over "conscience rights"? My observation: they do not understand conscience rights as the right to do the right, but the right to do whatever they please. It's not about the moral law at all, to them. The sacrosanct territory that they now see Obama as having violated is their own selves.
OK, so I'm glad to have them on board in opposing a criminal move by our criminal administration. But I'm not persuaded that this is in any way as sign of unity within the Church.
Re the article, I'm gonna show how cynical I am. Mrs. Scalia is heartened by the whole of Catholicism finally in unity about a line in the sand. I say, if the dissenting Catholics (sometimes called liberal or progressive) were not able to find a line in the sand over the killing of innocent babes in the womb, what can if possibly mean that they have now found that line over "conscience rights"? My observation: they do not understand conscience rights as the right to do the right, but the right to do whatever they please. It's not about the moral law at all, to them. The sacrosanct territory that they now see Obama as having violated is their own selves.
OK, so I'm glad to have them on board in opposing a criminal move by our criminal administration. But I'm not persuaded that this is in any way as sign of unity within the Church.
2.1.2012 | 11:23am
Brian English says:
"It's worth remembering that Congress can very simply settle this problem by passing a statute that over-rides the regulation created by HHS. It could be done in a matter of days through the normal democratic function of our legislature without involving the courts at all. Happens every day."
What happens when Obama vetos the legislation?
What happens when Obama vetos the legislation?
2.1.2012 | 11:49am
Paul says:
If the ACA requires violation of conscience and intrudes upon the free exercise of religion, then the ACA, by virtue of violating natural law and by virtue of violating the Constitution, is not valid law. It is rather injunctive speech that is on-obligatory. Such a case calls for, arguably, civil disobedience. To show that one honors law while disobeying law, as MLJ, Jr. suggested (and as the practice of Socrates suggests), may require a willingness to accept the consequences for openly violating the law. But there was a nobility to the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement. And that same nobility would be apparent here. It would also represent an honorable approach frequently absent from our contemporary dissenting movements.
2.1.2012 | 1:07pm
Justin says:
@ mcasey. When a commentor invokes Malthus as his Lord & Savior, people with intellectual self-respect should stop reading. Claiming the world is overpopulated is just a cheap, low rhetorical trick that undermines any real thinking (and hums with low-level eugenicist/racist vibrations).
2.1.2012 | 1:30pm
Fr. Robert says:
Isn't it time for Notre Dame alumnae, students and professors, starting with the Law school, to demand that Notre Dame withdraw the honorary degree, in light of this breach of sensitivity and good will?
2.1.2012 | 1:42pm
William S. Bunchuck says:
I do not recall how long it has been, but quite some time ago the President began using the expression "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion." The first time I heard it I recognized it as code, and a departure from the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution. "Freedom of worship" means you can go to the church of your choice, but you cannot live your beliefs beyond that setting. When I heard "freedom of worship" my first thought was, on what front will this administration attack people of faith? Certainly, with this change in language, it is coming. I am not surprised that Obama has chosen to lead this all-out attck on the Catholic Church and its faithful. Look for more attempts to abolish religious freedom.
2.1.2012 | 2:21pm
mcasey says:
@Justin,
I never even mentioned Malthus, much less put him up as Lord and Savior. As far as I know, he was just a scientist. I don't actually know much about him.
Are you suggesting that the world population has not increased dramatically in recent decades (which would make my comment a rhetorical trick)? I thought it was just a fact- the opposite of rhetoric. I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but all the numbers I've seen tell a story of dramatic increase and tremendous strain on resources.
My point was that if this is indeed a culture of death, it is a very poor one, since human life is growing like never before. I didn't say this was good or bad, just that culture of death is an silly term given the situation.
And I certainly never suggested anything about eugenics. That's a logical long jump worthy of Carl Lewis.
I never even mentioned Malthus, much less put him up as Lord and Savior. As far as I know, he was just a scientist. I don't actually know much about him.
Are you suggesting that the world population has not increased dramatically in recent decades (which would make my comment a rhetorical trick)? I thought it was just a fact- the opposite of rhetoric. I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but all the numbers I've seen tell a story of dramatic increase and tremendous strain on resources.
My point was that if this is indeed a culture of death, it is a very poor one, since human life is growing like never before. I didn't say this was good or bad, just that culture of death is an silly term given the situation.
And I certainly never suggested anything about eugenics. That's a logical long jump worthy of Carl Lewis.
2.1.2012 | 2:52pm
harry says:
The issue under discussion here is only a symptom of more fundamental problems.
The founders instituted a government based on theism and natural law, or "the laws of nature and nature's God," with very limited and well defined federal power. They would be astounded at the size and scope of our federal government and the god-like authority the mere mortals running it have claimed for themselves.
The inalienable rights of humanity are based upon theism and natural law. The new "atheocracy" we are living under doesn't do "inalienable rights." It does raw power. For the atheocracy rights are based upon whatever those in power say they are based upon -- and that is all. There can be no "eternal principles" to guide an atheocracy: humanity is merely the result of mindless, purposeless processes that quite accidentally spewed us forth. A human's rights are no more inalienable than those of a cow. This creates a problem for theists: Cows get butchered. So do human babies under the atheocracy -- by the millions. And it looks like those who won't participate in this will now be forced to do so.
Or will they? We could always restore the original government instituted by the founders.
The founders instituted a government based on theism and natural law, or "the laws of nature and nature's God," with very limited and well defined federal power. They would be astounded at the size and scope of our federal government and the god-like authority the mere mortals running it have claimed for themselves.
The inalienable rights of humanity are based upon theism and natural law. The new "atheocracy" we are living under doesn't do "inalienable rights." It does raw power. For the atheocracy rights are based upon whatever those in power say they are based upon -- and that is all. There can be no "eternal principles" to guide an atheocracy: humanity is merely the result of mindless, purposeless processes that quite accidentally spewed us forth. A human's rights are no more inalienable than those of a cow. This creates a problem for theists: Cows get butchered. So do human babies under the atheocracy -- by the millions. And it looks like those who won't participate in this will now be forced to do so.
Or will they? We could always restore the original government instituted by the founders.
2.1.2012 | 4:03pm
Brian English says:
"I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but all the numbers I've seen tell a story of dramatic increase and tremendous strain on resources."
Where is the tremendous strain on resources caused by that increase? Most of the starvation in the world occurs because political instability prevents food from getting to where it is needed.
Where is the tremendous strain on resources caused by that increase? Most of the starvation in the world occurs because political instability prevents food from getting to where it is needed.
2.1.2012 | 11:05pm
Rick says:
I'm coming rather late to this discussion, but I've read all the postings carefully, and I can't help feeling that you are all getting the cart before the horse. If you really want a to have a united Catholic front against the provision of free contraceptive technology at Catholic affiliated organizations, such as my wife's alma mater, Holy Cross College (a great many of whose students and faculty are not Catholic), then you should first convert the 90% of American Catholics who, according to objective polling, either actively contracept or support the use of artificial contraception. After that first, critical, goal is achieved, you may proceed on your crusade with much less taint of hypocrisy.
I live in a rural area where there are several Amish communities. If they decided to mount a crusade against the evil of electronic mass entertainment, I could respect the integrity of their position. Not one of them owns a t-v. I'm afraid the same level of integrity cannot be claimed by the American Catholic community regarding any collective condemnation of birth control.
I live in a rural area where there are several Amish communities. If they decided to mount a crusade against the evil of electronic mass entertainment, I could respect the integrity of their position. Not one of them owns a t-v. I'm afraid the same level of integrity cannot be claimed by the American Catholic community regarding any collective condemnation of birth control.
2.2.2012 | 4:43am
harry says:
Hello, Rick,
You wrote:
"If you really want a to have a united Catholic front against the provision of free contraceptive technology at Catholic affiliated organizations ... then you should first convert the 90% of American Catholics who, according to objective polling, either actively contracept or support the use of artificial contraception. After that first, critical, goal is achieved, you may proceed on your crusade with much less taint of hypocrisy."
There are several different kinds of people who identify themselves as Catholics to pollsters. There are "Catholics" who were raised in or around a Catholic culture to some extent as a child but do not really understand or practice the Catholic faith. There are Church-going but poorly catechized Catholics who do not really know -- and therefore do not appreciate or practice -- the Catholic faith. Catholics such as these often actively use or support the use of artificial contraception and make up most of your 90%.
There are some Catholics who understand Church teaching on artificial contraception, who have actually read Humanae Vitae and know how prophetic it was in its predictions of the dire consequences of the widespread use of artificial contraception, who know full well that the pill often does not prevent conception but instead takes the life of a newly conceived human being, and who still use or support the use of artificial contraception. There is the rest of your 90%.
That leaves seven million U.S. Catholics -- the 10% -- who respect ALL human life, but would be forced to promote and formally cooperate in a practice that takes the lives of millions of innocent human beings. They will resist taking part in that and will not be deterred by being told they are tainted with hypocrisy. They will be joined by many others who, even if they don't abide by official Catholic teaching, still understand that their own religious freedom is being assaulted.
You wrote:
"If you really want a to have a united Catholic front against the provision of free contraceptive technology at Catholic affiliated organizations ... then you should first convert the 90% of American Catholics who, according to objective polling, either actively contracept or support the use of artificial contraception. After that first, critical, goal is achieved, you may proceed on your crusade with much less taint of hypocrisy."
There are several different kinds of people who identify themselves as Catholics to pollsters. There are "Catholics" who were raised in or around a Catholic culture to some extent as a child but do not really understand or practice the Catholic faith. There are Church-going but poorly catechized Catholics who do not really know -- and therefore do not appreciate or practice -- the Catholic faith. Catholics such as these often actively use or support the use of artificial contraception and make up most of your 90%.
There are some Catholics who understand Church teaching on artificial contraception, who have actually read Humanae Vitae and know how prophetic it was in its predictions of the dire consequences of the widespread use of artificial contraception, who know full well that the pill often does not prevent conception but instead takes the life of a newly conceived human being, and who still use or support the use of artificial contraception. There is the rest of your 90%.
That leaves seven million U.S. Catholics -- the 10% -- who respect ALL human life, but would be forced to promote and formally cooperate in a practice that takes the lives of millions of innocent human beings. They will resist taking part in that and will not be deterred by being told they are tainted with hypocrisy. They will be joined by many others who, even if they don't abide by official Catholic teaching, still understand that their own religious freedom is being assaulted.
2.2.2012 | 8:48am
Douglas Johnson says:
Forcing faithful Christians to serve abortifacients is far worse than G-men kicking in the doors of faithful Jews and forcing bacon down their throats.
President Obama and his supporters have revealed something here they can never correct. They have revealed a governing philosophy that declares freedom of religion as a permission afforded to us by the state. At this point it wouldn't really make any difference if President Obama held up his hand and said "okay, okay, maybe I pushed things a little too fast here, I'll let you abstain from performing abortions if you insist."
Of course this isn't just President Obama. It took well more than half of the country to disregard the very notion of natural right before this administration could even attempt this. Can anyone see that it's not enough for Republicans to come into office and change the government permissions? Our natural rights were given to us by God and are therefore above and before any government. Even if 99% of us vote to take away our religious freedom, it doesn't make any difference: as a right given to us by God, the government is powerless to take it away. It might put a bullet through your head, but it can take away a right given to you by God. Unless we can recapture that understanding and are willing to put our lives on the line for it, the Declaration of Independence and our nation's reason for being no longer exist.
As for the Christians that voted for President Obama, what did you expect? President Obama was the only member of the quite liberal Illinois legislature to oppose the IL Infants Born Alive Act. He fought for the "right" of a doctor to strangle Gianna Jessen on the operating table after she was born of a botched abortion (on YouTube, search for "Gianna Jessen abortion survivor in Australia Part 1").
President Obama and his supporters have revealed something here they can never correct. They have revealed a governing philosophy that declares freedom of religion as a permission afforded to us by the state. At this point it wouldn't really make any difference if President Obama held up his hand and said "okay, okay, maybe I pushed things a little too fast here, I'll let you abstain from performing abortions if you insist."
Of course this isn't just President Obama. It took well more than half of the country to disregard the very notion of natural right before this administration could even attempt this. Can anyone see that it's not enough for Republicans to come into office and change the government permissions? Our natural rights were given to us by God and are therefore above and before any government. Even if 99% of us vote to take away our religious freedom, it doesn't make any difference: as a right given to us by God, the government is powerless to take it away. It might put a bullet through your head, but it can take away a right given to you by God. Unless we can recapture that understanding and are willing to put our lives on the line for it, the Declaration of Independence and our nation's reason for being no longer exist.
As for the Christians that voted for President Obama, what did you expect? President Obama was the only member of the quite liberal Illinois legislature to oppose the IL Infants Born Alive Act. He fought for the "right" of a doctor to strangle Gianna Jessen on the operating table after she was born of a botched abortion (on YouTube, search for "Gianna Jessen abortion survivor in Australia Part 1").
2.2.2012 | 8:49am
bill bannon says:
The Pfizer Corp.'s birth control recall in the news reminded me also that both the Vatican and U.S. Bishops better have no investment stock in such pharmaceutical corporations even in mutual funds. Can you imagine Obama pointing to any such Catholic investments in a TV speech as proof that the Church participates piecemeal already in this area. Very scarey since Pfizer must be within a multitude of major mutual funds.
2.2.2012 | 10:23am
Justin says:
@mcasey. Still can't undertand your "factual" leap. The world's population has grown, therefore the world is overpopulated? Fallacy. Do a little research on the eugenics movements and genocides of the past century. Their leaders all claimed overpopulation as one rationale. Not good company to be in. And Malthus was dead wrong by the way.
The term culture of death is only silly to someone who doesn't have eyes to see. When societies embrace killing the innocent, and see people only in a utilitarian way, as mere consumers of resources - that my friend is a culture of death. Hence the acceptance of abortion on demand, euthanasia, genetic screening, etc. From this culture's point of view, if a person must exist, he must be an efficient consumer of the earth's precious resources (think Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Boards, i.e. death panels).
The term culture of death is only silly to someone who doesn't have eyes to see. When societies embrace killing the innocent, and see people only in a utilitarian way, as mere consumers of resources - that my friend is a culture of death. Hence the acceptance of abortion on demand, euthanasia, genetic screening, etc. From this culture's point of view, if a person must exist, he must be an efficient consumer of the earth's precious resources (think Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Boards, i.e. death panels).
2.2.2012 | 10:37am
Craig Roberts says:
@Rick
Sorry you feel that way. But just because you're in the majority doesn't mean you're correct. The Church Christ founded is not a democracy. No doubt 90% of Catholics in the middle ages approved of things like torture and slavery.
Sorry you feel that way. But just because you're in the majority doesn't mean you're correct. The Church Christ founded is not a democracy. No doubt 90% of Catholics in the middle ages approved of things like torture and slavery.
2.2.2012 | 11:02am
EdSchoen says:
I checked the bioethics reference at the end of the article. It supports a re-definition of killing so we can increase the number of organs available for transplant. Here's the last paragraph of the article: “[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.” Amazing. A human life and a garden weed are moral eqivalents. No culture of death? Really?
2.2.2012 | 11:09am
bill bannon says:
Craig
Be careful. The magisterium believed in slavery and torture in diverse centuries.
Lateran III and IV gave perpetual slavery to privateers capturing naval captains etc. who colluded with Saracens. John Noonan Jr. showed that despite papal bulls against slavery....(not many... given the number of Popes)...there were always 4 exceptions for slavery in the Catholic Universities (Aquinas notes one in the Supplement to the ST and gives the decretal cite).. That's why the Jesuits had 500 slaves in c.1836. Justifications for slavery continued up til 1960 in Catholic books.
Vatican II and "Splendor of the Truth" then put an end to that. Torture was within the Inquisition which had papal mandate....Rome had light torture within its own courts. Imagine trying to convict criminals prior to modern evidence. If there were no witnesses, it was almost impossible.
Be careful. The magisterium believed in slavery and torture in diverse centuries.
Lateran III and IV gave perpetual slavery to privateers capturing naval captains etc. who colluded with Saracens. John Noonan Jr. showed that despite papal bulls against slavery....(not many... given the number of Popes)...there were always 4 exceptions for slavery in the Catholic Universities (Aquinas notes one in the Supplement to the ST and gives the decretal cite).. That's why the Jesuits had 500 slaves in c.1836. Justifications for slavery continued up til 1960 in Catholic books.
Vatican II and "Splendor of the Truth" then put an end to that. Torture was within the Inquisition which had papal mandate....Rome had light torture within its own courts. Imagine trying to convict criminals prior to modern evidence. If there were no witnesses, it was almost impossible.
2.2.2012 | 11:55am
nikki says:
I am a catholic but I have not been practicing my faith,due to the fact I feel that the catholic church in America has left us all out in the wilderness to the wolves. Well they finally caught up and grabbed hold set to tear us apart. I hope all the so called progressive priest realize what they have done by backing so called
Catholics and other leftist like the Kennedys,the Kerrys, the Pelososi and all other dems since the 60s. I just hope its not to late. Maybe now I can go make a confession and receive the host knowing the bishops and priest are finally waking up in this country.
Catholics and other leftist like the Kennedys,the Kerrys, the Pelososi and all other dems since the 60s. I just hope its not to late. Maybe now I can go make a confession and receive the host knowing the bishops and priest are finally waking up in this country.
2.2.2012 | 12:07pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Rick,
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but I don't think it's reason to push back against those who have awakened, or newly discovered, a morality informed by faith. Your argument could be interpreted to say that until all Catholics are sinless they should stay out of the public square.
I hope I'm not reading you wrong. If I am and you wrote what you did because you don't oppose the Obama administration's actions here, then just say so forthrightly.
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but I don't think it's reason to push back against those who have awakened, or newly discovered, a morality informed by faith. Your argument could be interpreted to say that until all Catholics are sinless they should stay out of the public square.
I hope I'm not reading you wrong. If I am and you wrote what you did because you don't oppose the Obama administration's actions here, then just say so forthrightly.
2.2.2012 | 12:30pm
Brian English says:
"then you should first convert the 90% of American Catholics who, according to objective polling, either actively contracept or support the use of artificial contraception. After that first, critical, goal is achieved, you may proceed on your crusade with much less taint of hypocrisy."
This completely misses the point. It doesn't matter whether all Catholics, most Catholics, some Catholics, or no Catholics follow the Church's position on contraception. The Church's position is what it is, and the government has no right forcing Church-affiliated institutions to violate that teaching.
The correct analogy to your Amish neighbors would be if the government passed regulations requiring them to have electronic devices in their homes. Do you think the government has the right to do that?
This completely misses the point. It doesn't matter whether all Catholics, most Catholics, some Catholics, or no Catholics follow the Church's position on contraception. The Church's position is what it is, and the government has no right forcing Church-affiliated institutions to violate that teaching.
The correct analogy to your Amish neighbors would be if the government passed regulations requiring them to have electronic devices in their homes. Do you think the government has the right to do that?
2.2.2012 | 1:49pm
Craig Roberts says:
@ bill bannon
You make my point. As Catholics we do not blindly follow the crowd, or the clergy, or even the pope. We follow the Holy Spirit that lives in the Church and leads us to all Truth. No matter what individual Catholics (even popes) or the majority of Catholics do, the Church is there to dispel the darkness by the light of Christ. This all appears frightfully chaotic and not very efficient to those that think they could offer God some good advice on how to run His Church, and for that matter His universe.
Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Mat 11:25
You make my point. As Catholics we do not blindly follow the crowd, or the clergy, or even the pope. We follow the Holy Spirit that lives in the Church and leads us to all Truth. No matter what individual Catholics (even popes) or the majority of Catholics do, the Church is there to dispel the darkness by the light of Christ. This all appears frightfully chaotic and not very efficient to those that think they could offer God some good advice on how to run His Church, and for that matter His universe.
Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Mat 11:25
2.2.2012 | 8:59pm
Peg says:
I thought the Amish were exempt from the Obama health care requirement, precisely because they had conscientious, religious objections to insurance. I remember some discussion a couple of years ago that some other religions---Moslems, Native Americans, among others--- might also be exempt. I don't know if that came to pass, but at some point there was a more fastidious attitude towards religious people and their consciences.
2.3.2012 | 10:27am
Douglas Johnson says:
Rick,
Will Catholics be forced, through insurance premiums, to pay for medical services that are a violation of their faith? Yes or no?
Will Catholics be forced, through insurance premiums, to pay for medical services that are a violation of their faith? Yes or no?
2.3.2012 | 10:38am
harry says:
Hello, Rick,
Yes. The health care system is in need of a major overhaul. That isn't the point.
The point is that the government is forcing people to participate in the destruction of innocent human life. Your flippant dismissal of the analogies made to show how this looks to serious Catholics and to all who are serious about religious freedom, along with your counter analogies, demonstrate that either you just don't "get it" or that you simply do not believe in the sanctity of human life, and have bought into the modern notion of disposable humanity.
No human family members are disposable.
Yes. The health care system is in need of a major overhaul. That isn't the point.
The point is that the government is forcing people to participate in the destruction of innocent human life. Your flippant dismissal of the analogies made to show how this looks to serious Catholics and to all who are serious about religious freedom, along with your counter analogies, demonstrate that either you just don't "get it" or that you simply do not believe in the sanctity of human life, and have bought into the modern notion of disposable humanity.
No human family members are disposable.
2.3.2012 | 11:39am
mcasey says:
@Justin,
That the world population has increased over 300% in the last 50 years might not be a problem for our resources, but odds are pretty good it might. By 2050, if this trend continues, we'll have 20 billion people in the world, then 40 billion etc. Again, maybe the earth is so rich in resources we'll all keep living well. But if I had a fish tank with 2 fish in it, and I came home from vacation to find 1,000 fish in the same tank, I would be pretty concerned. Would I start murdering fish? No. But I would take some care about how many new fish were arriving, if such a thing were possible. It seems pretty irresponsible to just all 1,000 fish die of lack of oxygen or food just because I didn't believe in slowing down the arrival of new fish. People that don't neuter their pets these days are considered pretty irresponsible, not just by Bob Barker.
Of course humans aren't fish (anymore). It's just an analogy. And I don't know what the limit is on the earth's resources, nor how much carbon we can stuff into the atmosphere before we all melt. But it is clearly a finite number, in both cases, and people way more educated in science than me have indicated quite loudly that we are fast approaching those limits.
And birth control, as an option to parents, not mandatory, not forced, seems like a smart, fair way to let people make this choice.
I guess those are the eyes I use to examine the situation. Scientists are not always right, but I tend to trust such scientific consensus. If the weatherman says it will be 10 below tomorrow, I'm going to wear a parka, even if I believe that God wants it to be warm and sunny.
That the world population has increased over 300% in the last 50 years might not be a problem for our resources, but odds are pretty good it might. By 2050, if this trend continues, we'll have 20 billion people in the world, then 40 billion etc. Again, maybe the earth is so rich in resources we'll all keep living well. But if I had a fish tank with 2 fish in it, and I came home from vacation to find 1,000 fish in the same tank, I would be pretty concerned. Would I start murdering fish? No. But I would take some care about how many new fish were arriving, if such a thing were possible. It seems pretty irresponsible to just all 1,000 fish die of lack of oxygen or food just because I didn't believe in slowing down the arrival of new fish. People that don't neuter their pets these days are considered pretty irresponsible, not just by Bob Barker.
Of course humans aren't fish (anymore). It's just an analogy. And I don't know what the limit is on the earth's resources, nor how much carbon we can stuff into the atmosphere before we all melt. But it is clearly a finite number, in both cases, and people way more educated in science than me have indicated quite loudly that we are fast approaching those limits.
And birth control, as an option to parents, not mandatory, not forced, seems like a smart, fair way to let people make this choice.
I guess those are the eyes I use to examine the situation. Scientists are not always right, but I tend to trust such scientific consensus. If the weatherman says it will be 10 below tomorrow, I'm going to wear a parka, even if I believe that God wants it to be warm and sunny.
2.3.2012 | 1:19pm
Douglas Johnson says:
@Harry
Well put. In the 1970's, someone would simply say "I support abortion and so I don't think all human life is sacred." No one would say that now, and so in the last twenty years abortion supporters have adopted this idea that the baby in the womb isn't human, or that it's not a separate organism but completely a part of the mother, like fingernails. Science put all that to rest and so they continue to struggle with language.
NARAL used to stand for the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, but then every few years they changed what NARAL stood for to make it less offensive. They then changed their name three more times until they finally gave up in 2003 and realized it was best if their acronym would just stand for...nothing. Seriously, NARAL officially stands for nothing today. The last thing they wanted was for people to get the idea that NARAL had anything to do with this abortion business everyone's talking about (what's that??). In a similar fashion Planned Parenthood is all about women's health and sitting down and helping women make family plans.
So today even the folks posting comments at First Things are on board with the new rules. Rather than say you don't think human life is sacred and you support abortion, you instead write a comment acting as if you are upset that not enough Catholics are following the teaching of the church. It's annoying that we have to put up with the cipher, but even they realize what they really believe is morally wrong.
Well put. In the 1970's, someone would simply say "I support abortion and so I don't think all human life is sacred." No one would say that now, and so in the last twenty years abortion supporters have adopted this idea that the baby in the womb isn't human, or that it's not a separate organism but completely a part of the mother, like fingernails. Science put all that to rest and so they continue to struggle with language.
NARAL used to stand for the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, but then every few years they changed what NARAL stood for to make it less offensive. They then changed their name three more times until they finally gave up in 2003 and realized it was best if their acronym would just stand for...nothing. Seriously, NARAL officially stands for nothing today. The last thing they wanted was for people to get the idea that NARAL had anything to do with this abortion business everyone's talking about (what's that??). In a similar fashion Planned Parenthood is all about women's health and sitting down and helping women make family plans.
So today even the folks posting comments at First Things are on board with the new rules. Rather than say you don't think human life is sacred and you support abortion, you instead write a comment acting as if you are upset that not enough Catholics are following the teaching of the church. It's annoying that we have to put up with the cipher, but even they realize what they really believe is morally wrong.
2.3.2012 | 2:30pm
peg says:
Rick, if the HHS mandate is enforced and a non-Catholic professor at Holy Cross decides to get her "free" contraceptives through her employer-provided health insurance, who picks up the tab?
2.3.2012 | 5:38pm
Brian English says:
"These two analogies are floridly overdrawn. In the case of the Amish, a more realistic analogy would be if the government decided that Amish children were being inadequately educated by being deprived of the wonders of electronic communications. So, a bill is passed and monies are appropriated to make electrification and large, flat-screen t-vs available, free of charge, to any Amish families who choose to have them. The Amish elders dutifully inform their flock that these services must be offered to them. The entire community scoffs at it as an invitation to immorality and corruption (which it might very well be), and that's the end of it. They continue to live as they have always chosen."
Rick, you seem like a nice guy, but you really don't know what you are talking about here. The government is not just making money available so that people who work at Church-affiliated institutions can buy contraceptives. The government is saying that if a Church-affiliated institution offers health coverage, the coverage has to include contraceptives and sterilization, and those services have to be free of charge to the employees. In your scenario, the Amish elders have to pay for the electronics.
Rick, you seem like a nice guy, but you really don't know what you are talking about here. The government is not just making money available so that people who work at Church-affiliated institutions can buy contraceptives. The government is saying that if a Church-affiliated institution offers health coverage, the coverage has to include contraceptives and sterilization, and those services have to be free of charge to the employees. In your scenario, the Amish elders have to pay for the electronics.
2.5.2012 | 1:08pm
Mike Murray MD says:
There are issues and then there are Issues of Great Magnitude. This is the latter. The Obama administration has taken a direct shot at the foundational beliefs of the institution which has provided the greater part of private social services and charities in the United States for over a century and a half. This is a Big Thing. But note how little attention it has received in the past week outside of Catholic circles. The story has been dwarfed by the much less significant Komen/Planned Parenthood dustup. What is going on here? One aspect is that much of the media has directly avoided the story. Another may be the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' effect. Some sites have diluted the attention to this outrage by the constant daily whingeing about the President on minor matters. When he finally does something truly terrible we are ignored. For instance, some of us thought that the visit of a new President to the great Catholic University of Notre Dame was entirely appropriate. Of course you may now say that we were suckers but that was then and this is now. We had hope for him then. This issue cannot be resolved by an act of Congress which the President can veto. It can only be decided at the ballot box.
2.5.2012 | 6:35pm
James Billingsley says:
"Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?" - Patrick Henry
This is one protestant who is willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic church in this war. I linked to this article from Michelle Malkins article "First they came for the Catholics" and her title foresees the brutal ends that await all of us followers of Christ if we don't stand together against this tyranny.
Figuratively, you Catholics are the 1774 Bostonians under seige by the Brittish blockade following that little tea dumping incident. We Protestants are the Virginia House of Burgesses being roused to unite with you by Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech. They responded then, we MUST respond now!
From Patrick Henry speech - March 23, 1775 -
If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
This is one protestant who is willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic church in this war. I linked to this article from Michelle Malkins article "First they came for the Catholics" and her title foresees the brutal ends that await all of us followers of Christ if we don't stand together against this tyranny.
Figuratively, you Catholics are the 1774 Bostonians under seige by the Brittish blockade following that little tea dumping incident. We Protestants are the Virginia House of Burgesses being roused to unite with you by Patrick Henry's famous "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech. They responded then, we MUST respond now!
From Patrick Henry speech - March 23, 1775 -
If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
2.6.2012 | 3:35pm
Rick says:
OK...I've done my homework and consulted other sources. And I'm not so proud that I can't admit to having changed my opinion. This is Obama's greatest blunder. Even political self-interest should tell him that he better reverse course. I will no longer try to defend this decision by HHS. However, for those who really think that another term with Obama as president would be the greatest disaster ever to befall this country, you might hope that your campaign to reverse this decision fails...because if it fails, Obama is highly unlikely to get himself elected again.
2.6.2012 | 11:44pm
Susan says:
If Rick Santorum doesn't get the Presidency he'd be my first choice for HHS. Or Michele Bachmann. Better yet, President Santorum and HHS Michele Bachmann. Let the progressive atheists and pro-abortionists go nuts. We're on the right side of this issue, prolifers and Catholics. This decision by Obama WILL defeat him in November.
3.5.2012 | 11:22am
Maya says:
I'm confident Mr. Obama views that debate as having been over for about 80 years and the clause itself as moribund. I'm reliably informed that most of his classes at Chicago were basically about race, or at least about the constitutional, legislative and administrative structure that's been erected since the Civil War in the name of racial equality, and lately pressed into the service of the women's and gay rights movements.
