But? The Bible tells us to make our compromises with governments; give unto Caesar what is his; "obey your governors" or authorities. And in fact, the Bible is right in this.

To be sure, the balance between government - and between the many competing religions, too - is a delicate one, that is hard to achieve. Consider this relevant case: some Quaker pacifists for example, object that they don't want to pay the portion of their income tax, that goes to support the Defense Department. To pay for war, the military, is against the Quaker religion.

Are they allowed to do that? Are Quakers for example allowed not to fund, things they don't believe in?

In facgt, they are not. What indeed would happen, if we in fact, instituted current objections to Catholics paying, however indirectly, for things they don't support? The US would collapse, among other things, from the claims of competing religions. If we allowed religions Absolute sway, the US would dissolve into a massive civil war.

And so instead? We allow the many competing religions, to have most of what they demand. But when their demands conflict with each other? Then? Then we ask them to be reasonable. And by the way? To pay their taxes, for the good of the larger community.

It is strange to think that any religion should be asked to compromise. And yet, as another example? For our Protestant founders, to even allow Catholicism within American borders, was an act of extraordinary generosity - and compromise - with other religions. As they interact with each other in the public marketplace and communities, overseen by government.

A Christian tolerance and broadmindedness - the Catholic virtue of "Charity" - is necessary here. Otherwise? Our various subcultures decend into provincial, tribal antagonisms, and anarchy.

It has also been pointed out (by Dick Morris) that a grand, political ruse is being played out. The Catholic Church is being used to bolster a false image that: "religious extremist are going to strip women of their contraceptive rights" if the Mormon (Romney) or the Catholic (Santorum) is elected. This dirty, political, "fear wedge" has been crafted by the Administration for the purpose of making the Right look extreme even as Obama runs an extremely Left wing assualt on America. The US media are in on the effort (e.g...George Stephanopolus asking a theoretical Debate Forum question of Mitt Romney about wether States have the right to ban contraceptives...when no one knew why he brought up the subject!)

We are also seeing why papal social thought needs actual in house Catholic criticism rather than constant flattery. After Benedict's "Caritas in Veritate" I observed that Catholics pundits avoided in silence Benedict's (and John XXIII's) idea of a world authority from section 67: "for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago."
Well in an actual fallen world if one still believes in the Fall, what if an Obama is elected to the top of the world authority by a majority of Catholics once again after a reposting of a letter denigrating one issue voting. Wouldn't that be an even bigger pickle than the current one?

Anybody who finds the persecutions of American "soft totalitarianism" too burdensome should feel free to move to Vietnam, Saudi Arabia or Cuba and try the real thing for a while.

Wentham: Quakers are expected to pay taxes but are not expected to personally participate in the military except in extreme cases of grave threats to national security that would necessitate a draft. This mandate forces Catholics to personally participate in the distribution of contraception and abortion drugs. There is no sufficiently countervailing necessity that would invalidate religious freedom in this case. Contraception, abortion, and sterilization aren't even really health care. They're like giving a liver transplant to an alcoholic, or funding costly diabetes medication for someone who refuses to stop eating too much sugar. In other words, their need arises solely from the selfish desire to live a libertine lifestyle -- not from any real, natural medical condition.

"But when their demands conflict with each other?"

I don't see any demand being made by Catholics at all except to be left alone to practice their religion in peace. The demand of the hedonists is to receive free contraceptives and abortion drugs. I think it is patently absurd to suggest that the hedonists' demand should be accommodated here or is even reasonable, especially since it will detract from, not enhance, the "good of the larger community."

The heart of this HHS mandate controversy is the same as the Obamacare mandate - the government does not have the Constitutional authority to order me to purchase something as a consequence of being an American or conducting business in America. Wentham's analogy of Catholic concerns to those of pacifist Quakers misses the mark. Paying taxes is not the same as requiring an employer to pay for a product whose content the government is now dictating. It goes beyond the Catholic Church or any other religion. I as a woman am abhorred by the fact that the government is going to provide FREE birth control, sterilization,abortifacients (and soon to follow, abortions) to women, all in the name of preventative care for women. How is this mandate equal treatment under the law when gender is the ONLY criterion for eligibility? The mandate is preposterous -- if I were a man I would be screaming it loudly! How did women's reproductive rights become the responsibility of ALL citizens rather than a personal responsibility? The assertion that it is a matter of common good (or whatever politically correct terminoolgy and rationale the feminists are using this week) is ridiculous at best. Why not mandate that insurance cover free of charge to BOTH SEXES "quit-smoking-devices" and nicotine gum and hypnosis therapy since we are told that smoking causes more deaths than any other health-related vice? Why not mandate that insurance cover free of charge swimming lessons for non-swimmers in coastal states since the chances of them drowing are higher than for inlanders, and many cannot afford such lessons? And why not mandate that medical insurance cover free of charge the cost of auto insurance since driving a car is such a hazardous activity and accidents kill so many and contribute to the rising cost of health care since there are so many uninsured motorists. Absurd? You betcha. But no more absurd than to say that my ovaries and uterus are the responsibility of ALL Americans to pay for when I choose to engage in sexual activity. It is offensive to me that men -- yes it is primarily men -- are making it so much easier for women to be promiscuous. I am equally disappointed in WOMEN who see this as a victory. Women's health should have no more priority than men's health. To say "Well women are the ones who bear children, so they are more in need" is ludicrous in light of the fact that this mandate is intended to make it easier for women to AVOID having children! And those men who are kowtowing to the feminists's demands are being used. Shame on us as a country for getting to a point where we are giving in to such demands for PURELY POLITICAL reasons -- keeping the ruling class in its ruling seat. If you think for a moment that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and Harry Reid care one iota for the women who will take advantage of these free services, you are sadly sipping the Koolaid. All the politicians want is to create a dependency in the very people who can vote to keep them and their cronies in power. This HHS mandate, and Obamacare in general, were enacted for the indisputable and shameful advancement of socialism. I cry at night for this country -- and the tears are becoming harder to fight back in the light of day when I see the travesty that such policies and tactics are doing to this great country and her poeple.

While it's true that the there are passages saying to obey governors and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's there is also an obvious limit to those duties - when they command that believers do that which God forbids. So the Israelite midwives were ordered to kill all the infant boys by Pharoah, but they disobeyed him - because they must obey God rather than man.

No one would argue that the current mandate is the same as the persecution of the Church in Saudi Arabia or Vietnam. That does not mean that the mandate is unimportant. It is extremely important as a precedent that stands for the idea that the state is free to 1. Define very narrowly what counts as "religion" and thus entitled to receive religious liberty protections; and 2. to force religious institutions violate their religious beliefs at the command of the state. Those 2 precedents are extremely dangerous tools to put in the hands of the government, and every believer (and unbelievers who care about liberty) should be extremely concerned.

We live in a country that is swimming in access to contraceptives, where it is quite literally in the water we drink. The idea that the only way to get even MORE contraceptives to people lies in forcing those who object to provide them is laughable. It cannot be the real reason for this infringement on liberty.

"What indeed would happen, if we in fact, instituted current objections to Catholics paying, however indirectly, for things they don't support? The US would collapse, among other things, from the claims of competing religions. If we allowed religions Absolute sway, the US would dissolve into a massive civil war."

Regardless of how Caesar deals with other religions and the many "flavors" of Christianity, the fact is that there is a strain of Christianity -- the original version -- that takes quite seriously Christ's command that we must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's. This obliges these Christians to be the best citizens, rendering unto Caesar all that his legitimate authority requires of them. When Caesar requires of them that which belongs only to God, which is never legitimate, such Christians must "obey God rather than men."

This conviction cost many of the early Christians their lives. They refused to render unto Caesar worship that belonged only to God. This was not without purpose. It ended the polytheism of the Roman Empire and established the fact that the authority of the One True God was above that of even Caesar, making possible the notion that humanity possesses inalienable rights that the policy of Caesar must respect and protect -- at least that is how this particular strain of Christianity sees it anyway.

Caesar simply has no authority to sanction the killing of innocent human beings. There are limits to the authority that mere mortals can legitimately wield over other mortals. Our founders recognized this and established their government accordingly, insisting that the primary purpose of government was to protect the inalienable rights of humanity, the first of which is to life itself.

That government was overthrown when the Supreme Court abruptly withdrew the protection of law from the child in the womb. In spite of the never ending outcry against this, Caesar now wants everyone to participate in the killing by paying for abortifacient drugs and pills, in addition to his funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of child killing services, with taxpayer dollars.

Compliance with all this amounts to burning incense to Caesar, rendering unto him authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God. Germany tried giving the state that kind of authority over innocent human life. Mere mortals sanctioned a social policy that included taking the lives of innocent human beings -- by the millions. Germany and other "deified" states such as those run by Stalin, Mao and others took so many innocent human lives in the 20th century that all the sins of Christianity over twenty centuries combined look like swiping a cookie from the cookie jar in comparison.

It is safe to say that the deified states of modern history, pursuing policies that usurp God's own authority over innocent human life, have proven to be disastrous. It is not only immoral -- it is irrational and absurd -- to accept Caesar claiming for himself God-like authority over innocent human life once again.

The faithfulness of that original strain of Christianity is our best defense against having ourselves, our children and our grandchildren face the inevitable disastrous consequences of our own contemporary version of an outrageous and entirely illegitimate deification of the state.

Donna , I agree entirely with your analysis. The Obama administration will push this form of tyranny as far as the catholic (ie universal) church allows them.
The pill, plan B, morning after etc do not prevent or treat any illness or disease. They are not "health care". Note also that for the "latex left" abortion is considered to be an important aspect of "reproductive health".
The clever sleight of hand by this post-modern President is to speak of "freedom" when what he really champions is license.

It seems the Administration has placed its electoral bet on Americans' insatiable appetite for sex without consequences. From a political standpoint, it is probably a good wager--sex has been separated from procreation and is now just one more licit drug in our popular culture, and scaring the public into thinking that the Big Bad GOP is going to take that away is sure to spur some lemmings to the polls to maintain the status quo (which was never really threatened).

This mandate will never stand up in court, but the Administration probably doesn't care--it only has eyes for November. Therefore, the bishops, et al., must be smart about their opposition. If the argument becomes one about contraception, I'm afraid Obama & Co. will win.

However it resolves itself, the lesson Catholics should take from this incident is the utter fecklessness and untrustworthiness of the Democratic Party's secular overlords. The GOP may ignore our social teachings, but at least they won't cram their opposition down our throats like this. We have been warned!

"Contraception, abortion, and sterilization aren't even really health care. They're like giving a liver transplant to an alcoholic, or funding costly diabetes medication for someone who refuses to stop eating too much sugar. In other words, their need arises solely from the selfish desire to live a libertine lifestyle -- not from any real, natural medical condition."

not quite. in the liver transplant case, the real problem is scarcity of resources, not whether performing the transplant on an active alcoholic might be morally impermissible. if there were more than enough livers to go around, it would be right to help the alcoholic.

in the second case, there's nothing wrong per se about "funding diabetes medication." a "funder" of such medication isn't necessarily making someone else sicker or performing some other intrinsically evil act. moreover, even if the "fundee" were to "abuse" diabetes medication, the cooperation of the "funder" would be material, not formal.

in contrast, contraception and sterilization are immoral means to immoral ends. among other things, they sabotage the development of chastity and true freedom, which are two of the proper ends of man. as for abortion, it's simply murder, as are some forms of contraception.

Ferd might be right about the politics of this HHS fiasco.

It can make all republicans look out of touch with the modern world.

Of course it's a basic rights issue that even the ACLU should be denouncing but alas things aren't going to change on this front any time soon.

PS In our last election the liberal candidate proposed giving money only to employers who hired immigrants. When the conservative leader denounced the scheme as unfair and discriminatory, which it is, the media and liberal pundits accussed him of being xenophobic. The result: he took the bait hook, line and sinker and lost an electoin he was expected to win easily.

Beware left-wingers bearing gifts!

Andrew:

Most Protestants allow abortion. Believing that the embryo - as per Ps. 139, and as per St. Thomas Aquinas - is not "form"ed or developed enough, to have the mind or intelligence that is necessary to be a human person.

But you insist that their religion is wrong? And that they must obey you and your (to me un-biblical, even un-Catholic) religion?

Wentham, allow me to suggest that you read Aquinas for enlightenment rather than garnering a not so clever invalid debating point.

Wentham, yes, Catholics believe that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. The argument can be made purely from natural law grounds and doesn't require recourse to Scripture. We're not suggesting that anyone must obey Catholics as such, only that they should obey the natural law and the rights of all people, even those with undeveloped intelligences.

However, that is a separate debate. This article was not about Catholics attempting to criminalize abortion, which, you are correct, many would like to do. Like I said, all Catholics are asking for as far as the HHS mandate is concerned is to be allowed to run their universities, hospitals, and charities free from the requirement to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion drugs. If other organizations want to provide them, then that is a separate issue, involving Roe v. Wade rather than ObamaCare, that will have to wait for another day.

The article we are commenting on was about Obama and HHS forcing their beliefs on Catholics. The one demanding obedience to a particular religion (hedonistic secularism) is actually Obama/HHS. So it's kind of ironical and strange that you somehow see this as an opportunity to criticize Catholics for demanding obedience, when in fact they are merely demanding their right to religious freedom under the Constitution.

Allowing Catholics to refrain from funding contraception does not make contraception illegal. Catholics do desire the reversal of Roe v. Wade but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting criminalizing contraception. Although, I suppose that's not an unreasonable inference to make from the Obama/HHS goal of "protecting access" to contraception. The existence of such a goal would seem to imply that access to contraception is under threat, presumably from some kind of "wacko red state religious lunatic fringe" that, of course, exists primarily in the feverish imaginations of coastal liberals.

Heck Bobster;

So you too are just asserting my Protestant religion is wrong, and I must just obey you?

Now is no time to start offering incense to Caesar's image.

No Wentham, as Patrick ably explained, Catholics only want the ability to make rational arguments and not to be forced to ignore their faith. What I was saying is that it is rather silly to cite St. Thomas Aquinas in support of abortion. A little more reading and reflection would be in order.

Wentham,

The Protestant acceptance of abortion is fairly recent, since all the reformers were opposed to abortion and even contraception. And Bob recommended reading Aquinas, because you brought him up.

As for Protestant founders, CHARLES CARROLL CARTER of Maryland, a Catholic, signed the declaration of independence, and was the last living signitory.

Besides, this is a freedom of religion issue not a sectarian one.

Pat:

Obama was not telling you to pay for contraception. But? If he asks you to make it available ... 1)that is no more than (many) Catholic hospitals have already done. You are being hypocritical and naive, if you say Catholics would never do this. While indeed, 2) many religions already pay for things they don't like.

And furthermore? 3) What right do partially-public funded Catholic hospitals have, to refuse other religions that come into your hospital, and ask for services their religion allows, and that medicine supports? What right do you have, as a partially public institution, to discriminate against their religion (and the whole of science and medicine too)?

4) Other religions make adjustments. But only you are too good for that. Which is your sin: Pride, and Vanity.

To be sure, 5) it might be thought that the bishops wouldn't allow it. But as I noted in a (censored) clarification, in fact, according to much of Catholic Theology, first a) contraception is not a huge sin, after all; you don't get excommunicated for it, or for supplying it.

Then too? Even b) if it WAS a rather more major sin, still, if you are not very directly involved in supplying contraceptive services; in Catholic magisterial language, you are involved at most only in "remote material cooperation" with a very minor "sin."

So in fact? 6) Conservative bishops are not even reading Catholic theology objectively. As read by Liberal and Centrist Catholics, there is more then enough ecclesiastical leeway to allow this kind of adjustment.

Which again? Has already been made, over and over, in hundreds of Catholic hospitals.

As for 7) the "rational" case against providing contraception? I'd be happy to debate that next, separately, to.

For now, I am showing that there is a strictly "Catholic" case for making at least this minimal adjustment.

wentham,

ultimately, questions of truth, goodness, and beauty have nothing to do with what "most people" believe. leaving aside who's actually correct, why can't "most protestants" and even st. thomas simply be wrong on some questions? heck, st. thomas didn't have a modern microscope.... do you mind telling me what exactly he meant by "embryo?"

who said i was "religious?" why do you assume that? moreover, i honestly couldn't care less if it were i who was right or someone else. i do, instead, care about looking hard at the facts even if they are inconvenient. as for "obeying," i wouldn't even obey myself.... but truth must be obeyed, even by skeptics and subjectivists....

finally, whatever "wentham" is now -- ontologically -- "wentham" was once an embryo, form and matter. willfully destroying that embryo for no good reason would have destroyed "wentham." why wouldn't such destruction have constituted "murder" then if it does constitute "murder" now? the same intent, the same act (effectively), and the same consequence: a dead "wentham." one's "religion" is immaterial on this question: even a logically consistent wiccan would agree.

Where did you get the idea that Aquinas was Protestant?

Protestant Wentham should understand Aquinas would not have intended his discussion of the unborn as a reason to okay the tearing apart of millions in the womb.

Andrew:

Andrew? HOw much History do you know? The fact is that it was already known by the 12th century, that people come from sperm; and that there was some kind of primitive form growing in the womb, that would become a person eventually. The fetuses in fact occasionally event came to light, in miscarriages.

It may be that the truth has nothing to do with what "most people believe." But when you deny the religious beliefs of others a right to exist? You are crossing freedom of religion. Protestants might be wrong. But do you have the right to simply make their religion illegal? You seem to think you do. But? IF you try this one, you'll be resuming 500 years of religious wars in this country. Just sayin.

Most people here of course, are basing their objection to contraception and abortion, on religion; so I addressed that first. But I can make a rational case too.

Wentham himself was once an embryo. I was also once a sperm and an egg. i was also once carbon in the center of a star. If any one of these is sacred, then all of them are.

Your logic, reason, is bad. Do you really think you can assert unaminity in all reason and philosophy? Never studied much philosophy, have you Pat?

Regarding Aquinas? Aquinas agreed, that the essence of being a human person, was having a "rational soul." And? He agreed that a very young embryo, was not "formed" enough to have that; the ability to reason. Science has since confirmed, that the essential thing that makes us human, is human intelligence. And that this is a function of the larger, more complex human brain. While Science - Anthropology; Biology; Psychology - confirm Aquinas: the embryo's brain specifically, is not large enough to have a real human intelligence.

Your "rational" and "Aquinas"-based objections fail. As do conservative Catholic objections.

The fact is? There is plenty of philosophical, rational, and Catholic precidence for allowing Catholic Hospitals to continue to provide reproductive services. Including contraception and abortion. As they already have for decades. Though it will take aa while before the Catholic lay community is sophisticated enough to see the reasons for what their Catholic leaders have already long done.

Savvy:

Of course I did not say or think that Aquinas was Protestant. I thought I'd be generous, and argue the Catholic case, on your own terms. Using a catholic thinker.

It must seem strange to you, that anyone would compromise with someone else's religious beliefs, and try to meet others halfway.

I know that some Protestant churches allow abortion and contraception, but do they require them as a religious duty? If someone does not abort or contracept, is it a sin? Does it truly oppress the duty of a Protestant if his Catholic employer won't buy her contraception, sterilization or abortion for her?

As someone who has lived in Saudi Arabia and worked actively with the underground church, I can attest that this bit of oppression on the part of the Obama administration does not compare. It cannot be ignored, however, and is no little thing. I should think Americans could expect more.

At least one part of it reminds me of Iraq, where I lived in the late 1980s during Sadaam's tyranny. He proudly stated that his country allowed freedom of religion, and I often heard this claim parroted in the West. It was true, in a weird sense, but it was a conditional "freedom". Christians had a choice: convert to Islam, or close their churches, or pay a hefty fine (the "jizya", or religion tax). We chose the last. The amount of the fine was arbitrary, based entirely on Sadaam's whim. He announced the amount at Christmas---our Christmas present to Sadaam, as he cynically worded it. Sometimes it was a massive amount that sent us reeling. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard about this HHS mandate and the requirement to close down or accept the "fine" that will be assessed for religious people who want to be true to their faith.

The implication that HHS will define what "religion" or "religious exercise" is also reminds me of my Iraqi experience. Sadaam's government also interfered in other aspects of our religion, such as deciding from year to year when we could have services, who could serve as clergy (only one allowed for us and he was sometimes arrested in order to harass and frighten us), and what words we were allowed to have in our hymns and prayers (no mention of "Israel", etc.). They made it obvious in frequent heckling letters that government informants were frequently seated among the congregation.

I take my first amendment right to freedom of religion very seriously. I have experienced and witnessed real religious persecution and recognize it when I see it. I never thought I would ever see its ugly appearance here, in this country. It is shameful.

My dear Wentham,

It has been my experience that the more a Protestant actually believes in the literal resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the ascension... you know, the whole miraculous wonder of Christianity, the more he or she opposes abortion.

Wentham,

And are you suggesting that Catholic hospitals provide services to those of other religions , even if they believe they are wrong, such as abortion, etc, because they are tax-funded?

All non-profit's are tax exempt. Nobody is asking Planned Parenthood to display pro-life posters because they are tax funded. Why is that only when Liberals are criticized the threats begin?

What is so ironic is that The Catholic Church's teaching on contraception which is both Life-affirming and Life- sustaining is consistent with the founding of The United States of America, which, according to The Treaty of Paris, the Treaty that ended The Revolutionary War, was founded in The Name of The Most Holy and Undivided Trinity for the sake of our posterity as well as our prosperity. Nature's God, The capital G God, is not Allah, nor is He G-d, but rather The One God Who Is The Communion of Perfect Love, The Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, Who, from The Beginning, created us in His Image, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female.

Wentham, if you believe that contraception is not a "huge sin" for Catholics then you obviously have not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Check 2370. In addition when a person or institution hands out contraceptives they are simply perpetuating evil and making themselves culpable for those moral failings.

Wentham,

You need to stop overreacting. Nobody is calling for making your religion illegal.

Aquinas held that the soul was the form of the body. Hence, abortion was wrong from the moment of conception.

Yes, he has different views on when ensoulment took place, based on the science of the time.

Modern biology has shown the conceptus does have distinctively human traits. It is living and possesses a human genetic code to guide its growth and development. If Aquinas had had the benefits of this knowledge, his principles would have led him to conclude ensoulment occurs at conception.

Andrew is correct on this one.

You're also assuming that soul and brain are the same thing. This view is not shared by all scientists.

For soul is a conscious non-cerebral entity.

The brain is only capable of encoding visual information. There must be an "I" distinct from the physical brain that enterprets the code.

There have been studies done in this area, by Widler Pendfield, one of the greatest neuroscientists who ever lived.

Wentham,

Please stop over-reacting. Aquinas held that the soul was the form of the body. He agreed that abortion was wrong because life began at conception. But, yes, his views on when ensoulment took place were based on the science of the time, as Andrew pointed out.

You are also assuming that soul and brain are the same thing. There are many scientists who disagree.

The soul is a conscious non-cerberal entity. The will to move is not the same as the movement itself.

Wilder Pendfield one the greatest nueroscientists, has documented these things.

The Supreme Court has placed limitations based on the First Amendment on direct subsidies from government to parochial schools, because to tax someone, under threat of financial penalties, to put his funds into subsidizing the promulgation of teachings which are objectionable to him on religious grounds, would violate the taxpayer's religious freedom.

By the same token, it is a violation of religious freedom to coerce individuals and institutions to contribute financially to an insurance fund which is specifically intended to pay for medicines that will enable and facilitate behavior that is morally objectionable on religious grounds.

Freedom of religious conscience means that governments will not directly subsidize a church-affiliated school. Freedom of religious conscience means that a church-affiliated school should not directly subsidize actions that are directly contrary to the religious and moral principles which the school was designed to teach, by precept and example.

Catholic affiliated schools and hospitals should be given the same respect for their religious conscience that is given to those whose religious conscience prevents them from contributing to those institutions through mandatory assessments.

I could be wrong, but I believe "Wentham" is the latest alias of a formerly regular commenter who called him(i'm assuming)self "Joe the Human" among other names. If he is not J the H, he is certainly doing a very good impression of him. He evinces the same kind of "arguments" compounded of a bizarre amalgam of silliness, fallacy, and just plain weirdness. The Thomas Aquinas nonsense was one of his favorite assertions. I remember another was that pornography is supported by scripture, or something. He is probably not an idiot; his idiotic arguments are probably made for shock value, but he is a troll and can safely be ignored.

Wentham,
Might I expand on Bobster's suggestion to you? You need to read Thomas not against the backdrop of today's knowledge of biology, but with the understanding of the science as it stood in his day. In other words, Thomas made his judgment about the humanity of the unborn child given the scientific information that was available at the time. Seeing as our knowledge of the science has become more accurate, an analysis faithful to a Thomistic understanding of morality and based on our current understanding of biological facts would not yield a moral permission to abort.
Please don't make this about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. It is about what the natural law does and does not allow. You cannot simplistically invoke Thomas' view as a Christian basis for the moral permissibility of abortion.

Saavay et alia:

According to Aquinas: the soul is related to the body. And? When the body is poorly, incompletely developed? The soul likewise, was not fully developed either.

Fred: I know you feel that anyone who consistently disagrees with you can be safely ignored. Since you are always right. By the way? If say this very journal consistently disagrees with me, and is quite fixated on one (say conservative) point of view, all the time - then how is this very publication not likewise a fixated troll? If First Things does that, it would be a trollish entity with one point of view, endlessly repeating it. Trying to interrupt the body politic with its own fixation. One hopes First things is becoming better than that, today. And is learning instead, to entertain not just conservative, but also Liberal Catholicism. To see a more balanced picture of what the Church really is.


Raymond: The law is often rather more ambivalent and inconsistent than many think, who have not studied it closely. For example? It is indeed said that it is objectionable to put taxpayer money, into parochial/religious schools; since that would mean the taxpayer is funding a religion, that he or she might not agree with
. But can this same principle be extended to the matter at hand? I cited a different case: where Quakers or pacifists who object to paying taxes for the military, nevertheless had to pay them. Even though their religion opposed it.

So that? In effect, the principle you cite, does not hold consistently throughout all of American jurisprudence.

Another related point: First, again, Catholic hospitals take federal funds; rather as parochial schools do. But what if these hospitals, use the money in a religious way? To encourage some of their beliefs - and discourage other? In that case, shouldn't funds to those hospitals be limited? Since to fund them well, would be to assist a particular religion. But then again, Furthermore? When hospitals particularly accept public funds, they do so with an obligation to not be narrowly religious, therefore. But to serve the larger public; including religions other than their own. Including Protestants ... who want contraceptive services. If they do not? Then whatever monies we gave Catholic hospitals ... would in effect, encouraging a specific religion. Which is not religious freedom, but its exact opposite. If a Protestant whose religion allows abortion appears in a funded Catholic hospital, but is then turned away? Public funds have been used to support one religion ... while discriminating against another. And at times, this is fatal: there are pregnancies that endanger the life of teh mother. So lack of abortion services ... can result in the death of the mother. Who might not want to make that deal, according to her own religion and convictions.

Saavy: so you know what the soul is, exactly? Congratulations! Most others feel it is problematic. But think however that to the extent we can best guess, it is related to the rational mind. Aquinas in fact identifed them, together, as our "rational soul." And Aquinas is the chief theologian fo the Church. Which is why I mention him here.

he fetus is loaded with human traits, and DNA. But it lacks the main thing that makes us human: human consciousness, and intelligence. Most people agree that is the essence of the human person. Aquinas called it the "rational soul." The vast corpus of philosophy, from Socrates to Descartes, and even JP II's phenomenology, agreed that "I think, therefore I am"; it is intelligence, consciousness, the mind, the field of consciousness, that is the true and best essence of divinity and humanity. One of the names of God himself, is "logos," meaning the defining or characterizing word or "logic" of a thing. And? The embryo hasn't got that. It has human DNA; but so does a human hair.

Try this phenomenological experiment: How much memory or yourself do you have, when you were an embryo? Did you clearly exist then, as you feel yourself to be now? Can you think back to the embryo you were, and say "I remember thinking this"? Probably not very vividly. Suggest there is no strong connection between that embryo, and ... you.

What does science say? I often find that religious people, especially bishops, quote "science" - in a way which is hopelessly partial and distorted. How much do most bishops know about real science? A few know a lot; most, very, very little. Indeed, their worldview is magical, not scientific. Particularly, people who think a little too literally, in terms of obvious physical things, neglect to note the importance of the mind; and to deify the mere physical body, the DNA. And they will sit next to a brain-dead or even physically dead person, as if the mere body was the person. Forgetting that the soul is the essence; and it has departed.

Aquinas did not have the benefit of modern scientific knowledge ... which however now ringingly confirms his ideas. Indeed, the essence of being human, and devine, is the Reason, the logic, the "mind of Christ." And? An embryo's brain is not "formed" enough to have that. And mind and intelligence, can live on, in books, in the mind of God, and so forth, immortally.

While the body? The DNA? Perishes. As a mere "husk."

And so? There is a fairly good religio-philosophical - even specifically Catholic - case, that the embryo is not a human person. And therefore? The Church should not chose to be as inflexible as EWTN/RN, in the matter of fighting reproductive services. First, the anti-abortion, anti-contraception theology is in itself, not entrely certain; there is a strong Catholic tradition that opposes it. Then too? There are the competing claims of other religions, like the overwhelming majority of Protestant churches. Whose religious beliefs will be thwarted, if conservative Catholic churches and so forth, are allowed to ... force the effect of their religious beliefs, on others.

Though a moderate, conciliatory Catholicsm ... can find (and has long since found) a suitable median, a satisfactory compromise, between all these competing interests. Balancing the claims of the different religions, Catholic and Protestant; anti- and pro-abortion, pro-contraception.

To honor just Catholic beliefs, will involve dis-honering many others, in cases where beliefs conflict.

The only solution, is a flexible, broadminded/liberal Catholicism.

Fred:

I get the same impression. Trolls should be ignored - the issue at hand is far too serious, and time should not be wasted on absurdities.

It is comforting to see that our bishops, and so much of our intelligentsia, Catholic or otherwise, are awake to what is happening in our country.

We need to stand in solidarity with each other, and not allow ourselves to be intimidated or manipulated. We need to speak the truth with charity, and do not be afraid.

Folks,
Modern science might...might return us one day to a type of delayed ensoulment and it might not. Below links are to pdf's from "Theological Studies" which are free to all because are they not current but from the 1996 archives. In brief, the cell mass up to around day 14 can still divide into identical twins so how could there be a soul prior to that point if as Aquinas held a soul is a substantial not accidental form and fills all parts of a body and cannot divide the way a cell mass can? The first author is a scientist who argues despite that for early ensoulment and Shannon, the second author argues for delayed ensoulment. TS is a Jesuit periodical where through the decades the best Catholic theologians have debated one another...Germain Grisez, Bernard Haring etc. But this debate is an unsettled area as even John Paul noted in EV in section 60 or 61. Enjoy in your spare time.
It is lengthy:



Mark Johnson...early ensoulment

http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/56/56.4/56.4.7.pdf

Thomas Shannon...delayed ensoulment....both are Catholics

http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/57/57.4/57.4.8.pdf

Wentham,

I do appreciate your views. I also have Protestant friends who would disagree with you.

Wentham,

If the soul is the form of the body, then the soul might be distinct from the body but it is not separate. We are bodily persons. Not ghosts trapped in machines. This is a gnostic view, rather than a traditional Christian one.

If someone injures your leg, they don't just injure your body, but they injure you as a person.

A human being is the composite unity of both body and soul. They are distinct, but not separate. This is the view shared by personalism and phenomenology, that you bring up.

The first principle of philosophy is existence. You cannot think if you do not exist. I do think Descartes got his ontological predicates reversed here.

Further more this not about Bishops being scientists. It's starts from the premise of whether or not one accepts objective morality and a natural moral law.

If you do, then several things come into play as the first principles of philosophy that also involves the law of non-contradiction.

If the balance you call for violates this principle of non-contradiction then it has to be false, because, truth does not contradict truth.

Wentham,

You are engaging in what's known as fear-monerging.

If one is confident about their own positions they should not fear conflicting beliefs, but welcome dialogue even if they disagree. But, still have the right to disagree.

Nobody is denying you the right to disagree. You cannot however demand that Catholics violate their first amendment rights to do so.

Does nobody understand how insurance works? The catholic church is already paying for contraceptives, abortifacients, etc. - only they are paying for it for every other person who buys insurance from the same company they buy insurance from.

See, what happens when you pay for insurance is you give your money to the insurance company. Then, the insurance company uses that money to pay fro someone else's health care - the other person's abortion, contraception, liver transplant or whatever other health services they need.

When I buy auto insurance I'm paying for the damage that the sociopathic, selfish drunk driver does when they get behind the wheel.

When I buy life insurance, I'm paying money to the spouse of the idiot lifelong smoker.

The money goes in a big pot, and is then used to pay for all of the misery, evil, sin, misfortune, chance mishaps, etc. that exist in the world.

The catholic church, if it buys health insurance at all, of any kind, is paying for other people to have abortions and/or contraceptions. Just because you don't purchase a policy that covers abortions doesn't mean you aren't paying for other people's abortions. That is the idiocy of this whole argument.

It's no different than the employment taxes they pay on behalf of their employees, which are then used to execute people, conduct research on embryonic stem cells, pay for the contraception that is covered by the health insurance that government employees receive, etc.

The notion that somehow making a stand on this particular issue insulates the church from its connection to and complicity in the greater evils of the society in which it participates is a complete farce.

A Rasmussen, I am pretty sure that many of us know how insurance works.

What do you think about those organizations and institutions that self-insure, and have done so expressly as a pro-life solution? These include schools such as Notre Dame, Catholic, Jesuit Creighton, Benedictine (KS), St. Thomas (Miami), Belmont Abbey; over 200 dioceses; and businesses (including EWTN, which has kicked off one of the first lawsuits against HHS).

The Massachusetts Catholic Self-Insurance Group, Inc. alone has more that 500 Catholic member organizations---dioceses, colleges, social services agencies, nursing homes, hospitals.

Self-insurance was a method by which they could avoid contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Up til now, the threat was from states, but the self-insurance solution was an acceptable alternative. The HHS mandate does not make this allowance.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Barack Obama on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

In Michael Radford's brilliant film adaptation of George Orwell's "1984", Winston, who is being tortured into loving the state by its top "re-indoctrination specialist" O'Brien, at one point on the torture rack an illuminative expression is formed on his face, but he remains silent. O'Brien says to him, "Go ahead, Winston. Tell me what you're thinking." Winston knows if he doesn't tell him, the pain will be increased, and he says something to the effect that him being tortured doesn't make sense, that O'Brien is obviously an intelligent man who seems in most every respect to be reasonable, not ever allowing his emotions to get the best of his reasoning ability (Obama's apparent gift), and that it just doesn't make sense that such a man who is apparently psychologically sound would be involved in this horrifying enterprise called Big Brother. And O'Brien responds that Winston is obviously naive, that there are only two places to reside in this world and one must choose: you're in or you're out, in love or in power. Having chosen quite freely to reside in power, O'Brien chooses to be a state functionary as the logical choice in maximizing power and affirming his existence in the highest degree, and as a state functionary he must exercise power in its highest form, which is power over a human person made in the image and likeness of God, and the great sarcastic (cruel) irony is that it is his (O'Brien's) job to get Winston to love Big Brother (the State that has declined love in worshiping power). Then O'Brien sums it all up for Winston: "You see, Winston...if you want a picture of the future, imagine a big black boot stepping into the face of humanity into eternity."

My question to Catholics who are concerned with one-issue voters. We know more innocent lives are destroyed by abortion than any other cause, so, at what stage would Mary have been justified in aborting Jesus? And if you believe at no point, then I would remind you that we are the Body of Christ.

Gil:

One reading of this repressive organization, is not that it is the State, but the Church: the "Ministry of Truth," and so forth. The "ministry" that tells us that we must love God, even when he inflicts endless pain on us, etc. (The problem in fact wellknown in theology; as"The problem of evil"; theodicy). The Ministry that tells us that through horrible pain, we become better people. Etc.. And which teaching us things, through endless repetation (/propogandization /brainwashing). This may be a hard reading for many to accept, to be sure. But it seems quite consistent with the text.

Regarding your other objections? No doubt, if abortions had been common in Mary's time, God would have found another way to arrive on earth.

For that matter however? God himself, in a sense, aborted Jesus: he allowed Jesus to be killed. And removed Jesus from this world.

peg,

i think the self-insurance v. contracting with other insurance companies distinction is important. i'm curious as to your thoughts: suppose a faithful catholic small business owner IS NOT in a position to self-insure and has to contract with generic insurance companies in order to provide coverage for her employees. her employees do not share her catholic views. if she were to contract with an insurance company whose plan covers contraceptives, might her consequent cooperation with evil be material enough to at least partially mitigate her guilt, or perhaps even exonerate her altogether?

to use girgis' and george's illustration in a recent article at the public discourse, at what point in the domino cascade of cooperating relationships might someone's material cooperation be morally permissible?

of course, these questions are separable from the question of government coercion. they are also separable from the question of self-insurers more proximally materially cooperating with evil, or even formally cooperating with evil.

thanks in advance.

All this talk about whether Catholic hospitals have the right to object to having to provide contraceptive services is to the left even of Obama. Obama has recognized (or at least is unwilling to challenge) the validity of the Catholic conscience objection to paying for the provision of contraceptive services as part of the healthcare services provided to employees of Catholic institutions. Instead, to force the continued provision of those services, Obama would force the insurance companies to shoulder the Catholic Church's obligation by paying for the contraceptive services instead of the Catholic Church.

Obama's attempt to side-step the Church's conscience rights with this arbitrary act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Sure, by shifting the obligation from the Church, he arguably might have gotten himself out of a Free Exercise Clause violation (at least if you accept the fiction that the insurance company would not pass the costs onto the Church institution), but he has just "side-stepped" his way out of the Free Exercise frying pan into the Establishment Clause fire. What the Establishment Clause surely means is that Governments cannot force private individuals to support churches. See Everson, 330 US at 15.

By making the insurance company pay a Church employer cost that any other employer would have to pay, Obama is requiring the insurance company to pay the Church's expense simply because of the religious beliefs of the Church institution. That goes too far. The less restrictive means of reconciling the Church's conscience rights with the Obamacare mandate would be to afford a conscience exception as the Church has been requesting. If that means some employees will consider employment by a Catholic institution less attractive, they would be free to vote with their feet or to demand higher pay. Their right to contraceptive services would not be impinged, but they would not be able to force a Catholic institution to do so against its conscience.

"Anybody who finds the persecutions of American "soft totalitarianism" too burdensome should feel free to move to Vietnam, Saudi Arabia or Cuba and try the real thing for a while. " Felapton

Felapton, how do you think "the real thing" comes into being? Totalitarianism occurs by degrees. That's how it came to power in Germany, Russia, and China last century. The Jews weren't plucked from their homes and put in the ovens in a day. First they were demonized in Mein Kampf. Then they were forced to wear the Davidic cross on their clothing. Then they were rousted from their homes and forced to live in ghettos, and from those to cattle cars and work camps. Even as they were hustled into the fake showers and gassed, few thought that's what awaited them, though they were warned by the prescient few years before.

That's why it's important to stop what's happening in this country NOW.

As a statue in our nation's capital says, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom".

Gilmore,

The point is that the State becomes a religion when it institutes its own religious principles (based on beliefs, not science; for example, that it is ethical and HEALTHY to kill a child in his/her mother's womb, or partially birth him and vacuum out her brains unto death, and instituting in law the mandatory teaching of children as young as 6-years old the lie that dangerous sexual acts are not only not dangerous, but healthy and worth emulating. The opposition to the Catholic Church's teaching on human sexuality is simply a silencing of its ethics to promote the State's ethics that contravene not only the ethical principles of the Church, but of science itself, and is pepared to force those who abide in the truth to live a lie, the consequences of which is death to the innocent.

Orwell was an atheist who abhorred the frightening notion that an atheistic State would become a religion (for he knew power corrupts absolutely), what we see happening throughout Europe and in America. In other words, he opposed all religions, but especially a State religion with no ontological ground other than power.

"Gilmore":

Your suggestion that it may be legitimate to assume that the Catholic Church is being quietly equated with the totalitarian State in George Orwell's book "1984", is mind numbing.

If anything, to even suggest such a notion, only proves that the person entertaining such ideas has no experience of either the Catholic Church, or any kind of totalitarianism.

NB, "Gilmore", have you noticed that you and "Wentham" share the same fondness for quotation marks?

This National Geographic video of a baby developing in the womb is also fascinating.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/feeds/cv-seo/Full-Episodes/All-Full-Episodes/In-the-Womb-2.html

“Once within the egg wall, the sperm’s nucleus is drawn toward the egg’s. The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception – when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created – a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”

“The mother provides the shelter and the basics - food, water and oxygen. But the real star of the show is the fetus herself – building, dividing, growing according to an intricate set of plans created at the moment of conception.”

“The genes she’s [the girl shown in the womb] inherited already predetermine her looks and much of her character. Whether she’s stubborn or intelligent, a thrill-seeker or good at music and even her vulnerabilities to certain diseases like cancer, schizophrenia and diabetes. The exact course of her life will depend on such things as her friends, family and environment. But at the instant of fertilization, much of her future is predetermined.”

“Where it once seemed that the mental development of a baby began at birth, now it appears that birth could be a relatively insignificant event in developmental terms. She may have to support herself after birth, but as for the process of thinking, learning and remembering, she’s already been hard at it for three months [before birth]. And her brain will continue to grow at the same rate for the next year.”

Artaban7 got it right in essence: "As a statue in our nation's capital says, 'Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom'."

And from my favorite American author, Flannery O'Connor:

"She was a good Christian woman with a large respect for religion, though she did not, of course, believe any of it was true."

From: "Everything That Rises Must Converge".

This is why I don't look to blame Obama, but the functionaries of the Church who believe the same as the woman O'Connor delivers to us.

Andrew, I am not a theologian and lack the expertise of Gergis, George, et al., and would recommend you look to them for guidance on the complex issue of formal and material cooperation with evil in this context. I know that the USCCB has been trying to protect the freedom of the individual in addition to that of religious organizations. I agree with them----I question the morality of anyone being placed in the position of violating their conscience just to get insurance.

I think it is incorrect for people (such as the poster to whom I directed my remark) to suggest that the bishops and others in the trenches on this issue are unfamiliar with insurance when they have been dealing with the implications of "Obamacare" since 2008 and have left a paper trail that testifies to that. I have also found that many critics are unaware of self-insurance. I believe that even the administration said last Friday that they'd have to figure how to iron out that particular wrinkle, as if the creators of the HHS mandate were unaware of or had overlooked it.

The ethical problems of health insurance are manifestly thorny and deserve close scrutiny of the sort that moral theologians can provide. I think we deserved it as Americans. That level of examination is above my pay grade as the saying goes, but I would have wanted to read the considerations of such experts and believe I could have followed the argument. Indeed, I would have felt obligated to master the intricacies of the problem, since the protection of the freedom of conscience is of utmost importance. What do we have left without it? However, that kind of examination is apparently not going to happen. One of the biggest issues I have with the HHs mandate is that it was suddenly presented as a fait accompli, as was the so-called "accommodation" which was reached without any input from the people who protested the mandate or from insurance companies. The presumption and arrogance of the administration is frightening and breath-taking, and makes me wonder who they think they are.

Artaban7, among the earliest actions of Nazis was to interfere with Jewish doctors' participation in insurance plans (they were not allowed to take part). They also were only allowed to treat fellow Jews. Just saying.

PEG:

But traditionally? The churches - like the Quakers, above - have often made accomodations to other religions and society. For practical reasons. Indeed, Catholics specifically, have already long made such accomodations.

While indeed? There is a magisterial vocabulary, that allows such things. Though we are not asked to directly participate in things we consider to be immoral, we are allowed however, to passively allow them. This would be considered, say, only "remote material cooperation." Which "can be permitted."

It scorches me, as well, that the USCCB has decided to treat this as something that primarily impacts a small subset of institutions --- the schools, hospitals, social services, etc. that have “Catholic” or “Saint” or “Notre” in their 501(c)(3) names --- when it in fact impacts every employer: every Catholic, Christian or Jewish, Mormon or Muslim, believing or non-believing employer, many of whom have conscientious objections.

Do only Bishops have consciences?

Not only that. It socks every person legally resident in the United States, as of 2014 when the whole mandatory-for-everybody program kicks in.
This is why the whole Obamacare package was wrong from the git-go--- wrong in principle, even if Obama himself were out of the picture --- because it violates subsidiarity. And that is not an optional principle.

We have handed our free institutions over to the State, and the Bishops have been asking for this since the NCWC (predecessor to the USCCB) first endorsed national health insurance in 1917.

I told my bishop this would happen 5 years ago. Wouldn’t listen. I told an old friend at the USCCB, a man I sincerely love and admire who lobbied hard, and in his official capacity, for this “Health Care Reform.” Wouldn’t listen.

Now they’ve got it, good and hard.

A lot of us could see it coming.

Julianne:

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. I too get the impression that those who saw all of this coming were politely dismissed, and then treated on the level with conspiracy theorists, UFO buffs, or bigfoot enthusiasts.

But that is in the past. Many, if not most, of the bishops, seem to be having an epiphany, and the resulting paradigm shift. I think they know now that the game is over who will exercise control over Catholic hospitals, universities, schools, and charitable organizations.

Their response so far is edifying. We need to stand in solidarity with them, and together speak the Truth with charity and courage.

Re Julianne's comment,

It's my understanding that most private employer-provided insurance already covers abortion, much less contraceptives. Why don't we hear anything about that, and why haven't pro-life people been exhorted to opt-out of these plans? Shouldn't we exercise our religious liberty to choose non-abortion-covering health plans before we complain about the civil magistrate taking away that liberty?

Georgia has mandated the same thing for the last 13 years. That's a long time for the Church to be silent about a violation of religious freedom. But Georgia isn't isolated. 29 states also mandate this as states. So, all that is happening is the federal government is mandating it for an additional 21 states.

Catholic hospitals accept lots of federal money. So, let's not be naive here. The federal government does in fact have a say in how that money is spent. That is tax payer money, not Catholic parishioner money. Granted it is both in the end (plus a whole lot of patient and insurance company money). Suffice it to say in many cases it is way more private and government money than it is Catholic money.

But that aside, here's the thing. Catholic hospitals cannot cry foul when they have to pay for healthcare they don't like and consider it okay to bind a non-Catholic employee who doesn't share their scruples. If someone dies because the hospital forced a non-Catholic to adhere to Catholic principles, you better believe there will be an outcry. And, yes, that would be considered a violation of religious freedom in like manner.

The best solution is education, not coercion. The hospital has every right to counsel its employees all it wants. Employers publish informational brochures all the time too their employees. But, they must let the moral decisions ultimately rest with the employee's conscience.

This is an argument as old as the Reformation. The Catholic church is comfortable binding the conscience of individuals through alliances with the state. This is a violation of the establishment clause of our constitution. Our country, like it or not, is founded on the very Protestant notion that people must be free to exercise their conscience in matters related to their morality. My hunch is the Catholic church will win this battle by initial ignorance of the general population about the implications but it will be ultimately overturned because this line of argument cannot withstand a true constitutional test. Religious freedom means people have freedom of conscience as individuals. That includes the right NOT to accept contraception that is available.