Obama Has Stranded the Catholic Left
Feb 14, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
“Catholic Left” and “Catholic Right” are inadequate and irksome labels that too often sully all of us with the “ick” of politics even when our churchy disagreements are not rooted in politics at all, but simply upon a difference in vision and emphasis.
So stipulating, and resigned to using more scare quotes than I would like, I am struck by what little assist President Obama gave to his friends on the “Catholic Left” with last Friday’s “accommodation” to their concerns with his HHS mandate. His brief statement was meant to get a hot story off the media front burners (a qualified success) and to telegraph to progressives that he wanted them back in the fold.
To that end, the White House seemed to have conferred not with the concerned Bishops but with members of the “Catholic Left” whose criticism of his original plans had had a weighty effect on others, and whose progressive credentials made their alliance vital to retain; he effectively went to Sr. Carol Keehan, President of the Catholic Health Association, and E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, and sought imprimaturs that were not theirs to give, on what the press has taken to call (in apparent ignorance of the word’s meaning) his “compromise.”
Even before the president spoke, Keehan’s approving statement was released through the White Houses own press portals, with Dionne’s endorsement swiftly following. The one-two punch of Keehan and Dionne was meant to knock out the Bishops before they’d had a chance to find their mouth guards or rise from their corners, and also to signal that it was safe for the “Catholic Left” to regroup behind Obama.
It has not gone precisely as planned. If the matter has successfully been driven from the front pages–and why wouldn’t it be, since the press had initially tried to ignore the story–no one has yet been knocked down by members of the “Catholic Left” racing back into Obama’s corner. Stunned by Obama’s initial plans (which, by the way, were codified last Friday, in their original form, even as Obama was speaking) the “progressives” are paused and perhaps skittish.
Michael Sean Winters admits to registering ambivalence at the White House’s “accommodation” and seeking the input of trusted friends; others have been critical of the bishops but not wholly committed to Obama’s decision, which—it must be said—was neither a compromise nor a negotiated offer; Catholic Charities head Father Larry Snyder has walked back his original statement of support in favor of more cautious words; the ultra liberal retired Cardinal Roger Mahony has reiterated his resistance, calling Obama’s move an “outrage” that “actually makes the entire matter far worse.”
Whether the “Catholic Left” can “hope” for more from Obama is questionable, as the White House Chief of Staff said over the weekend that the administration was finished with the issue.
This unwillingness of staunch Obama supporters to quickly embrace his latest idea and perform a full-pivot from the bishops has become for me the most interesting part of the story. As a rule, I think any of these men would be all-too-happy to leave the Bishop’s corners for Obama’s on this particular issue, but–in good conscience–they simply cannot. His stated mandate was so shocking to ideas of justice and constitutionality that whether the president is dealing in good faith has now become an unknowable—why did Obama feel a need to ensnare the churches in an issue that could have been attended to in other ways?
If, upon gauging the dismay of his allies within the church, Obama had truly meant to assuage the consciences of his Catholic allies, he could have done so easily and clearly; instead his words suggested to some that even the narrow conscience clause offered in his first decision was at risk, and his solution looks like a shell game, analogous, as blogger Marc Barnes put it, to trying to force Orthodox Jewish restaurants to sell bacon, but then “accommodating” them by forcing them to “pay a Gentile with a bacon cart to serve pork” for them.
For that matter, if Obama had been genuinely interested in pleasing believers in general and Catholics in particular, he would have conferred with the bishops, and gotten their thoughts on the nuances between direct and indirect co-operation with evil, rather than going around them.
But Obama’s move on Friday wasn’t about nuance; it was about destroying the surprising unity of the “Catholic Right” and the “Catholic Left” on this issue; it was about dividing and conquering. In a deeply cynical move, Obama used Sister Carol Keehan to foment that division; he needed her credibility to reassure the Catholic Left that it could prefer unity with his administration over unity with the church.
His punch was off. Possibly he hadn’t anticipated a block to guard the possession of rights, which are not his to dole out as he sees fit. He seems not to realize, even now–as his administration muddies up the story with talk of costs and savings–that his Catholic allies’ rejection of his HHS Mandate wasn’t about contraception or sterilization, nor could their approval be regained with a skillful uppercut to the men in the miters. What the HHS Mandate has revealed is that the preservation of the freedom of religion–of the churches rights to be who and what they are and to exercise their missions–is worth going to the mat for, no matter which corner you’re coming from.
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.
Correction: The original version of this column said that Doug Kmiec had not yet commented on the new "accommodation." In fact he signed a statement endorsing it on February 10.
RESOURCES
USCCB: 6 More Things Everyone Should Know about Mandate
Media Reluctance on Story
Sister Carol Sheehan, CHA "very pleased"
E.J. Dionne
Revised Catholic Charities Statement
Mandate Final Rules Codified (pdf)
Michael Sean Winters, Ambivalence
Cardinal Mahony's remarks
"No more compromise"
Marc Barnes
The Magical Thinking of "no cost"
Intolerance at the Heart
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.14.2012 | 9:02am
Paul T. says:
"Possibly he hadn’t anticipated a block to guard the possession of rights, which are not his to dole out as he sees fit."
Here is precisely the disconnect: as my Constitutional Law I professor said last week, many legal thinkers do not believe in "God-given" or "Natural" rights; the people of the U.S. have only those rights which our political leaders allow us to have.
I believe this line of thought underlies President Obama's decisions, and those of many of our political leaders, especially at the Federal level.
Here is precisely the disconnect: as my Constitutional Law I professor said last week, many legal thinkers do not believe in "God-given" or "Natural" rights; the people of the U.S. have only those rights which our political leaders allow us to have.
I believe this line of thought underlies President Obama's decisions, and those of many of our political leaders, especially at the Federal level.
2.14.2012 | 9:06am
Spencer says:
Obama forgot the first commandment of overreach: "Everyone is a reactionary in his own area of expertise (or influence)." It's a variation on the NIMBY theme.
For a devastating account of this entire mess, please see Professor Rahe's essay at:
http://www.ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil
For a devastating account of this entire mess, please see Professor Rahe's essay at:
http://www.ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil
2.14.2012 | 10:32am
Debbie says:
This man has spent the last 3.5 years dividing our society. In 1966, Clarence B. Carson wrote:
Those who have divided the American people into classes have not only set each man who accepts this against himself but also set men against men and groups against groups. They have broken down the lines of communication which link men together in society. Political force that was supposed to transform society has, instead, cut society apart. The politicalizing of life tends to make all groups into pressure groups, absorb the energy that is put into them into seeking favors from government. Those who seek meaningful social life must do so increasingly outside the ambit of organizations.
Yet society is transformed; it is rendered impotent. That is, those who would defend the language, customs, traditions procedures, and beliefs which make society possible, who would speak in the name of virtue and morality, are drowned out in the cacophony of voices defending one special interest or another. The conquest is of men and society. Of the conquerors, it may be said here that they have great power for their reward. But this was ever the object of conquerors!
Of course, there were other obstacles in the way of those who would use the power of government to transform society. The United States Constitution was probably the most important one. It was so drawn, according to James Madison, as to make exceedingly difficult the concert of special interests which might crowd out the general welfare. We will examine next the flight from the Constitution which made it possible to divide and conquer the American people.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-flight-from-reality-21-divide-and-conquer/
His Achilles's Heel is the unification of Americans as Americans so he has to continue this division of us. What is truly unknowable is how angry Americans are getting at the idea of being taken so far away from our Founding Father's ideals. I know I am and have some real fears about his re-election. I would not be surprised, at all, if there was violence in the streets over it.
Those who have divided the American people into classes have not only set each man who accepts this against himself but also set men against men and groups against groups. They have broken down the lines of communication which link men together in society. Political force that was supposed to transform society has, instead, cut society apart. The politicalizing of life tends to make all groups into pressure groups, absorb the energy that is put into them into seeking favors from government. Those who seek meaningful social life must do so increasingly outside the ambit of organizations.
Yet society is transformed; it is rendered impotent. That is, those who would defend the language, customs, traditions procedures, and beliefs which make society possible, who would speak in the name of virtue and morality, are drowned out in the cacophony of voices defending one special interest or another. The conquest is of men and society. Of the conquerors, it may be said here that they have great power for their reward. But this was ever the object of conquerors!
Of course, there were other obstacles in the way of those who would use the power of government to transform society. The United States Constitution was probably the most important one. It was so drawn, according to James Madison, as to make exceedingly difficult the concert of special interests which might crowd out the general welfare. We will examine next the flight from the Constitution which made it possible to divide and conquer the American people.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-flight-from-reality-21-divide-and-conquer/
His Achilles's Heel is the unification of Americans as Americans so he has to continue this division of us. What is truly unknowable is how angry Americans are getting at the idea of being taken so far away from our Founding Father's ideals. I know I am and have some real fears about his re-election. I would not be surprised, at all, if there was violence in the streets over it.
2.14.2012 | 10:35am
Gibbons Burke says:
As Jesus informed Pilate, the latter's power derived from God, so we may infer that this Obamanation is part of our Lord's permissive will. We are getting the government we deserve, because, after all, God is Justice, and many Catholics were bamboozled into supporting Obama's candidacy and his utopian health project. However, we need to repent and pray that we do not get what we deserve, because, after all, God is also Mercy. It helps to remember H.L. Mencken's sage insight: "Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."
2.14.2012 | 11:20am
The Moz says:
Another illuminating sharp piece of analysis and prose.
But can either Romney or Santorum beat Obama in november? If the economy continues to show signs of imporvement? Can Santorum win independents with the MSM on his back? Can Richy Rich Romney win them?
I hope Americans wake up and take back their country before it's torn to shreds but on the whole I am pessimistic about the general direction of the mood of the country. Americans love free stuff and that's precisely what Obama is promising them.
PS Would working class democrats in the rust belt really pass on a Catholic blue-collar Santorum in favor of a Harvard ultra-liberal Obama?
But can either Romney or Santorum beat Obama in november? If the economy continues to show signs of imporvement? Can Santorum win independents with the MSM on his back? Can Richy Rich Romney win them?
I hope Americans wake up and take back their country before it's torn to shreds but on the whole I am pessimistic about the general direction of the mood of the country. Americans love free stuff and that's precisely what Obama is promising them.
PS Would working class democrats in the rust belt really pass on a Catholic blue-collar Santorum in favor of a Harvard ultra-liberal Obama?
2.14.2012 | 11:38am
patricksarsfield says:
As the author notes, "Obama’s decision...was neither a compromise nor a negotiated offer." Rather, it was a cynical obfuscation of the attempt to shove the issue down the Church's throat despite the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. By claiming that the Church would not have to pay for the contraceptive service, Obama tried to pull the rug out from under the bishops, as in "what are you complaining about: you don't have to pay for it?" In truth, of course, the insurance companies are hardly likely to absorb the costs without passing them on to the Church.
BUT let's take Obama at his word. Let's say the Government could force the insurance companies to pay for the provision of contraceptive services to Church institution's employees instead of the Church, that would NOT get Obama out of a violation of the First Amendment. Rather, it would just shift the locus of the violation to a different clause of the First Amendment: the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. Every other (non-conscience objecting) employer would be obliged to pay for their employees' contraceptive services, but the insurance companies would be required to shoulder the Church's responsibility instead of the Church. HOW IS THAT NOT AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION? Requiring private individuals to contribute something to the Church is the heart and soul of an establishment of religion, as it was understood at the time of the framing of the Constitution. So requiring private insurance companies to pay the Church's expenses is likewise an establishment.
I don't know if that is an argument the Church might be reluctant to make, but it is a sure way to show the unconstitutionality of Obama's phony compromise. Even if one were naive enough to think that the insurance companies wouldn't pass the cost onto the Church institution (and thereby maintain the violation of the Free Exercise Clause), the Government shifting of Church expense onto an insurance company violates the Establishment Clause. Thus, the Obama phony compromise is unconstitutional no matter what one assumes about the likelihood of the insurance company not passing the cost on.
BUT let's take Obama at his word. Let's say the Government could force the insurance companies to pay for the provision of contraceptive services to Church institution's employees instead of the Church, that would NOT get Obama out of a violation of the First Amendment. Rather, it would just shift the locus of the violation to a different clause of the First Amendment: the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. Every other (non-conscience objecting) employer would be obliged to pay for their employees' contraceptive services, but the insurance companies would be required to shoulder the Church's responsibility instead of the Church. HOW IS THAT NOT AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION? Requiring private individuals to contribute something to the Church is the heart and soul of an establishment of religion, as it was understood at the time of the framing of the Constitution. So requiring private insurance companies to pay the Church's expenses is likewise an establishment.
I don't know if that is an argument the Church might be reluctant to make, but it is a sure way to show the unconstitutionality of Obama's phony compromise. Even if one were naive enough to think that the insurance companies wouldn't pass the cost onto the Church institution (and thereby maintain the violation of the Free Exercise Clause), the Government shifting of Church expense onto an insurance company violates the Establishment Clause. Thus, the Obama phony compromise is unconstitutional no matter what one assumes about the likelihood of the insurance company not passing the cost on.
2.14.2012 | 11:47am
Geo says:
If Obama gets away with this shredding of the First Amendment by way of this, ahem, compormise, we can once again thank the "useful idiots" on the catholic left. Special thanks to Sr Keehan, E.J. Dionne and, of course, Fr. Jenkins--all of whom are salivating to resume their lapdog positions. Please dear God, don't let the bishops go wobbly now.
2.14.2012 | 11:59am
G says:
Let's consider the Progressive Catholic case for a second.
I think conservatives are being hypocritical here: my sister works for a Catholic hospital ... that currently already offers contraception services.
The way it was done? The ward that deals with such things, is not technically part of the hospital.
1) So the first problem with the conservative position: you're already long since done, what you are claiming here you will never do.
2) And by the way? Many of the patients are not Catholics; and their Protestant religion allows contraception. If you do not allow that service to be supplied? You are discriminating against them, against their religion.
3) Good enough reason, to have public funding for Catholic hospitals, Medicare backing, removed.
4) For that matter? The "contraception" theology, is a very, very recent idea in Catholicism; and was widely reviled when in was announced, as the worst of Vatican II ideas. There is a good chance, it will not stand the test of time.
5) Therefore? I'd advise all Catholics and the bishops, to accept the Obama proposal.
I think conservatives are being hypocritical here: my sister works for a Catholic hospital ... that currently already offers contraception services.
The way it was done? The ward that deals with such things, is not technically part of the hospital.
1) So the first problem with the conservative position: you're already long since done, what you are claiming here you will never do.
2) And by the way? Many of the patients are not Catholics; and their Protestant religion allows contraception. If you do not allow that service to be supplied? You are discriminating against them, against their religion.
3) Good enough reason, to have public funding for Catholic hospitals, Medicare backing, removed.
4) For that matter? The "contraception" theology, is a very, very recent idea in Catholicism; and was widely reviled when in was announced, as the worst of Vatican II ideas. There is a good chance, it will not stand the test of time.
5) Therefore? I'd advise all Catholics and the bishops, to accept the Obama proposal.
2.14.2012 | 12:07pm
patricksarsfield says:
Spencer writes:
"For a devastating account of this entire mess, please see Professor Rahe's essay...."
Devastating? Hardly. It was actually one of the wilder arm-flailing exercises I have read lately. The author, who's probably one of Hillsdale College's constitutional scholars, went into a strangely irrelevant recounting of the Magna Carta's oft violated provision guaranteeing the Freedom of the Catholic Church from the English Monarchy's depredations that really had little to do with the 2012 issue before us . He then mixed in some of his pet peeves against liberalism and Church liberals as well as a totally gratuitous and rather purple recounting of the Church's Sexual Abuse Scandal. He claims to have come back to the Catholic Church but doesn't think it is stark enough in its opposition to abortion, birth control, etc.
None of which, of course, is relevant to the question of whether the Church is entitled to its conscience rights under the First Amendment. The article is a bizarre attack throwing up a lot of the author's pet peeves about the Sweet Bride of Christ; it is hardly a valuable analysis of the constitutional issue at hand.
"For a devastating account of this entire mess, please see Professor Rahe's essay...."
Devastating? Hardly. It was actually one of the wilder arm-flailing exercises I have read lately. The author, who's probably one of Hillsdale College's constitutional scholars, went into a strangely irrelevant recounting of the Magna Carta's oft violated provision guaranteeing the Freedom of the Catholic Church from the English Monarchy's depredations that really had little to do with the 2012 issue before us . He then mixed in some of his pet peeves against liberalism and Church liberals as well as a totally gratuitous and rather purple recounting of the Church's Sexual Abuse Scandal. He claims to have come back to the Catholic Church but doesn't think it is stark enough in its opposition to abortion, birth control, etc.
None of which, of course, is relevant to the question of whether the Church is entitled to its conscience rights under the First Amendment. The article is a bizarre attack throwing up a lot of the author's pet peeves about the Sweet Bride of Christ; it is hardly a valuable analysis of the constitutional issue at hand.
2.14.2012 | 12:10pm
Clayton N says:
Thank you as ever for the insight. You write "Doug Kmiec, who perhaps did more than any Catholic to win over concerned consciences in 2008, has—at this writing—said nothing publicly about the “accommodation.”
I am not sure if this qualifies as a comment but it appears that Doug Kmiec
does support the latest accommodation. See here
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press/consciencerelease/
Peace
I am not sure if this qualifies as a comment but it appears that Doug Kmiec
does support the latest accommodation. See here
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press/consciencerelease/
Peace
2.14.2012 | 12:12pm
Greg in Denver says:
Beyond all of this is a simple fact, many large religious charitable organizations are self-insured. So, how can they 'accommodate' the 'compromise'?
This issue will continue to grow larger and it sheds light on the true nature of this regime, their intentions and their contempt for the constitution in nearly all its forms.
If they are not stopped/removed, Ben Franklin will have been proven correct "... if you can keep it".
Universities and the spawns there of have become a fifth column in America, they are like the jihadists in the UK, there to undermine and collapse society.
Know your enemy... and I now do mean enemy, not adversary.
This issue will continue to grow larger and it sheds light on the true nature of this regime, their intentions and their contempt for the constitution in nearly all its forms.
If they are not stopped/removed, Ben Franklin will have been proven correct "... if you can keep it".
Universities and the spawns there of have become a fifth column in America, they are like the jihadists in the UK, there to undermine and collapse society.
Know your enemy... and I now do mean enemy, not adversary.
2.14.2012 | 12:16pm
Mark in Texas says:
The clever part of Obama's "compromise" was to prey on the economic illiteracy of the Left. The only people who will be swayed are the ones who believe in free lunch. The fact that there are substantial numbers of people who disagree with TANSTAFL strikes me as amazing but that does seem to be the case.
2.14.2012 | 12:22pm
Ken Colston says:
The Magisterium has defined contraception as an intrinsic evil, and an intrinsic evil is immoral for all, not just Catholics, and so mandating it is far more than requiring Jewish restaurants to serve pork. It is more like, but worse than, mandating and promulgating and subsidizing prostitution or pornography. The bishops should be more forceful in their objections than merely appealing to religious liberty, and from the comments of the Catholic faithful in the secular media a catechesis at this moment is sorely needed.
2.14.2012 | 12:38pm
Brian says:
Unfortunately, I think Ross Douthat's analysis is much closer to the truth:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/divide-and-conquer/
If there were any Catholic supporters of Obama that were put off by the original mandate in the first place, I think they have been won back by the "compromise." They wanted to be won back, and their stubborn and unreflective support of Obama will prevent them from seeing that this "compromise" is nothing more than a ruse. And the media seems to be complicit in their ignorance; I have yet to see a single critical report on the "compromise."
I think Douthat is right. The "compromise" has successfully divided Catholics, and it is up to us continue the "war" on this. So what are we going to do?
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/divide-and-conquer/
If there were any Catholic supporters of Obama that were put off by the original mandate in the first place, I think they have been won back by the "compromise." They wanted to be won back, and their stubborn and unreflective support of Obama will prevent them from seeing that this "compromise" is nothing more than a ruse. And the media seems to be complicit in their ignorance; I have yet to see a single critical report on the "compromise."
I think Douthat is right. The "compromise" has successfully divided Catholics, and it is up to us continue the "war" on this. So what are we going to do?
2.14.2012 | 12:49pm
Spencer says:
patricksarsfield,
Yes, the essay was so irrelevant that is caused the Archbishop and the Bishop's Conference to reform their complaint to include all employers of conscience, including private employers. This was one of the major points of Prof. Raye's piece. Seems his essay has resonated with the right folks. It's a good start.
Yes, the essay was so irrelevant that is caused the Archbishop and the Bishop's Conference to reform their complaint to include all employers of conscience, including private employers. This was one of the major points of Prof. Raye's piece. Seems his essay has resonated with the right folks. It's a good start.
2.14.2012 | 12:50pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
While Doug Kmiec has not yet -- as far as I know -- made any public pronouncements, someone just sent this "compromise"-supporting document, which Kmiec has signed, as have others. http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press/consciencerelease/
It appears the premise of my piece is perhaps a little wobbly; the "Catholic Left" is not so much "stranded" as perhaps being discrete and speaking mostly to themselves?
It appears the premise of my piece is perhaps a little wobbly; the "Catholic Left" is not so much "stranded" as perhaps being discrete and speaking mostly to themselves?
2.14.2012 | 12:58pm
Fred says:
Debbie, You have far too much faith in the American mob-er-public. Give us our bread and circuses; give us as many benefits for as little work as possible, and make someone else pay for it, or heck just borrow the money from the Chinese to give us whatever we think we ought to have, and we'll elect you and your party in perpetuity. John Q. Public, I'm afraid, defines freedom as the teenager in Frank Zappa's song "Teenage Wind" defines it: "Free is when ya don't have to pay for nothin' or do nothin'/I wanna be free/Free as the wind."
2.14.2012 | 1:08pm
vanderleun says:
To put a little variation in Mencken's famous phrase: "Obamatholicism is the theory that the left Catholics know what all Catholics want, and deserve to get it good and hard. "
2.14.2012 | 1:16pm
TXW says:
Administrators, like Sheehan, see dollar signs (did I mention her salary is close to one million dollars yearly?) because young women patients bring revenue to hospitals, and if they can't come in to get the candy, they will go down the street to deliver their babies. What is a smart move, as faux catholic Sebelius knows, is that those organizations who already ban contraception from their insurance or practice, will possibly be forced out of providing insurance, and hence may be fined out of business. These are the organizations that are from the "right", so to speak. For instance, it would be nice if EWTN were silenced, they are not as ummm. . . sophisticated as Sheehan and her enlightened group. Those behind Sheehan (the majority of Catholic hospital administrators) can just shrug. Not all catholic organizations need to worry.
Assuming "right" catholic organizations do not cover the candy, and the "left" organizations do pay for the candy, what better way to cut off the "right"? This mandate is so brilliant.
Next step: mandatory placement of IUD's for poor women.
Assuming "right" catholic organizations do not cover the candy, and the "left" organizations do pay for the candy, what better way to cut off the "right"? This mandate is so brilliant.
Next step: mandatory placement of IUD's for poor women.
2.14.2012 | 2:24pm
Recovering Lutheran says:
Many of the patients are not Catholics; and their Protestant religion allows contraception. If you do not allow that service to be supplied? You are discriminating against them, against their religion.
Really? If I run a restaurant and don't offer kosher meals, I may be guilty of bad business decisions, but … religious discrimination? Are publishers who print anti-Christian books violating my religious beliefs unless they print an equal number of pro-Christian tomes? Do you really want to go there with this line of reasoning?
What are the limits (if any) to this you-must-fund-my-religious-beliefs-against-your-will concept of law? Talk about trying to impose theocracy!
Really? If I run a restaurant and don't offer kosher meals, I may be guilty of bad business decisions, but … religious discrimination? Are publishers who print anti-Christian books violating my religious beliefs unless they print an equal number of pro-Christian tomes? Do you really want to go there with this line of reasoning?
What are the limits (if any) to this you-must-fund-my-religious-beliefs-against-your-will concept of law? Talk about trying to impose theocracy!
2.14.2012 | 2:33pm
pentamom says:
G. --
1. Not all Catholic hospitals are so compromised, however. I have a Protestant doctor friend who works for a Catholic hospital, and he got serious grief for telling a woman in poor health where *else* she could go if she was interested in a sterilization procedure. His employer is quite strict on the matter.
So don't assume that no one is uncompromised in this respect and therefore cannot speak to the issue.
2. Some hospitals don't do brain surgery, either. Not offering every service is not discriminating. They are not presenting any barrier to someone getting the service merely by not providing it.
3. Sure, if the government wants to shoot itself in the foot by having the single largest provider of services that it wants to subsidize, eliminated from the process. Where are the other groups lining up to do it? This is not a gift to the the Catholic agencies, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement to do something the government could not otherwise effectively accomplish.
4. I don't believe this is historically correct.
5. Since the other four propositions are dubious, anything that follows from "therefore," most likely doesn't.
1. Not all Catholic hospitals are so compromised, however. I have a Protestant doctor friend who works for a Catholic hospital, and he got serious grief for telling a woman in poor health where *else* she could go if she was interested in a sterilization procedure. His employer is quite strict on the matter.
So don't assume that no one is uncompromised in this respect and therefore cannot speak to the issue.
2. Some hospitals don't do brain surgery, either. Not offering every service is not discriminating. They are not presenting any barrier to someone getting the service merely by not providing it.
3. Sure, if the government wants to shoot itself in the foot by having the single largest provider of services that it wants to subsidize, eliminated from the process. Where are the other groups lining up to do it? This is not a gift to the the Catholic agencies, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement to do something the government could not otherwise effectively accomplish.
4. I don't believe this is historically correct.
5. Since the other four propositions are dubious, anything that follows from "therefore," most likely doesn't.
2.14.2012 | 2:48pm
LogicalUS says:
There is no such thing as a leftist Catholic. The greatest sacrament of the vile leftist is unquestionable promotion of the abortion of unborn children.
Everything else is of secondary importance to allegiance to this sacrament.
You can no more be a Leftist Catholic as a zebra can be a parrot.
Everything else is of secondary importance to allegiance to this sacrament.
You can no more be a Leftist Catholic as a zebra can be a parrot.
2.14.2012 | 2:54pm
Jack Quirk says:
I suppose I could be called "Catholic left" with some justification. I side with the public employee unions in Wisconsin, was against the war in Iraq, and have even written approvingly of the Occupy Movement. And for those who are interested, I sense no need to salve my conscience for the way I vote.
But Obama lost me for good on this one, and his "compromise" is a no sale. This isn't about left or right, but about the First Amendment. I believe in all ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, and whoever would compromise or infringe any of them doesn't get my vote.
But Obama lost me for good on this one, and his "compromise" is a no sale. This isn't about left or right, but about the First Amendment. I believe in all ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, and whoever would compromise or infringe any of them doesn't get my vote.
2.14.2012 | 2:55pm
Artaban7 says:
Pentamom,
Thank you for the sound refutation of "G". You spared me and others some time...
Thank you for the sound refutation of "G". You spared me and others some time...
2.14.2012 | 3:11pm
Ken Hahn says:
I am not Catholic and I do not agree with the Church's positions on many issues. I have no objection to contraception although I oppose abortion. But this isn't about contraception, abortion or any other such issue. This is about the first amendment and religious freedom. It is about the relation between church and state.
For those on the left who support Obama's "compromise", I have a question. If you are willing to compromise here, where else can the state dictate such a compromise? Health care has been sold as a positive good. It's not mentioned in the constitution but by loosely interpreting that document it can be justified. By tightly interpreting the constitution it can just as easily be claimed it is beyond the scope of government. However the constitution does specifically authorize national defense. And if you want to interpret the constitution loosely then any defense related objective is within the government's power. Since a church can be forced to contribute to health care against its teachings the why not assess the churches to enforce border security?
I know, the first amendment! But you've thrown that under the bus for health care.
Be very careful of the power you grant government. It will not always be in the hands of those with whom you agree.
For those on the left who support Obama's "compromise", I have a question. If you are willing to compromise here, where else can the state dictate such a compromise? Health care has been sold as a positive good. It's not mentioned in the constitution but by loosely interpreting that document it can be justified. By tightly interpreting the constitution it can just as easily be claimed it is beyond the scope of government. However the constitution does specifically authorize national defense. And if you want to interpret the constitution loosely then any defense related objective is within the government's power. Since a church can be forced to contribute to health care against its teachings the why not assess the churches to enforce border security?
I know, the first amendment! But you've thrown that under the bus for health care.
Be very careful of the power you grant government. It will not always be in the hands of those with whom you agree.
2.14.2012 | 3:12pm
F. Arundell says:
One may call himself or herself anything he or she wishes. If you are a baptized Catholic and find yourself out of step with the Credo and the doctrinal manifestations of the Church of Rome, led by the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium, regardless of what your philosophy may be, you may not call yourself Catholic with a capital C. It does not come down to "left" or "right" regarding doctrine, there is only: I agree or I disagree. Faith is always being tested. Conscience may very well be erroneous. Religion and Church has never been a totally private matter. It is a communion of the love of God and neighbor with Jesus Christ our Lord, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. There are literally hundreds of other Christian fraternities who would be most amenable for your membership if you find the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church too difficult.
2.14.2012 | 3:25pm
patricksarsfield says:
Spencer writes:
"This was one of the major points of Prof. Ra[h]e's piece. Seems his essay has resonated with the right folks. It's a good start. "
It also got Rush Limbaugh to launch on a diatribe against the Catholic Church yesterday as having made a pact with the devil and now getting what it deserved. So it seems to have resonated with the wrong persons too. In all events, it was a rather bizarre melange of irrelevancies that made little sense.
This article (and most of the commenters' reactions) just obscureg the real issue, which is that Obama is trying to force the Catholic Church to do something it considers immoral. Instead of addressing that narrow issue, most people commenting are getting involved on one or the other side of a circular firing squad. What we really need is Catholic Unity. The proper focus for unity is the USCCB, which speaks for the Church on matters of morals. It has rejected the "proferred compromise" and we should be trying to support that position, not going off on a lot of tangents.
"This was one of the major points of Prof. Ra[h]e's piece. Seems his essay has resonated with the right folks. It's a good start. "
It also got Rush Limbaugh to launch on a diatribe against the Catholic Church yesterday as having made a pact with the devil and now getting what it deserved. So it seems to have resonated with the wrong persons too. In all events, it was a rather bizarre melange of irrelevancies that made little sense.
This article (and most of the commenters' reactions) just obscureg the real issue, which is that Obama is trying to force the Catholic Church to do something it considers immoral. Instead of addressing that narrow issue, most people commenting are getting involved on one or the other side of a circular firing squad. What we really need is Catholic Unity. The proper focus for unity is the USCCB, which speaks for the Church on matters of morals. It has rejected the "proferred compromise" and we should be trying to support that position, not going off on a lot of tangents.
2.14.2012 | 3:32pm
Brian English says:
"But Obama lost me for good on this one, and his "compromise" is a no sale. This isn't about left or right, but about the First Amendment. I believe in all ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, and whoever would compromise or infringe any of them doesn't get my vote."
I wish others saw things as clearly as you do. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
I wish others saw things as clearly as you do. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
2.14.2012 | 3:56pm
ahem says:
Elizabeth:
You really ought to go back into the history books--back 250 years--and learn the true philosophical differences between the political Left and Right. Disparaging them both is not really putting yourself above the fray--only pretending to. Understanding the differences is crucial to preserving our freedom.
You really ought to go back into the history books--back 250 years--and learn the true philosophical differences between the political Left and Right. Disparaging them both is not really putting yourself above the fray--only pretending to. Understanding the differences is crucial to preserving our freedom.
2.14.2012 | 3:59pm
Maria says:
It is interesting to note how many Catholic "skirts" Obama hides behind: Sebellius, Pelosi, Keehan. Weak men too, but women in significant positions of power.
I think another analogy of all this, and one that may resonate better with oponents, is requiring vegetarian restaurants (who are vegetarian because they are morally opposed to the killing of animals) to serve meat.
Also, if he wanted free contraceptions easily available, and he can designate who pays, wouldn't it make more sense to provide them free at the pharmacy with the pharmeceutical companies footing the bill? Not that I think that's right, by why involve the employers and the insurance companies as the middle men? Why not get them at the post office with the gov paying?
I think another analogy of all this, and one that may resonate better with oponents, is requiring vegetarian restaurants (who are vegetarian because they are morally opposed to the killing of animals) to serve meat.
Also, if he wanted free contraceptions easily available, and he can designate who pays, wouldn't it make more sense to provide them free at the pharmacy with the pharmeceutical companies footing the bill? Not that I think that's right, by why involve the employers and the insurance companies as the middle men? Why not get them at the post office with the gov paying?
2.14.2012 | 4:09pm
philfourthirteen says:
@G
Point 4 is inaccurate (if not outright lying). If anything, the "acceptance of contraception" among Protestants is something new.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception
Point 4 is inaccurate (if not outright lying). If anything, the "acceptance of contraception" among Protestants is something new.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception
2.14.2012 | 4:48pm
Rene says:
You may be right. However, give the Catholic left at least until election time. I would not be surprised if the majority of liberal Catholics, when confronted with voting for Obama or a Republican candidate, and in the cover of the voting booth, vote for their Liberation Theology hero, Barak Obama.
2.14.2012 | 5:41pm
Victor Erimita says:
One presumes that all these terribly injured "Catholic leftists" had no problem with Obamacare's depredations on all manner of other freedoms, such as the right to keep one's existing coverage without penalty or vast new cost increases. Presumably they had no problem with Obama or "government panels" dictating to doctors and patients what sorts of treatments or coverages would exist. No, that was all just fine, so long as it didn't touch any of THEIR sacred cows. Well, my sad friends, this is what lftism is. You think this is the last of it? You think Catholic school curricula will be unaffected by leftism in the future? How about "employment issues?" Such as hiring practices toward women or "out" gays for jobs like, oh, the priesthood.
This decision was only incidentally about contraception. It was mainly about establishing who has the power in this country. Leftists imagine they can cede away other peoples' power and freedom, or parts of their own they don't care about at the moment, and somehow be left alone to do the things they do want to do. Cases like this one show the folly of that. But no leftist will learn a thing from it. People like "Jack Quirk" above say Obama has really lost them on this one, despite their otherwise assiduously leftist convictions. Really? Going to vote GOP, are you? Of course not. Going even slightly understand that your party has been seized by radicals, or that leftism is about the removal of freedoms? Dream on. You will simply discover what your real religion is.
This decision was only incidentally about contraception. It was mainly about establishing who has the power in this country. Leftists imagine they can cede away other peoples' power and freedom, or parts of their own they don't care about at the moment, and somehow be left alone to do the things they do want to do. Cases like this one show the folly of that. But no leftist will learn a thing from it. People like "Jack Quirk" above say Obama has really lost them on this one, despite their otherwise assiduously leftist convictions. Really? Going to vote GOP, are you? Of course not. Going even slightly understand that your party has been seized by radicals, or that leftism is about the removal of freedoms? Dream on. You will simply discover what your real religion is.
2.14.2012 | 6:21pm
Rykehaven says:
Let's just do away with this article's arrogant presumptions please: The Catholic Church's anti-abortion facade has always been just that - a facade, a fakery, a false pretense.
The accommodation they struck with Obama was a meager fig leaf to avoid being scorned from polite company. Even evil people find hypocrites insufferable. Obama apparently wasn't smart enough to let them keep pretending they hadn't already sold out.
Those Catholics who resisted the pressure to conform to the accommodation with abortion have long since left the Catholic Church. A friend of mine mentioned that his family and many of his new friends were practically run out of the Catholic Church because of the irreconcilable differences. He's now a Baptist, Jesus is his Savior, and Tim Tebow's his hero lol; that's one guy my friend will never have to worry about "selling out" on the question of abortion.
As everybody in America knows, Catholics have never been the bulwark against abortion/contraception/eugenics (whatever you want to call it). There was a time not so long ago in America when the question of abortion was not so starkly "against" it. And during those times, the Left had only one real religious ally in their fight to "normalize" abortion in our country: the Catholics Church.
Maybe it's Catholicism's fundamental centralization that makes it so vulnerable to corruption and atrocity.
And maybe they thought they could collude with Obama by forcing every other Church in America to pay for abortions - neatly cutting away their own special privileges and making them the new "Authorities on the abortion question".
Only God knows for sure.
I only know that I'm glad the Catholics have lost this battle - even their leaders are forced to pretend they're on the "Right" side of the dead "fetus".
The accommodation they struck with Obama was a meager fig leaf to avoid being scorned from polite company. Even evil people find hypocrites insufferable. Obama apparently wasn't smart enough to let them keep pretending they hadn't already sold out.
Those Catholics who resisted the pressure to conform to the accommodation with abortion have long since left the Catholic Church. A friend of mine mentioned that his family and many of his new friends were practically run out of the Catholic Church because of the irreconcilable differences. He's now a Baptist, Jesus is his Savior, and Tim Tebow's his hero lol; that's one guy my friend will never have to worry about "selling out" on the question of abortion.
As everybody in America knows, Catholics have never been the bulwark against abortion/contraception/eugenics (whatever you want to call it). There was a time not so long ago in America when the question of abortion was not so starkly "against" it. And during those times, the Left had only one real religious ally in their fight to "normalize" abortion in our country: the Catholics Church.
Maybe it's Catholicism's fundamental centralization that makes it so vulnerable to corruption and atrocity.
And maybe they thought they could collude with Obama by forcing every other Church in America to pay for abortions - neatly cutting away their own special privileges and making them the new "Authorities on the abortion question".
Only God knows for sure.
I only know that I'm glad the Catholics have lost this battle - even their leaders are forced to pretend they're on the "Right" side of the dead "fetus".
2.14.2012 | 6:30pm
G says:
VIctor:
The main concern of leftist Catholics, was to take care of the 30,000,000 uninsured poor, with health care. Following Jesus' command to help - and heal - the poor. This was one of the core commands of Jesus - which Ayn Rand-ite conservtive "Catholics" did not folllow. This is a goal as yet unrealized; but toward which many - right and left - are working.
Are we giving up a certain flexibility in providers? Not much. The "one payer" plan did not pass; and now we choose from many providers. Choice is still there. While for that matter, where is "preserving choice among insurance providers" in the Bible? Are you sure jesus said that?
Is there now a more manditory aspect to helping the poor? To healing? Yes there is. But why object to that? Even in Jesus' time, contributions to the poor, were not voluntary, but ordered by God.
Had the Left made some mistakes now and then? Yes it has. But so has the RIght. Just review the traditional record of the right - in fascism. In Facist Spain, and Italy, and Nazi Germany.
Is this about taking away people's power? Only their power to do evil: to ignore the desperate plight of the uninsured poor. Many millions of whom have already died early, from lack of medical care.
The main concern of leftist Catholics, was to take care of the 30,000,000 uninsured poor, with health care. Following Jesus' command to help - and heal - the poor. This was one of the core commands of Jesus - which Ayn Rand-ite conservtive "Catholics" did not folllow. This is a goal as yet unrealized; but toward which many - right and left - are working.
Are we giving up a certain flexibility in providers? Not much. The "one payer" plan did not pass; and now we choose from many providers. Choice is still there. While for that matter, where is "preserving choice among insurance providers" in the Bible? Are you sure jesus said that?
Is there now a more manditory aspect to helping the poor? To healing? Yes there is. But why object to that? Even in Jesus' time, contributions to the poor, were not voluntary, but ordered by God.
Had the Left made some mistakes now and then? Yes it has. But so has the RIght. Just review the traditional record of the right - in fascism. In Facist Spain, and Italy, and Nazi Germany.
Is this about taking away people's power? Only their power to do evil: to ignore the desperate plight of the uninsured poor. Many millions of whom have already died early, from lack of medical care.
2.14.2012 | 6:40pm
A.M. says:
There are reports of how women /couples , even in poor countries have been trained to learn ways of Natural Family Planning , with good success .
It is helping persons to recognise that they have power to respect their bodies and each other , to have enough self control , esp. by looking to the source of that strenght , in The Lord, His Passion ,for the power of the Holy Spirit , so that same would be there for other occasion stoo , to thus enrcih and strenghten marriages as well as other areas - esp. the well being of the children .
Trying to pollute the sacred roles of the clergy, who are esp. the ones to intercede for and be dispensers of graces needed , such as through confession , demanding that they cooperate in the evil of wanting to negate same - one has to wonder if there are other deep motives , such as taking away the sacred protection given , in accordance to the trust we have placed in The Lord and His ways !
Are there large powers out there , such as Islam and Communist China , that would want to see such a weakened country !
Esp. in this election , many are given a chance to do reparation , for having chosen a candidate who professed that he could not care about the child or the women or the father , by allowing the bodies of the couples , to be made into murder chambers, with all the well known attendant ill effects and it is ironic that Mrs .Obama is championing fitness , where as the connection with obesity , other eating disorders and abortion are well known and all oral contraceptives are abortifacients , thus , women who have to use these for other sitautions being advised to practice means of NFP, if they are care about such !
There are many personal anecdotes of unexpected blessings that come when couples choose to follow the path of strenght and love , in the ways of wisdom that then seem to help them to make the right decsions in other areas , bringing on that peace !
Come to Me' - The Lord asks us .., a Holy God , who is capable of giving us strenght ..because He Is God and Creator ...
and He reminds how the unbelief of the Pharisees and Herod , is a danger for us all - the unbleief that the so called left esp. promotes , in the form of fear of overpopulation etc ; even when kareg areas are facing just the opposite , due to same leaven being fed at massive levels !
May we choose carefully , recognising who among those vying to lead , carry the leaven ..and stay away !
It is helping persons to recognise that they have power to respect their bodies and each other , to have enough self control , esp. by looking to the source of that strenght , in The Lord, His Passion ,for the power of the Holy Spirit , so that same would be there for other occasion stoo , to thus enrcih and strenghten marriages as well as other areas - esp. the well being of the children .
Trying to pollute the sacred roles of the clergy, who are esp. the ones to intercede for and be dispensers of graces needed , such as through confession , demanding that they cooperate in the evil of wanting to negate same - one has to wonder if there are other deep motives , such as taking away the sacred protection given , in accordance to the trust we have placed in The Lord and His ways !
Are there large powers out there , such as Islam and Communist China , that would want to see such a weakened country !
Esp. in this election , many are given a chance to do reparation , for having chosen a candidate who professed that he could not care about the child or the women or the father , by allowing the bodies of the couples , to be made into murder chambers, with all the well known attendant ill effects and it is ironic that Mrs .Obama is championing fitness , where as the connection with obesity , other eating disorders and abortion are well known and all oral contraceptives are abortifacients , thus , women who have to use these for other sitautions being advised to practice means of NFP, if they are care about such !
There are many personal anecdotes of unexpected blessings that come when couples choose to follow the path of strenght and love , in the ways of wisdom that then seem to help them to make the right decsions in other areas , bringing on that peace !
Come to Me' - The Lord asks us .., a Holy God , who is capable of giving us strenght ..because He Is God and Creator ...
and He reminds how the unbelief of the Pharisees and Herod , is a danger for us all - the unbleief that the so called left esp. promotes , in the form of fear of overpopulation etc ; even when kareg areas are facing just the opposite , due to same leaven being fed at massive levels !
May we choose carefully , recognising who among those vying to lead , carry the leaven ..and stay away !
2.14.2012 | 7:18pm
tioedong says:
how can sister Carol say the CHA was "pleased"? There was no time to read the small print of the compromise, and the members of the CHA were not polled to see they were "pleased" or not.
she could have said that she was pleased, but by equating her private opinion with the CHA it implies they are a monolith, and she is allowed to dictate to them.
she could have said that she was pleased, but by equating her private opinion with the CHA it implies they are a monolith, and she is allowed to dictate to them.
2.14.2012 | 7:43pm
dr kill says:
It certainly is amusing to watch American RCs suddenly discover their religion.
2.14.2012 | 8:33pm
Micha Elyi says:
Because of Sr. Carol Keehan, there may be an entity named "Catholic Health Association" but any hospital organization that is a member doesn't run any Catholic hospitals. They've all gone pagan, as CHW did.
2.14.2012 | 9:16pm
NPSmith says:
The document signed into law last week was the regulation drafted in August, 2011 and ratified "without amendments."
Nothing, absolutely nothing, was changed. The final document is online.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, was changed. The final document is online.
2.14.2012 | 11:08pm
Mark VA says:
A well written article, courageously pointing to the right conclusion. This is about "dividing and conquering" as Ms. Scalia wrote.
The particular tactic in question is a perennial favourite of those who attempt to dismantle their opponents from the inside. It sometimes goes by the name "de-lamination". The antidote sometimes goes by the name "Solidarity".
The particular tactic in question is a perennial favourite of those who attempt to dismantle their opponents from the inside. It sometimes goes by the name "de-lamination". The antidote sometimes goes by the name "Solidarity".
2.14.2012 | 11:28pm
Michael DePietro says:
A couple of points, Those who have been critical of the Church like Rahe, are not saying "you got what you deserved". They are in fact on the Church's side in this issue. They are calling attention to the fact that Catholic "left" which is institutionally empowered, and has supporters even among the Bishops is responsible for this. That is a fact,Documents like "Faithful Citizenship" have given Left wing Catholics moral cover to vote for the most pro-abortion president in history. Can anyone think of a prominent Conservative who leads any major Catholic University or organization, aside Priests of Life? 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. They are responsible for this as much as he is. It was predictable.
That said what to do? Its is pretty simple. The Democrats are evil. They support abortion on demand. If I recall abortion was called by Vatican II an unspeakable crime. If you support unspeakable crime, and you insist the Church pay for unspeakable crime ( this is about abortifacient drugs as well) You are evil. ( What else to call it?) This is not just about Church institutions The moral bankruptcy of people like Kmeic and Sister Keehan is fully displayed when they do not even consider that non institutional Catholic employers are not even being given the fig leaf of this "accommodation". So if you are a Catholic small businessman I guess the assumption is that you would be fine with buying abortifacients for your employees. Kmeic is apparently ok with that, as is Keehan . Even if Catholic institutions were protected in some fashion, what about individual Catholics?
This action by Obama is anti-Catholic and evil. The Remedy is simple. The Bishops should immediately excommunicate Sebellius and any Catholic who assists her in enforcing this vile, unconstitutional and therefore illegal mandate. They should make it clear that it is now immoral to assist or support the Democrat party. ( It gets you excommunicated to be a Freemason. Tell me who is a bigger moral problem right now the Democrats or the Freemasons? ). Most of the Catholic left will of course ignore this. But among that 54% of Catholics who supported Obama, I suspect some, perhaps 1/10 will drop their support. If this occurs, Obama will lose, and this evil administration will be replaced by another one, which while it might not be perfect will at least respect the first amendment.
Extreme you say? hardly if abortion is really an unspeakable crime and murder as Blessed John Paul II called it in Evangelium Vitae, than it is about time we started acting like we really believed this.
That said what to do? Its is pretty simple. The Democrats are evil. They support abortion on demand. If I recall abortion was called by Vatican II an unspeakable crime. If you support unspeakable crime, and you insist the Church pay for unspeakable crime ( this is about abortifacient drugs as well) You are evil. ( What else to call it?) This is not just about Church institutions The moral bankruptcy of people like Kmeic and Sister Keehan is fully displayed when they do not even consider that non institutional Catholic employers are not even being given the fig leaf of this "accommodation". So if you are a Catholic small businessman I guess the assumption is that you would be fine with buying abortifacients for your employees. Kmeic is apparently ok with that, as is Keehan . Even if Catholic institutions were protected in some fashion, what about individual Catholics?
This action by Obama is anti-Catholic and evil. The Remedy is simple. The Bishops should immediately excommunicate Sebellius and any Catholic who assists her in enforcing this vile, unconstitutional and therefore illegal mandate. They should make it clear that it is now immoral to assist or support the Democrat party. ( It gets you excommunicated to be a Freemason. Tell me who is a bigger moral problem right now the Democrats or the Freemasons? ). Most of the Catholic left will of course ignore this. But among that 54% of Catholics who supported Obama, I suspect some, perhaps 1/10 will drop their support. If this occurs, Obama will lose, and this evil administration will be replaced by another one, which while it might not be perfect will at least respect the first amendment.
Extreme you say? hardly if abortion is really an unspeakable crime and murder as Blessed John Paul II called it in Evangelium Vitae, than it is about time we started acting like we really believed this.
2.15.2012 | 12:13am
Sheraton says:
Many of the Catholic Left will not give up (on) Obama--they love the romance of his presidency, and fail to see how they are being used. I began to see this more clearly with this article: http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4654/pub_detail.asp, and would be interested in your thoughts on it. Because the (obviously unconstitutional) HHS Mandate also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I think it cannot stand, and the result, when the lawsuits are decided, will not be a victory for the Left. Rather, Obama's act really does look ham-handed, and the Left has been had! Meanwhile, let's hope many of our non-catholic fellow Americans will work with us to turn this tyrant out of the White House this November!
2.15.2012 | 2:25am
David Nickol says:
pentamom says: "I have a Protestant doctor friend who works for a Catholic hospital, and he got serious grief for telling a woman in poor health where *else* she could go if she was interested in a sterilization procedure. His employer is quite strict on the matter."
Does a Protestant doctor lose his freedom of conscience when he works for a Catholic hospital? If, in his opinion, sterilization was important to his patient's health, why should he be disciplined for telling her where she could have it done? If Catholics insist on their rights of conscience when working in non-Catholic institutions, why shouldn't non-Catholics working for Catholic institutions have rights of conscience, too?
Does a Protestant doctor lose his freedom of conscience when he works for a Catholic hospital? If, in his opinion, sterilization was important to his patient's health, why should he be disciplined for telling her where she could have it done? If Catholics insist on their rights of conscience when working in non-Catholic institutions, why shouldn't non-Catholics working for Catholic institutions have rights of conscience, too?
2.15.2012 | 9:33am
patricksarsfield says:
Michael DiPietro defends Rahe's hit piece on the Church thusly:
"Those who have been critical of the Church like Rahe, are not saying "you got what you deserved". They are in fact on the Church's side in this issue. They are calling attention to the fact that Catholic "left" which is institutionally empowered, and has supporters even among the Bishops is responsible for this. "
Well, he has a very strange way of showing it. I quote from his article "American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil" (yes, that was his title):
"I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. "
If he didn't mean that the Church had gotten what it deserved, he shouldn't have said that. There is way too much emotional prose going back and forth on this issue. The Church has been attacked head on by someone resolved to force the Church to the secular left's will. We need unity and calm rational discourse, not a circular firing squad.
"Those who have been critical of the Church like Rahe, are not saying "you got what you deserved". They are in fact on the Church's side in this issue. They are calling attention to the fact that Catholic "left" which is institutionally empowered, and has supporters even among the Bishops is responsible for this. "
Well, he has a very strange way of showing it. I quote from his article "American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil" (yes, that was his title):
"I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. "
If he didn't mean that the Church had gotten what it deserved, he shouldn't have said that. There is way too much emotional prose going back and forth on this issue. The Church has been attacked head on by someone resolved to force the Church to the secular left's will. We need unity and calm rational discourse, not a circular firing squad.
2.15.2012 | 9:44am
patricksarsfield says:
Mark VA writes:
"The particular tactic in question is a perennial favourite of those who attempt to dismantle their opponents from the inside. It sometimes goes by the name "de-lamination". The antidote sometimes goes by the name "Solidarity". "
AMEN.
"The particular tactic in question is a perennial favourite of those who attempt to dismantle their opponents from the inside. It sometimes goes by the name "de-lamination". The antidote sometimes goes by the name "Solidarity". "
AMEN.
2.15.2012 | 10:06am
TCM says:
G wrote: "Had the Left made some mistakes now and then? Yes it has. But so has the RIght. Just review the traditional record of the right - in fascism. In Facist Spain, and Italy, and Nazi Germany."
Stalin and his tens of millions of deaths is conveniently missing from his ideas of totalitarianism. As usual.
Stalin and his tens of millions of deaths is conveniently missing from his ideas of totalitarianism. As usual.
2.15.2012 | 10:13am
patricksarsfield says:
@Sheraton:
I read your post ( http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4654/pub_detail.asp ) and, for what my opinion is worth, agree with its analysis of the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause.
Your article does not treat Obama's attempt to side-step the Free Exercise issue by shifting the Church's costs onto insurance companies. As I note in my first post above, I believe that that side-step is too cute by half. By mandating that a private entity absorb a cost that the Church institution would pay but for its religious tenet, the Government arguably is creating an establishment of religion. As Justice Black noted in the 1947 Everson case: "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." 330 US at 15.
Instead of accommodating the religion by creating a limited conscience exception to the mandate, Obama chooses to establish the religion as uniquely favored by requiring the insurance company to do something for the Church it need not do for any other person and specifically because of the religious views of the Church: subsidize the cost of the provision of the contraceptive service.
I read your post ( http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4654/pub_detail.asp ) and, for what my opinion is worth, agree with its analysis of the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause.
Your article does not treat Obama's attempt to side-step the Free Exercise issue by shifting the Church's costs onto insurance companies. As I note in my first post above, I believe that that side-step is too cute by half. By mandating that a private entity absorb a cost that the Church institution would pay but for its religious tenet, the Government arguably is creating an establishment of religion. As Justice Black noted in the 1947 Everson case: "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." 330 US at 15.
Instead of accommodating the religion by creating a limited conscience exception to the mandate, Obama chooses to establish the religion as uniquely favored by requiring the insurance company to do something for the Church it need not do for any other person and specifically because of the religious views of the Church: subsidize the cost of the provision of the contraceptive service.
2.15.2012 | 10:45am
Michael DePietro says:
In response to David Nichol: The issue is not about employees, who can choose if they wish to work for someone or not. So if Dr. X wishes to work for a Catholic hosptial and the Hospital tells him, will ok Dr, but if you choose to work here you can not do "Y" even if you think it is ok, then Dr. X is free to not work there. The issue is more should someone be forced to pay for something they think is immoral. So I am a Catholic physician, I have a practice with say 20 employees, I think abortifacient pills are immoral. Why is it ok for the government for force me to do what is immoral? How does it infringe any of my employees rights to say, look if you work for me I will not but you the kind of insurance that covers your abortifacient morning after pill ( they are still legally free to get it on their own, mind you) I just can not pay for it. If they do not like this they are free to seek employment elsewhere. What about this is unfair? How is it fair that I be mandated to violate my conscience as a cost of continuing to practice. In reality this is a sop to those who detest the Church, and want to marginalize her. Everyone knows this.
In regard to Rahe's comment that " "I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. "
I would say this, I detest this vile and evil mandate, but I would submit Rahe is correct, except for the fact that the Bishops are not screaming bloody murder. I would call what they are doing a relatively mild protest. ( Evidence of this is Cardinal Designate Dolan's coments that the Bishops would not sue, and moreover they still hope for "Dialog" with Obama. Can he be serious? The Democratic Senatorial Campaign committee is already distorting the issue in a fund raising letter, "Don't let those nasty Republicans ban our contraception." Obama thinks he has a political winner. ) Contrast this with folks like Chuck Colson who are calling for civil disobedience. If we saw 150 Bishops camping out on the White House lawn in protest and getting arrested, well that's screaming bloody murder!) In any case the lattitude and even support the Bishops have given both the Secular and Catholic left for decades created this disaster. Lets all remember that the USCCB's Catholic Campaign for Human Development was funding ACORN at one point! So of course they "asked" for it, in the sense that if you fool around with snakes you are asking to get bitten. In 2008 I had a exchange of emails with a well known Archbishop who was gracious enough to correspond with me (at the time just an anonymous doc practicing in a small insignifcant state,) about the then pending election. At that time My concern was that the document "Faithful Citzenship"would empower Catholics to support someone whose track record indicated he would be fantatically pro-abortion and not sympathetic to any of the moral issues concerning the Church. Unfortunately while gracious enough to exchange a couple of emails, he was incredibly naive about what would happen if Obama was elected. When plenty of people with stature higher than little me, were loudly telling the Bishops what a disaster Obama care would be, they were speaking nonsense about how we needed "healthcare for all" They got it, this is what it looks like. If unchecked it will get worse. We can only pray we all have learned the lesson and its not too late to reverse course.
I hope I am wrong but I see little evidence that the Bishops recognize the nature of the lawless totalitarians now in power, nor the nature of the Apostasy of people on the Catholic Left.
In regard to Rahe's comment that " "I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. "
I would say this, I detest this vile and evil mandate, but I would submit Rahe is correct, except for the fact that the Bishops are not screaming bloody murder. I would call what they are doing a relatively mild protest. ( Evidence of this is Cardinal Designate Dolan's coments that the Bishops would not sue, and moreover they still hope for "Dialog" with Obama. Can he be serious? The Democratic Senatorial Campaign committee is already distorting the issue in a fund raising letter, "Don't let those nasty Republicans ban our contraception." Obama thinks he has a political winner. ) Contrast this with folks like Chuck Colson who are calling for civil disobedience. If we saw 150 Bishops camping out on the White House lawn in protest and getting arrested, well that's screaming bloody murder!) In any case the lattitude and even support the Bishops have given both the Secular and Catholic left for decades created this disaster. Lets all remember that the USCCB's Catholic Campaign for Human Development was funding ACORN at one point! So of course they "asked" for it, in the sense that if you fool around with snakes you are asking to get bitten. In 2008 I had a exchange of emails with a well known Archbishop who was gracious enough to correspond with me (at the time just an anonymous doc practicing in a small insignifcant state,) about the then pending election. At that time My concern was that the document "Faithful Citzenship"would empower Catholics to support someone whose track record indicated he would be fantatically pro-abortion and not sympathetic to any of the moral issues concerning the Church. Unfortunately while gracious enough to exchange a couple of emails, he was incredibly naive about what would happen if Obama was elected. When plenty of people with stature higher than little me, were loudly telling the Bishops what a disaster Obama care would be, they were speaking nonsense about how we needed "healthcare for all" They got it, this is what it looks like. If unchecked it will get worse. We can only pray we all have learned the lesson and its not too late to reverse course.
I hope I am wrong but I see little evidence that the Bishops recognize the nature of the lawless totalitarians now in power, nor the nature of the Apostasy of people on the Catholic Left.
2.15.2012 | 11:27am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
David, I think this illustrates the dangers of using anecdotes to prove a point.
We have no way of checking if Pentamon's story. There were other factors at work in the Catholic hospital's condemnation of the Protestant doctor that we aren't aware of. Even if the Catholic hospital was unjust in this particular case, it doesn't justify the government forcing all Catholic institutions---not just hospitals, but schools, charitable organizations, etc., to violate a key aspect of their faith. It also doesn't justify the government forcing insurance companies, any insurance company, to pony up for certain services at the government's command; a business should be free to pick and choose what services it will offer, to who, and when and under what circumstances. Two wrongs don't make a right.
(I will say that anyone who works for a Catholic institution would, if they have any brains whatsoever, be aware of its policies on abortion, birth control, etc.; if they believe so strongly in the necessity of abortion, perhaps they shouldn't be working for Catholics? And Catholics, like other employers, do have the right to demand certain things from their employees, once they're working for them, including adherence to their rules.)
Many Protestants, as well as Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Jews condemn abortion; this ruling affects them as well, not just Catholics.
We have no way of checking if Pentamon's story. There were other factors at work in the Catholic hospital's condemnation of the Protestant doctor that we aren't aware of. Even if the Catholic hospital was unjust in this particular case, it doesn't justify the government forcing all Catholic institutions---not just hospitals, but schools, charitable organizations, etc., to violate a key aspect of their faith. It also doesn't justify the government forcing insurance companies, any insurance company, to pony up for certain services at the government's command; a business should be free to pick and choose what services it will offer, to who, and when and under what circumstances. Two wrongs don't make a right.
(I will say that anyone who works for a Catholic institution would, if they have any brains whatsoever, be aware of its policies on abortion, birth control, etc.; if they believe so strongly in the necessity of abortion, perhaps they shouldn't be working for Catholics? And Catholics, like other employers, do have the right to demand certain things from their employees, once they're working for them, including adherence to their rules.)
Many Protestants, as well as Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Jews condemn abortion; this ruling affects them as well, not just Catholics.
2.15.2012 | 11:40am
LisaB says:
@G, I realize you are addressing Victor, and that there are better writers and thinkers out there than me, but your post was so full of falsehoods I could not let it remain unaddressed.
"The main concern of leftist Catholics, was to take care of the 30,000,000 uninsured poor, with health care. "
The left does not have a monopoly on caring for the poor. Like right leaning Catholics who care for the poor you are free to offer your services, time and money.
"While for that matter, where is "preserving choice among insurance providers" in the Bible? Are you sure jesus said that?"
It's in the same paragraph where He said insurance should be provided for free by the government and/or corporations.
"Is there now a more manditory aspect to helping the poor? To healing? Yes there is. "
Slavery seems to be a favorite past time of the Left. On a lighter note; if we were talking about eliminating contraception, sterilization and abortion from all insurance policies the left would be yelping about imposing morals on them! But, as we've all learned these past few years the Left has killed irony.
"But why object to that? Even in Jesus' time, contributions to the poor, were not voluntary, but ordered by God."
Do you always equate yourself/the government with God?
"Had the Left made some mistakes now and then? Yes it has. But so has the RIght. Just review the traditional record of the right - in fascism. In Facist Spain, and Italy, and Nazi Germany."
Congratulations on being the first to use Godwin's Law. Though I would be loathe to consider such things as slavery, eugenics, internment camps and abortion "some mistakes."
BTW - the Nazis were Socialists. Thank you for pointing out to the non-history majors out there: everyone leans Right compared to Communists.
"Is this about taking away people's power?"
The Catholic Church does not practice the policy of "the ends justify the means." Taking away peoples Liberty and Property is evil.
"Only their power to do evil: to ignore the desperate plight of the uninsured poor."
What the ...?
"Many millions of whom have already died early, from lack of medical care."
Approximately 3,000 "early" deaths today.
"The main concern of leftist Catholics, was to take care of the 30,000,000 uninsured poor, with health care. "
The left does not have a monopoly on caring for the poor. Like right leaning Catholics who care for the poor you are free to offer your services, time and money.
"While for that matter, where is "preserving choice among insurance providers" in the Bible? Are you sure jesus said that?"
It's in the same paragraph where He said insurance should be provided for free by the government and/or corporations.
"Is there now a more manditory aspect to helping the poor? To healing? Yes there is. "
Slavery seems to be a favorite past time of the Left. On a lighter note; if we were talking about eliminating contraception, sterilization and abortion from all insurance policies the left would be yelping about imposing morals on them! But, as we've all learned these past few years the Left has killed irony.
"But why object to that? Even in Jesus' time, contributions to the poor, were not voluntary, but ordered by God."
Do you always equate yourself/the government with God?
"Had the Left made some mistakes now and then? Yes it has. But so has the RIght. Just review the traditional record of the right - in fascism. In Facist Spain, and Italy, and Nazi Germany."
Congratulations on being the first to use Godwin's Law. Though I would be loathe to consider such things as slavery, eugenics, internment camps and abortion "some mistakes."
BTW - the Nazis were Socialists. Thank you for pointing out to the non-history majors out there: everyone leans Right compared to Communists.
"Is this about taking away people's power?"
The Catholic Church does not practice the policy of "the ends justify the means." Taking away peoples Liberty and Property is evil.
"Only their power to do evil: to ignore the desperate plight of the uninsured poor."
What the ...?
"Many millions of whom have already died early, from lack of medical care."
Approximately 3,000 "early" deaths today.
2.15.2012 | 12:04pm
Mike Mahoney says:
There is a larger context about rights vs. powers that is missing from the dialogue. The individual mandate is an attemot to further expand and congral the idea that under the commerce clause the power of the government extends to virtual infinity. Taken with the mandate within it to eviscerate the Free Excercise clause of the First Amendment they combine to effectively reverse our jurisprudence in two areas. Firstly, that the government is instituted to ensure rights. Secondly, that rights trump powers.
If Obama wins on the specific points in this matter, he wins the whole ball of wax. The government will have taken the power to use the drivers for the cost of insurance to mandate diet, exercise, activity. They will have eviscerated the Free Exercise clause. Your religious rights will end at the church door.
On a minor note, the administration argument that this coverage makes health care cost less because a birth is more expensive than an abortion is dead wrong. It ignores the contribution that the child makes to society over the next generation. They've set that parameter, the cost of birth, and ignored 80 years of it.
If Obama wins on the specific points in this matter, he wins the whole ball of wax. The government will have taken the power to use the drivers for the cost of insurance to mandate diet, exercise, activity. They will have eviscerated the Free Exercise clause. Your religious rights will end at the church door.
On a minor note, the administration argument that this coverage makes health care cost less because a birth is more expensive than an abortion is dead wrong. It ignores the contribution that the child makes to society over the next generation. They've set that parameter, the cost of birth, and ignored 80 years of it.
2.15.2012 | 12:12pm
David Nickol says:
Rhinestone Suderman,
I believe pentamom's anecdote is not an isolated case, but depicts a real contradiction. Catholics working for non-Catholic hospitals expect to be able to follow their consciences and not participate in abortion, sterilization, or contraception. And they are legally protected. But non-Catholic doctors working for Catholic hospitals, even if their consciences and best medical judgment tell them a woman should be sterilized, have an abortion, or use contraception, are forbidden *their* rights of conscience.
A very large number of those in the pro-life movement, including most pro-life politicians, accept abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger. So a pro-life Protestant doctor working in a Catholic hospital might very well have a patient whom he feels will die without an abortion, but in such a case, he must let the woman die.
If non-Catholics working for Catholic hospitals lose their conscience rights and should work for non-Catholic hospitals, then I don't see why Catholics working for non-Catholic hospitals shouldn't just quit and work for non-Catholic hospitals. Freedom of conscience isn't freedom of conscience if it applies only to Catholics.
I believe pentamom's anecdote is not an isolated case, but depicts a real contradiction. Catholics working for non-Catholic hospitals expect to be able to follow their consciences and not participate in abortion, sterilization, or contraception. And they are legally protected. But non-Catholic doctors working for Catholic hospitals, even if their consciences and best medical judgment tell them a woman should be sterilized, have an abortion, or use contraception, are forbidden *their* rights of conscience.
A very large number of those in the pro-life movement, including most pro-life politicians, accept abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger. So a pro-life Protestant doctor working in a Catholic hospital might very well have a patient whom he feels will die without an abortion, but in such a case, he must let the woman die.
If non-Catholics working for Catholic hospitals lose their conscience rights and should work for non-Catholic hospitals, then I don't see why Catholics working for non-Catholic hospitals shouldn't just quit and work for non-Catholic hospitals. Freedom of conscience isn't freedom of conscience if it applies only to Catholics.
2.15.2012 | 1:10pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Apologies. In my comment above, I should have said "There may be other factors in the hospital's condemnation of the doctor which we are not aware of."
The dangers of posting early in the morning, without enough caffeine. . .
The dangers of posting early in the morning, without enough caffeine. . .
2.15.2012 | 3:20pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
On what grounds do you believe Pentamon's case is not an isolated incident? These are all hypotheticals: a Protestant doctor in a pro-life hospital might have a patient who will die if they don't get an abortion, and so on. . . well, maybe, might, could happen, and so on, and so forth. Again, I would assume such a doctor would know this, before he chose to work in a pro-life hospital? After all, doctors aren't being forcibly pressganged into working for Pro-life health services; pro-life services are, however, being forced to violate their consciences by providing aboriton/birth control serices. And, unlike the hypothetical doctor, they can't quit their job, and go work for a more accomodating institution; everyone is being forced to provide this, whether they want to or not, whether they're Catholic, or not. There's the difference.
Nor do I believe that every single last non-Catholic who works for a Catholic institution is being forced to go against their conscience.
As I said, the problem with anecdotal evidence like this, is that it's really impossible, on a blog like this, to verify such stories. There might have been much more going on than we're told. The story might be completely apocryphal, a "Friend of a friend of a friend told me" sort of thing.
And, as I argued earlier, it still wouldn't justify the government forcing all Catholic institutions---as well as Jews, Orthodox and Evangelical ones---to violate their consciences, by demanding they support abortion.
I think you're actually trying to defend abortion by presenting the strawman argument of "Victimized Protestant doctor."
Nor do I believe that every single last non-Catholic who works for a Catholic institution is being forced to go against their conscience.
As I said, the problem with anecdotal evidence like this, is that it's really impossible, on a blog like this, to verify such stories. There might have been much more going on than we're told. The story might be completely apocryphal, a "Friend of a friend of a friend told me" sort of thing.
And, as I argued earlier, it still wouldn't justify the government forcing all Catholic institutions---as well as Jews, Orthodox and Evangelical ones---to violate their consciences, by demanding they support abortion.
I think you're actually trying to defend abortion by presenting the strawman argument of "Victimized Protestant doctor."
2.15.2012 | 3:29pm
richard40 says:
Obamas "compromise" was a very cynical attempt to give enough illusionary cover to leftist Catholics so they could desert their church and support him. What is surprising is a lot of leftist Catholics actually have some real faith and integrity left and are rejecting the "compromise".
2.15.2012 | 3:46pm
richard40 says:
To David Nickol.
Your suggestion that there is a moral equivalence between a doctor in a catholic hospital wanting to do an abortion, and a catholic in a secular hospital not wanting to do one is false, for the following reasons.
1. The key is nobody should ever be forced to do something that violates their religious conscience, especially if gov is doing the forcing.
2. Anybody wanting an abortion can easily find a secular doctor in a secular hospital to do it.
3. In the case of the catholic doctor in the secular hospital, it is wrong to force him to perform an abortion.
4. In the case of the secular doctor in the catholic hospital, it is wrong to force the hospital to participate in an abortion.
5. The doctor wanting to do an abortion in the catholic hospital has an easy remedy, just go to a secular hospital to do the abortion. In the process, he can retain his employment and afiliation with his catholic hospital for the rest of his business, he just has to go somewhere else to do abortions. I am sure he could make a deal with planned parenthood to have a place to do it.
6. In the case of the catholic doctor in the secular hospital, you are going beyond requiring him to go elsewhere for one controversial procedure. By forcing him to do abortion as a condition for continued employment, you are requiring him to violate his religion as a condition for continued employment, far more severe than just having to do your abortion in another hospital.
Your suggestion that there is a moral equivalence between a doctor in a catholic hospital wanting to do an abortion, and a catholic in a secular hospital not wanting to do one is false, for the following reasons.
1. The key is nobody should ever be forced to do something that violates their religious conscience, especially if gov is doing the forcing.
2. Anybody wanting an abortion can easily find a secular doctor in a secular hospital to do it.
3. In the case of the catholic doctor in the secular hospital, it is wrong to force him to perform an abortion.
4. In the case of the secular doctor in the catholic hospital, it is wrong to force the hospital to participate in an abortion.
5. The doctor wanting to do an abortion in the catholic hospital has an easy remedy, just go to a secular hospital to do the abortion. In the process, he can retain his employment and afiliation with his catholic hospital for the rest of his business, he just has to go somewhere else to do abortions. I am sure he could make a deal with planned parenthood to have a place to do it.
6. In the case of the catholic doctor in the secular hospital, you are going beyond requiring him to go elsewhere for one controversial procedure. By forcing him to do abortion as a condition for continued employment, you are requiring him to violate his religion as a condition for continued employment, far more severe than just having to do your abortion in another hospital.
2.15.2012 | 8:50pm
Jeremy G. says:
@G,
Assuming that the case for government-run, universal health care is a valid and just one, then why are you and your fellow social justice Catholics supporting Obamacare, which is not only a huge giveaway to health insurance companies, but also forces Americans to continue buying substandard insurance from the same companies and makes cuts to the safety net and funding to public teaching hospitals to help pay for it? If such a thing were implemented by a Republican (and incidentally, it has), would you be so supportive of it?
Just because too many people on the Right yell "socialist" at the drop of a hat over health care doesn't make Obamacare any less of a disaster.
And regarding the Catholic bishops upset over this, what did they expect when they backed Obamacare in the first place?
Assuming that the case for government-run, universal health care is a valid and just one, then why are you and your fellow social justice Catholics supporting Obamacare, which is not only a huge giveaway to health insurance companies, but also forces Americans to continue buying substandard insurance from the same companies and makes cuts to the safety net and funding to public teaching hospitals to help pay for it? If such a thing were implemented by a Republican (and incidentally, it has), would you be so supportive of it?
Just because too many people on the Right yell "socialist" at the drop of a hat over health care doesn't make Obamacare any less of a disaster.
And regarding the Catholic bishops upset over this, what did they expect when they backed Obamacare in the first place?
2.15.2012 | 8:57pm
David Nickol says:
richard40:
I did not say that "there is a moral equivalence between a doctor in a catholic hospital wanting to do an abortion, and a catholic in a secular hospital not wanting to do one." My point is that doctors who work in Catholic hospitals should be able to give the best medical advice they can according to their consciences. If a non-Catholic doctor in a Catholic hospital thinks it is in the best interest of a patient to be sterilized or to have an abortion for authentic health reasons, he should be able to say so. I am not suggesting he should be permitted to perform the procedures in the Catholic hospital. I am saying he should give the patient the same medical advice he would give if they were not in a Catholic hospital. If Catholic hospitals don't want doctors actually *referring* patients elsewhere to have procedures performed that the Catholic hospital itself won't perform, I suppose that is their right. I am only talking about medical advice.
I did not say that "there is a moral equivalence between a doctor in a catholic hospital wanting to do an abortion, and a catholic in a secular hospital not wanting to do one." My point is that doctors who work in Catholic hospitals should be able to give the best medical advice they can according to their consciences. If a non-Catholic doctor in a Catholic hospital thinks it is in the best interest of a patient to be sterilized or to have an abortion for authentic health reasons, he should be able to say so. I am not suggesting he should be permitted to perform the procedures in the Catholic hospital. I am saying he should give the patient the same medical advice he would give if they were not in a Catholic hospital. If Catholic hospitals don't want doctors actually *referring* patients elsewhere to have procedures performed that the Catholic hospital itself won't perform, I suppose that is their right. I am only talking about medical advice.
2.15.2012 | 9:07pm
David Nickol says:
Rhinestone Suderman,
My only point is it is not just Catholics who have consciences. People who disagree with Catholics have consciences, too. If Catholics have a right of conscience to try to limit the availability of contraceptives, those who disagree with Catholic and believe contraceptives are important to women's health have a right to promote contraceptive use. The Obama administration may have chosen an objectionable way to achieve its goals of wider availability of contraceptives, but people of good conscience can believe that the goals are worthy, even if the methods are not.
My only point is it is not just Catholics who have consciences. People who disagree with Catholics have consciences, too. If Catholics have a right of conscience to try to limit the availability of contraceptives, those who disagree with Catholic and believe contraceptives are important to women's health have a right to promote contraceptive use. The Obama administration may have chosen an objectionable way to achieve its goals of wider availability of contraceptives, but people of good conscience can believe that the goals are worthy, even if the methods are not.
2.16.2012 | 12:09am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Well, not only Catholics have consciences. That's nice.
So what?
Those who believe in contraception have the right to promote contraceptive use---by means which don't go against the Constitution, or deny others their freedom of religion. When they do, yeah, they're pretty objectionable. Those who don't believe in contraceptive use have the right not to be bullied by the government into supporting something they believe to be immoral. And businesses should have the right not to be bullied into supplying a product, such as insurance, under penalty of law.
And no one is required to think anyone's goals worthy, just because the people pushing said goals have the approval of their own conscience; every totalitarian group that ever seized power thought it was in the right, and that the tyranny it practiced was for the general good.
So what?
Those who believe in contraception have the right to promote contraceptive use---by means which don't go against the Constitution, or deny others their freedom of religion. When they do, yeah, they're pretty objectionable. Those who don't believe in contraceptive use have the right not to be bullied by the government into supporting something they believe to be immoral. And businesses should have the right not to be bullied into supplying a product, such as insurance, under penalty of law.
And no one is required to think anyone's goals worthy, just because the people pushing said goals have the approval of their own conscience; every totalitarian group that ever seized power thought it was in the right, and that the tyranny it practiced was for the general good.
2.16.2012 | 11:01am
LisaB says:
@David Nickol
"The Obama administration may have chosen an objectionable way to achieve its goals of wider availability of contraceptives, but people of good conscience can believe that the goals are worthy, even if the methods are not. "
Wrong.
"The Obama administration may have chosen an objectionable way to achieve its goals of wider availability of contraceptives, but people of good conscience can believe that the goals are worthy, even if the methods are not. "
Wrong.
2.16.2012 | 11:23am
David Nickol says:
LisaB,
Once you endorse freedom of conscience, you can't then decide who is entitled to it and who is not. You are contradicting, it seems to me, all of the people who don't personally believe that contraception is wrong but who nevertheless support the Catholic Bishops because this is an issue of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Once you say, "You have freedom of conscience if your conscience says what my conscience says, but if your conscience disagrees with mine, then you don't have freedom of conscience,"—the concept of freedom of conscience becomes meaningless.
Once you endorse freedom of conscience, you can't then decide who is entitled to it and who is not. You are contradicting, it seems to me, all of the people who don't personally believe that contraception is wrong but who nevertheless support the Catholic Bishops because this is an issue of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Once you say, "You have freedom of conscience if your conscience says what my conscience says, but if your conscience disagrees with mine, then you don't have freedom of conscience,"—the concept of freedom of conscience becomes meaningless.
2.16.2012 | 5:36pm
Michael DePietro says:
David Nickol says " So a pro-life Protestant doctor working in a Catholic hospital might very well have a patient whom he feels will die without an abortion, "
What medical condition is always fatal in the mother unless she undergoes a direct abortion? Ectopic pregnancy if treated via excision of the fallopian tube is an indirect abortion. In that case even the Church would not consider it immoral. The case cited in Phoenix involved pulmonary hypertension, but this condition while carrying significant risk in pregnancy can be managed and an abortion is not a necessity to save the mother life, so I have no idea what you have in mind. Can you be specific? What is the possible situation for our imaginary pro-life Protestant doctor whose conscience would be infringed on unless he can do the abortion in the Catholic hospital? This sounds like the kind of nonsense hypothetical that comes up in college philosophy classes, that is divorced from any connection to the real world. Even given your unlikely premise, If the Protestant Doc feels he would be so contrained clinically to act, why is he practicing in a Catholic hospital anyway? One chooses to accept the contraints of the hospital one chooses to maintain privleges at. If I work in hospital X, and they can not offer procedure Y because of costs, staff or whatever I either accept this or say I Can not practice there. How is my freedom impinged?
In the meantime you seem to have no answer to the question to the fact how does some one not wishing to pay for something deny them access to it. If I say to my employee I do not wish to pay for X, In what way do I deny access to this. Under what logic should the government demand I give access to any possible thing someone could want. Can the government mandate I pay for a fitness membership for my employees. This is more expensive then contraceptives. It has health benefits. Do I deny access if I do not pay for this? Where does your logic end?
What medical condition is always fatal in the mother unless she undergoes a direct abortion? Ectopic pregnancy if treated via excision of the fallopian tube is an indirect abortion. In that case even the Church would not consider it immoral. The case cited in Phoenix involved pulmonary hypertension, but this condition while carrying significant risk in pregnancy can be managed and an abortion is not a necessity to save the mother life, so I have no idea what you have in mind. Can you be specific? What is the possible situation for our imaginary pro-life Protestant doctor whose conscience would be infringed on unless he can do the abortion in the Catholic hospital? This sounds like the kind of nonsense hypothetical that comes up in college philosophy classes, that is divorced from any connection to the real world. Even given your unlikely premise, If the Protestant Doc feels he would be so contrained clinically to act, why is he practicing in a Catholic hospital anyway? One chooses to accept the contraints of the hospital one chooses to maintain privleges at. If I work in hospital X, and they can not offer procedure Y because of costs, staff or whatever I either accept this or say I Can not practice there. How is my freedom impinged?
In the meantime you seem to have no answer to the question to the fact how does some one not wishing to pay for something deny them access to it. If I say to my employee I do not wish to pay for X, In what way do I deny access to this. Under what logic should the government demand I give access to any possible thing someone could want. Can the government mandate I pay for a fitness membership for my employees. This is more expensive then contraceptives. It has health benefits. Do I deny access if I do not pay for this? Where does your logic end?
2.16.2012 | 9:11pm
David Nickol says:
Michael DePietro,
If you read what I wrote, I never said anything about a non-Catholic doctor performing an abortion in a Catholic hospital. A Catholic hospital certainly has a right to prohibit abortions on the premises. I said I believed a doctor should have a right of conscience to give his best medical advice to a patient, whether he is in a Catholic hospital or not. If a doctor believes a woman has a high risk of dying if she goes through with a pregnancy, he has a right to tell a patient that. Actually, he or any other doctor has a *duty* to tell her that. As an employee of a Catholic hospital, he may not have a right to recommend an abortion, or to make a referral to someone who will perform an abortion. But I think he has a right of conscience to tell her she has a high-risk pregnancy and to answer her questions honestly about what her options are. If the doctor believes her odds of survival are better if she has an abortion, he has a right to tell her so. But as an employee of a Catholic hospital, who presumably has made an agreement that covers what he can and cannot say, he probably cannot recommend an abortion or give the woman information about where she can obtain an abortion.
You say: "If the Protestant Doc feels he would be so contrained clinically to act, why is he practicing in a Catholic hospital anyway?"
My question to you would be if, say, a Catholic nurse working for a non-Catholic hospital feels she may be required to do something against her conscience, why doesn't she work for a Catholic hospital instead of a non-Catholic one?
If you read what I wrote, I never said anything about a non-Catholic doctor performing an abortion in a Catholic hospital. A Catholic hospital certainly has a right to prohibit abortions on the premises. I said I believed a doctor should have a right of conscience to give his best medical advice to a patient, whether he is in a Catholic hospital or not. If a doctor believes a woman has a high risk of dying if she goes through with a pregnancy, he has a right to tell a patient that. Actually, he or any other doctor has a *duty* to tell her that. As an employee of a Catholic hospital, he may not have a right to recommend an abortion, or to make a referral to someone who will perform an abortion. But I think he has a right of conscience to tell her she has a high-risk pregnancy and to answer her questions honestly about what her options are. If the doctor believes her odds of survival are better if she has an abortion, he has a right to tell her so. But as an employee of a Catholic hospital, who presumably has made an agreement that covers what he can and cannot say, he probably cannot recommend an abortion or give the woman information about where she can obtain an abortion.
You say: "If the Protestant Doc feels he would be so contrained clinically to act, why is he practicing in a Catholic hospital anyway?"
My question to you would be if, say, a Catholic nurse working for a non-Catholic hospital feels she may be required to do something against her conscience, why doesn't she work for a Catholic hospital instead of a non-Catholic one?
2.17.2012 | 8:21am
Austin says:
To the poster Rykehave who claimed the catholic church has not opposed abortion:that is simply false, a smear, with no specific examples.
I became Catholic in part because of the way the catholic church speaks out on this all important issue. Pope John Paul wrote an encyclical,the Gospel of Life, on this topic. Locally and nationally the Catholic church spports prolife efforts. As a teacher in Catholic schools and CCD, the church has educated children about the importance of protecting life from conception to natural death.
Many parishes and dioceses have respect life committees. If you want to research insteadCd of spout prejudice, you mightdiscover that the RC church opposed Roe vs Wade from the very beginning, when most evangelical and Protestant churches were silent or even welcoming abortion. In fact, my former Protestant denomination even sponsored a chaplain for Planned Parenthood! Today my bishop encourages the prolife movement and sometimes participates in the rallies. 40 days for life is almost entirely Catholic in my town. Could the Catholic Church do more against abortion? Yes, but the church has never supported it.
I became Catholic in part because of the way the catholic church speaks out on this all important issue. Pope John Paul wrote an encyclical,the Gospel of Life, on this topic. Locally and nationally the Catholic church spports prolife efforts. As a teacher in Catholic schools and CCD, the church has educated children about the importance of protecting life from conception to natural death.
Many parishes and dioceses have respect life committees. If you want to research insteadCd of spout prejudice, you mightdiscover that the RC church opposed Roe vs Wade from the very beginning, when most evangelical and Protestant churches were silent or even welcoming abortion. In fact, my former Protestant denomination even sponsored a chaplain for Planned Parenthood! Today my bishop encourages the prolife movement and sometimes participates in the rallies. 40 days for life is almost entirely Catholic in my town. Could the Catholic Church do more against abortion? Yes, but the church has never supported it.
2.17.2012 | 10:40am
Hector says:
The only good that comes after this is that it's forcing the Catholic "Left" to finally choose sides and their allegiance (The Church or the State). It will also expose the fallacy of "Women's Rights" the left says it is, and will expose contraception and abortion finally for the evil that it is. The Lord has his plan for everything and He is the one dividing and conquering good from evil. Kind of ironic that Obama's using the same tactics with the faithful though at a smaller level. Little does he know he is being used by the real One and true leader himself. We can't serve two gods.
2.17.2012 | 1:48pm
painesense says:
The Catholic Church is suppose to be neutral in politics but I find it only speaking out forcefully on conservative right issues. Just check out the Catholic Defense League Website and you will get the drift. I don't hear the Catholic Bishops speaking out against Bill Donohue who claims to speak for all Catholics. Why the media lets this man spew his far right rehoric in the name of the Catholic Church is beyond me.
2.17.2012 | 1:53pm
Rudy Gonzales says:
This issue has festered into a national disgrace. The TEA-GOP-Republicans have taken a religious issue to the heights of political discussion, when they should be talking about jobs in America. It is no one's business to stick their heads into another's bedroom or doctor's office. All politician's who over-step their fiduciary function and side with religious programs and against women, should be voted out of office. We live in a free country where everyone has the right to choose his own destiny and path in life. We all live our lives in America with the freedoms we choose to use or lose. The Catholic church has it's principles to stand on, but the people will live their individual lives their way and stand in front of God on the exit from this world and pay for their individual missteps. It's not up to politicians to legislate their issues onto the people. When politicians legislate their religions, they step over the line. I wore the uniform proudly for these freedoms, and I'll stand proudly to defend another's right's even if it's not my view. Birth Control is not the right of politicians, it's the right of every individual. Medical procedures should be between the doctor and the woman carrying the child, not extremist politicians circumventing a doctor's Hippocratic Oath! Remember this when you enter the voting booth.
2.17.2012 | 9:13pm
Gil says:
painesense,
It's understandable that you misunderstand the Catholic Church, for the left-wing mainstream popular media, including The New York Times, continually misrepresents the Church.
The Catholic Church is not only made up of bishops, priests and religious, but lay persons as well, and lay persons like Bill Donohue are not only required to move freely in their office as Catholic lay persons, but are encouraged to do so, for the secular realm is where they are called to live out their faith, which includes bringing to bear on politics their Catholic views on what politicians best represent life issues for all human beings.
Priests and bishops, on the other hand, should not be supporting political movements, which is the expropriation of the lay office, but they are free and even required to speak on important moral issues of the day, independent of political parties in and of themselves; for instance, their opposition to the murder of babies, and in the case of genocide by a political organization, calling to the mind of the lay faithful that that is occurring, and it is then left on the lay faithful to participate in the political process to politically confront political organizations that are engaging in genocide.
What you don't understand is the nature of the different offices within the Catholic Church.
It's understandable that you misunderstand the Catholic Church, for the left-wing mainstream popular media, including The New York Times, continually misrepresents the Church.
The Catholic Church is not only made up of bishops, priests and religious, but lay persons as well, and lay persons like Bill Donohue are not only required to move freely in their office as Catholic lay persons, but are encouraged to do so, for the secular realm is where they are called to live out their faith, which includes bringing to bear on politics their Catholic views on what politicians best represent life issues for all human beings.
Priests and bishops, on the other hand, should not be supporting political movements, which is the expropriation of the lay office, but they are free and even required to speak on important moral issues of the day, independent of political parties in and of themselves; for instance, their opposition to the murder of babies, and in the case of genocide by a political organization, calling to the mind of the lay faithful that that is occurring, and it is then left on the lay faithful to participate in the political process to politically confront political organizations that are engaging in genocide.
What you don't understand is the nature of the different offices within the Catholic Church.
2.17.2012 | 9:21pm
Gil says:
Rudy Gonzales,
You are critical of the fact that "The TEA-GOP-Republicans have taken a religious issue to the heights of political discussion..."
The destruction of human life, the assault on the dignity of the human person and a host of other transgressions against life in general are religious issues, and, as I explained to painesense, these religious issues are also political issues, and in a free society we are free to bring our religious moral sensibilities to bear on politics. For example, when Lincoln in his "Gettysburg Address" stated that all humans are created equal, a strictly religious assertion that has no ground in a strictly scientific sense, and we as a nation followed his religious lead and are a far better nation because of it.
You are critical of the fact that "The TEA-GOP-Republicans have taken a religious issue to the heights of political discussion..."
The destruction of human life, the assault on the dignity of the human person and a host of other transgressions against life in general are religious issues, and, as I explained to painesense, these religious issues are also political issues, and in a free society we are free to bring our religious moral sensibilities to bear on politics. For example, when Lincoln in his "Gettysburg Address" stated that all humans are created equal, a strictly religious assertion that has no ground in a strictly scientific sense, and we as a nation followed his religious lead and are a far better nation because of it.
2.19.2012 | 7:04am
Mark VA says:
Painesense and Rudy:
You wrote that "The Catholic Church is suppose to be neutral in politics..." (sic) and "The TEA-GOP-Republicans have taken a religious issue to the heights of political discussion..."
The concept of the wall of separation between the Church and state strongly implies that the state's power, to remain legitimate, must have limits. It is disingenuous when a state declares what is really a moral, plus an unresolved cultural issue, to be now, all of a sudden, "political" - and then immediately insists that the Church stay out of politics.
You wrote that "The Catholic Church is suppose to be neutral in politics..." (sic) and "The TEA-GOP-Republicans have taken a religious issue to the heights of political discussion..."
The concept of the wall of separation between the Church and state strongly implies that the state's power, to remain legitimate, must have limits. It is disingenuous when a state declares what is really a moral, plus an unresolved cultural issue, to be now, all of a sudden, "political" - and then immediately insists that the Church stay out of politics.
2.19.2012 | 11:33am
Nancy D. says:
According to the doctor's Hippocratic Oath, one must first do no harm in order that every medical procedure remains Life-affirming and Life-sustaining.
7.25.2012 | 9:23am
dan bloom says:
ES, I have a question: why do we call them scare quotes when there is nothing scary about them, when nobody knows who originally coined the ill-coined term or when or why or under what context and why the word scare was put in there, so why do religion writers like Mollie Z and Mark Silk and you and Kevin Eckstrom use the term scare quotes when in fact it has no meaning in 2012 except as a cool trendy trending faux term. Search at Twitter for "scare quotes" -- it's all over the culture now, mostly between liberals vs conservatives, and it's so embedded as to be almost impossible to dislodge. I want to dislodge it. It's a meaningless term in 2012. It was coined in 1925. Dumb term for today.
†