(CCL On Being)
In response to the HHS mandate that Christian schools, hospitals, universities and other institutions must provide abortions, sterilizations and contraceptives to their employees through their insurance programs, Catholic bishops in the U.S. have declared a Fortnight of Freedom yesterday through the Fourth of July.
They describe the two-week period as “a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty,” and ”a great hymn of prayer for our country.”
But I’m not Catholic. So what do I care?
If I think women ought to have access to contraception–and maybe like the government providing it–I should be rooting for the government anyway. The Catholic Church is just trying to cram its beliefs down everyone else’s throats. Right?
Wrong.
This isn’t about whether women should have access to contraceptives. It’s not even about whether the government should provide them. The issue here is whether religious organizations should be forced to violate fundamental teachings of their faith at the pleasure of the government.
This isn’t the Catholic Church trying to impose its values on others. This is the State trying to impose its values on the Church.
Remember the First Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .
Are Catholic institutions in this country free to practice their religion, or aren’t they?
Catholic ethicist Dr. Benjamin Wiker gets to the heart of the issue:
The HHS mandate . . . is the imperial state demanding that the Catholic Church pick up the dagger and turn it against itself, act against its own moral law, just as the ancient pagan emperors demanded that, in order to save their lives, Christians must curse Christ, throw the Scriptures in the fire, and offer ritual sacrifice to the divinized emperor and the Roman gods.
With the HHS mandate, the secular state is moving from, “Christians, do what you like among yourselves, but don’t impose your moral views on us,” to, “Christians, you must now do what we like—or else.”
So: Are Catholic institutions in this country free to practice their religion, or aren’t they?
Keep in mind that if they’re not, nobody is.
If the Catholic Church is to be made subservient to the government, then Americans, of whatever faith, will be able to “exercise” their religion only at the pleasure of the state–and that’s not a free exercise.
I stand with the Catholic Church–and with the First Amendment–in proclaiming that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
The Administration is trying to whittle the Constitution’s freedom of religion down to a mere freedom of worship in the privacy of your own home or religious gathering. But the First Amendment gives the freedom, not merely to worship as you choose one day a week, but to live in the pubic square Monday through Friday without violating your conscience or the tenets of your faith.
I stand with the Catholic Church.
Will you?
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist.Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for meMartin Niemöller
Catholic leaders, the GOP, and people like you have intentionally distorted this whole issue….and for purely political reasons. Ultra conservatives, such as yourself, are seeking a way to politically unite Republican voters around a social issue and portray the regulation as a big government intrusion into religious liberties.
That is just not true. And I think you already know that.
Today 28 stares already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees.
Who are some of these Catholic institutions?
University of Scranton, for example, appears to specifically cover contraception. The University of San Francisco offers employees two health plans, both of which cover abortion, contraception and sterilization.
The one that I find most amusing for your side to refute is the Jesuit University of Scranton. One of its health insurance plans, the First Priority HMO, lists a benefit of “contraceptives when used for the purpose of birth control.”
Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tenn., is another, and I could go on and on.
This became a ‘problem’ in an election year………..hmmmmmmmm.
Care to write about something that really matters to the public?
“Intentionally distorting” is a pretty serious charge. Can we stick to a discussion of whether the HHS mandate is a violation of free exercise of religion, and leave each other’s motivation out of it?
Whether all Catholics and Catholic organizations are following the official teachings of the Catholic church seems to me to be beside the point of CBC’s post (and the broader discussion). Whether the government has violated other rights secured to us by the Bill of Rights also seems to be beside the point. The point is that the official governing body of the Catholic church teaches X, and with the HHS mandate the federal government of the United States is telling Catholic institutions that they can no longer abide by X teaching. Whatever other laws may do, that’s a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to freely exercise their religion.
The question that then arises is whether we are going to stand up for our rights, or quietly cede them to the government because we disagree with some of the Catholic church’s teachings?
Gregory, it perplexes me why you’re so quick to think you know my motives. You don’t know me. We’ve never met. (Just for the record, intentionally distorting things isn’t my style.) LA has it right: Why waste time pretending you can see my heart? Why not just confine yourself to substantive issues and respond to my argument about the HHS trampling of the First Amendment?
You say that what I said is “just not true,” but just making that announcement isn’t sufficient. In order for us to have any meaningful conversation, you have to give reasons for what you say. And polls and stats don’t cut it in this case. Even if 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception, even if the Jesuit University of Scranton (among others) offers health plans covering abortion, contraception and sterilization, that’s entirely irrelevant to the subject of the post, which is the Obama Administration’s trampling of the First Amendment:
Even people who know nothing else about Catholicism know that opposition to abortion, sterilization and contraception is central to Catholic religious teaching! I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that this isn’t an integral part of the Catholic religion. That being so, the First Amendment makes the polls and stats you cite entirely beside the point. Even if there’s just one institution (or one woman) in the country wishing to follow Catholic teaching, the government has no authority to prohibit it (or her) from freely doing that. That’s the issue here. Feel free to address it.
Or are you arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t really matter to the public?
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]. . . .
Period.
The hospital is not a religious organization, just because a church owns it.
It’s a company. They file for, and take, federal money. So the hospital (not the church) has to follow the same rules as any company that takes our federal tax dollars.
But having said that the HHS rules in place exempt not only Catholic churches but also Catholic-affiliated hospitals, universities, and social service agencies. These organizations, and employees would receive contraceptive coverage from insurance companies separately from the policies purchased by their employers.
That is one of the arguments here that seems lost on the couple readers who have responded. Lost too—on the author of the post.
As to the argument from one of the comments here that they do not care about polls—well I am not sure how to follow that up with any logic—as there is no way to discount polling as it is supported by the actual statistics from society be it medical insurers, marketing firms, and political teams who want a fix in public opinion from both sides of the aisle. All these groups have a vested interest—monetarily and otherwise—to make sure they know the pulse of the nation. So discount the polls if you wish, but it leaves you without a vital ingredient to understanding this issue-and many others.
That people who want to use the First Amendment here might think they sound great, but it does not buttress your argument. It only makes you sound very distant from reality.
With your argument then Jehovah’s Witnesses who object to blood transfusions could deny health care coverage for blood transfusions and Christian Scientists who oppose the use of conventional medicine could refuse to cover their employees for anything other than Christian Science treatments
.
That is insane.
Every so often we hear or read of parents being stripped of their children as they think an ailment should be dealt with only through prayer. Courts step in, government moves in, children are removed so they can have medical treatment.
What I find alarming from this blog post is the missing part of the larger social need for order. Name me one law that that is not in some way coercive to someone, (and since I have worked in state government for years I can assure you there are none…so do not try too hard.) Care was given to make this HHS rule work so it does not violate the religious liberties of individual citizens. No matter how you try to distort the facts a central truth remains.
Catholic organizations, and employees would receive contraceptive coverage from insurance companies separately from the policies purchased by their employers.
The Catholic Church has nothing to complain about—and only those who wish to have a political stunt are pursuing this.
Courts step in, government moves in, children are removed so they can have medical treatment.
None of the government’s business, period.
So a child has no legal rights to obtain the needed medical procedures since the parents are too rigid with their thinking? A child can die, in your view, so that some off-balanced view of how government relation to the citizen– should function? That is absurd on the face of it. It is also not a moral standing.
Gregory
You are obviously a Collectivist with whom I have nothing in common.
Brock,
I was hoping that we might agree on the moral imperative of saving the live of a child through medicine, but you seem to even differ on that, and instead use a term that I know is often thrown around from militia types. Progressiver ideas have always advanced in this nation, and will continue to do so. This post, and the comments that line up behind up are just absurd, as it the last one from you.
I was hoping that we might agree on the moral imperative of saving the live of a child through medicine
Like abortions which I assume you are just fine with correct?:)
========
use a term that I know is often thrown around from militia types
Really? Then they must be on the ball as the word encompasses all the tyrannical forms of rule which you and your ilk seem to love. Gee, the reason Communism didn’t work before was that it just wasn’t done right. This time we should only have to kill 50 million or so……I despise all of you.
“And Now, After Sending Our Best Young Men To Die On distant battlefields fighting Communism, we may simply vote a Marxist into our highest office.”
23 July 2008
10/’67 – 5/’69 USARV, 6/’69 – 09/’71 OICC/RVN+, 06/’73 – 25/04/’75 DAO, US Embassy RVN
=======
Progressiver ideas have always advanced in this nation, and will continue to do so.
Oh yes, your buddy Hussein has done such a sterling job, hasn’t he?
========
This post, and the comments that line up behind up are just absurd, as it the last one from you.’
You are the absurd one on this piece who likes to dither on a site with people with whom he has nothing in common.
I knew I could draw you out….
A relative of mine was in large part responsible for the legal ending to the Constitutional Township of Tigerton Dells. If you do not know about that little effort it might be of interest to you. I have always wondered what it is with people like you who seem so at wits end with things you never have–at the end of the day–any control over. You have such a twisted way of thinking that the life of a child is less important than the relationship between the parents and the government. That is what remains the absurd remark. I have worked in government most of my adult life, and my parents and most of my family are government employees in one way or another–educators, postal service, and such. So I am sure we seem to be the problem to you. But I must say that your reaction to my comment, in the fashion you did underscores why Tigerton Dells had to be crushed. The same goes for all those who betray the government.
Yes Ma’am and posted.
Well, Gregory, I am not the author of this blog, but am putting in my 2 cents worth.It is always wise to backup your statistics before sounding off.
Many Catholic women, myself included do not, will not, have not used birthcontrol. So your 95% statistic is wrong.
…..and referencing Jesuits is dangerous because there are two factions of the Jesuit institution: the liberals as you mentioned above and the orthodox who follow the Magisterium.
I am with the multitude of Catholics who are praying and fasting during this Fortnight of Freedom, not just for my church but for you also because once we enter the ‘slippery slope’, no one will be safe.
The poll numbers comes from national surveys. If you do not trust them take one yourself. As you sit in church this weekend look at the families around you. Where are the ones with 9 kids, and another on the way. Are Catholics using condoms and the pill, or are they just no longer having sex? Recall the large familues in the 1950′s and 60s? I think people love having passionate sex as much as ever and that rubbers and pills are the reason for the decline in the number of Catholics in the pews.
There are a lot of women out there not using chemical birth control. Some are Catholics following church teaching. Others aren’t. They’ve rejected birth control for a wide variety of reasons. Of the many I know, very few of them have lots of kids. I think your argument fails to take into account modern fertility awareness methods, infertility, and a host of other potential factors.
Again, whether or not 98% of Catholic women are choosing not to follow their church’s teaching on the subject seems to me to have nothing to do with whether the US government ought to be able to force those Catholics who do want to follow church teaching to do so against their consciences and in violation of their First Amendment rights.
Screw the government and why don’t you go troll elsewhere? It has always amazed me that little people have nothing better to do with their time.:)
First, I am not trolling.
I have brought a different opinion–that is different from trolling.
I have been polite.
I have used logical arguements and offered stats and ideas that have sat untouched.
That I have called you out, and you responded in the fashion I knew you would does not make a troll.
Now why not address why a child that you would not want to abort should then be offered up to death if the parents want to think prayer will solve the medical matter at hand. I contend that government should move in and take matters into hand—and that is what happens of course, and should.
Brock seems to miss the part of my argument about the larger social need for order and making sure that rational thought is given to the affairs of society that comes with government action.