Good Commentary & Bad

ELECTION YEAR PLOY! MSW, your kissing up to purported Catholic elites, including Maciel apologists, who invariably, like you, parrot the bishops' line is consistent, at least.

The "anti-contraception crusade" is mainly an election year ploy to replace Obama, who has been too outspoken in condemning child sexual abusers, with a "friendlier prosecutor-in-chief" like Santorum. The pope and bishops are understandably terrified of Federal criminal "prosecution", note Federal religious persecution.

For clear evidence that this "anti-contraception crusade" is driven by the bishops' abuse "cover-up" criminal defense strategy, please see the comments, "Founding Fathers' Shock", "Obama's Dream Comes True" and "No Deal Ever, Obama!", accessible by clicking on at"

http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishops-studying-revised-contraceptio...

Robert George's biological terminology is not correct. Five days after conception, the result is not an "embryo," it is a cluster of cells termed a zygote. An embryo is a later development in the process. Thus, a "morning after" pill does not kill an embryo.

I find it fascinating that you impugn Robert George and Mary Ann Glendon as allegedly having "so little regard from the proud tradition of casuistry," when, in fact, the letter is typed on the letterhead of O. Carter Snead and is now signed by (at last count) 118 people, including philosophers and moral theologians, who do, presumably, have at least some regard for "the proud tradition of casuistry." Oh, but they just must be dupes and shills of the Republican Party, right? Including all those people at Notre Dame, Georgetown and Villanova. Right?

And, of course, the gold standard has everything to do with the HHS mandate, right? That's just a perfectly logical line of argument. "He's for the gold standard so he must be against the compromise." That's logical, right?

And the fact that Romney has turned around on the question of abortion, which he once supported, endorsed and even raised money for, but has now changed his position thanks to the intervention of Dr. William Hurlbut, has no bearing at all on why Mary Ann Glendon would now endorse him. None whatsoever, right?

In the spirit of the Beach Boys getting back together at the Grammy Awards: let's go beyond making this a "heroes and villains" shootout, because the fact is, both sides have some, but not total, intellectual validity, and both sides claim unchallengeable and immutable wisdom, moral authority, and poll numbers. This might be one time when we must accept, trust--and maybe even celebrate--the primacy of the individual conscience. On our side. On their side. Ambiguity and nuance are not necessarily evils, yet few I've heard will settle for anything other than "our way." And few on either side have discussed the long list of possible long-term unintended consequences,resulting from myopic approaches rooted in the "now."

DON'T CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS AND UNIVERSITIES CURRENTLY OFFER HEALTH PLANS THROUGH WHICH EMPLOYEES CAN OBTAIN CONTRACEPTIVES? In the mid to late 1990s I worked at a Catholic university and later at a Catholic health system. While I never availed myself of the option, I was never informed that I could not obtain contraceptives under the health plan, and fully expect that I could have obtained them. I never heard of any discussion of this issue, and I am aware of many nonCatholics who are now on the faculty at Catholic universities who would object strenuously to being denied this prescription coverage.

I have not seen this fact discussed in any of the media stories, including the NCR. Catholic health systems and universities already provide contraception coverage to their employees. The bishops are making it sound like these institutions will be forced to do something they have never done. So this cannot be the reason they have so loudly protested the recent events. If they are so concerned about preventing the "grave moral evil" of contraception, then why have they not simply enforced the contraception prohibition on Catholic institutions operating within their diocese? Because it would be totally unworkable. And Catholic health care corporations already create shell game, "self funded" entities to distance themselves from practices that would be considered morally unacceptable by the bishops.

Is there anyone out there that will state that they are employed by a Catholic health system or university that is denied contraception coverage?

Mr. Winters: I hope you will consider this reflection regarding your decision about how to respond to the President and whether to support his reelection in the meantime. http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26769

I am ambivalent also. But I find myself completely unable to reconcile this president as a friend to religion, especially after reading this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/for-gods-sake/post/are-clergy-public...

Once again, as with the HHS Mandate, these are unforced errors. The president does not have to be mixing it up with religion like this. But he clearly wants to. He didn't have to go into the churches to give birth control to people. Now, if a student with a federal student loan works for a church, he will not be eligible for loan forgiveness? No, I cannot trust Obama anymore.

I think MSW has Mary Ann Glendon and Robert George pegged just right.
If memory serves me, Glendon was a bitter-end supporter of Cardinal Law, and claimed the exposure of widespread abuse and coverup in the Boston Archdiocese was just an attempt to persecute the church.
As for George, the British Thomist scholar and Vatican advisor John Haldane warned him that he and other "moral conservatives" damaged their own credibility with the stridency of their attacks on President Obama, especially since most were silent about the Iraq War, and what he called "the running sore of structural deprivation running through American society."
In both cases, Haldane added, "there has been a tendency of social conservatives to either hold their noses because they are more concerned about abortion, or just not to notice the smell."

Mr. Winters,

I realize you may have your disagreements with George and Glendon but, as Mr. Szyszkiewicz points out, this was on Carter Snead's letterhead not theirs and included John Garvey's signature as well. While perhaps it also "shows in spades" that Garvey and Snead are not "moral theologians" (although I doubt either has ever claimed to be such) I wonder what about the current list of signatories here: http://www.becketfund.org/unacceptable/

I wonder, does it "show in spades" that John Cavadini, Director of the Institute for Church Life and Associate Professor of Theology at Notre Dame (and I believe a member of the International Theological Commission) is not a "moral theologian"? Because he signed the letter. If so, what about Gary Anderson, Hesburgh Professor of Theology at Notre Dame? Because he signed it too. Same with Ann Astell, David Fagerberg, and Msgr. Michael Heinz--all Notre Dame theologians.

The fact is that the two-hundred university professors and presidents who have signed this letter represent a broad cross-section of disciplines and ideologies and any effort to chalk up their position to "GOP talking points" is simply incorrect. Patrick Deneen, Margaret Brinig, Larry Alexander, and Steven Smith are not exactly planning a panel at next year's CPAC--to say nothing of your friend Rick Garnett. What this diverse group of scholars has in common deeply held belief that religious freedom must be preserved against a policy they still sincerely view as immoral and unjustifiable.

Their position deserves better from you than to be dismissed amidst a flurry of ad hominems directed against Glendon and George.

First, a blastocyst is not an embryo. An embryo is what happens after gastrulation. Blastocysts develop under the genetic code of the mother only, the paternal DNA contributes no guidance - which if the body follows the dictates of the soul shows that the life energy of the blastocyst is that of the egg and of the woman. Not letting a blastocyst implant is therefore not taking a life and the bishops concerns really are only about sexuality. It is unseemly for any employer to have an opinion on the sexual morals of their employees, even the Church (especially if some employees are not Catholic). Second, E.J. missed the point that if Obama had led with Friday's compromise, he would have had no place to go when the Bishops objected, as they continue to. It was absolutely essential to give them a chance to grouse and then come up with a solution. I have a feeling that Sister Carol and Fr. Larry may have been in on the whole thing, which allowed them to fly the flag as an olive branch to make up for health care and then throw the Bishops under the bus. If the bishops figure out they were in on it, they will be peeved.