The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe Politics of the "Accommodation"
by Michael Sean Winters on Feb. 14, 2012
The politics of the HHS mandates is, at once, easier and more difficult than looking at the ecclesial implications. For starters, the politics will be played out before a fickle electorate and a media intent on ambulance chasing. Here we are this weekend discussing profound constitutional issues regarding the relationship of Church and State, and the President’s budget, and the mayhem and murder in Syria, and the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, but as soon as Whitney Houston died, everything else went away. Mind you, I liked Ms. Houston’s singing, and I feel very badly for her family, but the way our media and the electorate responds to the ebb and flow of events has little to do with the gravity of the issues at stake.
In examining the politics of the HHS mandate and the subsequent accommodation, it must be said at the outset that we would not be in this mess if we had a single payer system. If, instead of the byzantine approach to health care reform, we had adopted “Medicare for Everybody,” we would not be having this debate. I don’t know if a single payer system would have made it through Congress: that really would be government-run health care. But, I remain hopeful that the great state of Vermont’s experiment with single payer will be so successful that, within a few years, the whole country will collectively slap its hand to its forehead and say, “Duh – of course that is the way to go.”
For me, the politics of the HHS mandates issue has always been simple. Any policy, and the HHS mandate is a policy, even if you think it is a very good and desirable policy, must be pursued within the principles articulated in our Constitution. One of the principles is the right to freely exercise our religion. And so, in keeping with the arguments used in the 9-0 Supreme Court decision last month in the Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC case, I have argued that the right of a church to conduct its own affairs free from government interference should trump the concern to extend contraception coverage without copays to women who work at religious institutions. Even if you think contraception is a good thing, and even if you think it should be available at no cost, I think you have to admit that the health of America’s political and social culture requires us to defend the First Amendment rights of our churches.
Secondly, I have never, and do not now, buy into the idea that the whole religious liberty issue is nothing but a ploy by the bishops to defeat Obama in the next election. Yes, there are some bishops who make irresponsible and nasty comments about the president and who, in a manner I find unbecoming in a religious leader, assign foul motives to everything this president does. But, I do not think that indictment can be laid at the feet of the president of the USCCB, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who met with the president in November and went to the USCCB meeting and spoke warmly, almost glowingly, of that meeting and of the president’s responsiveness to the concerns Dolan raised. In fact, some bishops are reported to have challenged Dolan in the executive session, and he stood his ground. I just don’t think Dolan is the kind of man who is looking for a war, although he is most definitely the kind of man who is looking for a win.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The problem in so much of the debate over the HHS mandate is that people on both the left and the right are bringing their prior narratives to bear on the events, blocking out the actual factual issues involved. As I mentioned yesterday, Thomas More tried to figure out if he could take the oath, he really tried, before concluding he could not. So, let’s take a sentence that encapsulates the argument of those who do think the USCCB has become an arm of the Republican National Committee, who buy into the narrative I suggest is based more on prior bias than on the facts. How’s this: The bishops are going to oppose Obama no matter what he does because they hate Democrats.
Now, let’s keep the same sentence structure, and even the same verb, and try a different subject and object: President Obama is going to oppose the Catholic Church no matter what he says because he hates religion. That, mutatis mutandi, was the argument put forward, most unhelpfully, by Archbishop Charles Chaput in his op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which actually urged his readers not to focus overmuch on the details, but to accept, hook, line and sinker, his version of an Obama administration at war with the Catholic Church. As much as I think the President has been wrong on this matter, I do not think he has been motivated by anti-Catholic bias. I am grateful that the email we in the Archdiocese of Washington got from our archbishop, Cardinal Wuerl, last night was far less vitriolic and focused on the issues at hand, not any pre-existing anti-Obama narrative.
While I continue to believe President Obama is not motivated by any hatred of the Catholic Church, I also believe – actually, we do not have to believe this because the evidence could not be more obvious – that it would be difficult to imagine how he could have bungled this issue more badly than he did. Starting with the initial proposal from HHS – headed by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who should be fired – the president has set off down a path he did not need to walk. I can’t believe that he could not have gone to pro-choice groups in August and said, “Look, we will be extending free contraceptive care to some 20-25 million women. We really don’t have to extend it to another 1 million if that means trampling on, or even being perceived to trample on, the First Amendment.” But, alas, he did not say that. Then, in November, Obama met with Dolan and said he understood Catholic concerns in this matter and that Dolan would be pleased with his decision. When Obama failed to deliver on that promise, his decision looked not just like a bad decision but a betrayal. Then, when the firestorm broke out in the last three weeks, instead of sitting down with the USCCB to work out a compromise, he ignored them, calling only to announce his decision, not to discuss what might work. If you have a problem with someone, you need to talk with that someone to fix it. The lack of trust between the bishops and the administration right now has many sources but both sides need to find a way to negotiate again. To those members of the White House staff who see the Catholic bishops as obscurantist leftovers from an earlier time, an enemy to your policy goals, and as people who leak to Republicans, well, hold your nose and get over it because those same bishops are in part responsible for helping educate hundreds of thousands of poor children, and caring for hundreds of thousands of injured fellow citizens, and feeding, and clothing and sheltering hundreds of thousands of the poor and the homeless. If you are a bishop who thinks Obama is untrustworthy, in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, a secret enemy of the Church, hold your nose too: you need the president for immigration reform and that, too, is an issue on which you bishops must be fighting to protect your own.
Obama’s accommodation, which he announced last Friday, was, as the bishops initially noted, a step on the right direction, an effort to address our concerns. It may be gimmicky, but sometimes gimmicks work. Coupons are gimmicks, but I clip them.
The question before the USCCB, and other Catholics, now is how to respond. The bishops will, of course, continue to oppose the inclusion of abortifacient drugs, sterilization and contraception in the mandated basic care package. Whatever you think of Humanae Vitae, it should surprise no one that the bishops still support it. On this, the bishops will lose, and they know they will lose because even Republicans will be unlikely to be seen as opponents of contraception, but they have every right to make their case. It is something different for the USCCB to suggest that the employer mandate itself must be revoked because it offends the conscience rights of corporations. Even Michael Gerson, in this morning’s Washington Post, admits that this idea is “a bridge too far in our current cultural and political context” and that it amounts to reacting to the president’s overreach with an overreach of our own. I would add that the most disappointing part of the second statement issued by the USCCB on Friday was that when it raised the issue of secular, private individuals and corporations, it failed to mention that employers have a moral obligation to provide health insurance for their employees, whether or not they have a legal obligation. Gerson has some street cred on these issues in my book because almost alone among conservative commentators, he has consistently chastised Republicans for their failure to pursue the compassionate conservative approach to government, opting instead for the dog-eat-dog libertarian model. The USCCB should keep their focus on the issue of exemptions for religious organizations.
One more thing about the USCCB. Will someone there please say a good word about the need to extend preventive care for women. No, you don’t have to support contraception, and you don’t have to even support the Affordable Care Act – although everyone who thinks the bishops are really GOP stooges should explain why the conference has not once called for the repeal of that law – but can you say a kind word about the moral necessity of making health care for women a priority for the nation. Please.
As I indicated yesterday, the most offensive part of this whole mess is the suggestion that our faith-based charities, schools and hospitals are not sufficiently religious to qualify for a religious exemption. It is this that offends us social justice Catholics who see our work on behalf of the poor as integral to our faith, different but just as important as our Sunday worship. It is now clear that President Obama, as opposed to candidate Obama, no longer sees this, or is, at any rate, unwilling to draw the logical conclusions from it although I applaud the call of Bishop Cupich to see in Obama’s earlier speeches on this subject as a source of potential common ground for dialogue. Maybe that dialogue will happen and maybe it will be fruitful. I suspect the issue of what kind of religiously affiliated institution does and does not deserve an exemption will be decided in the courts and that we will win.
I confess I no longer understand Obama. He did not go to the mat to end the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich. He did not go to the mat for comprehensive immigration reform. He did not go to the mat to close Guantanamo Bay. He did not go to the mat for Card Check. He did not go to the mat for a public option in the health care reform. But, he went to the mat over the principle that a Catholic college or charity or hospital is not really religious.
The president not only is the chief magistrate of the land, he is the leader of the Democratic Party. I know I am something of an odd duck by being what I call an “Ella Grasso Democrat.” Grasso was the first woman to be elected a governor of her state in her own right, not succeeding her husband. She was pro-labor. She was pro-Israel. She was pro-higher taxes on rich folk. She stood up for the little guy. Unlike other male Democrats – Kennedy and Gore and Gephardt and Muskie – she remained pro-life. I believe that it is the historic calling of the Democratic Party to stand up to the moneyed interest and say that the common good, not just the individual pursuit of profit, is a moral obligation and a necessity in a free and just society. I am simply not interested in a Democratic Party that is so beholden to the fundraisers at Emily’s List, so consumed with lifestyle politics, that it is willing to thumb its nose at those working class voters who really do care about social justice and for whom that care is a part of their religious beliefs. And, if liberals no longer care about a robust defense of the First Amendment, well, then, we do not deserve the presidency.
Of course, the other side is worse. Repeat, of course the other side is worse. I am still waiting for someone to ask a GOP candidate: Sir, you have criticized the president for his attack on religious liberty. (Candidate nods or even interrupts to repeat the criticism.) So, will you promise that, if elected, you will instruct your Justice Department to bring suit against the state of Alabama to strike down their anti-immigrant law, which has been opposed by the Catholic Church for the exact same reasons they have opposed the HHS mandates? I would like to see a clean bill expanding the conscience exemption go to Congress, but you can bet the GOP leaders in the House would load it up with poison pills so that nothing will get passed and they will have a useful election year issue to help them hold onto the gains they made in 2010.
As I say, I no longer understand President Obama. I was not party to the discussions within the administration on this issue, so I don’t know who said what, or what arguments were made. But, from the outcome, we can conclude that the President never stopped the conversation to say, “We can’t do that!” By “that” I mean pick a fight with the leaders of the largest religious denomination in the country. By “that” I mean not ignore First Amendment concerns, even if it limits the reach of a policy he very much wishes to pursue. By “that” I mean decide, in effect, that the freedom of religion is now only a freedom to worship.
In order to get my vote back, I do not expect President Obama, like Henry II, to go to Becket’s tomb for public penance. Nor do I expect him, like Henry IV, to walk through the snows at Canosa to beg pardon from the pope. But, he would have to indicate that he understands why it was wrong, very wrong, not to say “We can’t do that!” I am not holding my breath. I continue to withhold my vote.
Michael, The President does
Michael, The President does not actually need your vote. You exaggerate your
individual importance there. Whoever you do vote for I respect you choice.
There are some realities you seem to want to ignore.
One conscience cannot be used to coerce another's.
Humanae Vitae has been rejected by the people. [This is a canonical matter, and the canonical condition has not been met by the teaching]
My worry for the bishops Dolan Wuerl et al is that they may actually get
what they demand only to discover later it was not exacttl what they wanted.
How often as children have we had such a run in with our parents to be told by them "watch out, you may get exactly what you ask for".
I worry that in trying to make a constitutional issue here the solution will
come with some very painful side effects. Once the iddue is decided thos side
effects will have to swallowed and could potentially be a very bitter pill.
Winning the battle and losing the war is the grist of political naivte. Surely
there might be a reasonable solution which is directed at the conscience
of the user of a policy instead of the pocket of the presumed payer of the
policy. Where are the cool minds this morning, and how did NCR today miss
the real big story on the Vatican which makes the Pope look like a senile out of it old man and his chosen right hand man Bertone to look like a conniving thug. Of course Tom Roberts is overseas......
God Bless
TomC
Sir, you should be fired for
Sir, you should be fired for failing to understand the most basic principles of politics. Why does NCR keep posting your commentary? Is it some kind of exercise in showing us what mealy-mouthed liberalism would look like?
Oh, I get it! So, for all
Oh, I get it! So, for all those non-conforming Catholics who find it objectionable to be forced to pay for abortion services that they don't want to pay for, if we only had a single payer system, that would solve the whole problem! What kind of a country do you want to live in Michael? If people don't agree with your politics, we'll just force them to go along with it. That way will make everyone feel equal! Does the word "tyranny" sound familiar to you Michael?
Andrew K.
In case you all did not
In case you all did not notice today:-
Call it Conspiracy City.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120213234039AAhEi3w
TomC
MSW - I really appreciate
MSW -
I really appreciate these more thoughtful pieces from you.
As first pass, I do wonder at this paragraph:
"As I indicated yesterday, the most offensive part of this whole mess is the suggestion that our faith-based charities, schools and hospitals are not sufficiently religious to qualify for a religious exemption. It is this that offends us social justice Catholics who see our work on behalf of the poor as integral to our faith, different but just as important as our Sunday worship."
This argument just puzzles me. I think you use "us social justice Catholics" too freely. The religious exemption as written in the policy is not offensive to many of the "social justice Catholics" I know, myself included, even when I worked as a social worker for a Catholic faith-based charity.
The administration is NOT saying that Catholic-affiliated charities, colleges and hospitals are not "sufficiently religious to qualify for a religious exemption". No one's Catholic "street cred" is being dissed here; no one is dissing the idea that work in those institutions can be "ministry" for individual employees. It can be "ministry" for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Work in those institutions is also plain old work for a whole lot of the people working there. Many people of all faiths see all kinds of employment as "ministry". So what?
This objection, MSW, seems overly-sensitive and fabricated. I remember when the National Association of Social Workers protested a sitcom ("Norm") because the main character was a social worker and a really bad one. They picketed the network studios and carried on because social workers were being teased and razzed...just like lawyers and police and doctors and janitors and construction workers and every other group of workers is teased and razzed in entertainment.
Poor analogy but "the feeling of it" is, for me, the same: a decision to consider oneself insulted. There's just no there there.
The president simply does not
The president simply does not have the authority to mandate anything, certainly not which insurance we are going to carry and what services will be included in the plan. We are a representative republic which means if we end in a stalemate, and nothing gets done, then so be it! That is the way it works. I read all four pages of Michael Winter's article and he just goes round and around on the same meaningless issues but misses the point of the whole thing!
We don't live in a Police State, or a Gulag, but I can draw the conclusion from recent articles on NCR that a lot of Columnists that post here wish we did!
Andrew K
I think I have finally
I think I have finally figured out something obvious - namely that the Bishops react most quickly and strongly to those things that threaten their power and control, hence the strong and fast reaction to the health care directive compared to the obfuscation and foot dragging in the sex mmabuse issue.
Most folks who have ever brought a complaint to the chancery (in my case about a priest having an affair with my wife) are blinded by the speed in which the wagons are circled and the parapets manned.
Michael is making every
Michael is making every effort to be civil here, but he immediately goes astray when he says "the HHS mandates issue has always been simple." Michael then defines as simple the assertion that this controversy between the President and the bishops involves nothing more than "the right of a church to conduct its own affairs free from government interference." This, he says, should trump the concerns of women to have access to contraception coverage without copays since "you have to admit that the health of America’s political and social culture requires us to defend the First Amendment rights of our churches."
This issues is far from simple for me because I believe that from the bishop's perspective, and from the position of the Church hierarchy in general, restrictions on birth control are not a religious issue at all but part of a long-standing political objective to rid the entire society of contraception in order to limit sex to procreation not recreation in the name of saving the society from itself.
We know this from the Church's own history where it stood in bitter opposition to the repeal of any state law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to married couples as well as singles, non-Catholics as well as Catholics until the Supreme Court finally steppin in in 1965. The bishops have appointed themselves as custodians of the American culture and their current position can be surmised from the statements of Rick Santorum whose candidacy is based on Catholic natural law doctrine and who continues to argue against birth control on moral grounds while voicing support for their re-criminalization.
This, it should be said, is not a "simple" issue nor to me does it reflect the desire of bishops to merely protect the religious freedom of Catholics to profess their faith. Rather, it is an attempt to exploit the Constitutionally protected freedom of worship in order to advance an obvious political agenda that would surely fail (since even 98% of Catholics use birth control) if it had to advance on its merits without the protective camouflage of religious liberty.
But the most important complication to Michael's "simple" explanation of the controversy is the definition of "The Church" itself. Is the Church the hierarchy only or the millions of Catholics who think the hierarchy's teaching on birth control is absurd? Is religious "worship" that activity that takes place in actual churches or within the eucherist. Or, are bishops like King Midas with his golden touch able to redefine as "the Church" and as "religious worship" all of the Church's business interests such as schools, hospitals and universities. And, if we listen to Bishop Dolan, we must define "The Church" and "religious worship" so broadly that it also means cutting and wrapping meat in a butcher shop run by the bishop' brother-in-law, a devout Catholic, who the bishop excuse from providing his workers with health insurance that covers contraception if the bishops had their way.
Under these elastic definitions there is virtually no difference between the Catholic Church and the State. The bishops political powers would be greatly enhanced by merely redefining politics as religion.
No, this is not a simple issue at all, but one that goes to the heart of the kind of democracy we will have, one run by elected officials or by unelected Catholic bishops who are twisting the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom out of shape in order to advance a political agenda of ridding our society of easy access to contraceptives the bishops think eat away at the moral fiber of American culture.
Ted, the Church is more than
Ted, the Church is more than her magisterium.
"The Church" consists of all who adhere to the teaching of Christ, as maintained and passed down through the Church's magisterium. It's not a democracy. Humanae Vitae wasn't some revolutionary document intended to impose the Pope's will on the faithful. It was a clarification of Christ's teaching. Based on your comments, I don't think you fully understand the document or its implications. You use the phrase "we know this from..." where "I assume this because..." would be much more appropriate.
We are all custodians of culture. It's not just the bishops or political candidates, although it's encouraging when some of them speak up on behalf of the faithful. Most of us work in the areas where we have the most influence - in our families and in our communities, teaching Theology of the Body to teenagers and young adults, holding pre-cana classes and newlywed support groups, and supporting new mothers. It's discouraging to see our fellow citizens, the government, and some fellow Catholics work against these efforts, but we'll soldier on, testify to the Truth, and pray for the conversion of their hearts.
BTW, that 98% statistic is completely flawed. The sample population for the study excluded Catholics who were either pregnant or abstaining from sexual activity (in other words, many people in communion with the Church's teaching).
As for the issue at hand, if you think women should have greater access to abortifacients and infertility-inducing drugs or procedures, then write Planned Parenthood a check. Don't act like the rest of us have a responsibility to under-write a morally deficient worldview by supplying drugs that are hazardous to women, destructive for families, and fatal for many children. If you need clarification as to why contraceptives are morally deficient, I recommend re-reading Humanae Vitae, looking into some of Blessed John Paul II's material on the Theology of the Body, and seeking spiritual guidance.
HENRY II/HENRY IV/REALLY?
HENRY II/HENRY IV/REALLY? ...... MSW, your misuse of history is revealing. This is not a struggle between absolute monarchs, the pope and a king. It is a struggle between the pope, the last surviving absolute monarch, and the democratically elected US government. The pope wants to impose by US government force his monarchical rule on all Americans, even though the pope's anti-contraception rule was created secretly in a Vatican backroom against the overwhelming decision of his own birth control commission.
I accept that all bishops do not hate Democrats. But, as a Harvard Law trained lawyer for four decades, it seems very clear to me that almost all bishops (and their lawyers) fear Obama's Federal prosecutors who are becoming aggressive in pursuing child sexual predators.
The "anti-contraception" crusade is more about avoiding Federal criminal prosecution of bishops than protecting against Federal religious persecution of bishops. The bishops appear determined at almost any price to replace Obama as US prosecutor-in-chief.
While Cardinal Dolan has often been the focal point, little media attention has been paid to Cardinal Rigali's role in this crusade. This is surprising. Rigali is still active on major Vatican committees with Cardinal Law.
In St. Louis, Rigali was mentor to Dolan and bishop Finn, the indicted Opus Dei bishop in Kansas City. Rigali is yet at risk of prosecution in Philly as his former aide, Msgr. Lynn's criminal trial begins shortly. In my experience representing senior executives of multinational corporations, once the possibility of a criminal prosecution arises, there is nothing more important to them then avoiding it. I don't believe bishops are any different.
For more evidence of the papal ploy to remove Obama as US prosecutor-in-chief by means of a contraceptive Trojan Horse criminal defense strategy, please note the comments, "Founding Fathers' Shock", "Obama Dream Come True" and "No Deal Ever, Obama!", all readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishops-studying-revised-contraceptio...
Gadzooks: Four decades of
Gadzooks: Four decades of Harvard Law training? That must have cost a fortune!
I was a slow reader on a
I was a slow reader on a scholarship, what can I say. LOL!
Not much to add to all that's
Not much to add to all that's been commented thus far on the issue of insurance, contraception, employers and such. I'll just comment on politics, and our author's comment that the President went to the mat so-to-say only on this one issue. I think our author overlooked that the President tried accommodation during the prior years of his Presidency and go nothing in return. This 'semester' he's being more assertive generally, possibly having concluded it's good for the country and for his reelection.
The Fruit of Accommodation.
The Fruit of Accommodation. Your position that the HHS mandate is wrong, but that President Obama is not really out to destroy the Catholic Church is too obvious to be accepted by anyone.
Michael, I am a so-called
Michael,
I am a so-called "social justice Catholic" who does not want to be included in your "us". I know that your view of the world is not so simplistic that you cannot see the distinction between a parish and a Catholic school or hospital. When I was growing up, Catholic grade schools and high schools taught only, or almost only, Catholics. The faculty were mostly nuns or brothers or priests. The few lay people were definitely Catholics, and they had to be "good" Catholics. These schools received no public funds. One could argue with a straight face that these were religious institutions. In those days, many Catholic colleges and universities had requirements for faculty regarding religious views. Even Catholic hospitals seemed to impose requirements. This day has long passed. Today, most schools at all levels receive government funds, as do hospitals and other institutions. Most serve large groups (if not predominately) of non-Catholics. In most cases (perhaps with the exception of grade schools), the staffs are predominately non-Catholic. In schools, religion is taught, but not for the purpose of indoctrinating, as happened before. No one is trying to make anyone be a Catholic, not even in grade schools. it's true, that the Catholic institutions are a living out of the Catholic faith, or they strive for this, I would hope. But, all of us do this, regardless of whether we work for a Catholic institution.
How could you state, with a straight face, that these, very secular institutions which do not proselytize, accept public funds, and exist in many cases because of the work of mostly non-Catholics are religious institutions in the same was that parishes are?
If Catholic institutions are going to accept public funding and exist because of the work of their non-Catholic employees, why should they be allowed, in a democracy, to impose their particular set of religious beliefs on the private lives of their employees?
You know, if we were all honest, I think that we would agree that there would not be such a furor about this among the bishops if most Catholics agreed with and accepted the proscription against birth control. The bishops would not have to worry that Catholics would use birth control, so none of this would matter. As it is, the bishops are not able to convince their own flock, but can't admit it, so they need to make a statement. And you are buying right into it.
The opposition to this proposal has nothing to do with religious liberty or constitutional rights. It has to do with the incomprehensible preoccupation of the hierarchy with sexuality and the refusal of that hierarchy to focus on the true message of the gospel: whatsoever you to to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do unto me.
If the bishops were to focus on that message and truly teach it, we would not have to worry about so many other things....
Michael, You state that you
Michael, You state that you don't understand Obama. Obama is liberal politician, but he is also a pragmatist. He knows the limits of his power -- Obama is our president, not our king. Many things that you may want him to do require the cooperation of Congress, which is recent years has become a highly dysfunctional and corrupt body.
Contrary to what you claim, Obama has repeatedly called for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but Republicans in Congress have blocked him. He tried to have Gitmo inmates brought to trail in the US, but both parties in Congress said no. He wanted a public healthcare option, but most Republicans and some Democrats in Congress blocked this possibility.
Look at his accomplishments. He was able to get health care reform passed, something that Nixon, Carter, and Clinton couldn't do. Although Gitmo is still open as a prison, Obama ensured that torture no longer takes place there. He ended the War in Iraq.
Presidents make mistakes -- they are not infallible. Many times they get bad advice, or misjudge a circumstance. In terms of this contraceptive debate, he extended a mandate that exists in a number of states to the federal level. That was wrong, but his rationale was not so illogical, and he has since fixed the mistake. From a perspective of Catholic morality and ethics, I think Obama is doing a far better job than either Clinton or Bush, and I doubt that you will find a better candidate.
You state Obama has been
You state Obama has been blocked with doing away the Bush tax cuts. Yet Obama had a super majority in the house and Senate for his first 2 years in office. A fact you simply choose to ignore.
This columnist is a true
This columnist is a true liberal rather than a merely individual with a liberal ideology.
This allows him to see how profound a change in the First Amendment that Obama intended to make, not through the legislature with a broad consensus, not judicially (though he lost Mount Tabor 9-0), but by executive order.
SCOTUS is not going to be supportive of the attempt, even with the compromise. The Bishops are going to win big. It does not matter how many people do or do not use contraception or whether the Bishops are or are not "oppressive".
I'm sorry, but not every
I'm sorry, but not every bishop has the personal decency of Archbishop Dolan. Too many bishops DO, to use your terminology, "make irresponsible and nasty comments about the president and who, in a manner I find unbecoming in a religious leader, assign foul motives to everything this president does," and "are going to oppose Obama no matter what he does because they hate Democrats."
How else to describe Raymond Burke, or Robert Finn (who has already condemned to hell every Catholic who voted for Obama last time), or Thomas Tobin, or scores more?
Basically, you're urging Obama to knuckle under, just to prove he's a better human being than Burke, Finn, Tobin, or Chaput.
" I think you have to admit
" I think you have to admit that the health of America’s political and social culture requires us to defend the First Amendment rights of our churches."
Actually, I think we have to defend the first Amendment rights of our people, each of them, individually. And that First Amendment says no government may "establish" a religion nor prohibit "the free exercise thereof."
If a religious person is legally empowered to require another individual to conform to his/her teachings, the religious person is "established" in power over that other person. That religious person is given a legal authority to suspend the other persons legal rights and impose a different set of standards. Those different standards are not standards which were reached in a process in which the other person had some power, some vote, some voice. It is a "foreign" power, in the sense that it replaces the power of the government in which this other person had invested his trust.
"As I indicated yesterday, the most offensive part of this whole mess is the suggestion that our faith-based charities, schools and hospitals are not sufficiently religious to qualify for a religious exemption."
It isn't about how religious the Catholic hospital or school is. It is about the fact that they employ people of all faiths, by the tens of thousands. So, here we are again, back to the problem of protecting individuals from being under the authority of a "foreign power".
There is room under the idea of "religious freedom" for those who are in common agreement to have some extraordinary power or exemption from the power of government over them. That is why the idea of "the free exercise thereof" can apply to a religious group. But we can give a religion that extraordinary power to make their own rules or to be exempt from societies legal rules only if we can reasonably assume everyone involved is in agreement about those rules. If we don't make sure of that common agreement we are creating religious fiefdoms - enclaves of super-religious authority in which people are compelled to live by rules they did not choose.
I don't see how a democratically elected government could make any decision other than the one the Obama administration made. If the Catholic Church is to be given the exemption it wants, then all those people who work for them are made quasi-citizens, who only have the civil rights and protections with which the Catholic Church agrees. Further, those people who work for a Catholic hospitals, universities, or charities are also subject to being required to live by religious tenets with which they do not agree.
How could a government that these people rely on give them over to another authority which can make rules as they please and suspends civil rights and liberties as they please.
Au contraire, Michael. It is
Au contraire, Michael. It is not that you "no longer" understand Obama. It's that you never understood him, but now you are beginning to.
No Catholic woman has to
No Catholic woman has to practice birth control, so no fear. The argument is over. Each woman gets to decide for herself. Accept the free will of women without trying to restrict women's rights to decide whether she wants to get pregnant or not.
Having insurance companies provide birth control solutions is between a woman and her doctor. Allowing and respecting women's free will choices is an "inalienable right."
The church is not forcing priests to marry and have children, so why force women?
Women in good conscience can vote for Obama or anyone else they chose - they have the right vote.
No one wants the unmarried Bishops to take us back to the dark ages.
One small point: the recent
One small point: the recent Supreme Court 9-0 ruling dealt with a more narrow issue: the right of a religious instiution to make decisions over who ministers in the religious organization. It was not about a government body ruling on anything in regards to a religious group: e.g. polygamy was banned by government and that was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is just not so simple. Sometimes the social good and law needs to be balanced with some religious values.
I am cheered by Mr. Winters's
I am cheered by Mr. Winters's reevaluation of the cult of Obama because he evinces his willingness to question the Administration and its actions. (Is the fog lifting?) President Obama's constant flaying of the Church at the phoney altar of women's health care surely should gain the attention of even the most weak-kneed NCR Catholic. To his great credit, Mr. Winters acknowledges that it is possible, just possible, the the natural rights accruing to religious freedom have been vitiated and that the bishops (But aren't they all just horrible old men?) are genuinely trying to gird the ramparts against statist overreach. Are so-called progressive Catholics so craven that they are prepared to throw their (and our) First Amendment rights under the bus? The regrettable answer, with perhaps a few exceptions, is "yes".
I'm one of those Catholics
I'm one of those Catholics who stood my ground in the last election. Despite warnings from the ambo at my parish that the way one votes could affect one's salvation, I voted for Mr. Obama. I donated to his campaign. I supported his health care initiative, though I was disappointed there was no public option. I held my breath as the issue of abortion was debated. I feel completely foolish today. The accomodation came too late for me. I've switched my registration to Independant, and I've sent a donation to the Santorum campaign. Yes, I'll have to hold my nose to some extent with him too.
"One small point: the recent
"One small point: the recent Supreme Court 9-0 ruling dealt with a more narrow issue: the right of a religious instiution to make decisions over who ministers in the religious organization."
Good point, Mount Tabor and Belmont Abbey are seperate issues. At the same time, 9-0 ruling in Mount Tabor does demonstrate that the first Amendment is still being interperted broadly and that the court was not going to change a long standing concept regarding its application.
My bet is that there is going to be some bleed over from Mount Tabor as the executive branch is trying to change (again) how a long standing concept is applied. The administration is going to have to demonstrate a "compelling need", not a "for the common good" level of proof.
The ban on polygamy is also a good point. But... I think it is important to note that while the recognition of polygamous marriages is banned, fundamentalist mormon leaders are free to declare polygamists as being married and adult followers are free to live in polygamous marriages. The marriages may not be state recognized, but adults remain free to follow their religous conscience on a day to day basis.
Bishops, like other leaders,
Bishops, like other leaders, depend on staff. It is not Dolan who is part of the GOP machine, but certain individuals in the Pro-Life Activities Directorate staff, most especially Richard Doerflinger, have an outsized influence and deep links to the National Right to Life Committee - which IS a GOP front group.
As for Obama, the reason he did not lead with the compromise, which has been found acceptable by both Catholic Health and Catholic Charities, whose employees are most deeply affected, was that if he had, there would be no room to walk back into compromise. Going to far to start was a good idea.
The key to the politics is if Obama loses any appreciable support over this. So far, he has not and won't unless the economy goes south and people need an excuse to not support him.
Plan B and Ella, by the way, do not cause abortion - they may prevent implantation of a blastocyst that is proven to be still under the genetic control of only one parent, and therefore arguably operating under her life force, not its own. Every blasocyst need not be saved. If they were people, that would not be true. If there are no life issues, there need be no accomodation at all, since the only objection to contraception is about sexuality and it is unseemly for employers, even religious ones, to have a say about the sexual morality of its employees.
The major flaw in both sides is the failure to state that the status quo is not no contraceptive coverage, but contraceptive coverage with copays, starting with the EEOC decision in December 2000. The HHS policy is actually a better deal for the Church. This should have been mentioned in August, when public comments were sought. This should also change the position of anyone who thinks Obama is suddenly unfriendly to the Church.
The distinction between who is ministerial and who is not for purposes of contraception mandates is not at all untoward. It is made in law all the time regarding employees of religious institutions. The Hossanah Tabor v. EEOC case only locks the courthouse doors to decisions within the Church on the rights of ministers within a Church. All this means is that women cannot sue to be given equal rights to ordination and not much more.
Private to MSW: Maryland is a safely Democratic state, Michael. Obama does not need your vote.
What did you expect from the
What did you expect from the most PROABORTION president in history? What did you expect from someone who told Planned Parenthood they would have a seat at the table in his administration?
What did you expect from a party which is so pro abortion that they try to destroy any pro life candidate with mimes of coathangers and deaths from back alley abortions?
What exactly did you expect from a President who supported infanticide for children who surive abortions?
Now you want to come up and say "I am suprised he did this!!!!"
If you had been paying attention this would not have suprised you at all.
Please tell me What did you expect give Obama's history?
As one who works daily with
As one who works daily with the poor, I am always amused at the suppositions and prejudices on display from the "social justice catholics". Never coming near the poor they champion, they blindly accept policies that the Democrat (dad was a labor guy, you see) Party tells them is "compassion". The disastrous consequences of these policies and the dehumanizing of the poor is never examined. Now that you have finally seen what others predicted years ago, I am happy for you that you are able to see truth. But know this. You are only beginning to understand. Kathleen Sibelius will not be fired - she was doing what the President and his cadre wanted. I do not remember any "social justice catholics" calling for her dismissal when she was persecuting Pro-lifers as governor of Kansas. It is time for the Bishops to get a new crew of advisors, ones who have labored long in the fields of truly countercultural Christianity. True champions of the poor and truly marginalized.
Below is an insightful,
Below is an insightful, explanation of the Church's teaching on the issue of contraception.
Personally, I think the Church's teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family is incredibly beautiful, dignified, and uplifting.
Whether one agrees or disagrees, this short essay provides a succinct and powerful explanation of the teaching, while leaving the open-minded reader with a lot of food for thought.
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/02/contraception-and-catholicis...
Post new comment