The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionRehabilitating Conscience
by Michael Sean Winters on Feb. 15, 2012
The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.
Words such as these are idle empty verbiage to the great world of philosophy now. All through my day there has been a resolute warfare, I had almost said conspiracy against the rights of conscience, as I have described it. Literature and science have been embodied in great institutions in order to put it down. Noble buildings have been reared as fortresses against that spiritual, invisible influence which is too subtle for science and too profound for literature. Chairs in Universities have been made the seats of an antagonist tradition. Public writers, day after day, have indoctrinated the minds of innumerable readers with theories subversive of its claims. As in Roman times, and in the middle age, its supremacy was assailed by the arm of physical force, so now the intellect is put in operation to sap the foundations of a power which the sword could not destroy. We are told that conscience is but a twist in primitive and untutored man; that its dictate is an imagination; that the very notion of guiltiness, which that dictate enforces, is simply irrational, for how can there possibly be freedom of will, how can there be consequent responsibility, in that infinite eternal network of cause and effect, in which we helplessly lie? and what retribution have we to fear, when we have had no real choice to do good or evil?
So much for philosophers; now let us see what is the notion of conscience in this day in the popular mind. There, no more than in the intellectual world, does "conscience" retain the old, true, Catholic meaning of the word. There too the idea, the presence of a Moral Governor is far away from the use of it, frequent and emphatic as that use of it is. When men advocate the rights of conscience, they in no sense mean the rights of the Creator, nor the duty to Him, in thought and deed, of the creature; but the right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment or their humour, without any thought of God at all. They do not even pretend to go by any moral rule, but they demand, what they think is an Englishman's prerogative, for each to be his own master in all things, and to profess what he pleases, asking no one's leave, and accounting priest or preacher, speaker or writer, unutterably impertinent, who dares to say a word against his going to perdition, if he like it, in his own way. Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obligations. It becomes a licence to take up any or no religion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to go to church, to go to chapel, to boast of being above all religions and to be an impartial critic of each of them. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for it, if they had. It is the right of self-will.
Throughout the debate over the HHS mandate, the difference between the way the Catholic Church looks at the world and the way the ambient culture looks at the world keeps popping up in ways that often have frustrated the debate, but which point to some of the most fascinating fault lines in our twenty-first century American culture. This difference has been most obvious when the conversation has turned to a word that has been at the heart of the controversy: conscience.
Conscience is not whim. According to my dictionary, conscience is “a knowledge or sense of right and wrong, with a compulsion to do right; moral judgment that opposes the violation of a previously recognized ethical principle and that leads to feelings of guilt if one violates such a principle.” Conscience is rooted, then, in the ethical truth of things and it includes the idea that one is compelled to follow it. Conscience dictates, it does not choose. Conscience is not rigid, because we live with many “previously recognized ethical principles” and sometimes those principles conflict, but it is insistent. Conscience is a voice within us, but it must be rooted in truth which we all know is no one’s private property.
For Catholics, conscience is nothing less than the voice of God speaking to our hearts as we face moral choices. It is the divine law within us. I have called attention before to this passage from Bl. John Henry Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk” that best illustrates, in Newman’s inimitable prose style, what we Catholics mean by conscience and why it is such a precious pearl we must guard with all our moral fiber:
But, in our day, we have something other than the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ.” We have pollsters. I find polls fascinating, especially those which, like the ones conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, examine people’s attitudes towards religious issues. But, last week they released a poll that obscured more than it revealed. The headline on their press release read: “Survey: Majority of Catholics Think Employers Should Be Required to provide Health Care Plans that Cover Birth Control at No Cost.” And, indeed, the poll indicated that Catholics not only support that proposition but that 52% indicated they wanted their religious institutions to provide such coverage. But, when you go to PRRI’s topline questionnaire, you find that the order in which the questions were asked might have tilted the outcome. First, they ask about Muslims and sharia law. Then, they ask about the availability of contraception to teenagers without parental consent. Then, they ask about whether employers should have to provide health care that covers contraception. Finally, they ask about whether or not religious institutions should be exempt, which was the core issue in the debate. See what’s missing? I suspect if the immediately preceding question had been about the First Amendment, rather than about contraception, the final answers to the final question might have been different. I do not say this to suggest that PRRI was rigging the game. If you inserted the First Amendment question, you would similarly tilt the result, but there has to be some preceding question. Especially in the debate over the HHS mandate, though, one side saw the central issue as being access to contraception and the other side saw it as being religious liberty. By placing a contraception question before, the pollsters set the parameters of the discussion. This is unavoidable, but it demonstrates the limit to which polls add to our knowledge. In politics, you never know exactly how a debate will play out. An event may intervene that changes the way issues are framed. A candidate may make a verbal gaffe. Economic data may confound a political narrative. To take an obvious example, whatever one’s thoughts about end-of-life care, the exploitation of Terri Schiavo for political purposes was so unseemly, it turned many people away from a thoughtful consideration of the issues because they were just disgusted that the poor family’s privacy was invaded so thoroughly.
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.
But, my real problem with polling is that it cannot tell the difference between the voice of conscience and a whim. On the phone, talking to a stranger, is different from going into a voting booth. Maybe it is just me, but I think voting is a very solemn thing. Growing up, I lived with friends in Greece on summer, and the dictatorship was having a referendum on a new constitution. The ballots to approve the constitution we emblazoned “Nai” or “yes” in bright blue, the Greek national color. The “no” vote or “Oxi” was in dull, battleship grey. The envelopes into which you placed your ballots were translucent and if you voted “Oxi” your name went on a list. Most shocking to the sensitivities of someone who grew up in a small New England town which, to this day, vests all legislative and executive authority in our annual town meeting, the day before the voting, two truckloads of armed guards took up their positions at the school across the street which served as the neighborhood’s polling place. That childhood memory is seared into my mind and so when I go to my local polling place now, I feel the stunning blessing that comes from voting in private with no guards at the entrance.
On the other hand, when a pollster calls, I always try to mess with them. I voice the most extreme sentiments permitted, and alternate between the most extreme left and the most extreme right, just to confuse the data. I do not like being put into other people’s categories. I remember a debate with one of the faculty members at my seminary when they wanted to discuss how I rated on the Meyers-Briggs personality test and I said, “Please don’t put me into a box until I am dead.” Pollsters seek to put people into boxes. That is their task, to turn people’s attitudes into statistics. I do not fault them for this and, as I say, I rely upon their work. But, the fact that politicians – of all ideological stripes – rely so heavily on the statistics pollsters yield has made our politicians more dull than they need be and more complacent and cautious than these momentous times demand.
I fear, however, that the lazy sense in which the word conscience was thrown around in the past few months indicates a difficulty that is at the heart of modernity. It is what Pope Benedict means when he speaks of the dictatorship of relativism. And, it did not begin with pollsters, nor with the rise of the modern interest-group based political parties. It was already among the acids of modernity at work in Newman’s time. Let’s finish with these words from his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, and then ask ourselves what we have done to rehabilitate the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ” in our own lives and in our politics:
Well, this sounds like quite
Well, this sounds like quite the tantrum to me. Someone not get their way? Because others believe differently, MSW seems to think he can hurl names at them rather than listen.
Congratulations. Conscience
Congratulations. Conscience is something only you and bishops have. The rest of us are led around blindly by our whims. What you fail to understand is that the bishops are not the Catholic church, and they don't have a monopoly on conscience. They are the single most suspect bloc within Christianity these days.
Heavens Michael what a cloudy
Heavens Michael what a cloudy amount of verbiage. Heres Joseph Ratzingers comment on conscience in reference to Vatican IIs Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World:-
"Over the Pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there stills stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. [The conscience of the individual] confronts him with a supreme and ultinate tribunal [,] which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even ofthe official church."
Also John Henry Newman from his letter to the same Duke of Norfolk:-
"Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after dinner toasts... I shall drink - to the Pope, if you please, - still to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards."
These are clear lucid statements worthy of attention. Perhaps a saunter into
the mind of Aquinas would also help. There you will find the whole matter connected to the free will. It is an absolute for Thomas that the conscience be free and uncoerced. This simply has to do with our salvation depending upon our own individual responsible choice.
Much has become clouded due the the simple progress man has made in both science and medicine as well as thought. Finding the right means to express
old ideas in new forms does tend to create problems. Some will feel the original intent has been lost while others will say no it has been recognised and even enhanced.
At any rate it is Catholic Doctrine that one persons conscience cannot be used to coerce another's. It is here the the Catholic Employer is forbidden
to impose his conscience on his employees. That represents an evil which
deprives other human beings of their god given right to act responsibly
according to their own conscience. Our Bishops need to stop violating
existing church doctrine. It is really that simple. They cannot represent
a non existent collective conscience as no such entity is recognised in our
doctrine.
That we all may be willing to seek the elusive truth.
TomC (Ref:: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp/242)
Take another look at this
Take another look at this sentence from the end of your second paragraph, above:
"Conscience is a voice within us, but it must be rooted in truth which we all know is no one’s private property."
Now tell us, please: are you intimating that our bishops violated or ignored their consciences by mishandling the clergy sex abuse crisis, or by continuing to cover up same, even in the name of "preventing great scandal"?
Religious liberty can indeed protect a person without a conscience, but not forever, not indefinitely. In the indefatigable court of public opinion, our bishops are already being held accountable, to some degree, for what they did and for what they failed to do, in conscience.
What's next?
Mr. MSW quotes Blessed
Mr. MSW quotes Blessed Cardinal Newman, one of the great inspirers of VII.
But, strangely, doesn’t mention the famous conclusion:
“Antonio Corduba, a Spanish Franciscan, states the doctrine with still more point, because he makes mention of Superiors. "In no manner is it lawful to act against conscience, even though a Law, or a Superior commands it."—De Conscient., p. 138.
And the French Dominican, Natalis Alexander:—"If, in the judgment of conscience, through a mistaken conscience, a man is persuaded that what his Superior {261} commands is displeasing to God, he is bound not to obey."—Theol. t. 2, p. 32.
The word "Superior" certainly includes the Pope; Cardinal Jacobatius brings out this point clearly in his authoritative work on Councils, which is contained in Labbe's Collection, introducing the Pope by name:—"If it were doubtful," he says, "whether a precept [of the Pope] be a sin or not, we must determine thus:—that, if he to whom the precept is addressed has a conscientious sense that it is a sin and injustice, first it is duty to put off that sense; but, if he cannot, nor conform himself to the judgment of the Pope, in that case it is his duty to follow his own private conscience, and patiently to bear it, if the Pope punishes him."—lib. iv. p. 241. (...)
I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html
CONSCIENCE OR COERCION ?
CONSCIENCE OR COERCION ? ....... MSW, it is revealing how you so creatively spin polls among Catholics that undercut your position.
The "anti-corruption crusade" is not a battle between conscience and whim; it is a battle between conscience and coercion.
The Founding Fathers both respected and feared "freedom of religion", which is why they absolutely prohibited any government established church.
The popes strongly condemned this separation of church and state for almost two centuries until Vatican II, when over 2,500 bishops reversed this pernicious "dogma".
The bishops were convinced to change this "dogma" mainly by the arguments of American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray, who had previously been brutally silenced and denied his "religious liberty", thanks to the inquisitorial efforts of the ideological forebears of the pope's current right-wing US apologists.
Murray, and most of the 2,500 Vatican II bishops, would be astonished at the "anti-contraception crusade", which may explain in part why the American Jesuit Universities Association has bravely expressed public surpport for Obama's health insurance compromise.
American women, and their sexual partners, overwhelmingly support planning pregnancies. They reject the pope's Rabbit Rule--breed, breed, breed...
God has enabled people today to plan pregnancies; we should accept God's gift and reject decisively hierarchical ploys to make us feel guility about that.
Some in the hierarchy may actually have rejected sexual intimacy. That is their decision. Not the decision of the remaining 99% of the People of God.
You may have noticed that the well funded "papal SuperPAK" appears to have scrapped together a group of conservative "scholars" to instantly sign a predictably ideological "letter" supporting the "anti-contraception crusade", thereby, in effect, endorsing the right-wing Republican position. The apparent timidity and/or cupidity of so many in the purported Catholic "elite" never ceases to both amaze and disappoint me.
For more on this "letter" and on the pope's counter-productive campaign to replace Obama with a "friendlier" US prosecutor-in-chief like Santorum, please note the comment, "Apologists Applaud, So?", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/letter-decrying-contraception-compr...
What I see happening in our
What I see happening in our culture today are people trying to bend the "Truth" to fit where society defines itself to be. I know for a fact there are RC priests who believe the Bible is not to be taken seriously and must be re-interpreted to fit society. If 65% of Catholics believe that contraception isn't immoral, then it must be okay and the Bishops need to get on board. In reality everyone on the NCR site is anonymous and we really don't know if they are genuine or just pulling our chain.
What amazes me is, all the columnists on NCR who write the daily "politically correct" articles and appear so knowledgeable on their social and geo-political views but have never once written a piece on what "Truth" is!
When writers & readers are challenged on the moral dilemma of contraception, the argument shifts to slavery, the poor, the unjust war, green energy or what have you, and somehow that is supposed to transcend the issue.
When Catholics gush over President Obama giving a speech where he says "I am a Christian, therefore we must protect the right to abort", and fail to square his words with the truth, I feel discouraged.
When Wm. Wilberforce fought so hard to end the slave trade he was hated with a passion, by church leaders, by politicians, by friends. But he stood on principle. He understood the Truth. MLK Jr. would be spinning in his grave if he knew how overreaching our government is becoming in the affairs of African American families and how they are being subjugated by the ideology of sterilization, abortion and contraception.
When Jesus was tempted in the desert, the one throwing Bible verses at him was Satan. Satan's words are the perfect example of a dead religion. That is what we are becoming if we don't quickly wake up. My perception is a lot of Catholics on this site are culturally Christian but consistently block out the truth especially when it interferes with their agenda.
Andrew K
Please don't drag Dr. King
Please don't drag Dr. King into your apologetic. I remember Dr. King and actually hearing his words and reading what he wrote on this topic. Despite the attempts at revisionist history made by Alveda King and others, Dr. King was ahead of his times, and a strong supporter of family planning and contraception even before contraception was legal in his home state — something that infuriated southern religious zealots. Alveda with her new-found fame with Priests for Life (a money-grabbing organization which disseminates medical disinformation ad lib) has attempted to claim that Dr. King only supported "natural family planning" — an absurd claim not supported by what the man actually said, or even the times and what was available. Dr. King was neither Catholic nor a Victorian prude. He was a pragmatic realist who recognized reproductive slavery when he saw it.
.
Prior to Griswold v Ct and the development of hormone contraceptives becoming widely available (and legal), "natural planning" was whatever you could figure out for yourself and hope it worked (the so-called "rhythm method" of those days among other equally unreliable methods such as withdrawal and various other old wives' tales). Dr. King was a smart man who understood the connection between poverty, reproductive ignorance and the Rabbit Rule of breeding. He wanted women, especially women of color, to have bodily autonomy and reliable control of their reproduction (without interference of others) in order to improve their lot in life, and the lives of their families. In all of this King shared common cause with Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. His focus in the matter was social justice, not a religious morality sex obsession such as displayed by RC bishops.
.
Dr. King and his wife were indeed well-informed supporters of Planned Parenthood. They were nobody's dupes, as Alveda and other culture warriors suggest while they attempt to spin a revision of the actual historical facts. Alveda's attitude toward Dr. King and his wife is frankly insulting and plays into all manner of ugly racial stereotypes, which is quite remarkable coming from an African American woman. As a result, she continues to be at odds with much of her own family. She would better serve the memory of Dr. King if she would just admit that she has adopted an extreme controlling religious philosophy of reproduction that Dr. King would have entirely rejected as just another denigrating form of slavery, by his own words.
.
All right, Aileen!!!! Well
All right, Aileen!!!! Well done and necessary.
Aileen I mention the man
Aileen
I mention the man because of his high character. I don't believe he would permit the destruction of African American families through government ordained sterilization. If you feel I am misrepresenting his legacy I appologize to you. It was not my intent. I am being honest in my opinion and I'm not trying to stir controversy.
Andrew K
The horror of past state
The horror of past state eugenics (involuntary sterilization) programs that targeted the poor and minorities have nothing to do with legitimate family planning such as promoted by Dr. King and PP, to improve the lot of women and families across the board — to empower those women with reproductive education and self-determination. Unfortunately, certain anti-abortion/anti-contraception groups and individuals have quoted Sanger out of context to make it sound like she promoted that sort of assault and battery committed against women in eugenics... which she did NOT. That is why the same groups/individuals try to separate Dr. King from PP, or to make it sound like he was somehow duped.
.
The state I live in is presently trying to dig out of litigation related to old eugenics laws, so I know quite a bit about the origins and implementation of those laws, and who promoted them. Eugenics was heavily supported by white, middle and upper class religious folks, ostensibly for society's "moral good" — it had strong support from organized religion. The targeted women were considered to be too stupid, too immoral, too poor, etc., to be allowed to decide for themselves in matters of reproduction. The eugenics position (dis-empowerment, no choice) was/is the exact opposite of the position taken by Dr. King and Planned Parenthood (empowerment, choice). Actually, the religious and dominance mindset of eugenics has more in common with the mindset of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception groups. Both of those groups reject self-determination and individual moral choices in reproduction, and for the same reasons. That might also explain why, instead of loudly advocating in behalf of eugenics victims and compensation for that injustice, there is a deafening silence from anti-abortion/anti-contraception groups and the USCCB.
.
"When Wm. Wilberforce fought
"When Wm. Wilberforce fought so hard to end the slave trade he was hated with a passion, by church leaders, by politicians, by friends. But he stood on principle."
A man to admire. Do you know that Catholic bishops in the U.S. were writing that slavery was not something condemned by the Churchwell into the early 1800s. Should Catholics have been silent? When thousands were tortured by the Church, were they right and Catholics should not say anything? When witches were burned at the stake by the Church, were they right?
Andrew, our Church is capable of error. People get hurt by those errors and we are complicit in administering that hurt when we acquiesce in silence. We have a duty to speak up. Of course, the hierarchy does not believe it has a duty to attend to what the laity says or thinks. But we can talk to each other and discuss what seems good and what seems wrong, we can explore this only with each other because the hierarchy does not attend to what we say.
The Holy Spirit does not reside only in the hierarchy, it resides in us, too.
ATF, Your comments are
ATF,
Your comments are difficult to respond to because I don't know what you are trying to say. Of course the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for. Certainly the current group of Bishops wouldn't know a "principle" if it hit them on the forehead! When I comment that I support the Church's religious liberty it doesn't mean I support the Catholic Church. It means I support all church's right to defend their moral principles and a government imposed healthcare plan cannot and must not take that right away. I hope I am clear.
Andrew K
Dear Michael Winters, The
Dear Michael Winters,
The more you write to "spin" your opinion on this topic, the "curiouser"
you become.
Andrew, I do not recall
Andrew, I do not recall President Obama ever saying "I am a Christian, therefore we must protect the right to abort"...I believe he said he protects a woman's right to choose. Our individual consciences end where another's begins. Each person has been granted by God Free Will...even if it means that they may choose something that is contrary to God's will.
No, not in all one sentance,
No, not in all one sentance, but he professes to be a Christian and at the same time he is the most radical pro-abortion president in history. I should make you cringe. It does me!
Andrew K
I agree with you last
I agree with you last sentance. But the trend today is to reshape our society to reflect everything without God in it. It is a culture of anti-God, an amoral culture. I am just one person, but I am not willing to submit my values to a godless culture just because someone says it's unfair to those who don't believe in the same things that I do. Too bad! I want to uphold the things that are good and I will fight to protect them. I will not capituate to a government that is trying to make everyone equal.
Andrew K.
"But the trend today is to
"But the trend today is to reshape our society to reflect everything without God in it."
Andrew, I remember years ago the headlines in Time Magazine and across newspapers "God is Dead!" It wasn't true then - what was that, the 1970s? - and it isn't true now.
Faith and spirituality may not look like they used to look and people may not live out faith the way they used to, but it is still here. People left the old structures of faith because those old structures don't give them what they want and need. Here is a hint: the women want a place and people want a voice that is heard. You have read my comments before - people leave because of the monolithic, hierarchial, absolutist, intransigent Scribes and Pharisees of today. Jesus freed the people of his time from those who worshipped the rules more than God. After 2000 years, the people he freed are again trapped.
We can't go back. There is now more education, more communication, more light in the dark and secret corners of the Vatican, the empowerment of individuals through democratic forms of government, the freedom of minorities and women to an equality in the world, new choices we make in how we order our lives. It is time for the Church to move forward into this world. God is here. Faith is here.
I can't be the dumb,
I can't be the dumb, compliant, female womb the Church expects of me any more. Perhaps that is just a whim on my part... but I just can't do it. Pure stubborness. That is all it is. Blind willfulness.
What am I to do with my mind, heart, brain, education, - when I am forbidden to use them?
I think that the best
I think that the best argument that this is an issue of contraception and not freedom of conscience is the council of Bishops themselves. President Obama came up with a way to get women contraception without any church involvement. The Bishops are in an uproar because that means women are still receiving contraception. While I am sure that the Church is perfectly happy to claim freedom of conscience and get the support of more liberal Catholics, they are punching those liberal Catholics in the nose and throwing them under the bus by refusing to support the compromise along with the Catholic Health Association.
Finally, the abuse issue cannot be separated from the contraception issue. The Bishops believe that contraception is "intrinsically evil." They do not believe that child rape is. I have a very difficult time accepting moral Guidence from a group whose moral priorities are so disordered. I can certainly understand why people of different faiths would have the same difficulty.
As usual, I don't quite
As usual, I don't quite understand the bitterness of your commenters, MSW, but I love the post--thanks for bringing Bl. Newman's crystalline thought to bear on the issues of our own day. Keep up the good fight!
What's at issue under the HHS
What's at issue under the HHS contraception mandate is not the rights of people to choose contraception if they want it, but rather of forcing those whose consciences reject contraception to buy it for others.
If we truly respect conscience, we will continue to allow people to decide for themselves whether to buy contraception or not, as we have been. Forcing people who don't agree with it to pay for it is absolutely a violation of conscience. That's the issue here. I can't believe how many people think it's fine to say in effect, "What I do in my bedroom is none of your business, but oh by the way, you will have to foot the bill for my choices." In other words: my conscience; not yours.
There are two ways to think
There are two ways to think about that. One is that Obama has taken a step to remove the Catholic institution a step or two away from directly buying the contraceptives. That is, the Church won't be paying for it except as much as their co-mingled money with the entire insurance provider is paying for it. I mean, if they get health insurance from Aetna and XYZ company gets health insurance from Aetna, I assure you that the monies of both employers are co-mingled at Aetna when all the claims are paid. The connection with this "evil" is more remote than it was, even though it was fairly remote in the first place.
Here is the second way to look at it. Catholic hospitals are paid for the medical services they provide
*by individuals who receive services from the Catholic hospital, who may or may not be Catholics who oppose contraceptives;
*through reimbursement of expenses from insurance companies that individuals or their employers paid for, who may or may not oppose contraceptives;
*and through medicare and medicaid reimbursement, paid for by tax-payers who may or may not oppose contraceptives.
In other words, the money a Catholic hospital runs on is not contributions from the people in the pews. It is money from the general populations they provide services to and hundreds of millions of it is tax payer money. My suspicion is, if you polled all those who use hospital services and asked them if it was okay to use some of the money they paid (personally, to their insurance provider, or as a tax payer) so that contraceptives could be included in hospital employees' health insurance - if you asked them that concerning the money they helped provide the hospital, they would say it was just fine.
Consciences must be well
Consciences must be well informed, not only by what one thinks God is saying, but by truth. Pope Paul VI chose to ignore the conscience dictates of those who were advising him on the truth and the Church continues to ignore embryology in its contention that Plan B and Ella cause abortion of a life. While one must protect life if there is a possiblity it might be more than potential, the Church has consistently failed to do its homework on whether there is any possibility that a blastocyst has its own soul, rather than continuing to operate under the life energy of its mother, which is indicated because it is developing solely under her genetic instructions. Anyone who uses contraception under the moral certainty that this is the case is doing no wrong, even if the Church is uncertain.
Post new comment