Religious Liberty Issue Seeping into the Mainstream

a) Many understandably angry and smart bishops to Obama: Honor and respect our Catholic consciences. Do not punish or admonish us for our conscience-based beliefs.
b) Many understandably angry and smart laity to bishops: Honor and respect our Catholic consciences. Do not punish or admonish us for our conscience-based beliefs.
c) Is it too simplistic to recommend a joint Prez/Bishops statement that says we believe the primacy and authority of a rigorously formed and informed conscience must be and will be honored, respected, and not punished? In our country. In our Church.
d) Who would or could be against the logic and intellectual consistency of that?

Michael, it would be nice if Religious Liberty had anything at all to do with
the argument. Unfortunately it is very clear that this is a smokescreen.
Some of our Bishops want to portray a picture of some form of 'persecution' for political/economic reasons. Simply put, if you want to play the game then you have to follow the rules. Like it or not the government, on behalf of all of us sets out the rules to follow when you want to accept government funding. The insurance argument hides the real cause of concern. Canada and
most European countries provide and have been providing exactly the kind of insurance for many decades without any ecclesiastical interference or objection, that our few American bishops are tryingg to make hay out of.
There is a simple solution. Do not accept the funds. This will relieve the
situation. Of course some will leave the employ of the church run hospitals.
So be it. But apparently that will not do for the bishops want to both have the cake and eat it. I learned as a little boy that taking my ball and going home had some bitter consequences. But a squabble and a bloody nose was easily remedied. Not so the interference in the private lives of people and a deliberate attempt to dictate the content of their consciences which is a violation of the official church's position on the human conscience. [consult
Pope Benedict and Aquinas on this issue].
I could care less about the 'mainstream', I care deeply about our Catholic
Doctrine being skewed for political/economic reasons with a gloss of Religious Freedom.
Veni Creator Spiritus, mentes tuorum visita!
TomC

when do you change this column's title to Distinctly GOP?

and leave my Holy Mother out of it?

Have you noticed, Mr. Winters, how much the NCR is endorsing the government's assault on religious liberty? Several writers are all for it; and the editors are shrugging their shoulders.

Meanwhile, does anyone at NCR read the comments? Your own readers, Mr. Winters, are so badly informed and so eager to have President Obama smash the Church, it's depressing.

Reminds me of nothing so much as all the Catholics who were happy to help Henry VIII and others shipwreck the Church and martyr Thomas More and John Fisher.

Although I am often not a fan of the current crop of bishops, I stand with them on the issue posed by the HHS directive. I believe it is a matter of interference with the freedom of conscience/religion. I notice that those who believe that contraception and abortion shouldn't be mixed together in the popular mind may have overlooked the fact that some forms of contraception (IUDs and the morning after pill) in fact do produce very early term abortions by preventing the fertilized egg from lodging in the wall of the uterus. This is NOT equivalent to the familiar birth control pill which regulates a woman's hormonal balance so that she doesn't ovulate. Of course, if one doesn't believe that a newly conceived entity deserves the "human" designation, this is not abortion. This issue is making us all look at when the transition occurs from "product of conception" to "unborn child." One way to look at it is to picture yourself as an expectant parent. Would you see the newly conceived organism as a glob of cells or as a baby? Would your opinion depend on whether you wanted a baby at that particular time?

As an example of how opinions can change depending on one's perspective, in a recent discussion with a friend, he stated that he opposed abortion in all cases except the situation where a woman had been raped and conceived by her rapist. He was adamant that no woman should have to bear a rapist's baby. I am adopted (my birth parents are unknown) and pointed out that I might have been the product of rape. He immediately changed his opinion.

To reiterate, some (not all) forms of contraception do effectively abort the newly conceived entity, which one may consider a human being or a ball of cells depending on one's perspective. I believe the bishops have the right to consider such an entity human and to freely exercise their conscience in not facilitating what they consider to be murder.

And additionally, this is a separate issue from the issue of child abuse cover-ups. Some of the hierarchy have behaved contemptibly in shielding priestly abusers. Those who shielded abusers behaved with cowardice and expediency. But they have not forfeited their right to behave morally, according to their consciences, in another arena.

I saw Steve's interview. Considering the number of Catholics who disagree with the Bishops, Dr. Schneck is sadly misinformed and probably quoting from one of MSWs prior articles on this, almost word for word. Most Catholics disagree with the bishops on birth control and most employees, if you speak to them off the record, likely are grateful that the bishops won't be able to interfere with their health care choices.