The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionTime for Civil Disobedience?
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 25, 2012
In 2006, Cardinal Roger Mahony, the most prominent carrier of the social justice tradition of Cardinal Bernardin, said that he would call upon his flock to practice civil disobedience in the face of a proposed law that would have banned Catholic charities from assisting undocumented workers. Mahony rightly invoked the right of the Church to pursue its Gospel-mandated ministries without interference from the State.
Mahony delivered a sharp rebuke to the Obama administration following last week's announcement that it refused to enlarge the conscience exemption from HHS mandated health insurance coverage of procedures the Church opposes.
So, I offer a modest proposal. The U.S. cardinals should pick a day and, with the support of like-minded clerics from other religious traditions, come to Washington and chain themselves to the White House fence, get arrested, and bring further attention to the issue of religious liberty. Civil disobedience by clergy has a proud tradition, including Dr. King's protests against segregation and the countless clergy who engaged in civil disobedience to protest the Vietnam War. The cardinals might wish to choose the Feast of St. Thomas More, June 22, to make their point although that would give the event a distinctly Catholic flavor. Or they might choose a secular anniversary, say, August 21, which was the day in 1789 that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Bill of Rights.
You will note that the link above to the story about Cardinal Mahony's 2006 call for civil disobedience brings you to an editorial by the New York Times. Then, the Times applauded Mahony. Will they have the courage of their commitment to the First Amendment again?
Different situations, if you
Different situations, if you ask me.
No, it's not time for civil
No, it's not time for civil disobedience on this score. It's time to help Catholics pay for contraception.
And you're welcome to write
And you're welcome to write them a check for the cost.
The rest of us would like to be excused from cooperation with what the Church determines to be an evil. If you don't agree, you can at least respect our right to that.
If you believe something is
If you believe something is wrong, but your boss or you job description tells you to do it, you should not do it and not be expected to do it. This goes for members of the military, too.
I believe that for most
I believe that for most Catholics in the US today - this really is a non-issue. That's been proven by the overwhelming percentage of Catholics who use contraception already - and will continue to do so. If "Catholic" institutions plan to remain in the public realm, particularly institutions such as hospitals and universities, accepting all the benefits and funding that go along with it, then they should expect to play by the same rules as everybody else...
I think I would be far more likely to join in a civil disobedience against the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the United States - for the bishops' lack of leadership, cover-ups of sexual abuse, obsession with "pelvic issues", and a general disdain toward the capacity of lay Catholics to have a fully formed faith and intellectual life that will no longer simply fall in line to the hierarchy's whims and dictates...
Good argument. Along the
Good argument. Along the same lines if the government forces Jewish delis to pay for a serve bacon we shouldn't be upset because most Jews eat bacon anyway.
I'm with you! Sign me up!
I'm with you! Sign me up!
While I do not beleive that
While I do not beleive that religious liberty is at stake and disagree strongly with the reasons you present for the bishops to do civil disobedience, I concur with your rationale that they should be brave enough to take their message to the public forum and the streets. It would be sobering for them to be arrested and prompt a great discussion of the general and particular issues.
A good idea in NCR, wow never
A good idea in NCR, wow never thought I would see it. You are right. We should resist this now before they extend it to other issues.
I hope MSW takes a minute to
I hope MSW takes a minute to read Jamie Manson's column.
Let it go Michael. There is
Let it go Michael. There is no substance to this matter. There is also no
way you could provide any rational argument for denying free will and having
a gospel mandate. For heavens sake. The people have spoken, Humanae Vitae
is dead. Of all the things we ought to be striking for these pathetic
aberrations are not it. Conscience implies freedom to choose, earlier known as free will. If you use coercion to block the freedom of conscience you then
get into deep theological water on a theonomous right of the individual.
The church cannot act on behalf of the human conscience. From Aristotle through Thomas Aquinas conscience is the act of a free person. It is not something the church or papacy controls. The Church can state its case but it
is up to the individual to evaluate the message and then use their conscience.
Conscience is not related to Unity in any way shape or form. The only thing that makes our salvation possible is free will, otherwise, we are mere animals. You do seem to be having some kind of crisis about this and I do hope you can find some relief very soon.
God Bless,
TomC
Thank you, TomC. I could not
Thank you, TomC. I could not say it better, so I won't!
Humanae Vitae is dead? Where
Humanae Vitae is dead? Where did you get this idea? If you knew the hundreds of young and serious Catholic men and women (couples included) that I do, you would soon find out that your view of the Church is quite warped and narrowminded. There are many youngsters out there (myself included) fully committed to the Church's moral teachings and have shaped our consciences accordingly. We have high degrees in philosophy and theology (I have a master's in philosophy and will soon have a master's in theology) and are quite competent in these matters. Disobey all you want, but do not bring all of the laity into your camp of dissention. We can speak for ourselves.
I do marriage prep for my
I do marriage prep for my diocese. All were either using or planned to use at least one form of birth control. Statistically, 98+ percent of catholics use birth control, therefore less than 2% use NFP, derived from Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body. They are both dead as far as the world is concerned. Your own example states "hundreds", which is a nit in the reality since in 2011, there were around 170.000 catholic marriages in the U.S. Degrees mean very little if you do not use your God given mind to think, not regurgitate others. That's why we value some of the theologians from the past, they actually thought about things and brought out new ideas...now others are doing the same. I'll bet you earned your degrees from Steubenville or similar place...they are the place that teach warped and narrow-minded views.
Read the Gospels again: The
Read the Gospels again: The truth is not a matter of public opinion (e.g., John 6). But, small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life.
What utter condescension. You
What utter condescension. You claim unverified statistics, reduce truth to praxis, undermine the relationships I have with many faithful Catholics (not just couples, read what I wrote), imply that I do not think, and belittle my education. Nice. Glad you're in marriage prep...what a great pastoral witness.
By the way, I obtained my degrees from the Catholic University of America.
Oh, the hundreds include
Oh, the hundreds include armchair theorists!
If one swims only in red
If one swims only in red water how can one come out any color but red?
There is hope for the future
There is hope for the future of the Church with Catholics like Kyle D...
I would ask, are you married;
I would ask, are you married; if so, how many children do you have? I realize this is a personal question and I would not expect you to answer it publically.
As one of 12 children and the mother of seven, I think I can speak with some experience on the need for birth control in raising an emotionally healthy family. In these situations, one has to question the edict handed down and follow a well-formed conscience which most Catholics seem to have done.
No, I am not married, but I
No, I am not married, but I am surrounded by many, many people who are. Of my married friends, some of whom have children, the overall consensus is that artificial contraception is just simply not the answer to questions of family size; nearly all of them successfully practice some form of NFP. The idea of actually stopping a natural bodily process (such as is the case with the pill) or introducing some sort of artificial barrier (condoms, etc.) is slowly becoming prepugnant to many people. Advances in science have greatly added to our knowledge of the human body, and family size can be prayed about and discerned through natural means (the body is not a constant baby-producer.)
But here's what is fundamentally at stake: whose sovereignty are we promoting here? If life is a gift (and there is no gift that God gives that is not somehow simultaneously a cross/burden), then one cannot be both receiver and arbiter. Babies, as precious as they are, can indeed be inopportune and in some cases an excessive burden, and so couples should take seriously their role in the participation of generating life. Gaudium et spes makes this point beautifully, "Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby *cooperators* with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love." (G&S 50.) This is a discerning participation in God's sovereignty, not a faulty exaltation of our own wills. By employing artificial means of controlling birth, a couple is not even oriented towards the end to which the conjugal act ought to be directed. Couples who practice NFP recognize that family size is important to consider, but their sexual activity is still ordered towards a participation in the generation of life. Couples who use artificial birth control frustrate what is natural, impede nature, and essentially use each other for mutual masturbation.
Now of course this is all built upon a very solid philosophy of nature, of ends, of potency and actuality. People of good will may not follow it or follow the premises of the argument. I personally believe that the errors of modern and post-modern philosophy, which essentially involve the total dissolution of metaphysics, have led many people of good will to adopt the ideas of utilitarianism and consequentialism. Therefore my oppposition to artificial birth control is primarily philosophical; this is the first part of forming my conscience on the issue. But the Church's teaching authority also makes it quite clear that artificial contraception is contrary to not only our natural good but our supernatural good; this must also inform my conscience. Simply "thinking through" an issue is not enough to form one's conscience, for one can think quite poorly and one can convince oneself of some pretty outrageous things in order to do whatever one wants. Every thief, murderer, adulterer, etc. has to justify his/her action before acting...this act of justification is NOT acting according to one's conscience, it is simply a perverted use of reason.
"Conscience" cannot be our scapegoat. It is not a permissive principle. Again, turning to the Second Vatican Council, "When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law" (Gaudium et Spes, 51).
The Church has been consistent on this teaching. If you are a Catholic person, you are bound to take very seriously this teaching. The obstinate and vicious opposition with which people on this website approach this issue goes to show that consciences are not well formed at all. Statements like, "The bishops have lost all moral authority, therefore I'm not listening to them" and the like demonstrate an obstinate will, not a formed conscience. By all means, follow your conscience (which means pursuing the good as you see it), but you better very seriously do all in your power to make sure that what you are pursuing is indeed the good. The Church's teaching authority is here to help direct this process; a Catholic *cannot* form his/her conscience well without taking the Church's teachings seriously, and this means not blatantly dismissing them.
NFP educators tout NFP as
NFP educators tout NFP as being as effective as the 'Pill', that being about 98%.
If that's true, then there are that many less pregnancies as in taking the pill. And thus, much more control on the part of the couple, or so it seems.
So, technically, the unitive and procreative aspects of marital intercourse are separated, and considering all the work involved in preventing that pregnancy via NFP, which is highly obsessive when you learn the methods involved where the mindset is prioritized and prepared for ---the--- moment as opposed to swallowing a pill, one's boudoir indeed becomes a 'lab'.
Fact is, NFP is not effective in preventing pregnancies, it has a failure rate far higher than condoms. And it is precisely that failure rate (somewhere around 25%, but other studies have it higher) that keeps NFP within the Vatican's permission so to speak with reference at allowing Catholics to 'plan' their families. Rome knows to a science that NFP is not effective so all NFP winds up being is crumbs off the table to silence the laity.
"But here's what is fundamentally at stake: whose sovereignty are we promoting here? If life is a gift (and there is no gift that God gives that is not somehow simultaneously a cross/burden), then one cannot be both receiver and arbiter. Babies, as precious as they are, can indeed be inopportune and in some cases an excessive burden, and so couples should take seriously their role in the participation of generating life."
Surely you jest. Conception as a --duty--?? Babies as a burden to be endured? Your diatribe is pitiful and it is clear that the hierarchy has you eating out of their hands. That you can assume that "God" whose mind the hierarchy can read, (sic) is the author of the nonsense that, what, we are all supposed to assent to (?), is ludicrous and I'm being kind, believe me.
Just because demands on marriage are written in a poetic and prosaic manner does not lend any validity to that opinion, just as your plea above reflects an enslaved mind on bended knee. Best example of same? Humane Vitae.
"The idea of actually stopping a natural bodily process (such as is the case with the pill) or introducing some sort of artificial barrier (condoms, etc.) is slowly becoming prepugnant to many people. "
Sorry, I highly question that premise. Not sure who you are surrounded by, but sooner or later, upwards of 95% of those starting out on NFP do, in fact, employ effective means of family planning. After the sixth or seventh child as a result of NFP, there is, indeed, a whole lot of head scratching and a walk back to the drawing board for another
go at it.
Nice try, Kyle, but you missed the mark big time. And you need a reality-basked awakening related to the demands from the Vatican on married laity and the dismissive lack of respect for same.
Keep treading, anonymous. I
Keep treading, anonymous. I put Gaudium et spes before you. Reject it, do you?
Gaudium et Spes left the door
Gaudium et Spes left the door open to acceptance of artifical contraception; hence the shock of Humanae Vitae. No one would argue with what GS says -- marriage involves a procreative mission -- but that is a blessing, not a legalistic duty. HV makes it a curse.
Hundreds who follow HV,
Hundreds who follow HV, millions who don't. Winters' article is one of the dottiest things I have ever read.
Which side are you arguing
Which side are you arguing for? The issue at stake here is the freedom of Catholics to not be forced to violate their consciences by paying for drugs or procedures that are completely elective. The government should be allowed to force this on us?
Ya gotta be kiddin
Ya gotta be kiddin Mr.Winters! Read your colleagues - Manson and DeGosse's articles, reflect and repent, for your own sake. You are placing yourself firmly alongsids....what's his name the fanatic who runs the catholic whatever...Donahue?
The hierarchy's lame attempts
The hierarchy's lame attempts to dictate to its employees on birth control is not in the same league as recognizing Christ in welcoming the stranger and resisting attempts to interfere with it. Blastocysts are not the stranger, they just aren't anything but cells until gastrulation. If that were not true, I'd agree with you, but biological fact is fact. If a soul is the guiding energy behind human development, you simply can't find it until gastrulation. My soul was there when my development was an expression of my entire being. That did not happen when I was a blastocyst, when one is simply an expression of their maternal DNA with paternal DNA going along for the ride but not active in development.
Way, way, way over the
Way, way, way over the top.
And this chaining of themselves to the fence, to serve what end?
It's mind-boggling that any Catholic with a head on his or her shoulders would want the Catholic community to die on the hill in 2012 to keep the magisterial teaching on birth control alive! Years and years after the huge majority of the faithful have rejected that teaching, for strongly defensible reasons . . . .
We need to choose other hills on which to die right now, as a Catholic community--not the least of which is seeking to communicate to the culture at large our teachings about the obligation to care for the least among us and to reach out to those on the margins of society.
The bishops' choice (and your defense of them) to keep the pelvic issues first and foremost in the public conversation badly serves our tradition in the public square, and assures that our most significant values don't reach the conversation of the public square.
The magisterium is wrong about contraception and sexual ethics in general, insofar as it weds its sexual ethical teaching to a biologistic notion of natural law. Time to stop defending this nonsense, if you really do care about our core values and what they might contribute to the important public conversations right now.
Here, here! Bill for Bishop,
Here, here! Bill for Bishop, sez I.
He is certainly more clued in
He is certainly more clued in than most bishops.
William, it's precisely
William, it's precisely BECAUSE the bishops have failed to be pushy about "pelvic issues" that we've got the mess we've got. If they'd been prickly about chastity 40 years ago, our culture and nation would've been impeded from having such a dearth of understanding of how we best avoid rampant poverty.
If you mean to say that
If you mean to say that poverty stems from a lack of chastity, I couldn't disagree more. As I read Catholic social teaching, it does not blame the poor for finding themselves on the socioeconomic margins of society by wagging a finger at them for having children and being profligate.
My reading of Catholic social teaching leads me to focus, instead, on the systemic causes of poverty. Poverty is rooted in injustice, because there are sufficient resources in the world to feed, clothe, and house all of its citizens, but wealth is distributed in radically unequal ways, resulting in need on the part of many citizens of the planet.
Certainly adopting an ethic of good stewardship in our reproductive lives will help to address overpopulation. But the root causes of global poverty go far deeper. To deal with those, we need to look at social, economic, and political injustice--not blame the poor for finding themselves poor.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are
Jehovah’s Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions. Should they then be permitted to refuse medical coverage for them? The bishops’ position would allow any employer to dictate what medical coverage his or her employees receive based on his or her own personal moral code without regard to sound medical opinion. This would be a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the employee.
The Church needs some fresh
The Church needs some fresh kill. Contraception IS PART OF social justice, especially to people for whom extra children means overstretched budgets or resources. There are plenty of other social justice issues for the clergy to get rightfully disobedient about, such as unequal access to medical care and education, etc.
Mr. Strong, Living CHASTITY
Mr. Strong,
Living CHASTITY is part of social justice. People who can ill afford raising more children always have the option of controlling their actions. We don't need to be ruled by hormones.
So --married laity-- are to
So --married laity-- are to take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience??
Think about it: That is exactly what the church is demanding from its' 'flocks'.
Wow!
One other item in your post: "Living CHASTITY is part of social justice. People who can ill afford raising more children always have the option of controlling their actions. We don't need to be ruled by hormones."
First, the hierarchy has no right ----whatsoever------ telling the laity when to engage in sexual expression in their own homes.
Second, the hierarchy ought to, once and for all, quit treating laity like children, and instead treat them as the fellow professionals and equally (and much of the time the laity is far more educated) as the colleagues as they are. The mode of the parental/child relationship between the hierarchy and the laity is long gone no matter the desperation of hierarchical actions to hang on to same.
Finally, allow me to correct your final sentence. You said, "We don't need to be ruled by hormones", to which I say we don't need to be ruled by church --men-- who aggressively assume they are superior to their adherents.
Both my mother and my
Both my mother and my grandmother had tubal ligations after being told by their doctors that further children could be harmful to their health and being told by their priests that it would be against Church teaching. My grandmother said she went to confession after the procedure and told Father XXX that she would confess this once, say her penance, never mention it again, and she expected the same from him. Good Irish priest that he was he never did. Which is a good thing because she was a good Irish woman.
Both my mother and grandmother lived to raise the children they already had and to love the husbands they love.
Sex in marriage is sometimes the greatest gift a couple can give each other. Sometimes the comfort from pain and heartbreak and sometimes the expression of great joy. Sometimes sex is a deliberate turnign from anger and sometimes sex is just because you are bored and don't have anything else to do. Sex is such an expression of who two people are together, such a sharing, that there are times when it must be free of all fear or hesitation. Sex doesn't always fit itself neatly into some box that has a timer on it.
JohnF maybe you can choose chastity as an expression of who you are and how you would deal with a situation of a spouse who has been warned not to have more children. But not all people can. And the consequences of failure could be death, children raised without a mother, a husband left without a wife.
My mother lived. My grandmother lived. They loved. May you have the joy of life that they did.
I hope you have a resume
I hope you have a resume prepared because thinking for yourself and thinking along with the Church will not keep you employed at the NCR for very long. And you won't get an invitation to their Obamafest election party either.
Typical Catholic
Typical Catholic ecclesiastical attitude: if persuasion doesn't work, try coercion.
This problem is easily solved. Businesses don't take the tax deduction for health insurance premiums, then they can discriminate at will.
Oh, can't do that? Well, I guess we know which is more important, don't we?
I'm shocked, dismayed and
I'm shocked, dismayed and amused by the reactions of many here. I'm shocked, dismayed and amused that they believe - despite facts - that the Bishops' reaction to the Obama administration's HHS Mandates are about contraception. The issue is NOT about contraception in the first instance; it is about the power of the government to force religious bodies to act in ways contrary to their beliefs. It is about the limitation in the First Amendment to the constitution that the government make no law abridging the free exercise of one's faith; it is about the power of the federal government vis-a-vis individuals and their church communities. Yet all we here about on here is the evil of the Church's teaching on artificial birth control. The amusing part comes in because these so-called progressives- who champion freedom of conscience when it suits them - accuse the bishops of being "obsessed" with sex and birth control, when the matter at hand has very little to do with that issue.
"Yet all we here about on
"Yet all we here about on here is the evil of the Church's teaching on artificial birth control. The amusing part comes in because these so-called progressives- who champion freedom of conscience when it suits them - accuse the bishops of being "obsessed" with sex and birth control, when the matter at hand has very little to do with that issue."
I beg to differ, Southern Catholic.
The hierarchy is ---absolutely--- obsessed with pelvic issues because that is --the-- way by which they can facilitate their own power and control over the laity. That rests on one of their cardinal (pun intended) rules of keeping women pregnant, keeping men and women generally ignorant,keeping the laity fearful of authority, raising financial and economic anxieties so that there is a deleterious dependency on the church for all decisions needing to be made, thus keeping the flock cemented even below safety and security needs as enumerated in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
The hierarchy knows that Humane Vitae is a dead issue, particularly among Catholics, and will use every leverage they can to keep that doctrine on the front burners, as we see them doing right now in their characteristically histrionic manner on display for all to see. Drama queens need only take a look at the hierarchy when it comes to hysteria over issues that, when all is said and done, are none of their business.
The “modest proposal” that
The “modest proposal” that “the U.S. cardinals should pick a day and, with the support of like-minded clerics from other religious traditions, come to Washington and chain themselves to the White House fence, get arrested, and bring further attention to the issue of religious liberty” is excellent! But they should just do it thenselves, without any fanfare or prior announcement. That would be real leadership! It would be sensational leadership. And it would be real news because it would surprise everyone–including the media.
Mr. Winters, I applaud your
Mr. Winters,
I applaud your clear and courageous writing on this important issue.
How about if we decided to
How about if we decided to practice civil disobedience when it comes to the violation of the rights of the unborn by funding abortion under Obamacare, or in parodies of marriage that are masquerading as true nuptial unions (i.e., homosexual marriage), rather than preaching civil disobedience when it comes to obeying reasonable regulatory laws designed to govern a nation's immigration policies? Would the NCR crowd be leading the charge?
Religious freedom,
Religious freedom, right?
Catholic organizations want to be able to exclude contraceptives and sterilizations from health insurance coverage because it is a teaching of the Church.
Some Mormon sects believe in polygamy. In the name of religious freedom, shouldn't they be allowed to practice their faith? What makes a Catholic doctrine better than a Morman doctrine in a democracy that assures freedom of religion?
Some Protestant denominations believe that gay marriage is marriage. If they want to include health insurance coverage for gay partners, shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Even if Republicans win all the power and pass laws that ban gay marriage? It is a religious belief.
Where is the line drawn in the name of "religious freedom?" There is no freedom if that freedom does not reside in the individual. There is no religious freedom if, in the name of freedom, we allow one person's faith to dictate how another person must live.
Perhaps religious people, Mormons who do believe in polygamy, and representatives of faiths that believe that gays really can marry - maybe all of them should go to Washington and march in the name of religious freedom.
I am stunned. Should this
I am stunned. Should this decision stand, Catholic organizations such as schools and hospitals will be forced into providing contraception, sterilization, and abortion to their employees. Presumably, Catholic doctors and nurses will be forced into direct participation in such actions regardless of their conscience. Yet the majority of the posters here see no problem with that prospect. Please tell me I'm wrong! How can those who claim to be Catholic not see this as a direct assault on the Church's ability to actually live out the Gospel she proclaims?
Folks, this isn't just about contraception - it's about abortifacients, sterilization, and direct procurement of abortion all in the name of "reproductive rights".
Who is "the Church"? Is it
Who is "the Church"? Is it only the bishops who say "no" to contraceptives or does it also include the over 90% (some say 98%) of Catholic women who use artificial forms of birth control during their child bearing years.
The bishops may be able to keep their conscience clear by insisting on no contraceptives or sterilizations, but that has nothing to do with the conscience of the 90%-98% of the rest of us. Nor does it have anything to do with conscience of all the non-Catholics who work for Catholic organizations.
The only "conscience" being protected is the conscience of the bishops, and at the expense of the freedom of everyone else to make a choice, to actually exercise their conscience.
There is not a soul called The Catholic Church who will stand before God to be judged. There is only each one of us, individually.
Of course, the "Church"
Of course, the "Church" comprises not only the bishops, but all of the People of God - including the 90+% of the laity who practice contraception. However, even a cursory survey of church history, from the time of the New Testament to the present, would indicate that the bishops, as pastors, have held a teaching authority, able to speak with authority on issues confronting the life of their people.
That isn't the issue here. This is a question not of the authority of the bishops, but of the authority of the State.
The Obama Administration has dictated that Catholic institutions, regardless of their official teaching or deeply-held convictions, must comply with the law. It would seem that most here see no problem with that. If the Church (including Catholic institutions) is forced to provide coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion to all employees - so what? What's the big deal here?
Be certain that if this stands, more will follow. Catholic hospitals (including individual doctors and nurses) will be required to actively provide abortion on demand, with no conscience protection, under penalty of law.
But that is not all. I realize this is a far-fetched and absolutely impossible hypothetical - but suppose the State were to determine that (in the interests of quality of care) certain people with certain conditions were deemed to have lives "not worth living". People with incurable diseases eventually resulting in death, people with severe mental retardation, or even simply people who have outlived their usefulness to society and whose care is too great a drain on the public coffers could be provided "incentives" for an early retirement from life as it were. In these cases, is it inconceivable that Catholic hospitals would be required- again under penalty of law - to provide active euthanasia, regardless of their conscience?
Brothers and sisters in Christ, stop and think a moment. The bishops defense of conscience is not an attack on your decision to practice contraception. It is a defense against the authority of the State to dictate actions in direct violation of conscience. The presenting issue is contraception and sterilization services under employer-provided health plans - but ultimately that is not the aim of those interest groups who are forcing this action by the Administration.
As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."
And bishops have "dictated"
And bishops have "dictated" that anyone who works for them must live by Catholic doctrine. They not only preach it but now they want a government sanction to coerce people to live by it. That includes non-Catholics and that includes Catholics who do not agree with this teaching of the Church.
The teaching of the Church on artificial forms of birth control and on sterilization has not been accepted by more than 90% of the people of the Church. There is a quote from a discussion of what "reception" means: "The Canonical Doctrine of Reception, broadly stated, asserts that for a law or rule to be an effective guide for the believing community it must be accepted by that community."
No. The Church is not a democracy. But, there is a voice out there that is telling the hierarchy that this teaching is amiss, it is not accepted, it is not lived by the body of the Church, and it has not been for generations. The voice of God and the Holy Spirit are also discerned by the people, not just the hierarchy. Maybe more than 90% of practicing Catholics are just plain wrong, but they have made a decision of conscience, a deliberate decision that they will not accept this teaching. Maybe for some it is because they are not "informed" but for many they know exactly what the Church says and they don't agree. They knowingly refuse to "conform".
Religious freedom is not a right to do anything a faith says. If it were Mormons who believe in polygamy could live legally with multiple wives. Those who believe in faith healing could not be jailed when a child dies from a curable disease or injury because the only medical help that was relied upon was prayer. People of other faiths who believe in arranged marriages of children would be able to marry off their 12 year old girls.
Somewhere along the way we, as a society, put some breaks on religious freedom. This is another place where I think some breaks on religious freedom belong. And it is where religious freedom of the institution (if there is such a thing) impinges on the religious freedom of the individual. The HHS regulations protect a core group that is pretty well defined and that could be assumed to constitute a group that accepts all the teachings of that faith. But we cannot say that about the many Catholic hospitals that employe tens of thousands of people, not all of whom are Catholic, few of whom are vowed religious, and which institution can exist only by virtue of receipt of tax payor funds which are certainly not exclusively from Catholics. In other words, the Catholic institution wants to exist on my tax dollar to further a religious doctrine that limits a legal, medically accepted, socially acceptable and widely used form of health care. You want me to let my tax dollars be used by an institution to deny someone a choice to live according to their own conscience, to do something legally accepted and socially accepted in this country.
It is the principle of the thing. As a citizen I will take individual liberty and as a Catholic I will support individual conscience. I will take the right not to have my tax dollars used to enforce a tenet of a religious faith on anyone, much less a tenet I don't agree with and one that 90% of my neighbors, whether Catholic or not, do not agree with. My compromise is the exception provided in the HHS regulations that allows the core group to avoid covering a medically accepted form of health care. As a Catholic, I will recognize the necessity of following my own conscience on the issue of birth control and sterilization and the importance of respecting the free will of others, Catholic or non-Catholic.
I appreciate your taking such
I appreciate your taking such a principled stand on this issue over the last few days, Mr. Winters. I agree with you completely. I voted for President Obama in 2008 and will not be voting for him again.
I'm sure readers of this site already know this, but The Washington Post's lead editorial the other day opposed the Administration's failure to respect conscience rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/respecting-religious-exemptions/2...
Obviously there was also the Wall St Journal opinion piece Tuesday.
It's not some fringe movement opposing the Administration on this. I would love to see widespread civil disobedience - the Church would gain a lot of support. Hope some bishops have the guts to do it.
We should not get sidetracked
We should not get sidetracked into making this a question about the church's official position on contraception. This is a question about a church's right to follow its own beliefs. If they are forced to violate their beliefs on contraception then what's next? Let's defend the church's right to follow its own teachings, even if that teaching is in error. There is a maxim that "error has no rights" but I say that at times we do have the right to be in error...to follow our religious beliefs even if in error.
"Let's defend the church's
"Let's defend the church's right to follow its own teachings, even if that teaching is in error. There is a maxim that "error has no rights" but I say that at times we do have the right to be in error...to follow our religious beliefs even if in error."
Even at the cost of how that error will adversely effect people, the laity and all others in general??
Arrogance and presumption, all in the name of an institution is beyond comprehension here and exhibited for all to see.
The 'rights' of the institution at all costs, no matter the suffering?
And there are those who wonder why the church as an institution, the hierarchy, etc have lost all credibility with majorities of people, throughout the world.
Well, I think Hell is about
Well, I think Hell is about to freeze over: I do agree with Mr. Winters! Great article forcefully and courageously written, considering that it will not win any points from the faux Catholic crowd at NCR. I hope both clergy and lay people will take Mr. Winter's advice and stand strong against this latest outrage from the Obama administration.
I never understand why
I never understand why Catholics disregard the teachings of the RCC. Those who do obviuously reject the sacrament of holy orders. If this is rejected, then the rest of Catholic doctrine falls like a house built on a foundation of sand. For those who reject Church teaching, I recommend you investigate the Lutheran Church. You will find everything you need in their liturgy without compromising your conscience. It is a bit hypocritical to claim Catholicism as your faith while rejecting her most fundamental doctrines. The teaching against contraception has nothing to do with free will, which is exercised at the indivisual level to follow the teachings of Christ. In the RCC, this means following the teachings of the Magesterium. Of course this takes the grace of humility, which is scarce in this thread. I am reminded of the following verse from Holy Scriptures: "For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another-Galatians 5:13." May we all use our free will to serve Christ.
Let's give MSW some credit.
Let's give MSW some credit. He is not drinking the liberal Catholic Kool-Aid, and has the courage to voice his opinion and conviction on an issue that will likely alienate 98% of the readers of NCRegister. When even Cardinal Mahoney is protesting the issue, perhaps the readers here might take notice that they have gone off the deep end, where words like heresy and apostate apply, but they wouldn't care about those terms because they see the Catholic Church as whatever they want it to be and not what it is.
Anyone who actually carefully reads Humanae Vitae would see Paul VI as a prophet.
I did, and I don't.
I did, and I don't.
Paul VI, whom I met three
Paul VI, whom I met three times, had outstanding prophetic qualities. The problem is that he mistakenly thought he was exercizing them when he penned Humanae Vitae.
I can't help but find it
I can't help but find it curious that of all of the issues that The leaders of our Church should protest, you suggest that a this issue is the one worth such dramatic action.
While they're at it, I hope
While they're at it, I hope the administration takes due notice of the Church's habit of administering the Sacraments only to Roman Catholics, which is blatantly discriminatory. Why shouldn't a Muslim be able to become a priest? Why have we no Mormon bishops? Fundamentalists have the right to receive Holy Communion just like everyone else.
Furthermore, if we're going to make the Catholic Church pay for a woman's contraceptives and abortifacients, then for heaven's sake I don't see why it shouldn't be made to pick up the bar tab from the night before, too. If the Church has to pay for the morning after, shouldn't it have to foot the bill for the night before, as well? It's all part of a process; why nitpick about it? Make the Church pay for the whole thing; it's only fair.
So let's put the shoe on the
So let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if the Jehova's Witness were a major employer. Would we think it right if they objected to paying for insurance to cover procedures which were outlawed in their faith?
I think not!
We have to come to grips with how we integrate into a secular society. There is no reason that a person working for a Catholic institution should be provided with less insurance than someone working for any other institution.
Does the Church have the right to restrict what their employees can buy with their payroll checks? This is the same principle.
Why don't we have Catholic
Why don't we have Catholic Imams, or Rabbis? Simple, if one is Catholic he will not follow some other Religion. Muslims don't want to be priests, and Mormons don't want to be Bishops. And why would we give Holy Communion, the most precious Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the source and summit of our Faith, to someone who did not believe or even know the value of what he is taking part in? It is casting pearls before swine. (I don't think that Fundamentalists, Mormons, or Muslims would be at a Catholic Mass anyway.)
Secondly, the Church isn't nitpicking about the issue, it is fighting the whole principle of artificial contraception, abortion, and being forced to pay for them. If you believe that murder is wrong, are you obligated to pay for the guns and bullets of serial killers? The Church cannot be forced to promote what it believes is wrong.
And why do people keep saying that Humanae Vitae is dead? "No one is following it therefore it is dead." Do people decide what is right and wrong? No, God does. Then if everyone decides not to follow God's law, will he change it? Of course not. Even though the laws of the Church are unpopular they have never, and will never change. (And where is everyone getting the statistic that 90-98% of Catholics practice artificial contraception, I would love to see that study)
Wow, I can hardly believe
Wow, I can hardly believe this is a Catholic website! 1) This isn't mainly about contraception, it's about religious freedom; Why should the government force ANY company to provide "free" birth control to its employees? (Why not free aspirin and cough medicine for everyone??) 2) This is an attempt by the Obama administration to move religion even further out of the public square. 3) Obama is also doing this to mobilize his base. 4)This issue points out how badly the government will run the country's health care, as if we don't already know that from England and Canada. Your medical insurance - like your car and home and renter's insurance - should have nothing to do with where you work. Finally (5), Humanae Vitae is alive and well, what a prophetic thing that was! Why are people today so careful about eating natural and organic food, but unconcerned in ingesting synthetic hormones for decades, which are showing up in our water supplies? I'd love to see widespread civil disobedience by the Church on this issue! God bless Dolan and the USCC!
Post new comment