The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionThe unconscionable consequences of conscience exemptions
by Jamie L Manson on Jan. 25, 2012
Of all of the reactions that I've read to the Department of Health and Human Service's refusal to change the rules on contraception coverage, I've noticed that few commentators have referred to the formal name of the government mandate the bishops are fighting.
The provision is called the Affordable Care Act. This new law is intended to ensure the just treatment of women and couples who cannot afford adequate medical treatment when it comes to contraceptives and who want to raise families in a safe, responsible manner.
This act is a promising attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies and offers perhaps the most ethical and realistic approach to reducing the abortion rate.
The bishops' reaction was characterized by increasingly typical cries of victimization and hysteria. This self-pity only further diminishes the seriousness with which U.S. Catholics take the hierarchy. The sad truth is, if the numbers of Catholics leaving the church are any indication, most Catholics in the United States probably see the hierarchy more as victimizers than victimized.
Some have labeled this decision as President Barack Obama's attack on Catholics, echoing the inflammatory, paranoid spin bishops are putting on any government decision that doesn't go their way lately. This decision is not an attack on Catholics, but rather a groundbreaking move to protect women and to guarantee them greater access to adequate, affordable health care.
The decision demonstrates that protecting women's health, safety and freedom is part of the common good. In this way, it reflects a key element of Catholic social justice teaching: promotion of the common good and protection of individual freedom.
Although the hierarchy has historically argued otherwise, the conscience of an individual Catholic laywoman or layman is not ipso facto inferior to the conscience of any bishop. As David DeCosse argued so articulately in NCR earlier this week, the model of conscience used by most bishops "emphasizes obedience, law, and hierarchical authority and thus departs from the Catholic tradition's close linkage of conscience, practical reason, and freedom."
The decision affirms the Catholic principle of the "primacy of conscience." According to the Catechism, "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his [sic] conscience" (No. 1790). Informing the conscience is a "life long task" (No. 1784) and "To this purpose, man [sic] strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his [sic] gifts" (No. 1788).
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
Lay Catholics will be permitted to exert their practical reason and freedom of conscience to choose, in an informed way, the medical practices and treatments that are healthiest for them and their families.
The hierarchy claims that this decision will force Catholics to either obey the law or violate their consciences. But whose consciences will be violated? According to the Guttmacher Institute, 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women (and, by association, their male partners) have used some form of contraception.
Perhaps Obama has learned, as many Catholic laypeople have, that the definition of the Catholic church encompasses far more people than the hierarchy. The church includes laypeople, theologians and ethicists who have, with good reason, rejected this doctrine. The majority of the church has refused to receive this teaching. Perhaps Obama saw, as many of us do, the bishops' actions as an attempt to legislate beliefs that they cannot get their own people to obey.
In making this decision, the president represented the needs of the people and protected the civil rights of women and workers. This includes not only Catholic women and men, but also the many non-Catholics who are employed by organizations affiliated with the Catholic church. These workers will no longer be subjugated to a church teaching that, compared with other religious tradition, is rather extreme. Even conservative evangelicals do not object to the use of contraception within marriage.
Once women are allowed access to oral contraceptives, the hierarchy will be able to honor an overlooked provision in the church's teaching. According to the Guttmacher Institute, only 42% of women take the pill exclusively for pregnancy prevention. That is nearly one of every two prescriptions. According to Humanae Vitae, women can take the pill for medical purposes. For decades, the church has prevented these women from receiving essential medical treatment and has therefore acted contrary to its own doctrine.
When an employee obtains a prescription for the pill, the hierarchy does not know whether the purpose is medical or contraceptive. They assume, of course, that the pill is used for contraception. By allowing the hierarchy this exemption, the government would have allowed the church to continue to make decisions about their employees' private, sexual lives.
If the bishops had been allowed that power, then they should have had exerted equal power in refusing to pay for prescriptions for Viagara, Cialis and other sexual performance drugs for men. They should have demanded the right to know how men would use these drugs. Are they using the drugs with their wives? Girlfriends? Mistresses? Would the church ever intrude on heterosexual men and their personal sexual lives in this way?
Perhaps the most important accomplishment achieved through this decision is the government's refusal to create a precedent for religious organizations to get a pass from obeying civil rights laws. A few decades ago, individuals and organizations whose religious beliefs opposed desegregation wanted to be exempt from the Civil Rights Act. We can all look back in gratitude that the government refused their request.
If the bishops had gotten their way, it would have opened up a Pandora's box in which any religious group could claim exemptions from obeying a multitude of laws on religious grounds. I have little doubt that part of what propelled this fight was the bishops' desire to set a precedent on which they could base their refusal to provide benefits to employees in same-sex marriages and civil unions.
The fact is, Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies take in millions of dollars in federal and state grants every year. They should be accountable to the same civil rights laws given to other agencies that receive the same funding.
Some Catholic leaders have argued that, in order to meet the "narrow" exemption requirement, hospitals, schools, universities and social service agencies that do not want to comply with this new law will be forced to seriously reduce the number of people they employ and serve.
If this should happen, it might be one of the worst cases of the church's honoring one teaching at the expense of dozens of others.
For more than a century, Catholic social justice teaching has argued for the rights of workers, especially the right to adequate medical benefits. More than a dozen church documents teach the preferential option for the poor, workplace justice, the protection of women's rights, the primacy of the person and the common good.
There is only one teaching on contraception. It is a teaching that disregards the findings of the Majority Report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. It is a teaching that has also been rejected by the sensus fidelium.
Nevertheless, as leaders of Catholic institutions spend the next year adjusting to this new law, Catholic organizations will still contemplate turning away the sick, the poor, the orphan and others in need because they do not want to obey the civil rights laws set by the government that funds them. They are entertaining the possibility of violating dozens of social justice teachings in order to keep a hard line on a rule that almost no one accepts or follows.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School, where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
| Editor's note: We can send you an email alert every time Jamie Manson's column, "Grace on the Margins," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: Email alert sign-up. If you already receive email alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list. |
Good argument, Jamie. I
Good argument, Jamie. I can't help wondering why churchmen are so fixated on sex in their so called teaching. Could it be that, as celibate men, issues like birth control and abortion are not part of their lives and therefore it's easy for them to legislate in black-and-white with a certainty that these complex and difficult matters do not lend themselves to. It's easy for them to be sure about matters they are "innocent" of.
Throughout history, there are
Throughout history, there are opinions from intellectual leaders declaring that experience is the best (or most effective...or most impacting) teacher. To be sure, one does not have to have direct experience to be an effective teacher, but teaching totally bereft of an experiential knowledge base (of the teachers or humbly sought from the learners)often can be distorted, precluding nuance, complexity, and respect for those who know more. "Ignorance" can mean absence of knowledge (the "innocent" you note); but it also can refer to knowledge not sought. Lord make us mindful of the needs of others. Lord make us needful of the minds of others. Sensus Fidelium is not the same as a popularity poll. It is the hard-earned, rigor-based, often painful reflection of those who 1) developed their consciences; and 2) applied what they developed. I could be wrong, but when anyone without experience (or anyone who discounts or even disregards the experience of others, men and women) preempts learning and declares those who disagree inherently wrong, intellectually inferior, theologically lazy, or hedonistic they can be efficient legislators but never master teachers.
I think you need to read
I think you need to read Theology of the Body, one of the best books on human sexuality, and written by a Pope.
Also, 1790 in it's entirety states "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberatley to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous jedgments about acts to be performed or already committed."
The Bishops just don't want to be forced to violate their conscience. An if you didn't realize it, every Catholic Church, school and hospital will be affected by this legislation. Most of these entities are run by priests and nuns, so it is their conscience that they are worried about not yours.
Also, to Jamie, You stated that the Bishops will either have to obey the law or violate their conscience. What you meant to write was, they will have to choose between disobeying the law and violating their conscience. You should probably hire a proofreader as there is a big difference between the two. You implied that the law follows their conscience which is false.
If it were up to me I'd close every school and hospital. See what happens then. Or fire every teacher and doctor that isn't Catholic so we an fit into the conscience clause. Before you can be treated at a Catholic Hospital you have to sign a waiver stating that you are a Catholic in good standing. Sounds good to me. Although, I never said I was a good and charitable Catholic, just a pissed off one.
Anonymous on Jan. 28,
Anonymous on Jan. 28, 2012.
You stated:
"I think you need to read Theology of the Body, one of the best books on human sexuality, and written by a Pope.
Also, 1790 in it's entirety states "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberatley to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous jedgments about acts to be performed or already committed."
The Bishops just don't want to be forced to violate their conscience. An if you didn't realize it, every Catholic Church, school and hospital will be affected by this legislation. Most of these entities are run by priests and nuns, so it is their conscience that they are worried about not yours.
Also, to Jamie, You stated that the Bishops will either have to obey the law or violate their conscience. What you meant to write was, they will have to choose between disobeying the law and violating their conscience. You should probably hire a proofreader as there is a big difference between the two. You implied that the law follows their conscience which is false.
If it were up to me I'd close every school and hospital. See what happens then. Or fire every teacher and doctor that isn't Catholic so we an fit into the conscience clause. Before you can be treated at a Catholic Hospital you have to sign a waiver stating that you are a Catholic in good standing. Sounds good to me. Although, I never said I was a good and charitable Catholic, just a pissed off one."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus cured people who were not Jewish. When Jesus cured Jews, he did not ask them if they were strict observant Jews. He cured lepers who were condemned to live outside the Jewish communities---and they were considered not only physically 'unclean' but also spiritually 'unclean'. Anyone who touched them, came near them, risked becoming unclean her/himself. Jesus risked violating the LAW, himself, each time he cured one of these. He did it anyway. What is wrong with our bishops following the example of Christ?
As far as signing wavers stating that one is a "Catholic in good standing"---I repeat the words of Christ---Judge not, lest you be judged. The bishops are not the only ones who have the freedom to follow their consciences----so do the laity.
In some parts of the country, the Catholic hospital is the only one for hundreds of miles. It treats ALL the people---not just Catholics. The Catholic hospitals, may have some religious members on the Board of Directors,
but the laity far outweigh the religious.
1) The mandate is for the good of the PEOPLE (not the bishops).
2) It is to provide good, adequate health-care for the PEOPLE (not the
bishops who already have excellent health-care--most are self-insured)
3) It will, ultimately, be paid for by the PEOPLE (not out of the bishops'
personal savings accounts or out of their pensions).
Artificial birth control is
Artificial birth control is not "for the good of the people." It is not "good, adequate health-care." Artificial birth control alters the body, preventing it from operating naturally.
The bishops, as employers and therefore providers of health insurance, WILL have their money go toward that which they uphold to be sinful. That infringes upon freedom of religion, and is unconstitutional.
Miriam on Jan. 31, 2012. You
Miriam on Jan. 31, 2012.
You stated:
"Artificial birth control is not "for the good of the people." It is not "good, adequate health-care." Artificial birth control alters the body, preventing it from operating naturally.
The bishops, as employers and therefore providers of health insurance, WILL have their money go toward that which they uphold to be sinful. That infringes upon freedom of religion, and is unconstitutional."
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Artificial birth control alters the body, preventing it from operating naturally." Whose body, Mariam? A man's or a woman's body? Should women be having 8 to 14 children? And wouldn't that alter a woman's body?
The bishops' money as employers still comes from the LAITY. They wouldn't have any money to give out at all if it wasn't for the laity.
ABC alters a WOMAN'S body of
ABC alters a WOMAN'S body of course. It is harmful to her, altering normal processes, causing clots, hormonal imbalances etc. If a woman has a grave reason to not have more children, there is NFP which is more effective than abc and FREE.
And your money comes from your employer. But once it is in your paycheck, it is YOURS. The same with the Bishops. They and other Catholic employers of Catholic institutions should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs.
Three of my five beautiful
Three of my five beautiful children are a result of practicing NFP as birth control. It is certainly not more effective than artificial birth control although I agree it is healthier.
And before you trumpet that we were inattentive or not careful, I ask that you not presume. Each time I became pregnant it was a result of a very low grade fever causing an artificial temperature rise.
For all of you who do not know what NFP stands for it is Natural Family Planning. You must take your temperature each day at the same time. A temperature rise indicates that ovulation has occurred. There is a suggested period to wait until you are no longer fertile before engaging in intercourse.
Welcome to Catholic Sex Ed
NFP amnuals suggest to wait
NFP amnuals suggest to wait for your temp to be elevated for at least 3 days--to make sure your temp spike is legit and not due to illness. Presumably, the temp from an illness would change one way or another within 3 days, and certainly other symptoms would manifest themselves, indicating to you that you in fact were sick.
Also, mucous-checks would have helped in making the call.
Whats next from the chuch- I
Whats next from the chuch- I am serious - outlawing coathangers?
And why should we believe that people will not have legitimate sex among consensual partners,
when the church cant even keep its own priests from raping children.
And less terrible the Ca bishop who had two children. I think there are other bishops who did the same.
Thats what happens when you have a top down, nothing goes up hierarchy.
They are so "fixated" on sex
They are so "fixated" on sex because it is the root of most of the "evils" in our world. And because the Blessed Mother (remember her?) at Fatima told the children that so many people go to hell because of sexual sins!! Being the too-sophisticated liberals that comprise the majority of the readers of NCR, you probably don't "buy" that mumbo-jumbo apparition stuff; it will be interesting to see how this all ends at the Last Judgement!
Keep your Ovaries off my
Keep your Ovaries off my Rosaries!!!
You have no right to force me to pay to poison healthy women.
I don't know how often I've
I don't know how often I've heard that "churchmen are fixated on sex." Or that the Church is fixated on sex. Only a small percentage that comes out of the pope's mouth, or bishops' mouths, pertains to sex. But the media doesn't pay much attention to ANYTHING except the sex part. Sex sells newspapers and news stories. Sex sells us EVERYTHING. I think it's fairer to say that WE are fixated on sex.
So, Catholic employers aren't
So, Catholic employers aren't under a duty to obey the certain judgment of conscience?
It seems to me that the
It seems to me that the argument is that individuals are under a duty to obey "the judgment of conscience." Their own.
The Catholic bishop/cardinal or whatever member of the hierarchy has the power is the employer.
The bishop/cardinal insisting that Catholic affiliated institutions not provide birth control or be associated with providing birth control, this position protects his own individual conscience - he gets to say "Oh, what a good boy am I!" But it says nothing about the conscience of the individuals they affect who are not members of the hierarchy. In a way, the hierarchy gets freedom of conscience only by denying the individual the opportunity to exercise freedom of conscience. Individuals who live by a tenet of faith because they can't afford to do otherwise, don't get any credit from God for living according to God's will. They never made a choice. The Church thinks they are placing a protective cacoon around them.
I think that is why I have so much trouble with this turn of the Church back into the "pray, pay, obey", "consubstantial", "and with your spirit" mode. In makes children of the laity because we are not allowed to be adults, not trusted to be adults, not allowed to make choices. The Church may be able to teach me how to protect myself from evil, but only I can CHOOSE to protect my self from evil. Every parent wants to wrap their children in batting to protect them from danger. But, sooner or later we have to let them out of the cacoon and let them go figure out how not to fall down, kiss the wounds when they do fall down, and then send them back out to try again.
The Church, in how it operates in the world and with her people, has to let go of the monarchical, hierarchial, "father knows best" model and recognize that we are grown ups who seek guidance, but we will make up our own minds, thank you very much, and "God Bless you" right back atcha. We also badly need a voice up, into the Church. We need to be listened to and heard. We need our voices to be valued. I would say we are another version of the "silent majority" but speaking louder or more of us speaking won't matter when there is no ear to hear.
Oh, well. I don't support the bishops in what they are trying to do in getting the government to give them power over other people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
How would you like it if the
How would you like it if the government required you to buy miter insurance for the Bishops?
I personally resent that my
I personally resent that my insurance forces me to cover erectile dysfunction drugs for men. If Catholic men have the right to use my money to pay for their chemically assisted right to sex, then Catholic men can help pay for the birth control for the women with whom they are having that chemically assisted sex.
So, your argument is that
So, your argument is that it's wrong to make you pay for something your opposed to, and therefore it's right to make other people pay for something you're opposed to? I think you've confused an argument against the individual mandate as being an argument against the Church's right to conscience.
At least briefly, you're free not to buy insurance. If you don't want to pay for someone else's Viagra, awesome. Until 2014 (or, Anthony Kennedy willing, never) you don't have to. No body, other than President Obama, is making you do that.
Additionally, that's not a reasonable analogy. Erectile disfunction is a disfunction. It's a defect. It's not the proper order of the body. Except for issues like endometriosis, contraception is not used to treat disorders or disfunction. Rather, the opposite holds. Contraception cures health. It cures what a healthy body does. Drugs that treat erectile disfunction are arguably medicine. Contraception is generally not used as medicine.
Great post ATF. So good you
Great post ATF. So good you support women and their RIGHT to make their own conscience decisions. Thsnks also Jamie for seeking justice and truth.
Might I compare it to driving my car. When the sign is posted 50 mph, I know what I should do, but I choose the force of my foot on the accelerator and must live or die or cause others to live or die by my choice. There is no accelerator control that reads those signs and also no little mitered people in my car demanding that I must obey the speed limit.
Whether the law should
Whether the law should recognize your freedom to speed (which it doesn't) is irrelevant. This is like asking the law to force the little mitered people to pay for your car.
Not quite Jamie R., I do not
Not quite Jamie R., I do not wish to have other persons, the THIRD PARTY to issues making sure I am doing what I should. That seems to be the operative question here. Those with the mitres think they are the ones responsible for my actions and will not permit me to make my own choices, whether they be for good or ill. There are many actions that society deems unacceptable or even against the law but we do not get to have someone follow us around to make sure we obey. Perhaps you are suggesting that all married persons have in their bedroom an observer to make sure they are not cheating. We are all aware that Humanae vitae has not been accepted by the members of the RCC. Count the kids and you will see the low numbers in each family. Proof in person I think. Everyone pays now for services that many choose not to use. If that lack of use causes their death, am I responsible because I did not drag them off for their colonoscopy? The service must be offered, it is the acceptance by the holder of the policy that GETS THE CHOICE.
By the way, I'll take the free car. Do I get my choice of brand and model?
But making 3d parties
But making 3d parties responsible for whether you use contraception is exactly what you're proposing, and what the new HHS regulations are doing. When the law coerces bishops to buy contraception for you, in what way is that not making 3d parties responsible for your decision?
Last try Jamie, if I am
Last try Jamie, if I am granted a service as part of my insurance plan which covers medical procedures, I GET TO DECIDE IF I WISH TO USE THE SERVICE or NOT. I repeat, I decide. When the service is not provided I cannot choose it , even if I want to. By not providing the medical coverage for services the bishops reject, THEY DECIDE FOR ME. Perhaps if I am a millionaire it does not matter but many women are not of our faith and do not have the opportunity to add the services in ther medical plans or cannot pay for them out of pocket. As you well know medical services do not come cheap today.
There is a report out today that a finding has been made that the morning after pill can be used to treat uterine fibroids and birth control meds have helped many women with extremely painful periods or endometriosis. Will the bishops give their medical opinions on these issues for us women ?????
By the way I do believe they cover viagra and cialis. Fair HUh???
You decide, someone else
You decide, someone else pays. In no way is this the same as taking responsibility for your own actions.
Not true at all. They have
Not true at all. They have NOT "decided" for you. You are STILL able to go out and obtain abc. If you cannot afford it, there are government agaencies to help.
As far as the other uses for the pill go, I am sure that medicine is packaged quite differently, and poses no problem for the insurance company to cover.
Actually, birth control pills
Actually, birth control pills all come in the same packages, no matter whether they are prescribed for medical reasons or for birth control alone. Also, the proportion of birth control prescriptions for medical purposes unrelated to contraception is around 50/50... that's right, the bishops will interfere with as many people who need birth control pills (hormone control pills in a medical sense) as they will interfere with in a birth control sense.
Frankly, I think bishops interfering with health care for large groups of people who may not be members of their church, or even members of their church who have decided that they don't agree with teachings about hormone control medication, is indeed using federal law to impose their religion on others, in contradiction of the first amendment.
It is not true that women
It is not true that women would not be able to get bc for other purposes. It all depends on policy provisions, but YES it can be done, and IS being done. I have a friend who is an attorney for the CT Insurance Department, and deals with this all the time.
What I don't know is if your state is different. However, I am quite sure Obama can work that one out.
Your assessment that bishops are "interfering" with health care turns truth on its head. The bishops have never been required by the federal govt to PROVIDE something which their teachings say is sinful. The compromise does nothing. How long do you think it will be before the ins companies raise premiums, meaning the church WILL be paying for it?
ANd of course, the "compromise" does not address self-insurers like EWTN....AT ALL.
The bishops are not using "federal law." They are using the Constitution which supercedes all federal law, in that all law MUST conform to the Constitution.
There is absolutely no doubt that the bishops are on the right side of the Constitution, and HHS is in violation of it.
Thank you, Jaime Mason, for
Thank you, Jaime Mason, for these important points. Your column and David DeCosse's column are so very important for all of us to consider. You will be villified, I am afraid. But you do us all a great service.
Well said, but you continue
Well said, but you continue to equate the sensus fidelium with majority public opinion.
At least Jamie doesn't equate
At least Jamie doesn't equate sensus fidelium with the higher clergy, or hierarchy! Even though Humanae Vitae is over 40 years old now, the bishops have thus far gotten only 2% of US Catholic women to buy into the official teaching on birth control.
If the hierarchy or the pope ever revisit the subject of birth control, they'd do well to at least try to understand why that 98% choose not to follow official teaching.
Perhaps 98% - if that figure
Perhaps 98% - if that figure is indeed true -- do not follow the official teaching for the same reason that many members of he Catholic faithful do not follow the church's dictates against lying, stealing, coveting ones neighbors' goods etc. Human failings and yielding to the standards of this world. If we used the same standards Jamie proposes, let's just put the 10 commandments to a vote also, as they are not uniformly followed.
This is "cafeteria Catholicism" indeed.
The 98% number is quite
The 98% number is quite misleading. First of all it is 98% that have used some form of birth control at some time, not 98% currently. There is also no background on what is considered birth control in the study, does it count NFP methods? My wife used birth control before we met. It was only during our instruction for marriage that the theology of mutual respect for each other, and also for gods will was explained to us. Before this we both considered chemical methods to be OK out of our ignorance, it is just not something that is discussed between parents and children commonly. Now as to the point about an informed conscience; the hierarchy of the church exists to help lay Catholics to develop their conscience. If one priest or bishop holds a certain view that could fall outside the general sense of the hierarchy, but this decision is unanimous, and should be considered the final word on the matter short of an intercession by god himself saying otherwise. The church is between a rock and a hard place here, we either are forced to violate our informed conscience, or to fail in our mission to serve the poor. Since by federal law Catholic institutions cannot fire non-Catholics on religious grounds, nor refuse emergency care to non-Catholics there is no way to meet the religious exemption. The bishops are correct that this law forces Catholics to go against their conscience, and this is a clear and deliberate violation of our first amendment rights. I know it would be much easier if we could all choose the parts of the churches teachings which we wish to adhere to as the author seems to propose, but to do so would make us simply another Protestant sect. BTW that part of the constitution is there for a reason (as are all parts) to simply ignore this for political expediency paves a path for future tyranny which will remove all rights from all christians of any type over time. Personally I am proud to be a part of the only church which will stand up for the rights of its members publicly.
Actually, Josh, NFP is ONLY
Actually, Josh, NFP is ONLY allowed by the "hierarchy" of the Church if you have a VERY serious reason for not having more children. Many parish priests "grant exceptions" for contraception; however, the "hierarchy" does NOT approve of NFP for MOST of the reasons that you might have.
You should probably read further on the subject and not just go with what you were taught in your marriage prep class.
Of course the sensus fidelium
Of course the sensus fidelium is the majority public opinion, the public being the "fidelium", exercising their obligation to follow their own consciences. The Church (in theory) accepts the primacy of conscience. The people who disagree are also part of the "fidelium", so the sensus includes both, but the majority--in this case, the huge majority--shows that most people believe that a teaching is not the truth, not what God would want, and should not be accepted. If the majority accept a teaching, count it "received" (accepted). If the majority don't accept it, the teaching may be said not to have been "received" by the fidelium and does not count as a tenet that must be accepted by the faithful. I suppose some teachings are closer to half and half. Probably most teachings of the church are accepted by most followers, and count as "received". When a huge majority rejects a teaching, it becomes clear that the people of God just can't buy that teaching, and therefore (the Church agrees) that teaching is not required to be believed or followed. The Church puts this much store in a person's conscience.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote very openly about this idea (also put forth by Thomas Aquinas some 8 centuries earlier): "Over ecclesiastical authority stands one's conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. ... In all activity man is bound to follow his conscience. ... It follows he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor...to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially on matters religious."
It's interesting, isn't it? I was astonished when I learned, probably in a college theology course in the late '50s, that Rome actually accepts this idea. Basically it is a matter of public opinion, in which the majority rules, which hardly fits in with practically everything else about the Church. If the public opinion is enough of a majority, the Church accepts it. (In theory.)
This argument is weakened by
This argument is weakened by the presumption that there is a theological or philosophical basis for the majority principle. Doesn't one's life experience or a study of history teach us to look at the majority principle with a great deal of apprehension. The Catholic view begins from the principle of universalism: from this temporal and spatial perspective these matters look far more serious and humbling. The offer to bend one's knee to "majority public opinion" clearly comforts and satisfies some, but it fall far short by its own account of the truth which is knowable by all.
I may be missing the point
I may be missing the point here, but "primacy of conscience" is not about majority or minority opinion. At one point in history the Church supported the world view that the earth was flat as did the majority of the faithful and otherwise. What about those who through access to more accurate information defied the Church's teaching because they had the courage to follow their convictions (conscience)? Galileo's work on the heliocentric theory was banned from publication during his lifetime by Church authorities because it defied the prevailing views of those in authority. Despite the Church's attempts to quell the publication of his theories, it the end truth prevailed and even the Church eventually saw the errors of its ways.
On the other hand, it appears that in this issue of birthcontrol, the Church is supporting a minority position. Is it right or wrong simply because it's in the minority? Personally, I support a woman's right to choose, for numerous reasons, and I follow my conscience in this area both in my daily life and when I go to the polls. What's important is that each individual inform her/himself about the issue and then act according to their personal experience and knowledge about the issue. Whether it's a majority or minorty opinion in the end doesn't matter, only what the individual finally concludes after weighting the arguments on both sides of the equation.
Thank you for saying so well
Thank you for saying so well what I have been thinking and feeling. If the bishops were really serious about protecting the spiritual lives of their flocks, perhaps they would clean house of all the pedophile priests and bishops. Lots of silence in that direction. I would suggest that the real issue is all about power and control over the lives of Catholics and anyone else who may work for a Catholic organization. There have certainly been enough stories published about non-Catholic employees of Catholic organizations being fired for actions not in accord with Catholic doctrine.
Very good analysis Jamie.
Very good analysis Jamie. These old celibate (?) men do not realize the fact that many women use these contraceptive drugs for reasons other than contraception. It is a shame that our government has to teach our church about the common good and compassion.
I did not know that religious groups once sought an exemption for desegregation. That knowledge adds much to the discussion. Thanks for sharing that.
For the life of me I cannot
For the life of me I cannot understand why people who stand with the 99 and complain about the far reach of corporations support a rampant use of chemical birth control to supposedly remedy women's health issues. The bishops don't know? You don't know, obviously. Throwing a bc prescription at a woman is nothing more than a continuation of the medical mistreatment of women in this country, and I believe the push of big pharma is to blame. I speak as a woman whose health was mismanaged with birth control pills for years until someone took me seriously, and I am not an exception in the least.
And all this talk about birth control being so expensive-- why if it is so prevalently used? Because someone is making a killing off of it. Women get cystic breasts and have heart attacks while big pharma rakes it in-- and supposedly progressive Catholics support it. Real nice.
Great article Ms.Manson.
Great article Ms.Manson. Along with the DeGosse essay this is the best and most sensible, intelligent exposition of a real catholic response. I believe that President Obama is more acutely aware of contemporary catholicism than our medieval based hierarchy.
It is comforting to me, as it is interesting, that a more enlightened catholicism can be firmly based upon substantive catholic thinking as you and DeGosse have so well articulated.
I sometimes refer to the "selective traditionalists" as "fundamentalists". Their hysteric knee jerks seems to further substantiate this view.
I do however, respect the more "butter-smoothe" objections of the catholic health service people. They gain nothing by taking on the hierarchy here and most, I suspect, agree with the Act.
So, catholic employers...
So, catholic employers... obey the certain judgement of conscience?
This is a false argument. Simply put you cannot use your personal conscience
to bind another persons conscience. That would be heretical heteronomy.
Thankfully conscience has been defined just as Jamie states with the Aquinas
near quote and also in keeping with free will. It seems ridiculous in 2012 to
have to protect long held philosophical and theological positions. There
is no violation of conscience or of religious freedom involved, that is simply a canard.
People need to have choice and use their own consciences. There can be no
collective catholic conscience. This had nothing to do with Vatican 2 you could consult many moral theology works of the 50s or earlier and find a
full teatment of conscience based mostly on Thomas Aquinas.
The few bishops complaining are trying to make a name for themselves and they most assuredly are, though not perhaps what they would like to believe.
Thanks Jamie for a truly excellent treatment most important that it comes from a female perspective. I have not heard as much as a word about the male
side of sexuality and perhaps for a simple embarassing reason.
God Bless, I so look forward to your contributions.
TomC
"Simply put you cannot use
"Simply put you cannot use your personal conscience to bind another persons conscience."
Excellent point, TomC.
The conscience of the
The conscience of the Catholic who believes in birth-control is definitionally NOT "bound" by the hierarchy's teaching. That is *why* s/he believes in birth-control--because s/he does NOT feel bound.
In a Catholic institution, it is LOGICAL that contraceptives NOT be included in insurance plans precisely because it goes against Catholic teaching. It is ridiculous to think that that somehow prevents the Catholic who believes in BC from using it. First, if it is really that important, s/he can *choose* to buy it. Secondly, if said Catholic is hellbent on having his/her employer pay for it, then s/he can find another employer.
See how simple that is?
Jamie's article misses the mark completely. She is NOT Catholic...period.
If Catholic organizations
If Catholic organizations don't want to subscribe to the laws of the United States then they can just stop employing non Catholics, treating non Catholics, teaching non Catholics, and taking government funding. See how simple that is?
The "law" to which you refer
The "law" to which you refer directly contradicts the First Amendment. The Constitution provides for "freedom of religion," meaning the US cannot make laws which take away freedom of religion.
Therefore what you see as simple, is really not. It will involve long court cases and the spending of more of our tax dollars. Wait for it.
It would have been MUCH simpler to respect our founding document, giving religious institutions the exemption.
Miriam on Jan. 30, 2012.
Miriam on Jan. 30, 2012.
You stated:
"The "law" to which you refer directly contradicts the First Amendment. The Constitution provides for "freedom of religion," meaning the US cannot make laws which take away freedom of religion.
Therefore what you see as simple, is really not. It will involve long court cases and the spending of more of our tax dollars. Wait for it.
It would have been MUCH simpler to respect our founding document, giving religious institutions the exemption."
--------------------------------------------------
The law is that no one religion shall be established as a STATE RELIGION (one religion over another).
The government is SECULAR and adheares to the establishment of no confessional religion. At the same time, people are free to worship as their
consciences dictate or not to worship at all.
That's right. Not sure what
That's right. Not sure what your point is.
Although I would say that the Constitution gives us more than just the freedom to "worship"--the word "worship" is not in the Constitution. It gives the freedom of "religion." There is a difference. "Worship" is private; "religion" is public. Worship that does not translate to the public sphere is meaningless.
This means when the RCC builds schools and hospitals, it must do so in accordance with its religious values--otherwise it is meaningless. Those who do not share its religious values do not have to work in its institutions.
Does it not bother you that our govt is commanding the RCC to abandon one of its principles? Where is the separation of church and state which the left loves to talk about? Because the issue is bc, the unconstitutional power grab is not seen by so many people. We need to wake up and see what is actually happening before our freedoms are eroded further...or worse.
So when the RCC builds
So when the RCC builds schools and hospitals, according to your logic in regards the birth control issue and the Affordable Patient Care Act, they should not have to follow applicable building code ordinances guaranteeing safety of those who will be in those buildings should the RCC decide that for some reason they think those ordinances are not in accord with their religious values??? Your thinking could create an equally slippery slope as you think the "forcing" of the church to fully implement the Affordable Patient Care Act will.
Hun, the RCC does not have a
Hun, the RCC does not have a "theological take" on building codes, for goodness sake. Talk about stretching it!
The RCC has ALWAYS taught that ABC is immoral. This is a firm teaching of the Church. Everyone and his uncle knows this.
The state cannot constitutionally force any Catholic employer of Catholic institutions to go against his religion. The SC will strike this down. Anyone who works for a Catholic institution can buy his own abc, or go find another employer.
Done.....and 20% of the
Done.....and 20% of the nation will go without medical care.....but for how long before popular opinion demands that the law be changed so that rather significant number can return to receiving care?
20% will go without medical
20% will go without medical care??? Isn't that a bit overdramatic?
20% will go without subsidized abc. That means they will need to buy their own, or better yet, learn NFP which is more effective than abc.
Thank you Jamie for your wise
Thank you Jamie for your wise words. Also Tom C for pointing out the need we have to examine the male side of the questions regarding the situations of human reproduction. That discussion is WAY OVERDUE.
You are utterly wrong. The
You are utterly wrong. The issue here is that Catholic organizations would be forced to COVER contraceptives, that is, pay for products they believes are morally reprehensible out of their own pocket. If employees at these Catholic organizations really want contraceptives, then fine, they can go out and get them with their own money. But religious organizations should not be obligated to purchase them for them.
What is the difference
What is the difference between being forced to pay for contraception and being forced to pay for nuclear weapons? The war in Iraq, condemned by the Vatican? I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right. What I am saying is that we are forced all the time to pay for things we don't agree with, some of these things gravely sinful. But it's only when it comes to contraception that some Catholics and bishops scream "persecution" and act as if the Obama administration is evil incarnate.
There is a big differnce
There is a big differnce between paying the required taxes (that may be used for nuclear weapons) and directly providing and paying for those activities that directly go against my conscience. If I give money to a soup kitchen, and a person who went there use what little money they now have, because they did not spend it on food, on illegal drugs, I am not culpable. If however, I buy the person the drugs, I am then culpable.
There are two main points--this action will be found to violate the First Amendment, and HHS has no intention of stopping with these intitial "contraceptive services".
Making payments for nuclear
Making payments for nuclear weapons doesn't go against your conscience, as in the capacity of collateral damage that occurs with those weapons with respect to present and future generations of peoples, but monies for responsible and effective family planning --do-- go against your conscience??
I'm asking, not accusing and curious, indeed, about whether you ever protested those 'required' taxes that are going toward nuclear weapons as vehemently as you seem to be doing with provisions for contraception in Catholic health care agencies.
I agree with Augustine --
I agree with Augustine -- and I did protest tax money going for nuclear weapons as well as the mistaken war in Iraq.
Also, the Cathlic Church did not pay taxes supporting those wars, so Augustine's point is correct, the bishops' approach to these issues was consistent.
I disagree with Augustine,
I disagree with Augustine, RedMaggie as any so-called just war can be misconstrued into a war that 'protects our interests' as we have seen during the past 50 or so years.
Secondly, Pope John Paul II mumbled something about going into Iraq might not be so nice, but did not condemn the war as he has loudly and vociferously done with respect to contraception.
There is, in fact, taxes aside, no consistency between controlling women's reproductive capacities and going to war, if that is what you were referring to. The hierarchy and the papacy have, in fact, not seen going off to war (with the probability/possibility of dying not even to mention innocent civilians getting blown to smithereens. There is a direct correlation between a strong propensity toward an afterlife, and not having an problem sending young men and women into harm's way. That's the way it's been in the history of the church (pafticularly Catholic and fundametalist Christian churches) and it hasn't changed. One need only look at the two Bush administrations as prime examples of same.
You stated; "Pope John Paul
You stated; "Pope John Paul mumbled something about going into Iraq might not be so nice, but did not condemn the war as he has loudly and vociferously done with respect to contraception". Actually he did more than mumble, what he and most of the Church leaders didn't do is promote what he said about the Iraq war. They (JPll and our leaders) tend to be bold in standing up to The Left, but cowardly in standing up to The Right - yes, very cowardly.
Maybe that's because the
Maybe that's because the right is right more often than the left!
Oops, a major faux pax on my
Oops, a major faux pax on my part, RedMaggie. When you said you agreed with Augustine, honestly I thought you meant St. Augustine! And then I went on about just wars, etc. though I do not retract the rest of my post.
Anyhow.......well.....have a good day :-)
But where does the Catholic
But where does the Catholic institutions' money come from? They aren't printing it in a basement somewhere. It comes from fees charged to clients for services, as well as the laity and government grants (approved by members of Congress or state legislatures and the president or governor and executive agencies). Would the bishops think of consulting with everyone in those categories to be sure that their consciences allow them to approve of everything the Catholic institutions are doing with those funds?
Goog point. I don't recall
Goog point. I don't recall any bishops asking their flocks if any of their donation-funded programs violated anyone's conscience. Ohyeah, that's right. Only the hierarchy's conscience counts for anything.
You've made some excellent
You've made some excellent points, Jamie. Be prepared for incoming fire from the temple police though :)
.
The fundamental problem seems to be a nagging fear on the part of Catholic hierarchy that if they admit they are wrong on even one issue they will lose control on every issue — power and control being their bottom line. With every attempt to find solutions for problems they have a knee-jerk reflex to object. They have cried "victimization" and "anti-catholicism" so many times that they now find themselves to be tuned-out by those who might otherwise be sympathetic.
.
When Lori met with the congressional committee regarding his view of "religious liberty" he was finally forced to admit that he and his prelate brothers believe that their collective conscience is superior to all others — "authoritative". Not content to rule as princes via canon law, they want their demands codified in secular law. They are losing that battle for control in Europe and now have moved operations to the U.S.
.
It is most peculiar that supposedly celibate men spend so much time thinking about sex, ...specifically about women's sexual reproductive organs and what they might be doing with them.
.
It's not peculiar that men
It's not peculiar that men spend time thinking about sex. It's nature. You must not know many men.
The operative word is
The operative word is "celibate" — which applies to both body and mind. A preoccupation with sex and the details of what other people are doing in their sexual lives is neither chaste (for anyone) nor celibate (for a priest). Clinically speaking, it suggests voyeurism in a professed celibate.
.
"As a man thinks in his heart, so is he". The Lord was quite clear and specific in the matter of thoughts being entertained, or more precisely, thoughts that 'entertain' the thinker. The presence of a Y chromosome does not bestow de facto absolution in the latter case.
.
Psychiatrists tell us that
Psychiatrists tell us that most men think about sex several times each hour. Why should the hierarchy be different? Just because one is a celibate doesn't change human nature. Since celibates don't (?) engage in sex, perhaps they don't want those who do to enjoy it. Misery loves company! Men! Can't live with or without them.
Madeline, I think the
Madeline, I think the person's posed comment/question regarding what appears to be an addiction or obsession on matters regarding human sexual activity or behavior is apt. It seems quite out of place for male clerics bound by their vows of mandated celibacy. Might such over-zealous reactions and discussions be characterized as potential "occasions of sin" as advanced in Catholic church teaching? Just some food for thought.
You do? And with what degree
You do? And with what degree of intimacy? Women are not allowed to think about sex? It is a male privilege that confers them any right, since is so natural?
Madeline, I think it's kind
Madeline, I think it's kind of pornographic, that a group of men who declare themselves "celibate" sit around obsessing about women's sexual capacities all day.
And they say they speak for Jesus, who was not like this...who, from all we know of Him in the Scriptures, spent his life healing the sick, feeding the poor, and teaching the ignorant.
Post new comment