An embarrassing campaign gone awry

Whoever wins the next Presidential election may well appoint three Supreme Court justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has known health problems and Antonin Scalia is over 80. If President Obama should appoint replacements for both, there will be no more than three votes to overturn Roe v. Wade and there won't be for at least 20 more years. The Bishops know this. They also know that everyone for whom this is a "voting issue" has already decided to either vote for President Obama or for whoever the Republicans nominate. There's no "wedge issue" there. They also know that every American supports "religious liberty." Thus, if the Bishops can somehow convince "social justice Catholics," like the readership of the NCR, that President Obama opposes "religious liberty," then he'll lose the "social justice Catholics" and the election. Fortunately, the "social justice Catholics" have now seen through this transparently cynical ploy and aren't "buying" what the Bishops are "selling."

Agreed, I have friends who say we should be terrified of the take over of the country by Catholics. She heard some guy on a Catholic station say we need a benevolent dictator to keep this country in line...She should be scared with that kind of talk!

I agree totally Robert. More inconsistencies in the Church for the world to see. It is an embarrassment.
As we have learned over the last 20 years...very little in the Church is as it appears on the surface.

Good post, Bob. Anthroplogy, as well as human experience, shows that from day one whenever a culture is dying or in danger those with a stake in it find a scapegoat. Jesus meant to end scapegoating once and for all by being the willing victim of scapegoating to show what love is and can do for all of us. G.K. Chesterton said, "Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting. It hasn't even been tried."

Agreed. Absolutely agreed.

Its not just contraception though.....it includes the morning after pill, so the issue is abortion as well. Additionally, Obama has, unless Archbishop Chaput is very mistaken, has revoked grants to the USCCB since the USCCB refuses to refer rape victims to abortion clinics.

So the specific issues are both abortion and contraception. The general issue is whether the government can force an institution or faith to do something that it finds abhorrent. Put even more generally, the question is whether the government embodies a "general will" that trumps every individual conscience. This is no embarrassment. This is about preventing elective totalitarianism.

"Do they really believe a great mass of Catholic voters are prepared to mount the ramparts in defense of a cause they don't support if the Obama administration does not yield?"

Yes, in fact they do really believe this. The few weeks of good press before the compromise only reinforced this delusion, even while polls continued to show otherwise. What many others on this site have said will ultimately be the central question of this entire fiasco - what exactly do you mean by "the Church?" For the bishops it means only themselves, and they foolishly believe the laity are going to follow them and unite as never before. But the only outcome will be the complete and total loss of any remaining shred of credibility for the church hierarchy, and a laity even more estranged from the prelates.

Mr. McClory, I, too, am embarrassed by the conduct of the bishops in this
matter. In fact, I just sent another message acknowledging it. This is
surely not a time I want to publicly claim my Catholicity.

The embarrassment could continue the next time a member of the laity or an elected Catholic official publicly asserts, reflecting the bishops' own thoughts, exact words, and energies, rights to primacy of conscience and freedom without retribution. As you note, more than the Catholic laity and religious press now will be waiting to report on and evaluate perceived consistency. If a bishop says, "Your conscience must be subservient to what we say is best for the collective, so get in line or else," he will be noted as sounding just like the my-law-trumps-your-conscience-Obama he blasted. I can see the secular editorials now: "Apparently when it comes to primacy of conscience and religious freedom, one CAN be a cafeteria Catholic. Or so says Bishop X..." And the "h word" (hypocrisy) will be assigned over and over. I could be wrong.

I noticed you confined your remarks to the RC Bishops. Missing from your comments are the Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, the Reformed Theological Seminary (one of the largest Protestant seminaries in the U.S.),the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Colson Center for Christian Worldview, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA (which does not agree with the Church's position on contraception but opposes the HHS mandate). So when you consider the totallity of the group opposing this mandate, perhaps you might want to re-think your last paragraph, since you can hardly apply your spite to many of the groups listed above.

STAY OUT OF JAIL CARD .... Thanks, Bob, for calling a spade a spade.

The bishops appear terrified about another four years of an aggressive Obama Justice Department that has already stepped up prosecutorial pressure on pedophile predators. This pressure includes the Federal prosecution of the pedophile priest involved in the separate case with Cardinal Rigali's protege and Opus Dei member, Kansas City's Bishop Finn. Cardinal Dolan is also a St. Louis protege of Rigali. Cardinal Rigali himself is yet at risk of criminal indictment in Philly, as the case of his former aide, Msgr. Lynn, moves ahead in a few weeks to a criminal trial. Rigali is a long time curial power, still sits on key committees with Cardinal Law and surely has the pope's ear.

The "anti-contraception crusade" is, in reality, a ploy to replace Obama with a friendler Republican as US prosecutor. Cynical, perhaps. But after representing senior executives in multinational corporation for many decades after graduating from Harvard Law, I think this crusade is mainly a criminal defense ploy to protect bishops from Federal criminal "prosecution", not Federal religious "persecution" .

Bishops behave much like the wealthy corporate executives who fund the bishops' right wing fronts. Once the possibility of criminal prosecution arises, they cannot focus on much else. Given the pope and bishops' shameful handling of the priest child sexual abuse scandal, this is quite understandable, even if deplorable.

For more evidence of the pope's ploy to protect bishops from criminal prosecution with this contraceptive Trojan Horse strategy, please note the three comments, "Founding Fathers' Shock", "Obama Dream Comes True" and "No Deal Ever. Obama", all readily accessible by clicking on at:

http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishops-studying-revised-contraceptio...

The effect of this poosition by the bishops is an attempt to impose their will on anyone that disagrees with them. They have not been successful in the past 43 years (I believe casti connubii was written in 1968) in convincing the catholic faithful and they are now trying to get the government to do it for them. Is their conscience well-formed?

It is not contraception that is the issue. It is the control with which Mr. Obama wants over as many people as possible. Will the next thing the Administration dictates tell religious leaders of any denomination that they cannot preach against the abomination of homosexual behaviour, OR, as in Europe, preachers cannot criticize secular humanism? Will Mr. Obama now require Jews and Muslims to eat pork?

When this gets jammed down our throats, religious institutions will not offer insurance anymore. The Gov't will take over, and will be one more thing Big Sis will provide for us, and it dare not take it away from us. Look at the debacle of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and every other entitlement taking 60 - 65% of the total budget. Say hello to Greece, Western Hemisphere style.

Healthcare it not a right, by any stretch of the imagination. We citizens may choose to purchase or decline to purchase what we want. Why doesn't the President look to the Second Amendment and require all to purchase firearms? He is totally disregarding the First Amendment.

Our Church is not a democracy, never has been, but was commissioned by Christ Himself, with leaders inspired by the Holy Spirit to guide the flock to Christ. Yes, there are many bad seeds in leadership, but that does not change the message and the mission of Holy Mother Church. The bishops are required to protect the flock, and even if for many years they have neglected that primary duty, it is a duty nonetheless. We laity should demand that they proceed along this line forward, and man up to their obligations. We are probably not used to it.

I will disobey this government when it does not follow the law, which is our Constitution. It limits the powers of the Federal Government, and reverts it back to the States and to the People.

Thanks Bob for a clear and sane piece. I am sure you will find much agreement.
I would add a point which pains me personally. A requirement for any teaching
of the church is that it be accepted by the church membership. It is patently clear that Humanae Vitae is a canonically rejected teaching. Yet, our bishops and cardinals want to pretend that we have not spoken on this matter and this too is an embarrassment. I mean this is part of our regulations from the top. I guess we can be simply ignored because they do
not actually believe the people of God have any real voice. My prayer is that the bishops get what they want and it turns out to be not at all what they expected.
God Bless.
TomC

Again, the majority of Catholics may support contraception, but that isn't what's being defended here is it? The battle is over the right of the Church to uphold what it believes to be morally wrong and not be told by a renegade President who wants to impose his will. The Bishops are standing on principle and the President is standing on ideology. You may think it's an embarrassment but many of us feel it is a fight worth having.

Andrew K

I was out to eat with a dear friend of mine recently who said to me "My husband and I were raised Catholic, but I realized that our interests were coming from a different place when I was of child bearing years". " In the 1950's I was having too many children, I was told to talk to my priest, he told my husband and I to keep having more that sex was a nescessary evil, and to encourage their children later on to join religious life to take away the taint of our fornication". She continued with saying "what a crock. Why should we have gone in to bankruptcy just to tell our kids to not have a sexual life and to become a priest or nun so they wouldn't have the sex". And there we have it, the nub of the question. Doris and her husband went on to have have 12 kids, because she said they enjoyed sex but that whole concept of the rythm method was bull pucky in their life. And if birth control had worked better at that time she certainly would have purchased it. She said they started to wonder if priests could be fallible in that aspect of life what else were they/or the church also fallible in?

The fight the Bishops are engaged in is similar to arguments about the validity of baseball’s Designated Hitter Rule. It is long past to be doing this.

Obama did the Bishops a favor by taking this off the front page. The Bishops would be in pickle if they were blamed if women did not access to birth control.

I am in a minority here, but I am proud of the Bishops for standing up for their religious principles. I don't agree with the Church's stance on Artificial Birth Control, and think Humane Vitae was a mistake.

But there is a more important stake here, and it has to do with the trampling of the Constitution's checks and balances with President Obama exceeding his Executive Powers; the trampling of the First Amendment, by showing that Separation of Church and State is a one way door only in this administration; and the decision that a woman's right to FREE birth control (not access to birth control, that is not the issue) is more important than religious freedom.

As an American I am embarrassed by this President of the United States.

I am 77 and for my entire life as a Catholic I have listened to those of my faith or those who have left it seize on any excuse to denigrate the hierarchy. Birth control is not the issue. Coming soon is that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions which even many people of other faiths find abhorrent. This shallow and self absorbed president is a man of his time which why the comments above show that you are also of your time. So the church took a stand on birth control which was not wise. In 2000 years they have taken other positions which were not wise. To crow about the bishops getting what they had coming to them seems to me to missing the point. There is a constitutional issue here which has sheltered all faiths in this country and is one of the wisest decisions a young country ever made.Clearly you could not care less about that but are far happier to see the bishops struggling to deal with what they and I know what is coming which is aborting defective babies (too expensive to care for) euthanizing feeble and ill old people (to expensive to care for) and in the end when you are pleading for that state of the art cancer drug you will be told it is too expensive as well. While you are obsessed with a woman's free choice you are forgetting you will lose yours as well.

I now understand the derision that normal Mass attendees have for NCR. Previously I thought it was ignorance. Unsurprisingly, I've been proven wrong. I see clearly that NCR and the majority of its readers "know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Shame on you for being dismissive of our God ordained leadership. Has obedience and humility been lost by so called "social justice" Catholics? Or should you be called "I can do anything I want as long as I'm a good, enlightened liberal" Catholic?

Shame on you for taking the authority to speak in the name of Jesus upon yourselves and decide what is and is not right. learn your faith, learn humility, and learn that when you disagree with something, you may be wrong.

The Bishops don't speak for women. The Bishops are a closed society of unmarried men. They don't speak for women. They don't speak for Catholic women. I hope this is a much needed wake-up call and reality check.

Excellent question Mr.McClory. I would like to offer one theory. Way back when, the "romanesques" went to war with the "celtic". Commissioned by “emperor” Gregory , "general" Augustine of Canterbury and a small army of 41 monks, defeated the celtic church at Whitby and brought it to heel. Relevance? It completed the imposition of hierarchical order as the modus operandi in the western Christian (Roman Catholic) Church. Were the issues momentous? Well,maybe if you think that how monks shave their heads (tonsure)is significant and the date of Easter is absolute. The issue is not important, it is the institutional model.

It seems to me that the roman model held with a a theological certainty that the human race tends inexorably to chaos and evil and is led towards and held in order and holiness only under coercive authority. The authority is rationalized by delegation from Christ and the degree of authority required is proportionate to the power of chaos/evil. The power of evil is unfathomable, it is not simply original sin but the personification of evil himself. Thus the authority of church must be infallible and absolute.

Politically, the dimensions of “evil” and “holiness” were practical christian additions to the emperial governance model of institutional dominion adopted from its roman mentor. It is the institution itself and its core of authority that have irreplacable value. All else is useful, ultimately fodder, always a threat. I offer a telling incongruity: non-existent children are precious but child-rapists and their facilitarors are protected, duh.

I doubt that the theology holds much credence within the core though its rhetoric is retained. Its practical residue of self-preservation and aggrandizement of privelige and power, in other words, the stereotype of institutionalism, have assumed dominance.

Any breach in the bulwark of absolutism is a threat to the entire fortress and simultaneously, like a fatal disease, liable to contaminate the whole. Any concession, regardless of significance, is a weakness that threatens both the concept and the reality of the entire model. It is as inexorable as the purity of logic.

When Card. Ratzinger, rationalized that the censure of Kung was justified because the ordinary catholic is a simple person and must be protected from the power of the intellectuls, he was, to my mind also saying the the ordinary catholic is dangerous when stirred by any dissenter. Even justice and mercy can be a threat and, contrary to Pope Benedict's contention, so can truth, when it does not conform to the institutitutional model and its self-preservation.

What was true in the sixth century is even “truer” today when “intellectuals” are under less control and when “the ordinary catholic” is better educated and when secular governements no longer “draw and quarter” either at the behest of the hierarchy.

The bishops long for the power they once had. They don't realize that it is gone through their own fault and not coming back. They are a delusional flock of old men who don't know anything about women because they have been trained to avoid them. They are part of the Religious Right and along with all the heirarchy up to the pope are driving Catholics out of the Church. The pope's and "orthodox" Catholics' dream of a "smaller, purer" Church is becoming a reality because of men who wish today was yesterday.

Have you noticed how many of the respondents who oppose President Obama's decision always speak of the President in a derogatory, hateful manner. Can't we disagree with each other without being disagreeable?