The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionA further word on "Obama's Choice"
by Tom Roberts on Nov. 21, 2011
As much as I’ve recently voiced skepticism over the bishops’ new “religious liberty” initiative, I also think colleague Michael Sean Winters has put it as plainly as possible that the Obama administration has a significant choice to make, and if it goes the wrong way it could be costly in the Catholic world.
By way of the new and vaunted “religious liberty” effort, I think it is a thinly disguised – and potentially very costly in multiple ways -- effort to reclaim the credibility that has profusely leaked in recent decades from the episcopal culture. The point to be made in that instance is that the bishops are receiving a great deal of the pushback from Catholic politicians and the Catholic public. The problem is that the bishops have not made a persuasive case in the sex and gender issues they find most disturbing. And while they may point to relativism, secularism, a hyper-sexed society and whatever other ills they perceive lurking about, the fact o f the matter is they have mostly themselves to blame for their decreased standing in the general culture.
But that is not to say that the bishops don’t have a strong case to make in the matter of expanding conscience rights in the new health care regulations. “Expanding conscience rights” is probably an unfortunate phrase, because the expansion is, in reality, a maintenance of the status quo of exceptions to certain coverage that currently exist for Catholic institutions.
I’ve also reported in these pages and for t he print issue on what has happened in Illinois, where a rigid state approach to new legislation permitting civil unions has resulted in the state rescinding its contracts to Catholic adoption agencies who refuse to provide adoptions to unmarried, including gay, couples. I think the church is wrong to deny adoptions to gay couples, but in the past such requests were accommodated by referrals to other agencies. Now those agencies and a few new ones get all the referrals. The losers are the people of Illinois who are deprived o f the church’s sense of mission which undergirded the work of agencies that, in the highly regarded and measured world of Illinois social services, were always ranked at or near the top in performance.
As much as Catholic officialdom’s surprise and dismay was a naïve reaction to political reality when federal contracts with church agencies dealing with immigration were not renewed, it is just as politically remarkable t hat there should be a debate about granting Catholic institutions exception to having to provide contraceptive and other services out of step with church teaching.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Any Catholic representative or senator who voted for health care will tell you that it was religious women and the progressive Catholic community that provided the cover for that vote. And that cover was only possible because of years of work in building up relationships and nurturing individuals and groups who could articulate a case for religious involvement in politics that was not an echo of the narrower view of the religious right.
A lot of people risked a great deal to get health care passed. If the administration wheels on the Catholic community this close to that fact and issues an untenable ultimatum to Catholic institutions, a lot of political work and good will will be undone in an instant.
If the work can be undone in
If the work can be undone in an instant, it wasn't done in the first place. The simple fact is that politicians used liberal Catholics to promote their own agenda, and now that Catholics want to speak with a different voice, the same politicians don't want anything to do with them. That's not wise stewardship. That's prostituting oneself, then complaining about the fee one gets.
This is about that line we
This is about that line we see more clearly now where religion and secular government touch.
In a strange way, we reached this point by government programs, our society, becoming more Christian. What we are fighting over in the national debate are the tax policies and sociel networks that favor the poor, the old, those in need. The Republicans want the government doing less of all this Christian stuff, and, ironically, it is the Republicans who claim to be the most Christian, with the face of Jesus shining on them. The Democrats, who believe that all these government programs are good, are seen as secular, anti-Christian, or non-Christian. Makes a body wonder, doesn't it?
But back to the line in the sand that divides faith and government interests. If we are to have a government that does get involved in adoptions and foster care, health care, help for those who suffered from human trafficking, how are we to decide what those programs should look like? Remember, this is the government. Should we have a set of rules for the Catholic Community, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Christian Scientists, the Muslims? Or, do we find another way to create a set of standard we can operate government programs under that apply equally to all?
See that is how I see it. Catholics to not live in ghettoes that carve themselves out of the rest of the country to have a set of laws that can apply only to them. More importantly, they should not have a Catholic ghetto that provides they can operate on rules inside and outside their ghetto that are not the same rules everyone else must adhere to. Particularly where it comes to such issues as discrimination against minority groups or decisions about health care they should not be able to impose Catholic views on those who are not Catholic nor on Catholics who do not share the official Church view. That is not anti-Catholic to think like that. It is not anti-religion. Perhaps it is secular thinking, because the point is that no religion should be able to limit legal choices of a citizen. (Don't we have centuries of wars in Europe that tell us how important THAT is?)
We decided in this country to put medical societies and groups in charge of advising the government on how to regulate health care. They won't be perfect but I can't think of another way that would be better. they use science to decide what works for health care. Certainly, as a citizen of this country, I do not want to put a religious organization in charge of making decisions about what health care should be available - should we just blend all the Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Christian Scientist and assorted religious beliefs and take out everything anyone objects to? Further, putting the Catholic Church or the Mormons in charge of who should be discriminated against in adoptions would be like putting the Aryan Nation in charge of discrimination issues in the civil right era.
Religious freedom means the Church is free to teach, preach, exhort a point of view. It means that people of faith can meet together to share their faith; they can shout it from the street corners, subject only to noise and public nuisance laws. But it does not mean that we carve out special laws and give special dispensation from government requirements for any particular religion to enforce tenets of the faith within their own body of the faithful and we do not carve out some means for that religious group to require that others live by their tenets. That really is establishment of religion.
I can sum up Tom Roberts
I can sum up Tom Roberts article in one sentance.
"Liberal Catholics sold their souls to the devil and accomplish nothing".
Hobson's choice? Not
Hobson's choice? Not really....current administration not in line with the bishops, alternative choices not i
nline with Matthew 25. Easy choice.
Post new comment