Please tell me that you are paying attention to what is happening right now between the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration. I have to be honest in saying that I have too many work commitments to do justice to this story, and yet it deserves every ounce of attention we can give to it. All I can really do is point you to places where you can read better coverage and ask you to please go to them. Do you value freedom of religion? Freedom of conscience? Then pay attention!
You may have heard about the Catholic church’s stand against a Health and Human Services policy that will require religious institutions (not churches) to provide provide health insurance to their employees which includes subsidized contraception, sterilization and coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. In it’s grandiosity, the Obama administration thinks that giving the church an extra year to comply with its policies will be enough to satisfy the poor benighted bishops. I think Obama miscalculated on that one, and I pray that the church will continue to stiffen it’s spine and resist this overreach.
If the story wasn’t bad enough when it was just the administration telling Catholic institutions to go stuff their principles, it got worse when it was revealed that Catholic military chaplains had been censored. The letter that was read in Catholic churches all across the U.S. on January 29th was not, as it turns out, read to every Catholic congregation. Catholic army chaplains were instructed not to read the letter, because it hadn’t been approved by the army’s office of the Chief of Chaplaincy. A version edited by the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, has now been approved for the chaplains to read. Seriously? We have a member of the administration editing pastoral letters?
I am not a Catholic. I am not a conservative. I am someone who believes that our personal freedoms will disappear over issues like this, and this, and this. They’ll disappear because we only pay attention to what immediately affects us, and Obama seems like a decent guy, and there aren’t any better alternatives, and we’re busy driving our kids to soccer and paying the bills and trying to keep our jobs. We can’t be bothered to worry about what’s happening to the rights of others. Except, of course, that their rights are our rights, as well. We thought our Constitution would protect us, but that requires a government that respects and upholds the Constitution. We seem to be lacking one at the moment.
Pay attention. Say something. Strengthen what remains.
Let me start by saying that I support the church’s and everyone else’s freedom of speech and believe that censoring or attempting to censor them is wrong.
I also believe that if all other employers have to comply with these new guidelines, the church should not be exempt. I haven’t studied the details. Like everyone else, I have a full plate. The law is the law and everyone, including churches, should be following the same ones.
When anyone says that they are opposed to paying for insurance that covers things that they don’t use, it makes me think of all of the things that insurance covers that I don’t use. For example, a Catholic might not want to pay for insurance that covers birth control. My insurance covers things like epidurals, circumcisions, and labor inducing drugs. I don’t use any of these things. I am a woman that is more comfortable keeping things as natural as possible. However, I would never complain about this. I know that plenty of other women out there that do use these things. For the women that want or need it, I am glad that insurance covers it.
I’ll say it again, just because I feel like it, I DO agree that the church (and everyone else) has the right to say whatever they want. Even when I don’t agree with what is being said, I will support their right to say it.
In the spirit of free speech, I think the Catholic church really needs to rethink their stance on birth control. It’s a good thing.
I like you; you’re thoughtful.
A Catholic would be better equipped to address the analogy that you draw between, for instance, epidurals and contraception. For the church, contraception is a moral evil. I don’t share the belief, but I think I sort of get it. I have very ambivalent feelings about the use of chemical contraceptives and surgical sterilization – wouldn’t ever use either one. But I don’t consider them a moral evil. So while you and I could view our opinions on contraception and natural childbirth as analogous, I know it’s a different matter for the Catholic church. Perhaps one of my R.C. friends will speak up….
I hope they’re not too naive to realize that plenty of Catholic women DO use contraception. I read an article maybe 2 years ago about how the pope gave a speech against the use of condoms in Africa. I was appalled. In a place where a lot more condoms could really help…I just think that (many) churches need to evolve.
It goes along with my usual conversations with pro-life friends. If the protestors spent the time, money and energy that they spend protesting abortions into preventing unwanted pregnancies, they could prevent more abortions. I’m Pro-Prevention.
Aw, I like you too.
Trust me; they’re not that naive. Depending on who you listen to, some studies show that the majority of Catholics use contraception. But that goes with the territory. Based on my anecdotal evidence (and we know how reliable that is!), the majority of evangelicals have sex before marriage, but I don’t anticipate our doctrine on that premarital sex changing.
And the pope has softened his position on condoms a bit, as reported here
As for pro-lifers, many of us aren’t protesting. We’re trying to do more practical things that conform to our convictions. It’s just less flashy.
Sharon, you bring some much-needed attention to an important topic. I’m in the process of researching this issue for a potential column in the near future, so I’m not yet prepared to weigh in with an opinion. But here are a few thoughts I’d like people to consider.
Holly, the U.S. Constitution grants religious institutions special protection, so churches do not have to follow the same rules as everyone else. This interpretation of the health care reform legislation would not impact churches themselves, but it would impact religious-based organizations that employ individuals. It’s a subtle difference but important nonetheless. A Catholic church (or any church, for that matter) that employs people would not be subject to this rule. But groups such as Catholic Charities as well as Catholic hospitals and colleges would be subject to the rule.
The notion of having the U.S. Army censor Catholic priests sounds disturbing. But we’re overlooking one important factor in all this. These priests are members of the military and are subject to military regulations. Of course the Army is going to review any document destined to be read by its chaplains. We naturally think of this document coming from the Catholic Church’s hierarchy. But in the military, any document like this would come from the military hierarchy. And the president of the United States is at the top of this hierarchy. Military higher-ups approve and deny the use of such documents all the time. These chaplains are ministering to our troops, but they’re doing so on the military’s dime. I’d be surprised if the Army didn’t review such a document first and make revisions — it’s what the Army does. Joining the military gives people some tremendous benefits, but it also has its costs. Freedom of speech is one such cost. Troops are not free to express any idea they want. It’s a matter of maintaining order and discipline. An old adage says that the military is here to protect democracy, not practice it.
While the Obama administration’s ruling concerns me, I’m also concerned about people’s reaction to it. Does everyone understand what the ruling says? And is everryone clear on why the admnistration reached this conclusion? Could it be that some people are criticizing this ruling without having all the facts? As I said earlier, I’m looking into this to explore all sides. I strongly urge everyone else to do the same before jumping to conclusions.
a very fast response, as I’m about to leave…just on the chaplains: The church is saying that there’s precedent to consider this an unconstitutional violation of their rights. I don’t know if that’s true; I wasn’t able to do enough reading to say whether there’s precedent or not.
As for the chaplains being members of the military, I will say this. There’s a reason I would NEVER encourage my children to join the military. I find swearing obedience to anyone other than God completely out of bounds. So, yes, they’re in a tough spot. They’ve taken the oath. Swear fealty to Caesar, and eventually Caesar is going to ask you to prove it.
I understand that the constitution makes special exceptions for churches. I said I don’t agree with that. If the military is paying these chaplains, I disagree with that one too.
As the resident (former) Roman Catholic here, I’ll offer some insights on the use of contraceptives among members of the church. Please note, my experience is limited to what is going on here in the United States. Despite what the Vatican has taught about birth control, its use among American Catholics has been widespread for decades.
My parents raised eight children (I’m the second youngest). My mother’s final pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage. As she was in her 40s and continued pregnancies would pose increasing risks to my mother’s health, her doctor sat her down after she lost her ninth child and told her she was going to have to use birth control — no question about it. This was 40-some years ago. And as her primary health care provider, her doctor knew she would be risking her life if she declined to use contraceptives. It was just that simple. And my mother did as her doctor had instructed her to do. It was definitely a moral issue with my parents to wrestle with; when my mother began taking birth control, my father couldn’t bring himself to take communion at Mass. So, they obviously felt the weight of the church’s teaching vs. the reality of married life and reproduction. They dealt with it the best they could, and I greatly appreciate that they mustered the courage to continue struggling with this and other moral issues throughout their lives with grace and dignity.
But now all these decades later, birth control among Catholics is quite commonplace. My guess is that young Catholic couples don’t wrestle with this issue as much as previous generations did. That doesn’t mean the church is wrong, but contraception is a way of life for most couples.
One of the factors that the Obama administration is considering in this ruling is that offering greater access to birth control is a major health concern. A lack of access leads to unwanted pregnancies, and this leads to increased abortions. Women who endure unwanted pregnancies also have a greater risk of falling into depression as well as increased smoking and drinking. This doesn’t negate the fact that this ruling has serious implications for religious employers, and this may be unconstitutional. But I bring this up to point out that the basis of this ruling isn’t necessarily Obama alleged anti-religious viewpoint. This is how many of Obama critics want to portray this, but it’s much more complicated than that. There are legitimate health care issues involved, and everyone needs to research this to see what this ruling actually says and how it will affect religious groups.
As a current Roman Catholic, I’ll be happy to weigh in here – this will be a two-parter, I think.
Part I: Just this morning I wrote the following letter to the editor of the Oregonian in response to what struck me as an eye-rollingly offensive op-ed by Susan Nielsen. Here’s a link to the article: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2012/02/contraception_and_religion_bir.html
And here’s my response:
To the Editor:
Susan Nielsen’s editorial “Birth-control mandate full of unpleasant side effects” positively drips with condescension toward those who disagree with the Health and Human Services mandate. Aside from the misleading information she herself provides (e.g. obscuring the facts that it will affect any church than employs or serves non-coreligionists; Ella and Plan B can have an early abortifacient effect), her tone reminds me of nothing so much as the following scene from history:
Pliny the Younger was the Roman provincial governor of the area of the Middle East including Palestine during the early 2nd century AD. At this time, the Roman government regarded the burgeoning Christian movement in the region as a dangerous and illegal cult – not because of their specific Jewish-flavored beliefs per se, but because those beliefs prevented Christians from performing the types of civic gestures which Pliny (and the Emperor Trajan) deemed necessary to keep public order and unity in the empire.
In a letter to Trajan (Epistulae X.96), Pliny complains that “the contagion of this superstition [Christianity] has spread” throughout his jurisdiction and he has found it necessary to arrest and interrogate (including torture) any person denounced to his office as a Christian. He asked Trajan for guidance and explained his procedure of questioning them on three separate occasions, threatening punishment as necessary, and then executing them if they did not recant their beliefs – and prove it by performing the common religious act of offering wine and a pinch of incense to a statue of the Emperor, showing their submission to his absolute authority.
The interesting thing is this: Pliny was not interested so much in the content of their “superstition”, but rather in the public gesture. This is what the Christians refused to do; this is what Pliny regarded as unacceptable. He writes, “For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished.” (With execution, in this case.)
This same attitude is what I hear in Nielsen’s editorial: “Who cares what you Christians actually believe – what possible reason is there for you to be so stubborn about this requirement? It’s just a pinch of incense – what is wrong with you people?”
Sincerely,
Kathleen Lundquist
(with a hat tip Wesley J. Smith, who made this connection in his NRO article: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289536/free-birth-control-vs-freedom-religion-wesley-j-smith?pg=1)
Nice connection, Kathleen. I shared that passage with my church history class, along with some others that showed that the Romans were not aggressively anti-Christian so much as they were aggressively pro-compromise. In other words, worship your god, heck, worship a hundred gods if you like, but you need to do these things in order be good citizens of the Empire. And Christianity was not, by nature, a compromising faith. The responses of the early Christians were not violent or hostile; they went out of their way to explain that they prayed for the emperor. They just wouldn’t pray to him. I love that “this far and no farther” spirit.
Part II:
Holly, the fact that the great majority of Catholic couples in this country use artificial contraception has no bearing on: 1) whether or not it’s a legitimate moral choice or 2) whether the government has the right to coerce anyone’s conscience to be involved in providing it. For example, what about the Hindu who’s vegetarian and runs a restaurant or grocery store – should the government wish to promote the sale of beef, say, because it subsidizes cattle ranches, should the Hindu be required to serve meat or have it available? If they believe “meat is murder”, should they really be forced to comply “because we’re all Americans” or something?
This may be hard on Protestant ears, but the international Catholic Church represents a Kingdom, not a democracy, and she is organized and runs like one. Though people may fail to keep its teachings, that can never change the truth of those teachings (cf. the Arian controversy over Christ’s true nature in the 4th century.) Sharon’s analogy is apt in that while plenty of Christians may have sex before/outside of marriage, it doesn’t abrogate the Bible’s teaching against it one whit.
Jerry’s story of his parents’ struggle with contraception reflects something not often seen in these discussions: real people who desire to please God and adhere to their faith, and struggle to do so. Jerry’s description of their thought process and actions reinforce my belief that God rewards people like them who wrestle with the church’s teaching and take it seriously, and I agree completely that his parents’ attitude is very different from the casual approach that most take toward birth control in our culture these days. This is one of the reasons why the bishops have dug in their heels against the mandate: they’ve been moved in their hearts to stand against this cultural tide.
Sharon is also right in her perception that Catholic teaching regards artificial contraception, sterilization, and “morning-after” pills/early abortifacients as real moral evils, not just lifestyle choices. Not good for anybody, or for society, in other words. The reason is this: Contraception damages the marital bond by separating its procreative aspects from its unitive aspects. The language of the complementarity of the male and female body, of sexual union is I give all of myself to you, completely, utterly, nothing held back – and in this gift of self we find our true selves, we find joy. This gift of self is designed to create more life, other lives. All of Catholic teaching on sexuality revolves around this deep truth of human nature: Each of us is loved into being, by our parents and by God Himself. This is who we are; we have been and are loved into being. Don’t prevent that life from being; welcome it. Bring that new being into a stable home to be nurtured; don’t break it up. Love creates life; love overflows. That’s the truth the Church is trying to safeguard with all the perceived “don’ts” (e.g. contraception, abortion, divorce, etc.) And while we Catholics who are with the bishops still have some influence in American culture, we’re trying to make our voice heard.
P.S. re: condoms and AIDS, check this out: http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/92702/ Money quote: “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates,” said Green, “which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”
Thanks for shedding more light on the church’s teaching, Kathleen. I knew it was better for a Protestant not to take a clumsy whack at that.
Sharon, a recent Supreme Court decision in favor of a Christian denomination may give the Obama administration cover to exert more control over various institutions regarding insurance plans offering birth control. The case centered on a discrimination dispute involving Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., affiliated with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought a lawsuit against the school on behalf of a teacher who lost her position. The school argued that since the teacher had ministerial duties, her position was exempt from discrimination laws. In a surprising unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
Where this may be relevant to the health care reform mandate is that the Supreme Court relied on a growing legal precedent called the ministerial exemption. Here, church organizations make distinctions in their relationships between lay employees and ministers. Lay employees do not carry out the operations of the church while ministers do. In the Hosanna-Tabor case, church officials argued that the fired employee had more than mere teaching duties; she was considered a minister. Therefore, she was carrying out the operations of the church while ordinary teachers were not. What’s pertinent here is that it was the church advancing the argument that even at a religious school, there is a distinction between employees who have the protection of government laws and those who don’t. So, the church’s religious freedom as an employer extends only as far as those who make up the operational function of the institution. You can view this distinction as those responsible for drafting and spreading the doctrines of the church versus those who perform nonreligious work, even though they work for a religious organization.
The StLouis.com website (I believe you’re familiar with this one, Sharon) had a good story on this. Here’s the link:
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/st-louis-lutheran-leader-responds-to-landmark-supreme-court-case/article_9ef07f9e-3c9c-11e1-bc10-001a4bcf6878.html
The ministerial exemption can be used in this current debate by showing that the Supreme Court recognizes where the line should be drawn when it comes to religious employers being subject to federal and state laws. When it comes to governing their own ministers, it’s pretty much hands off. But for everyone else who works for religious organizations, there is no exemption. So, it would be hard for religious organizations to argue that nurses, doctors, lay teachers, secretaries, bookkeepers, etc., should be considered ministers — particularly since it was the church that argued for accepting the concept of a ministerial exemption and people of faith cheered the ruling as a real boost for the cause of religious liberty.
I sympathize with religious people on this issue, and I believe the administration’s push for coverage of birth control is very problematic. There must be a better way to ensure more women have access to contraceptives while not inviting a battle over faith. And who does Obama imagine he’s fooling by all this talk about “free” birth control? Someone is going to end up paying for this coverage.
But it’s difficult for me not to be skeptical about more than a few of the people who are screaming about this latest controversy. First of all, the Roman Catholic hierarchy doesn’t have all that much credibility to lecture anyone about sexual morality. And where are all the liberty-loving Christians when minority religious groups, like Muslims, are having their freedoms squashed. Whenever I write about how all people (including Muslims) have rights that must be protected, I hear from so many Christians who can’t stand to read that. Why am I supporting terrorists? But now they’re all in favor of religious freedom.
I know there are many people who sincerely believe the Obama administration’s ruling has potential negative consequences for religious liberty, and perhaps they have a point. It’s not a fight I would advised White House officials to pick, but they did it anyway. I join these good people in their concerns and hope whatever compromise will truly protect the safeguards we need and cherish.
However, we must make a choice. Either religious liberty is important to us or it’s not. When one religious group has its rights infringed upon, regardless of whether or not we like them, we must stand up for their liberties. Because if such freedoms are imperiled for one of us, they are imperiled for all of us. But I don’t see too much of this in the debate going on today. Far too many Christian openly cheer when angry residents force municipal governments to keep mosques out of their communities, but for God’s sake don’t force Catholic universities to offer birth control to their employees! The hypocrisy is repulsive. If the concept of religious liberty means anything to us, let’s make sure we acknowledge it for everyone who deserves its protection.
Jerry,
While I recognize the hypocrisy you’re talking about, don’t paint all Christians with it. I’ve been outspoken in support of religious freedom for other groups, including Muslims – particularly on the issue of allowing them to build new mosques. I also think Muslim women should be allowed to wear hijabs wherever they choose, just to cover that issue while we’re at it. It’s too easy to dismiss a legitimate concern on the grounds that SOME Christians are hypocrites who only want to see their own rights protected. Would you apply the same standard to Muslims? We have a Muslim blogger at Civil Religion, a wonderful woman I’ve had the pleasure to meet a couple of times. Whenever Ghazala writes to dispel stereotypes about Muslims the comboxes are full of demands for her to renounce every evil thing any Muslim anywhere has ever done – otherwise, she’s clearly a hypocrite. And that’s just ridiculous. So I’ve grown quite cynical of that particular brand of argument, frankly.
Consider, for instance, this article: The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I almost linked it to FB because religious persecution is a great concern of mine – and yes, admittedly, particularly of those that I consider my brothers and sisters, globally. But I didn’t because I figured I would offend someone by coming off anti-Muslim, simply by posting it, even though Ali is an atheist and a former Muslim herself. We all ought to be able to call things as we seem them, without immediately being lumped with the WORST of humanity, on either side
I’m tired and cranky and you hit a nerve.
fyi… they still intend to kill him.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/22/iran-court-convicts-christian-pastor-convert-to-death/
Yes, I saw this today….I’m still praying.
Sharon —
I certainly appreciate that not all Christians should be smeared with the criticism deserved of only a few. My post should have been clearer on that, and I regret that it wasn’t. I recognize the many wonderful things Christians do in this country motivated by their faith. And I also recognize the many horrors occurring in parts of the Islamic world and that Christians often receive the worst of it. There are some fundamental problems with various factions within Islam, and people area right to be concerned about these. On that point, there is no question.
You’re correct that some people should not be made to feel guilty over the actions of others who share some of their beliefs. To demand that all Muslims apologize for and/or renounce terrorism every time a violent Islamic group does something is pointless. My perspective is this: If some people haven’t endorsed violence, it’s reasonable to presume they reject it. Therefore, demanding that they prove they reject it is not constructive. So, once again you’re correct that placing this burden on some members of a group (who haven’t been involved in the violence) is unfair. The people who should apologize and renounce the use of violence are those who actually engaged in it.
However, that really wasn’t the kind of hypocrisy to which I was referring in my post. I was talking about the numerous Christians denouncing the Obama administration’s ruling on insurance plans covering birth control as being an assault on religious freedom, and the cheering from many of these same people when Muslims have their religious liberties limited. If these people truly support the constitutional principle of religious freedom, why do they believe it’s perfectly fine for another religious group to have its liberties crushed? I have no problem with people defending their respective ideologies. But if people say they promote religious freedom, they should be prepared to do it for everyone, not merely people who share their views.