By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Last Sunday, most U.S. Catholics heard a letter read from the pulpit imploring them to oppose the Obamacare provision requiring most healthcare plans to cover contraceptive services for women. The reason given was that Catholic hospitals and universities would have to “shutter their doors” in order to avoid heresy and be true to the faith. As part of the concerted effort, the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty announced that the Obama administration’s requirement goes against “the mandate of Jesus Christ.” Even though the earthly mandate contains an exemption for purely religious organizations, the all-male U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly on the offensive in this politically charged debate about women, privacy, and the right of families to decide for themselves the number of children they can support.
Since the 1930s, most denominations have left the issue of contraception up to the conscience of the parishioners. The Catholic Church has stood virtually alone since 1951 by requiring its adherents to use only the “rhythm method” as a means to prevent pregnancy. All other forms of contraception were deemed an interference in God’s Plan and hence heretical. In the early 1960s with the reforms of Vatican II in full swing, the Pope appointed a 90 person committee to evaluate the Church’s position on contraception. 75 of the 90 recommended the Church allow contraception by means other than the rhythm method.
Disregarding the recommendation, Pope Paul VI issued his famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the
Church’s solitary position. The Pope reasoned that, “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” The Pope then waxed philosophic about the danger of government mandated contraception akin to that seen in China:
Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.
That textual cudgel has now been taken up against Obamacare. Catholic apologists like Jennifer Brinker in the St. Louis Review have argued that the Pope was right and the government is now in the business of pushing contraception for political reasons. Brinker even argues ironically that the mandate is a “dissolution of freedom.” Brinker reminds Catholics that disapproved contraception is a “sin” and that most Catholics don’t understand the reason for the ban.
What do Catholic women think about the Church’s unyielding stand on artificial birth control? In April of last year, Reuters reported that a Guttmacher Institute poll showed that 98% of sexually active U.S. Catholic women used contraception methods outside of the Church’s teachings. The numbers held up for women who regularly attended Catholic services as well as those who didn’t. In fact, the findings showed American Catholic women were just as likely to use artificial contraception as those in other denominations.
“In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” said the report’s lead author Rachel Jones. Catholics overwhelmingly rely on the most common methods of birth control. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.
What then are we to make of the schism between Church’s dogma and the reality of its followers? Are 98% of the Church’s women sinners and heretics? Can a religion be viable if one of its fundamental tenets is ignored on a daily basis by almost all of its “faithful”? Can a male dominated authority maintain credibility in the modern world when it dictates to women on issues that are overwhelmingly that gender’s concern?
These questions do not seem to be troubling Church fathers. In fact, they appear to be looking for a testosterone fueled showdown. As one recently said, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” They may do well to look over their shoulders as they climb up that political hill, theological banners flying. A cursory view of their ranks will likely find few honest Americans and almost no honest women.
Source: CNN
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Timothy, the nuns used to preach that clap-trap too about ” never taught a moral error ” I believed it when I was 10 years old….now I look at the church and think what a bunch of crap….POWER and MONEY baby thats the ticket
Shady_Grady,
I left an excerpt from a ThinkProgress article earlier on this thread. Here is an excerpt from that excerpt:
The Catholic Bishops and their Republican allies argue that the Obama administration’s regulation requiring insurers and employers to offer reproductive health coverage at no additional cost sharing is an “unprecedented attack on religious liberties” that will force houses of worships to sacrifice deeply held beliefs. In reality, the rule, part of the Affordable Care Act, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith. But religious groups contend that its conscience protections are too narrow.
A closer examination of the Obama provision, however, reveals that the conscience language closely mirrors the existing provisions in at least five states:
– OBAMA: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an organization that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(4)The organization is a nonprofit organization
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/05/catholics-contraception-the-heretical-98/#comment-324846
A lot of anti-Catholic/anti-religious feelings are on display here. I myself am not religious. But the point is not whether outsiders think the Catholic rules against birth control are silly or whether Catholic hierarchy is sexist or so on.
The sole question is should the state have the right to force a religious institution’s organizations to pay for and help provide items which are anathema to them.
I say no.
The fact that millions of individual Catholics fall short of, ignore or simply reject some portions of Catholic teaching is irrelevant to whether the state should be able to force the Church to bend the knee.
>”Are 98% of the Church’s women sinners and heretics?”
I expect that 100% of the women and the men are sinners and heretics as that is what the Bible and the Church have taught for millenia. “All have fallen short of the glory of God.”
For some yet unknown reason God founded a church for sinners, filled it with sinners and placed sinners in charge. That Church; however, has never taught a moral error.
“From the Hindu perspective, I am going to suggest that you may have spent one of your past lives as a Jesuit.”
Blouise,
Now that explains it all, the bad and the good. 🙂
“To me the any doctor/institution that takes away the choice that an individual has to freely choose to sin, or not, is blocking free choice and therefore interfering with God.” (Mike S)
From the Hindu perspective, I am going to suggest that you may have spent one of your past lives as a Jesuit. … 😉
R CAMPBELL………Hear, hear!!!
Elaine M.
…..covered up the sexual abuse of children for decades.
Homosexuality may not be in DSM, but sexual predation should be IMHO.
But then HOW IS IT WITH WOMEN ANYWAY????? Just joking.
A helpless man am I. A sex object all my life. When you’re hungry, anything looks good, they must have been so influenced.
Let’s peruse this for a bit strictly on theological grounds. The RCC’s belief is that our entrance to heaven is judged by our actions on Earth and that God will judge us when we die. The only way for God to Judge a person’s sins if is they have the “free will” to sin or not to sin. By removing the option of sinning, you remove “free will” from the equation. A Catholic doctor could well refuse to do abortions on the ground that it is murder and still remain a doctor in good standing. When it comes to supplying birth control, you are not talking about murder from a religious perspective, but about sinning. To me the any doctor/institution that takes away the choice that an individual has to freely choose to sin, or not, is blocking free choice and therefore interfering with God.
Alternatively, if you believe that there is no free choice, but all is God’s will, then to me you are a blasphemer because you make God into a Cosmic Puppeteer, with sadistic tendencies, manipulating us all for amusement.
Either way there is a tremendous amount of logical fallacies in this proposition of trying to make birth control hard to obtain. However, when you get down to it religion and logical fallacies go hand in hand.
Great point rcampbell…
The Church and Republicans are objecting to the government dictating what to do about contraception because they see it as their role to dictate to people what to do about contraception.
“It’s been almost 600 years for you to understand that salvation is a matter of grace, not a good football team.” (Richard Faust)
I like that sentence … a lot.
Many of the priests I know mouth the words of the Pope in public but say something quite different when speaking to their parishioners in private.
Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
-Martin Luther (btw: the Reformation is underway). C’mon my brothers and sisters, you do not have to bow to the whims of bachelors. It’s been almost 600 years for you to understand that salvation is a matter of grace, not a good football team. The Pope, il Papa, is not your Daddy.
I regard getting a lecture on morality by the Bishops of he Catholic church the logical equivalent of getting a lecture on diet and exercise from Jabba the Hutt.
The Catholic hierarchy is composed of sexist old men who have no understanding of or real concern for the lives of women. I find it odd that the same church that considers the use of birth control an immoral act covered up the sexual abuse of children for decades.
Elaine,
“I find it odd that the same church that considers the use of birth control an immoral act covered up the sexual abuse of children for decades.”
lol…One is a Moral issue the other is a choice….or is it?
How can the religious hierarchy, of all Christian cults, pretend to be so holy, when in fact they live off us and pretend to be concerned, and give guidance?
Thanks for the figures Elaine M. Reassuring.
Net gain in 8 states, and they just want to avoid contraceptive counseling, I presume.
If they have an exemption, why make themselves look bad by asking for what they already have (an exemption)?
The question; “What then are we to make of the schism between Church’s dogma and the reality of its followers?”
What else but that most women, and most men, do not accept the teaching?
There is another teaching equally disregarded: “if you have two coats, give one to the poor”. Is your analysis “content neutral”?
There is another “unjust law” which church fathers, not church mothers, will have to obey. That is the law against pedophilia. Get your house in order you hypocrites! The church can not afford all of the court judgments against it for child rape cases committed by heavenly holy fathers. The church and the Susan Komen people are going to have to stick this one up their …
Just a dog talking. I was on runaway status for a few days because my human pal (none dare call him owner) was TalkinRepubliCon– but he got religion (no pun intended) and thought better of it. This dogalog device which translates dog growl, bark and wimper into humanoid is still working.
Mark,
I read the following article, which I found interesting, on ThinkProgress last night:
ANALYSIS: Obama Reproductive Health Reg Mirrors State Conscience Protections
By Igor Volsky
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/418631/analysis-obama-reproductive-health-reg-mirrors-state-conscience-protections/
The Catholic Bishops and their Republican allies argue that the Obama administration’s regulation requiring insurers and employers to offer reproductive health coverage at no additional cost sharing is an “unprecedented attack on religious liberties” that will force houses of worships to sacrifice deeply held beliefs. In reality, the rule, part of the Affordable Care Act, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith. But religious groups contend that its conscience protections are too narrow.
A closer examination of the Obama provision, however, reveals that the conscience language closely mirrors the existing provisions in at least five states:
– OBAMA: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an organization that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(4)The organization is a nonprofit organization
– NEW YORK: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(a) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(b) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(c) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity is a nonprofit organization
– CALIFORNIA: For purposes of this section, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(D) The entity is a nonprofit organization
– MICHIGAN: For our purposes, a “religious employer” is an entity for which all the following are true:
(a) The entity is a nonprofit organization
(b) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(c) The entity primarily employs people who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
– OREGON: A “religious employer” is an employer:
(a) Whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values;
(b) That primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the employer;
(c) That primarily serves persons who share the religious tenets of the employer; and
(d) That is a nonprofit organization
Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost. In fact, the administration will be expanding conscience protections in eight states, where all religious institutions are required to offer birth control coverage.
Excellent article Mark…..Most folks that I know that claim affiliation with the “Church” do as you have indicated…They take what the hear and leave the rest at the door…Then..as you see it becomes a cycle of guilty…
I see it along the way that you have stated….and I’ll reiterate what most financially successful religions do….they “Recycle Guilt for Monetary Gain”…
We all operate off of some guilt which may or may not be designed to control…but in the end…the result is the same….There is a lot of double speak in all aspects of life…especially where money is concerned…
This is where the RW Nuts join hands with most folks that on a daily basis appear to be reasonable….This is also where partisanship issues divide the rational thinking individuals from there conscience….