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
“Has the Catholic Church taken a position on health insurance coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs? Are men who take these drugs observing the “precepts of natural law?” Inquiring minds want to know.” (Elaine)
That is beautiful … 🙂
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/03/mitt_romney_caught_in_inconsistency_in_blast_at_barack_obama_for_forcing_catholic_institutions_to_provide_insured_birth_control/ Although Romney has gone so far as to get up a petition against Obama for doing this, he did a similar thing in Massachusetts. Great letter, Mespo
Ross S.:
What is next? Forced sterilization and forced abortion of humans with genetic mutations so health care costs can be as low as possible?
It goes way beyond freedom of religion.
Just another hobnail in the jackboot.
The issue is NOT, whether birth control should be legal or not. The issue is NOT, whether each person can legally decide whether or not to use birth control. Rather, the issue is whether an organization that believes birth control is sinful and immoral can be forced to pay for somebody else’s decision to use birth control. This mandate is particularly extreme because some of the mandated forms of birth control can cause early abortions (i.e.., they cause human lives to end after conception has already occurred), and so the Catholic church’s organizations are also being effectively ordered to pay for abortions too. The great majority of the issues brought up in the article and in the comments are completely irrelevant to the basic issue of religious liberty. Apparently religious liberty is to be recognized only when we happen to personally agree with what the religion believes or practices; otherwise, it is to be denied on some pretext.
The current position of the Catholic Church represents the position that basically all branches of the Christian church took until the 20th century. Apparently some people believe that the content of Christian teaching is to be determined by polling 21st century American Christians. On the contrary, the American Christian church is in a most decrepit state. Most of its members are unfamiliar with even the most basic Bible teaching and stories and teachings of the Christian church. Most of its members do such a poor job of practicing their so-called “Christian” faith that they are indistinguishable from those who do not profess the Christian faith. I can hardly think of a less reliable means of determining what Christianity should be than by asking the (basically) self-indulgent, spoiled, and apostate 21st century American Christian church about anything. I have spent my whole life in America and gotten to know four people whom I thought exceptionally spiritual. Three out of the four were born and bred outside of the United States. Thank God the church has shown more vitality in other parts of the world.
Nice letter Mespo.
What follows is a copy of a letter I wrote to our Bishop in Richmond today about his call for Catholics to disobey the law:
February 6, 2012
Most Reverend Francis X. DiLorenzo
Bishop of Richmond
Re: Joint Letter of January 30, 2012
Dear Bishop DiLorenzo:
As a baptized Catholic and member of the legal profession, I find your recent letter (which you wrote with Bishop Loverde) concerning changes in the healthcare regulations extraordinary and dismaying. One sentence in that letter which apparently is part of some suggested language offered by other bishops around the nation is that, “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.” I have never seen a Catholic clergyman call for direct lawlessness and never thought I would see one. This is a dangerous precedent and places Catholic employers squarely in the path of either secular or religious sanction over a volatile issue that is debatable both theologically and legally.
I urge you to rescind or fully clarify your call for disobeying the law of the land, and adopt a more conciliatory or democratic response to the issue. We are still a nation of laws and urging your congregants to violate those laws, even those you disagree with, is based neither in theology nor prudence. You have every right to persuade legislators or courts of your position on religious freedom and urge your followers to do likewise. You have no right call for Catholics to ignore the law in doing so.
I do agree with at least one thing in your letter: “We must defend our right to practice what we profess and express our concerns and convictions about religious freedom to our elected officials.” That involves dialog with decision-makers and not ultimatums which subject your flock to criminal and civil penalties. We have every right to believe whatever our conscience allows, but we have no right to act in violation of the law – and neither do our leaders.
Sincerely,
Mark M. Esposito
MME/
To say that “The church has never taught a moral error” is like saying the Supreme Court has never made a legal error. Well … ok.
Has the Catholic Church taken a position on health insurance coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs? Are men who take these drugs observing the “precepts of natural law?” Inquiring minds want to know.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/singleton/ Ninety eight percent of Catholics practice birth control, and they need to stand up for the president’s decision. The extreme catholics that don’t practice it are voting for Santorum. Glad I was not at a catholic church on Sunday.
Iz “impose their bigotry” – begs the question.
The statement quoted about from the church’s complaint includes the phrase “religious liberties”, which is a political analysis of the situation. “Religious liberties” is not a religious formulation. And there certainly have been greater attacks on “religious liberties” than requiring a co-pay or whatever. The complaint is that a religious institution is required to participate against its conscience in an immoral program. Slavery? Capitalism? War? These are nothing?
Timothy:
“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.”
*********************
No it was a man who founded the Church — even under Catholic dogma. What better way to create a need for it than by decreeing that men are born sick and that only your religion can effect the cure? As for never teaching moral error I’d be careful with that as the Bible teaches the value of slavery and the Church regards the scriptures as sacred.
There is a deeper issue then contraception at work here as highlighted by the Republican response. Essentially they believe any law of the land becomes invalid if cloaked in the name of religion. In other words, prejudice in the name of religion is not only permissible but encouraged.
Republicans jumped all over this decision, for example, Gingrich said, ““The Obama administration is engaged in a war against religion,” Gingrich began.“ Romney said, “And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith,” Romney wrote in the Examiner. “Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in.”
What they really mean is to legalize hate, inequality, and exploitation through religion.
As pointed out the law only applied to operations not directly related to the practice of ones religion. Running a hospital clearly is not directly related to that practice. It involves workers and patients of many different beliefs, color, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or union participation.
What if any individul, or for that matter business decided to call themself a religion and according to the tenants of their faith Hispanics, Blacks or people of any particular belilef or characteristic they were opposed to were considered “sinners” by the tenants of their faith (as the for example the Christian religious prejudice against gays)?
Essentially, the position of the right wing nut case party of hate is to make bigotry against any group and for any reason legal so long as you wrap it in the cloak of religion. And that is exactly the Right Wings intention.
The first amendment protects the right of individuals to practice their religion but it does not give them the right to impose their bigotry on others in the name of their religion.
raff
when talking about newt and his affairs “itch” and “whoops” seems to fit.
Oh, and that rhythm method that people practice. Inquiring dogs want to know: why is it that humans need music when they join up and how come they cant stay on their feet while doing so? And how come they call one method “doggie style” when it is nowhere near like a dog method? We might be stylin when we have a new collar or a fresh bath but ….
I always hate it when the topic of church propaganda and cult beliefs comes up and then it gets described as church dogma. I know that god spelled backwards is dog but leave my ma out of it please. A dog’s ma is special.
But, its just me a dog talking. What do I know about humanoid religions– we dogs keep things rather neat and tidy. Number one, we dont have contraception or any contraptions other than a fast four to avoid the hump that leads to the litter. Number two, if four legs are good and two legs bad then it is usually humanoids deciding who our mates are and they usually want to keep us within the same species. Kind of like a catholic wanting his kid to marry a catholic. Number three, we dogs dont pay for sex and I am not just talkin about those humanoid cat houses because husbands and wives bargain and sale about when to inhale and do the dirty deed. Number four, when dogs have kids its not one or two but a litter. The humanoids break us up before we can impact on our pups and teach them good dog behavior. And, good dog behavior is nothing like catholic dogma.
Oh, I am just thinking out loud here. Dont mind me. I was away for a few days from my humanoid household because my pal was threatening to vote for some guy who calls himself Mitt whose real name is Willard. And that, my four legged, or two legged friends, is kind of like dogma. Now if Willard was calling himself Mutt then he would have my ear.
Itch should be “with”! Whoops.
The Catholic Church is all about old men trying to control women’s bodies. I want to ask Newt how many women that he was having extra-marital affairs itch used the rhythm method of contraception?
To answer Dredd… the reason they are upset, even if they have an “exemption”, is that the exemption is fairly narrow. While it applies to churches and organizations that provide services purely to coreligionists, it does not apply to Catholic hospitals, of which there are many.
Oh,,,when my 89 yr old mother’s St Louis Review came Friday I handed it to her she too one look at the front page, which was covered with hysterical statements about this subject and she didn’t even open it but threw it into the trash where it belonged.