About Those Conscience Protections
Michael Sean Winters is understandably miffed at the HHS ruling that will require many Catholic institutions to cover contraceptives in their insurance policies. Indeed, the president has lost his vote. President Obama never had my vote, but I could add his refusal to expand conscience exemptions to my reasons why.
I understand why he went ahead with the ruling as is. He thought it was the right thing to do. Contra the statements of celibate religious authorities, most people value the widespread availability of contraceptives as a much-needed social good. Obama met opposition from a vocal minority that, let’s face it, doesn’t represent the majority of Catholics, who use contraceptives without a second thought. My guess is that Obama, if he considered the reaction from Catholics at all, figured only a tiny minority would be bothered by the mandate. If the majority of Catholics don’t follow their faith’s teachings to the letter, why should Obama be expected to take those teachings seriously?
When making decisions about social policy, especially policies that will have major ramifications for voters, any skilled politician will make a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, Obama had very little to lose and much to gain by making contraceptives more readily available. The official teachings of the church wouldn’t interest him so much as the actual opinions of voting Catholics, who for the most part either don’t care or probably think expanded access to contraceptives is a good thing.
Nevertheless, President Obama should have expanded the conscious exemptions. First, while the state shares responsibility for the healthcare of the people within it, the state has the primary responsibility of protecting the rights and freedoms of its people. Helping people bear the burden of healthcare costs, noble as it is, is no excuse to violate religious freedoms. Second, by not expanding the exemptions, Obama betrayed his promises to Catholic supporters of his policies, notably the Affordable Care Act. Obama earned their support in part by promising to uphold conscience protections. They took the move as a slap in the face. Third, the ruling may prove counter-productive. Catholic institutions—some of them anyway— participate in healthcare on the condition that they are free to follow Catholic ethical norms. Forcing these institutions to materially cooperate with what they deem contrary to their faith incentivizes them to cease such participation.
Catholics have every right to fight this ruling tooth and nail.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
While not an expert, I believe it’s the case that the Church permits, and even provides information on, ways to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy–or at least with greatly reduced risk of pregnancy. These ways don’t involve either mechanical, or chemical means–so that makes them kosher. But if it is the *intent* to have sex that will (hopefully) not result in a pregancy, then all the “natural law” sirens should be going off at once as soon as one begins to draw up that basal temperature chart–or whatever the latest gimmick is. Wouldn’t Jesus (according to Aristotle) say that any means of “safe” sex w/r/t pregnancy is a tampering with the “teleology of sex?” And, after all, lusting after a woman in one’s heart is already to involve her in adultery, right? Unlike the case of abortion, the position of whose opponents I fully understand, I frankly don’t see why anybody capable of fully upright locomotion is opposed to birth control. But, given that they are, shouldn’t they at least be 100% consistent about it? And, if they’re not prepared to be consistent, wouldn’t prudence suggest dropping the ban on birth control altogether?
But if it is the *intent* to have sex that will (hopefully) not result in a pregancy, then all the “natural law” sirens should be going off at once as soon as one begins to draw up that basal temperature chart–or whatever the latest gimmick is.
If the flaw in the Church’s accepting periodic abstinence guided by fertility awareness while rejecting birth control is so incredibly simply and obvious, doesn’t it seem like this would have occurred to other people by now? As it happens, this seems to get rehashed every couple of months. I know I’ve explained it several times on this very blog. I get disagreeing, but the fact that people seem to always think they’ve come up with this Amazing New Insight that makes the whole thing fall apart does suggest some impressive credulity.
I frankly don’t see why anybody capable of fully upright locomotion is opposed to birth control.
This may, honestly, be part of the problem. If one is so within one’s own view of the world that it is impossible to imagine how those capable of walking upright could think otherwise, it’s a pretty good sign one hasn’t thought much about the issue and doesn’t understand the other.
@ Darwin –
What makes you think that I think I’ve come up with an “amazing new insight?” What I’ve done is brought up (again) and obvious philosophical inconsistency that keeps right on being ignored, rather than acted upon. And it has practical consequences, as Kyle (again) points out.
Darwin, I’ve thought plenty about the issue. Instead of launching your ad hominem act on my intellectual capabilities, why don’t you explain where it is that I’m wrong in seeing the contradiction?
obvious philosophical inconsistency
Which is what? Could it perhaps be that you don’t fully understand the Church’s teaching against contraception? Simply put: It’s not wrong to avoid sex, just like it’s not wrong to have sex. But if you’re gonna do it, do it right – respect nature and do it the way God intended.
I didn’t make an ad hominem attack your intellectual abilities, I just said that if you think that people who disagree with you on an issue are probably not capable of walking upright, you probably don’t understand “the other” and his stance very well. I mean, seriously, if I listed off some belief you held and casually remarked that I couldn’t see how people capable of walking upright could think that way — would you really consider that to suggest that I had some deep insight into it at all, or just that I didn’t understand your thought very well?
What I’ve done is brought up (again) and obvious philosophical inconsistency that keeps right on being ignored, rather than acted upon.
Well, as you say, you’ve brought it up “again”. My memory is not that your objection was “ignored”, but rather that you discounted or disagreed with the explanation which was given to you repeatedly by Brett, me, and others. I can certainly understand you choosing not to agree with Catholics on this point, as you do on many others, but I does strike me as a little frustrating of you to insist that no one is willing to engage it.
As Brett says, and without getting into a full threadjack: the difference is pretty clear. NFP involves abstaining from sex in order to avoid getting pregnant. For thousands of years people have tried to avoid getting pregnant by only having sex occasionally (and hoping for the best when they do). NFP just brings a little bit more precision to the process.
The difference in how one addresses sex in these two situations is clear: NFP keeps the relationship between sex and reproduction intact in that avoiding pregnancy means having much less sex. Artificial Contraception seeks to separate the two by allowing one to have sex whenever one chooses without regard to conceiving.
FWIW, if I seem overly testy on the apparently minor point of whether something is disagreed with or whether someone is never willing to explain it (or ignores the problem): It seems to me, primarily from dealing with creationists and “intelligent design” people that this is a particularly insidious form of trying to create the appearance of people not having dealt with an “argument” out of sheer number of objections.
For the first couple years of dealing with the debate, I’d find myself responding in detail to people who said things like, “I keep asking scientists why it is there are still monkeys if monkeys evolved into humans, and no one will answer me.” So I’d answer. At length. And what I quickly realized is that most of the same people would show up a few months or weeks later and say once again, “I keep asking scientists why it is there are still monkeys if monkeys evolved into humans, and no one will answer me.”
After a couple repeats you realize: it’s not a method of asking, its a way of waging intellectual asymmetric warfare.
Natural means work by NOT having sex. Planning to not have a baby by not having sex is quite a different thing than what your argument would reject. In any case, we probably don’t need to highjack the thread on this issue. As Darwin notes, we’ve been over this before.
“Abstinence” means not having sex. “Natural” means having sex at such times as ovulation is least likely.
And abstaining at other times.
@ Darwin –
True that comment of mine was not called for. But it wasn’t directed at any individual either–it was just for emphasis. But, I apologize.
@ Brettsalkeld –
But, if you have sex when you have calculated that pregnancy is least likely to occur, you are still having sex while avoiding pregnancy. Your INTENT in having sex is not to procreate. I don’t see how this differs from having sex using mechanical birth control. An arguable distinction can be made in the case of chemical b.c. since it is not a situationally-based method. Again, if sex for any other reason than procreation–or rather sex that deliberately excludes the probability of procreation–is wrong, then it’s wrong. You can’t have it both ways.
But the catholic Church isn’t against sex for reasons other than procreation nor against “excluding the probability” of it. Nor is it against avoiding pregnancy. If it were, your position would follow. We would be trying to have our cake and eat it too. But the fact is that it is not against any of these things. It is against altering the sex act per se. I agree that you can’t have it both ways. But I don’t see how we’re trying to.
Intent is an important moral category, but intention not to procreate isn’t a problem for a religion that doesn’t have a problem with not procreating. If, however, your intent was to alter the sex act, the Church would have a problem with that whether you succeeded or not.
@ Dan —
But it is wrong to have sex when intentionally avoiding ovulation, is it not? That would constitute having sex for reasons other than procreation. And if that is okay, then condoms should be okay. If not, I see a contradiction. What, precisely, am I not understanding?
The Church never says it is wrong to have sex when intentionally avoiding ovulation. Again, if it said this, your conclusion would follow, but it simply never does.
What, precisely, you are not understanding, is what the Church is for and against in the first place. Once that is off, the rest follows. Your logic is sound, but it is based on false premises.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/08/what-%E2%80%98openness-to-life%E2%80%99-does-not-mean/
Brett’s piece “What Openness to Life Does Not Mean” is one of the best things I’ve read on Vox Nova. About a year ago, I actually sent it to an NFP instructor who I heard explain the morality of NFP in terms of a 1-2% failure rate, which rendered the act “still open to life!” I’ve even heard people pursuing doctoral degrees in moral theology mischaracterize the teaching, centering it on “intention to procreate” rather than artificial alteration of the act (they, not surprisingly, concluded that the teaching is self-contradictory). The more Brett’s article can be distributed, the better.
Here is my understanding. Catholic sexual morality requires “the marital act” to be correct in form. Consequently, taking a wife who is past childbearing age and a husband who is known to be completely sterile (sperm count of zero) and does not ejaculate at all (or rather, has retrograde ejaculation—i.e., sperm going backwards into the bladder) the husband must still follow the correct form and experience orgasm in such a way that if he could actually ejaculate (and did actually produce sperm), those sperm would be deposited in such a way that his wife—if she were fertile—could become pregnant. In other words, they must have sex exactly the same way as everyone else, since their fertility is not what is relevant, but the form in which they engage in sex.
Germain Grisez deals with this in some detail in Question 29: What sexual activity is permissible for elderly married couples?
It is important to take care not to accidentally have an orgasm at the wrong moment.
Not all orthodox Catholics follow Grisez in this. I myself find Rhonheimer much more coherent. He made a comment in the last year or so rejecting the obsession that some Catholics have with the final location of sperm. (I read it on Sandro Magister’s blog during the Benedict condom furor.) In many cases having the correct final location of sperm coincides with a right use of sexuality and so it serves as a good rule of thumb, but to make it an absolute guide is to end up with all kinds of crazy conclusions that are completely unnecessary. Just because Grisez thinks old people need to be careful where they aim (in order to preserve his very – unnecessarily, in my view – delicate system) doesn’t mean it’s official Catholic teaching.
Deliberately altering an act is one thing. Participating in an act that is innocently altered by your own completely natural physical condition is another.
Many thanks bpeters1. I’m glad you found it helpful.
I think it is a bit cynical to ascribe the decision to political machinations. While I don’t support the contraceptive mandate, I think the argument that the benefit is a violation of conscience is of extremely poor quality. The idea that the employer has a right to determine employee conduct outside the time of employment on the sole basis that he is ultimately paying the bill hasn’t enjoyed favor in US law, and I’m equally dubious of it as moral theology. Of course, if the employer can argue that the employee’s personal conduct causes harm to the employer, they can insert legally enforceable contract clauses proscribing that conduct. For example, many private schools have had clauses enforced in their contract prohibiting women from having children out of wedlock. But by doing that, we haven’t given the employer the right to deny prenatal and obstetrics care despite the undeniable claim that they would be funding conduct of which they disapprove.
If an employer wants or wanted to make the claim that they have a business interest in proscribing their employees from using contraceptives, they continue to be free to do so through personal conduct contractual clauses. If they do not believe they have an enforceable claim, then on what basis does a peremptory claim rest? Whether the insurance company pays for it or the employee pays for it, can not the employer make the same specious fiduciary claim? Personally, I think employers have too much control over the private conduct of employees, so I’m not going to favor enshrining an employer’s right to what amounts to paternalism, the idea the employer knows his employees’ best interests and should be able to act on that knowledge.
I think you’re misplacing the area in which Catholic organizations are looking for latitude. Even if a full exemption was giving to Catholic organizations, clearly they couldn’t keep their employees from getting birth control — nor is it clear that any such organization is trying to. Rather, the objection is that a Catholic organization, if it has the latitude to determine what is and is not covered under its health care policy, cannot decide to leave birth control uncovered. This clearly would not prohibit their employees from using birth control, it would just require that they pay for it.
I think it is a bit cynical to ascribe the decision to political machinations.
As I said, I think Obama made the decision because he thought it was the right thing to do.
The idea that the employer has a right to determine employee conduct outside the time of employment on the sole basis that he is ultimately paying the bill hasn’t enjoyed favor in US law, and I’m equally dubious of it as moral theology.
While a religious institution’s policy of not covering contraceptives as part of its healthcare policy may have some effect on employee conduct outside of the time of employment, namely on employees unable to pay for contraceptives out of pocket, determining employee conduct isn’t the aim of the policy–it’s not an exercise of a right to determine employee conduct.
“The Church never says it is wrong to have sex when intentionally avoiding ovulation. Again, if it said this, your conclusion would follow, but it simply never does.”
@ brettsalkeld–
My whole point is, that to be logically consistent, the Church SHOULD be saying that it is wrong to have sex when intentionally avoiding ovulation.
Rodak,
Then that should be a hint that you’re not understanding the Church’s actual position in the first place.
I’ll just toss this out for what it’s worth:
http://agellius.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/is-taking-the-pill-the-same-as-nfp/
I think the fact that the NCRep is miffed indicates that there is potential for this to turn off many more Catholics than the tiny minority who follow Church teaching on artificial contraception. If the Bishop’s play their cards right they can leverage this among the conservatives who are ticked about AC per se and the progressives who are ticked about conscience.
There is something in here to offend everyone. Throw in the fact that Obama’s biggest supporters in the Catholic fold have been made to look duped here and I think there is at least potential for Obama to lose a large number of Catholic swing voters.
Giving us “one year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” as Archbishop Dolan put it (though maybe not exactly, I’m working from memory), makes this even weirder for me. Why make this into an election issue by extending it for one year? Whether or not Obama thinks he’s only isolating a tiny group of Catholics on this, one part of that group is the Bishops, and they’re going to be talking about it for the whole election. Maybe he wants them to? Maybe he’s trying the whole, “Look, these nuts aren’t just against abortion, they’re against birth control too” angle? Could this be an attempt to discredit the pro-life movement in general?
If it is, I don’t think it’s gonna work. Americans care about religious freedom. Unless the Bishops completely goof this up, they should win hands down.
Frankly, the “biggest Obama supporters in the Catholic fold” have already reconciled themselves to his Pro-choice stance on abortion. I don’t think this will throw them. I think it will rile up single-issue Pro-life Catholics who wouldn’t be voting for him anyway. He’s a politician, not a moral philosopher–as Kyle points out.
OK, the second-biggest? Whatever category MSW falls into. I’m sure he’s not the only one in it.
Here’s an account of what Archbishop Dolan said:
First, a number of Catholic institutions already provide coverage of contraception, either on their own initiative or because they comply with state mandates. Twenty-eight states have some kind of mandate to cover contraception, although exemptions vary from none at all to very broad.
I am not an expert, but it strikes me there are any number of ways religious organizations could provide for the health care of employees without directly providing them with insurance that covers contraception. For example, they could provide extra compensation for employees to use in purchasing their own health insurance.
“Then that should be a hint that you’re not understanding the Church’s actual position in the first place.”
@ Thales –
That tells me nothing. Where am I not understanding it, and where am I wrong?
Rodak,
As Brett says, “the Church never says it is wrong to have sex when intentionally avoiding ovulation.” You say “[based on my notion of the Church's view of contraception, in order to] be logically consistent, the Church SHOULD be saying that it is wrong to have sex when intentionally avoiding ovulation.” I say that should be a hint that your notion of the Church’s view of contraception is mistaken. If the Church says something that doesn’t logically follow from the premise that you’ve set out and believe as being the Church’s fundamental position, then it’s probable that you don’t have an accurate notion of the Church’s fundamental position in the first place.
As to where you’re not fully understanding the Church’s position, I refer you below to the discussion of an altered act vs. not acting.
I might have read it here, but a way which helped me “get” the Church’s teaching on contraception was an analogy to eating. Like sex, eating has both pleasurable and life-sustaining aspects. When we encounter someone who enjoys the sensual aspect of eating, but deliberately acts to thwarts the life-sustaining aspect, we rightly call that a disorder (bulimia, anorexia, etc)
What about drinking diet soda and other artificially sweetened drinks, eating foods with Olestra (an artificial fat substitute that is not absorbed), or taking Alli to block absorption of fat?
It is true that bulimia is a disorder, but I don’t think the Romans were bulimic. Inducing vomiting so that one can continue eating strikes us as gross and possibly immoral, but it is not necessarily a disorder. Of course, if someone has an authentic disorder, they have diminished responsibility for their actions, if they are responsible at all.
Well, first of all, drinking is to quench thirst. Diet soda still HYDRATES, so that it is artificially sweetened wouldn’t seem to matter; we can’t go sorting out individual flavors if the food or drink as a whole does not have it’s end subverted.
Well, it is only an analogy, but one which made the natural law argument sensible for me.
@ Thales –
Does the Church, or does the Church not, insist that the *intention* of every sex act include the possibility of the act resulting in conception?
If the answer to that is “Yes,” then how can a sex act undertaken with *intention* of avoiding pregnancy by avoiding ovulation conform to the Church position?
No, Rodak, the Church does not.
The objection in contraception is with a defect in moral object, not in intention.
The discussion above that Rodak joins in is so ridiculous, because Rodak is right: the only sex that Christ would have approved of is the kind when ovulation is the MOST likey to be taking place, for the simple reason that Christ didn’t “approve” of sex AT ALL, and bluntly said that “eunuchs” for “the kingdom’s sake” is what those most ambitious to be “saved” should be striving for. As I have said many times on these threads, the modern Catholic Church, with its cult of “the family” and exclusively heterosexual sex as being the only thing permissable according to so-called “natural law,” has completely abandoned JESUS CHRIST’S clear-cut position that “eunuchdom” (or the celibate, cenobite lifestyle) is the correct way to live for those who’d perfect their Christian spirituality. Another example, as Rodak would probably say, of how the Church has tacked with the political and cultural winds.
@ digbydolben –
“…because Rodak is right:..” Well, I don’t hear THAT often!
Bruce in Kansas above is right,: for the early Church sex, following Christ’s severe rejection of sexual indulgence, was deemed to be purely for the SURVIVAL of the Christian faithful. What the institutional Church has done has been to COMPROMISE with Christ’s teachings–which are even more severe than Paul’s–and brought sex for pleasure back in through (no pun intended!) the rear door.
The Administration made the wrong call on this. Even those like me that support full access to contraception believe that objecting religious organizations should be exempt. The impact is on a very small sliver of the labor force.
I agree the Church was not helpful to its own cause. Sr. Walsh, who previously embarassed herself and the church with the “no Catholics need apply lie, did so again when she said she didn’t know there were many Catholic universities and hospitals that already provided birth control coverage to employees. There was a further problem with some indirectly church related institutions also claiming an exemption from the other big employee benefit — pensions — so they could cheat workers out of promised retirement benefits. The Administration had a dilemma as to how these employers could be a “church” for health benefits but not a “church” for pension benefits.
But all of that is a failed strategy, not a failure in the rightfulness of an exemption. I would hope the Courts would act favorably on this.
Let me leave aside the words of the journalist you mention, whom it must be obvious to some I really think is so contradicted as to be utterly moot, personally and intellectually. For I would like to try some simply neutral cultural observations about this matter. First, as you rightly say most Catholics, the majority, don’t care. they use birth control. Second, Catholic intellectuals and power-brokers seem to have a very different meaning for “religious liberty” than that obtaining in the Constitution. Historically the phrase could only mean not being forced to do something in your own life, and in your chosen associations that is against your religious belief. But please note in line with this, that here is exactly where Catholic intellectuals and power-brokers make an assumption based entirely on the peculiar history of their faith community. Namely, that their personal freedom is to be seen almost entirely as linked with the freedom of their hierarchy to dictate such choices for anyone that comes in any way close to them. HERE IS THE MISTAKE. And if a liberal and thorough questioner like Kyle Cupp can make it, it show just how utterly reflexive it is for Catholic intellectuals.
In fact religious liberty is your personal right to not be coerced. Not your right to have your faith community taken seriously, IF it is not acting seriously. If history has any lesson at all it is that religion is a force for good and evil. A responsible government has the utter clear right to use the good and minimize the evil. When a government figure like a President speaks he can ONLY be ever taken to mean what is consistent with his at least bare minimum of adherence to the Constitution. People may like to think that he (or she someday) might mean what THEY mean by it; that the promises or words mean something consistent with their personal cherished belief. But in the case of the modern Catholic Church such matters are tied to such recondite Natural Law reasoning, that it becomes truly absurd to think that a President would privilege that recondite reasoning over a vast social good, like providing decent means of birth control.
Thus the fickle and melodramatic animadversions of Catholic journalists on this matter shows how ingrained this odd viewpoint is. And it shows, what any honest observer could tell, that as reliable political observers and supporters of real principled and sane government, they were never to be taken seriously.
“But in the case of the modern Catholic Church such matters are tied to such recondite Natural Law reasoning, that it becomes truly absurd to think that a President would privilege that recondite reasoning over a vast social good, like providing decent means of birth control.”
Exactly.
In fact religious liberty is your personal right to not be coerced.
Yes, exactly. So you don’t think forcing religious institutions and their members to materially cooperate in something contrary to their religious beliefs and norms qualifies as coercion?
@ Kyle –
Is it a form of coercion for the Catholic Institution to require their non-Catholic employees to contribute to an insurance plan that doesn’t offer all of the services they may want and will have to pay for out of pocket, in addition to whatever their share of their heath insurance is as it exists?
I take it that this is only an issue because these Catholic institutions are receiving public money? They could therefore solve the issue by refusing the public money, just as the workers who want other health insurance could quit that job and look for one elsewhere with the coverage they want.
No, Rodak, it’s an issue because Obamacare regulates all health care policies — taking public money has nothing to do with it.
Kyle,
Again, I do not question your bona fides as an intrepid questioner on all matters religious. But we are have our reflexes or blind spots which just seem “so” or just part of the landscape. If “not being coerced” has any meaning with 99.9999% it is this. You, your own person, cannot be forced to do something for yourself religiously you don’t want to do. That is already huge, and it is treated like it is nothing. The idea that it should somehow inexorably be broadened to religious institutions when they interact with society as a whole in some way is just wishful thinking. Running a hospital or health plan, etc. far along into the broad societal realm.
The soundness of this view is somewhat ironically shown by the very unanimity of the Hosanna Tabor decision, which so many Catholic right-wingers have been celebrating. There some real and careful distinction between degrees of churchiness were elucidated. By that light an hospital or health plan is NOT intrinsically very churchy, even if it is run by all religious sisters. No one claims religious dicta should control standards of medical care, and this is just an extension of that same sanity.
As memory serves, in Curran’s class years ago we spent the most time on the issue of birth control, not surprisingly since he was well known for that issue. Curran’s entire argument was accomplished using close the RC church’s own documents, very closely reasoned, chapter and verse. So it is not even that an outside party from the Church could not conclude that even by a neutral assessment of the church’s own documents a rationale could not be constructed for this. Since, most of society, including most Catholics seem to think that the “strict” position is just lunacy, such a potential rationale could serve as a simple form of courtesy towards Catholics, though hardly terribly necessary. Lastly, it is worth reminding everyone that even reactionary anti-abortionists amongst Protestants do not have the nearly the same strictness on the contraception issue. This lends support for the notion that it is based on rather abstruse and recondite Natural Law theories.
“Namely, that their personal freedom is to be seen almost entirely as linked with the freedom of their hierarchy to dictate such choices for anyone that comes in any way close to them. HERE IS THE MISTAKE.”
So it’s not freedom because the decision was first arrived at by someone else, who then told people what to consider freedom? C’mon, that’s just sloppy.
Michael Carper,
You are more coy than carp I am afraid, if I understand your point. It is not that we cannot adopt a decision for our own freedom arrived at by others. None of us really ever need to re-invent the wheel in morality, and can rely on, or stand on the shoulders of others who have thought through such matters. But, lo, people have come to different conclusions on such matters. And, lo, the government is not a church. So it is utter neatness and symmetry to aver that the detailed views of one’s church’s hierarchy cannot presumed to be dispositive for society in any way. When governments get into the business of going further and coercing anyone to do something with their own body and self that is against their own personal religious view, then that is a very different case. Then you will find liberals like me and others denounce that intrusion. Everyone is on the same page when it comes to the policy of China. Nothing, absolutely nothing Obama has done is in anyway even hinting at such intrusion. In fact, by one reading his whole approach protects individuals’ right to make their own decision, and not have it left to church OR government.
with his at least bare minimum of adherence to the Constitution.
In the case of Obomber, Peter Paul, I like your tone; it is appropriate!
digby,
I will vote for him again, but like many I have my criticisms. But I am afraid that comment of mine you quote is potentially readable in a different way than I meant it. I was trying to express the simple fact that much of what a President seems to do is in a sort of gray zone. Someone must interpret, and decide, and parse. And the buck stops with that guy we elected. Thus, what I wanted express was that vis-a-vis religion what anyone is owed is AT LEAST what is guaranteed them by the Constitution. Beyond that is just the usual stuff of influence: clout, or lack of it. and horsetrading, scratch-my-back, etc. It seems to me on this score the RC Church has built up little in the way of kind feelings with all their condemnations and even worse their outrageous unwillingness to effectively control their most egregious spokespeople who have engaged in hateful campaign against this President using the most vile of tactics. From this point of view, I don’t blame the guy one wit for not giving them one jot past the bare minimum they are owed. But it all comes full circle, and their antics may bet Gingrich the nomination, and nothing could be better for Obama! I can’t wait for the commercials contrasting Obama’s steady happy marriage to the same woman for years and years to Newt’s versions of Don Giovanni. I think the Stone Guest has arrived for the Republican Party — finally! Cue curtain.
Let us hope so!
@ bpeters1–
With the exception of condoms (and one or two other rarely used methods), artificial birth control alters the act only in that it prevents conception as the possible end product of the act. So it is, indeed, the “failure rate” that is the key element, however much this truth may be obfuscated by philosophical double-talk.
artificial birth control alters the act only in that it prevents conception as the possible end product of the act.
Yes, and that’s the point: the act is altered. There is a difference between (1) doing an act in an altered way, and (2) not doing an act, even if the end result is the same. (1) Stabbing you and then bandaging and taking care of you until you heal, and (2) not touching you in the first place, are different, even if the end result is the same.
@Rodak – As I understand it, the Church’s teaching does not mandate that every sexual act have the possibility of procreation. Otherwise, couples who are born infertile, who have had hysterectomies, or are simply post-menopausal would be banned from having sex. The reason that they are not so banned is that they have not deliberately frustrated the “telos” of the sexual act from coming to fruition; rather, it has occurred in virtue of other factors (physiology, age, cancer, etc.).
Along the same lines, couples “trying to avoid” (TTA) by using NFP restrict their sexual activity to periods which are “infertile,” not in due to the couples’ acting as agents who have made it so by actively frustrating the possibility of procreation, but due to an occurrence having come about without such intervention. The whole point of the Church’s acceptance of NFP is that couples who, after prayerful discernment and reflection on their circumstances, have the intention of TTA can legitimately TTA and responsibly plan their families! The Church’s beef is not, in principle, with people having sex while not wanting a pregnancy to result, but with those who actively distort the act by artificially obstructing the telos to do so.
I don’t see how “failure rate” factors in at all.
Thank you, bpeters1 — You seem to be alone in understanding the questions I’ve asked and the issue that those questions address. I still think it’s all just philosophical word-play and totally disingenuous in the final analysis. But at least you’ve allowed me to fully understand the best argument that can be made for the Church position, under the circumstance.
@Rodak – I appreciate your reply and your continued concerns; the college-age students to whom I’ve tried to explain this don’t seem too comfortable with the “teleological” sort of framework that the doctrine operates out of, and so, most remain utterly unconvinced. And, btw, the discourse here is, overall, so much more civil than that in other places (e.g. CatholicVote). Very refreshing!
Rodak…Your question “Is it a form of coercion for the Catholic Institution to require their non-Catholic employees to contribute to an insurance plan that doesn’t offer all of the services they may want and will have to pay for out of pocket, in addition to whatever their share of their heath insurance is as it exists?” seems based on false assumptions…that being that insurance plans are all created equal. My insurance does not cover things I want, and are needed for my health care, and I end up paying for them out of pocket. I could choose to not take the health care provided through my employer, except I cannot afford other insurance. In your question, it would only be coercion if they were 1.forced to use the health insurance offered and 2. Forced to accept employment at a Catholic Institution. It is important to remember that health insurance is a benefit, and does not have to be offered by the employer.
@ Brian Martin –
Yes, I believe that I pointed out elsewhere that employees unhappy with the insurance offered were free to seek other employment.
But I’m still not sure what the leverage is that HHS has over Catholic health care providers that allows it to dictate what kind of coverage they offer employees.
As you point out, different employers offer different plans. The government doesn’t dictate the terms under normal circumstances. What’s different in this case?
The reason these Catholic affiliated instititions are being wronged is the same reason why universal health care, even under the ACA “individual mandate” is justified. Contrary to the Republican claims that health insurance is just an optional employee perk that citizens might truly desire to go without, it is really an essential benefit. These Catholic institutions could just have their conscience exemption by dropping employee health insurance. But the would be unable to compete in the labor market. Even giving employees the cash and suggesting they buy insurance on the private market would not work in practice.
Oddly, the Republican claims against the individual mandate undercut the Church’s position here.
@Rodak…the leverage is the new healthcare law which mandates ALL private insurance carriers cover prevention, but left it up to HHS to determine what is “preventive” HHS determined (correctly, by definition) that contraception is “prevention” and thus mandates all employees be offered contraception free of charge, ie. the company pays for the coverage. So, the leverage HHS is the Law.
“No, Rodak, it’s an issue because Obamacare regulates all health care policies — taking public money has nothing to do with it.”
So, specifically, what is the leverage being brought to bear by HHS? What gives HHS the right to say what kind of insurance an institution must provide to its employees? The coverage has been different in each of the several different places I’ve worked over the years. It’s not like the government has one employee health care model that any and every employer must exactly duplicate.
One of the major points of ObamaCare (which conservatives objected to) is that it allows the federal government to set mandated levels of coverage which all employers must provide or else pay a fine for leaving their employees uncovered.
Prior to this, states often set minimum standards for health insurance plans which could be issued in the state, but there were not many national standards. Also, employers not providing health insurance were not fined.
I don’t think that the principle of an absolute right to religious conscience is sound.
Do the 7th Day Adventists have a right to exclude blood transfusions from health insurance ? Of course not. The Common Good trumps religious conscience and the state has a moral obligation to uphold the Common Good.
One’s right to conscience ends at precisely the point where exercising it would infringe on the conscience rights of others. In this case, the right of employees to choose coverage for contraception and the right of the state to mandate that.
The state is on solid ground mandating family planning coverage (Humanae Vitae states couples have the responsibility to do this). If the means were NFP, the Church would have no problems with that.
In a democratic state, we just have to live with the fact that the majority gets to decide.
And lets be honest here, opposition to contraception is hardly a central tenet of Catholicism, and is one that almost all Catholics actually reject, including very many Bishops and most priests. Heck, Pope Paul VI’s commission on contraception, consisting of experts in the field appointed by the Pope, overwhelmingly voted to approve the pill. Therefore, the contention that opposition to contraception is a conscience issue for Catholics is a very weak one.
God Bless
Chris,
Well said!
Thank you Chris – this made my morning.
“In a democratic state, we just have to live with the fact that the majority gets to decide.”
But the majority can be wrong, such as laws in southern states restricting manumission in the 19th century, some of which used the “common good” argument. We know a lot more about The Pill than we did at the time of Paul VI’s commission, including increased health risks, environmental impact, and the aspect of preventing implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall. Since nearly every woman of child-bearing age in the US (as well as Japan, China, and Europe) are taking these pills, majority opinion is quite predictable, but might not be the correct course of action.
I agree at this point the mandate is coming, so Catholic institutions have to make a decision. One thought would be for the Church to change its 2,000-year-old teaching. Another would be for bishops and priests to frequently preach clearly on this issue to the point that the average pew-sitter could coherently articulate the Church’s teaching, regardless of whether one agreed or not. Very few of the Catholics I know can intelligently present the Church’s teaching on this matter.
Michael Sean Winters may be miffed,
and Sister Keehan may want to give back her pen to Obama at this point,
but in light of everything that has happened Xavier University has gone off the deep end….
Want Proof?
Xavier University is Honoring Kathleen Sebelius and her father by offering Gilligan Public Service Scholarship.
http://otritt.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/xavier-proof-the-inmates-are-running-the-asylum/
“He made a comment in the last year or so rejecting the obsession that some Catholics have with the final location of sperm.”
WWJD?
brett,
In the explanation in your other piece, you say, “All that the Church means is that we are not to alter the sex act to avoid its consequences.” From my understanding, “to avoid its consequences” is superfluous. Would your formulation not mean that an infertile couple could perform any sex act they wanted, since they are incapable of altering the consequences of their sexual acts? It seems to me that “the sex act” is defined in such a way that, if altered to avoid its consequences, would not be “the sex act.”
Could an infertile couple do any sex act they wanted? I don’t think so, but “any sex act they wanted” is a pretty broad category. There are other considerations. Of course, the question of whether they are intending to sterilize themselves is not a relevant consideration for them. (However, those who argue that they must not because they need to leave a statistical chance for a ‘miracle’ have misunderstood Church teaching in the first place.) I think it does remain a relevant consideration for fertile couples.
Also, I think you’re correct that there are ‘alterations’ that would make the act into something that is not. It seems to me, for example, that oral sex requires a different application of the same basic principles than an actual act of sexual intercourse that has been intentionally sterilized. There are things that are analogous between these two kinds of acts and things that are not.
Brett,
Your comment about “any sex act they wanted” reminded me of a lingering technical quandary I had from my seminary years. And as a someone interested in the technical aspects of Catholic thought, for a variety of reasons at this point, I would like to know the answer for it. I will understand if the moderator does not think this an appropriate topic, but still I don’t think it irrelevant.So I will just ask it straight away. Assuming, for sake of argument, that all the elements are correct according to RC thought, would a sexual life between two Catholic centered on fellatio and cunilingus be considered morally just? The seriousness of the question also comes from the established fact I believe that most women (and I am hardly an expert here, but from what I have read!) are far less likely to achieve orgasm by vaginal penetration than by certain other means. So the question is in fact more pertinent sexually to women than men apparently. And one wonders if some Canon Lawyer or theologian has parsed these matters??
Well, I suppose one would have to clarify what is meant by “centered on.” If all this is intended is that these were an aid to satisfaction in a normal sex act, I don’t see a problem. If they came to completely replace that act, I think there is a pretty clear problem from a Catholic point of view.
Brett,
Well that is an interesting response, and not quite what I expected. It sort of bolsters my own little theory that the modern construing of these issues in the RC Church, beholden as it is to Thomstic ideas, is not quite adequate for dealing with modern realities. First, where does the category of “satisfaction” figure in a schema that is built around procreation?? It doesn’t make sense in a realistic way. I am well aware that the whole Theology of the Body tradition that happened in the last few decades treats the matter of mutual enjoyment as integral to the whole matter. But you have, helpfully, chose the exact right word — satisfaction — which shows you are honest and probably a good hubby. But let’s put it this way, without getting to precise or graphic here, a lot of the “normal” activity that would be involved in primarily keeping the whole thing “centered” on procreation, would in fact often be quite contrary to “satisfaction”. it would seem to suggest that aligning with the procreation notion, would require a sort of ongoing internal monitor which is ridiculous on its face. But frankly I don’t see how one can say “I don’t see a problem” and not have to introduce some sort of bizarre internal monitor. And further since an erection is the prerequisite for all this, and since an internal monitor would be for most men an utter wood-killer, I don’t see how it all fits together. Which strengthens my presumptions that it really doesn’t. But Catholics want to somehow maintain that it does, to save the appearances, or the dogma. ps. I won’t be offended if you don’t want to answer this, though inquiring minds would like to know.
Well, in my experience sex varies quite a bit from time to time. I think that anyone who is really invested in their partner is going to figure out a way to enjoy the actual act together. That said, there will be occasions where the actual act may need a little reinforcing with supplementary acts, for whatever reason.
If someone never enjoys actual sex, they’re probably doing it wrong. From an evolutionary perspective it would be awfully hard to explain how “satisfaction” would rarely line up with procreation. As a matter of fact, biologically, the two are quite connected, for both sexes. Of course there are probably many relationships where people never do figure out how to enjoy one another and, through guilt or embarrassment, never try to figure things out. Such people might find more enjoyment in “mimicking acts,” but I don’t think it’s because mimicking acts are objectively more satisfying. I mean, for one thing, mimicking acts lack the mutuality that is one of the most fulfilling parts of sex. (And yes, I know there are ways to try to reproduce that mutuality. They fail quite spectacularly. Two games of solitaire are not a game of poker.)
The Church has obviously failed in the catechesis of contraception. That needs to change for the future of our Church and for the sake of our society. Between contraception and abortions no wonder there isn’t enough money to support all those baby boomers who are going to be collecting social security in the near future.
Brett,
I actually thought you weren’t going to “print” that contribution of mine. I am impressed you did. Pretty good response, especially for modern people who can think these things through without so much guilt. it might be a tad relevant that it was almost NEVER religion that helped people do this without guilt. But that is a small detail.
In fact I don’t see the congruence between procreation and satisfaction as having line up all that well for a lot of women. I am not an expert, and believe me I don’t remotely want to be even tangentially. But it is worth noting the views of a vast number feminists who seem to say quite otherwise. This leads me to some skepticism on the matter.
One of the things that is really hampering the ancient institution of the RC Church is sex for sure. For most people to have an honest and comfortable and pleasant sexually interactive relationship with another human being is already a big thing. Intimacy is about comfort and acceptance and deep attraction, which is not always physical, but conversely happens without some bodily attraction. So I am not sure how any of this could possibly count as mimickry if it is real. Strangely, the RC position often sounds terribly reductionistic, which is strange given its ever-present hyper-idealism about matters which really are quite ordinary for most people.
The answer is to be found in taking a peek at Catholic cultures per se. if we leave aside Catholic theology, for sake of argument, and look at very Catholic cultures we encounter one phenomenon without exception. Namely, a certain amount of extra-curricular activity was accepted as a matter of course in all Catholic culture — again without exception. I do not think this is a debatable assertion for instance with Latin cultures, at all socioeconomic levels. The reasons for it many have been many. And fulfilling tiresome machismo is one that readily springs to mind. I am not someone that idealizes sex, and I also don’t idealistically or, perhaps better, optimistically assume that sex is that great ever for people. I think it is just in our nature and perhaps genes to always hype the matter. And one of Freud’s great insights was that “sex is so important that we can never tell the truth about it.’
So I don’t particularly expect the truth in any discussion, except this: Ideals about it are never true, no matter how people swear by it. I just don’t buy a word of it, and I have my reasons for knowing such things. But at the same time, no life is complete without love and loyalty, and a life without that is truly not worth living in my estimation. That’s real sexual morality in my view.
You can thank Kyle. He’s in charge of his thread. He has been very indulgent of both of us leaving his original post quite far behind us.
For the record, all the Catholics of my generation that I hang out with are pretty open about these things and seem to have a pretty healthy and balanced perspective on issues of pleasure, guilt, etc. They are certainly much more advanced than the seculars I occasionally talk to about this who very often seem to be overcompensating somehow. The funny thing is when the seculars are shocked by the Catholics for talking openly about “yucky” or at least “private” things. To take an interesting example, in undergrad some of the Catholics I know posed nude for art classes. None of the other Catholics seemed the least disturbed by it, but many seculars said things like, “But that goes against everything you stand for!”
Of course, they had no idea what we stood for. It seemed to them that people against contraception, being prudes, would have more body image issues, but if you think this through it becomes pretty obvious that women who have to be chemically altered to have intimacy are going to more prone to body image issues than those willing to go au naturel.
Here’s a total shot-in-the-dark hypothesis from someone with no experience at all: If you take a girl home from the bar for a one-nighter, her level of genuine enthusiasm for the encounter will be inversely proportional to the amount of make-up she’s wearing.
Brett,
What you say is quite believable to me, as it resonates well with a lot of what makes Catholic cultures tick large and small. But I hasten to add that this is hardly the vibe the RC Church is projecting at this point, and so, not to tell you your business, but as a theologian there may be a side calling in this for you. For certainly books on marital love by celibate priests — a non sequitor which somehow always gets tolerated with a wink in Catholic cultures — would in our day be happily superseded by a married man with kids, and one preferably that is not using American football metaphors as his descriptors.
I will close this discussion with a very funny anecdote which your point about “seculars” reminded me of. We often go down to Miami Beach to stay with our dear friends. But one time we did so to go to the now quite famous Art Basel Miami Beach Art Fair. Long story short: we ended up going around to galleries and private museums with a female lesbian artist whose performance art has included performing nude, is a free spirit generally on all matters including religious ones. We went to the Rubell Collection in Wynwood, and saw the collection. One of their well-known pieces is a work which has about ten identical handsome male manequins all “naked” and arranged in a circle having sex with each other. When the artist with us saw this she cried how how disgusting and how disreputable for a public art gallery to show such things. She said she wanted to complain to the “management” and left in a huff. The moral of the story is that “prudishness” comes in surprising places, and not always where you expect it!
Brett,
Erratum:
“Intimacy is about comfort and acceptance and deep attraction, which is not always physical, but conversely RARELY happens without some bodily attraction.”