I think your suggested situation is probably fine — it’s similar to an employer giving an increased pay amount, and the employee using that increased pay to purchase contraception himself, or to purchase a separate insurance plan that covers contraception. I don’t have any reservations about that. Get the White House on board! :)

From everything I’ve read, the President’s accommodation is not the Diocese of Honolulu’s; and I’ve also read plenty indicating that the Diocese of Honolulu’s situation is not acceptable.because the plan still requires the employer to refer employees to where they can get contraception. (I don’t find it relevant that the Diocese of Honolulu survives under its rule — as I’ve said elsewhere, the fact that someone lives under a certain rule and is even able to cooperate with it morally, doesn’t mean that the rule is not unjust or objectionable.) Moreover, the accommodation (as most people understand it) is still objectionable to the bishops and to most who have looked at it. Finally — and I think, importantly — remember, the accommodation doesn’t actually exist right now. Right now, the law is the original rule (to which practically everyone voiced an objection). And I can’t say that I have any confidence that the President will actually do anything to modify the rule — I mean, it’s been two weeks since the President’s statement about the accommodation, but we still haven’t seen from the White House any proposed language for modifying the rule, nor have we seen any timeline for getting the rule modified before August 2013.

Well, that is some progress. What are the points of your reservation? If a boss has separated himself from the purchase of contraception but surrendered an opportunity to obstruct his employees from obtaining contraception, is that a concern?

Of course, the President has tried to do the same as us here in finding solutions. He revised the initial plan to match the accomodation the Diocese of Honolulu obtained and that many Catholic universities already follow. You can say that is not enough, but I don’t think you can say he is not trying.

(Also, remember, the issue is not strictly whether it is morally permissible or not for the employer to indirectly pay for contraception. It’s morally permissible for me to buy your contraception if you’re threatening my family at gunpoint, for example. Instead, the issue is whether the infringement on freedom is just or not, regardless of whether the cooperation with evil is morally permissible. The Public Discourse has a recent article on this:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4817 )

I read this as meaning that such practices can tilt the balance closer to a truly healthy life – the kind of vitality human beings are made for – relative to those cultural ideals that encourage self-indulgence. Was I misreading?

Did you mean “discriminate on the basis of religion” (not race)?

Are you repeatedly saying that “Americans” are doing this and “Americans” are doing that, simply because most the persons to whom you are addressing yourself happen to be Americans? Or are you really saying that Americans are uniquely the exponents of this kind of liberalism? I think a case can be made that the source of it was Western Europe, and the market for it is most of the world, to the extent that they can pull it off. I completely agree with you that it’s evil. But I don’t feel that the evil is uniquely American.

Sam

It seems to me that to compare fasting to things like “exercise, good eating, regular sleep” is to miss the point entirely. There is a certain kinship, of course, but it’s just flat-out wrong to say that the purpose of ascetic practice is to achieve a more passionate bodily existence. Fasting is supposed to be detached from ordinary practice. It’s supposed to be different from what we do every day. It may not be about denying the body, but it’s certainly about going beyond the body, affirming that the perfect life will only come after we have put it aside. It’s a detachment from passing, temporal things for the sake of a stronger attachment to eternal, spiritual things.

You’re right, of course, that putting the body aside at death will not be permanent. The night is dark, but joy comes with dawn. Ascetic practice is life-giving, but that’s precisely because it is a practice of death. Death is to be passed through, not denied. As long as we are in the mortal world, the spirit can be at odds with the flesh. There is a form of going without food for the benefit of the body, but it’s called dieting, not fasting, and as far as I know it’s not prominent in the Catholic tradition.