Yes, this is the typical headline that has been published for days. So successfully that Mitt Romney thought he’d jump on the band wagon, last night blasting Obama for infringing on the Church’s 1st Amendment rights. Obama is insisting that health insurance business offer contain coverage for birth control – no exceptions for faith based business.
Its difficult to take the Catholic Church seriously on this issue. While condemning the use of birth control, in the late 1960’s held a majority of shares in the Rome-based pharmaceutical firm Serono, “…the Vatican Bank by 1970 had sold its shares in Serono to a Milan-based bank, which the report identified as Banca Unione. But the Vatican Bank has 20% of the shares of (this bank), and so profited indirectly from the sale of birth control pills.” Associated Press, 11/2/90
And again recently investing in Wyeth which also produces birth control.
Gotta love Monty Python’s take on Humane Vitae Every Sperm is Sacred
Monty Python is hilarious, but the reality of the doctrine was devastating for many who took it seriously….in the past.
In April 2011, Reuters reported, “Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.”
So perhaps Mitt Romney is trying to appeal to those 2%. They must know Mitt is even the bigger hypocrite according to the Boston Globe, “In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.”
Mitt may want to remember that the Bill of Rights is not there to protect the powerful, but the un-popular. Mitt supports Canon Law and speaks out against Sharia Law? Where was Mitt Romney during the right to worship debate – NYC Mosque? He opposed it.
The claim that the “first amendment rights” of the Catholic Church are being violated is absurdly over the top — a fine example of a “big lie” if there ever was one. The only violation going on here is the attempt of the Catholic church to impose its dogma on those it perceives to be vulnerable. This is kind of outrageously flagrant power-play that makes the Catholic Church such a viciously evil player in the political arena.
The more important constitutional principle being violated by the Catholic Church is their attempt to circumvent the establishment clause. The mandate belatedly stops this failed attempt to hijack legitimate public policy to advance their own dogma.
Did Mass HCR require all non-church religious-owned groups to provide contraception too. Did somebody named Mitt Romney sign that bill?
No one is as good at criticizing Mitt Romney’s record as Mitt himself.
If the argument is that if you accept federal funding you have to abide by federal rules, I’ll buy that. Otherwise, I don’t think its appropriate for the government to tell a church-owned and operated institution to violate its own teachings. Of course this point would be moot if we had a single-payer system and thus weren’t relying on employers to provide health coverage anyway. The Church would only be itself violating the Constitution if it were pushing for a prohibition on birth control coverage by non-Church establishments, which as far as I can tell it is not.
health, safety of public welfare laws. This goes beyond the fact the church is running a business that accepts federal funding.
Christian Scientists are required to provide health care for their children and have been prosecuted for failure to do so.
Many places have banned the Pentecostals from their snake handling, fundamental to their beliefs and practices.
Mormons fundamentalists are banned from practicing polygamy. Animal sacrifice, honor killings, drugs….
And Christopher, the Church has pushed for laws that reflect its practices. How is that unconstitutional?
Most of your examples have direct negative effects on unwilling victims. Children under control of their parents should be protected agains the abuses of their parents religion, for example. Advocating for laws to reflect their teachings is not per se unconstitutional, you’re right; they have as much right of petition as anyone, but the resulting laws could be unconstitutional on establishment grounds were they to be successful. I don’t see a health/safety mandate in contraception, frankly, and I’m not sure why the administration chose this of all things to require coverage for. There are of course ways to prevent pregnancy that don’t require contraception.
Christopher, you’re really reaching here. The rhythm method? Really?
Employers are subject to an assortment of laws. Racial discrimination is, for example, prohibited, as is gender-based discrimination. Churches are not exempted from these regulations. A church can claim a religious belief that blacks are inferior (yes, these claims have been made) or that women “should” be paid less than men. The courts have long ruled that enforcing non-discrimination laws does not constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the first amendment rights of those churches.
The mandate to cover contraception is the law of the land. The claim that said mandate is an infringement of religious freedom, like the similar attempts made to allow racial and sex discrimination, is spurious and should be rejected.
…or a condom, or celebacy. The point is neither sex nor pregnancy prevention is an absolute medical necessity. It is not like food and water which one cannot go without. To be clear, I have no problem with insurers covering contraception or employers offering plans that do so, and I certainly don’t agree with some GOP candidates who sound like they want to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut, but this is not the issue I would have picked a fight over mandating.
As for discrimination, the Church already refuses to ordain women or gay men. I don’t like it, but if that’s what they’re going to do so be it. I suppose if a religion insists on a white-only priesthood using the same “logic” they should be allowed, though you won’t see me joining such a religion. There needs to be a direct assault on health or safety for me to intervene, which is why I DO believe the state should prosecute to the fullest extent church leaders who engaged in or abetted such things as child abuse.
Condoms are contraceptives. The rhythm method is notoriously unreliable. Celibacy works great – except not in the real world, where real people live.
Employment is NOT the same as ordination. The Catholic Church can decide that will not ordain women. The same church can, will be, and has been prosecuted if it imposes a “no women” policy on, for example, an employment opportunity such as parish secretary or administrator.
An unintended pregnancy is a serious medical condition. The risks of pregnancy and birth (never mind the parenting that comes later) greatly exceed the risks of abortion, and the risks of contraception are miniscule in comparison to pregnancy. Your casualness about abstinence and rhythm is conveniently facile for you, as a male who therefore has zero risk, to propose. In my view, the Catholic Church is hypocritical — treading very close to dishonest — to claim to oppose abortion and simultaneously block access to effective contraceptives.
The failure rate of the best “natural” method — the “standard days” approach — is about 5% per year (according to sites like Wikipedia. This is about double the failure rate of a condom, and about ten times worse than a standard oral contraceptive pill. The implications of suggesting celibacy are simply astounding in their sexism. In your world women, of course, have to remain pure and celibate. Men, on the other hand, can have sex with wild abandon. Only women need to fear the consequences. Only women suffer the impact of the “religious freedom” you demand. This is precisely the heavy-handed exploitative misogyny that has dominated the Catholic Church for its entire history.
Please — let me pose a hypothetical. Suppose the government were to mandate that insurance plans include coverage for gonorrhea and syphilis (I suspect that they already ARE mandated, actually) treatment. After all, these too are readily avoidable through condoms and celibacy. Would you also defend a religious organization who said such a mandate violated their religious freedoms? I note that the Catholic Church does not appear to have any issue providing health insurance to cover the “mistakes” of their male employees.
I suggest that you again invert the standard of proof. In my view, the law is the law. The reasons for the mandate are solid, well-documented, and widely supported (except by the rabid right). The burden of proof is on you to show why a particular religious organization should be exempt from this perfectly reasonable and defensible mandate.
I particularly liked this quote
For any Republican who complains the government is telling churches what to do this should be our response. A true single payer health system removes this. British bishops have consistently prevented birth control and abortion in their hospitals and the NHS has never funded them as a consequence, and the bishops have always said that this is ‘appropriate separation’. This is a governmental body telling a religious body plain and simple how to police itself and set its own internal policies. It doesn’t matter if you support contraception-which I do by the way and think the Church is stupid for opposing, what matters is if you support religious liberty. The President was quite stupid in handling this, 1)for promising Bishop Dolan and others that he would rule otherwise 2)for promising at Notre Dame to have a dialogue and to defend conscience clauses and now throwing his liberal Catholic defenders from Father Jenkins to Sister Cathy Burke under the bus to 3)giving the GOP an easy wedge issue to win over union households in the Midwest. Dumb policy and dumb politics.
And to Christopher ignore SomervilleTom and Kirth and others, whom I agree with on most other issues, but go back to the burka ban discussion of last year and its obvious they intrinsically are opposed to the idea of religious freedom, but at least give them credit for opposing it for Catholics as well as Muslims. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 last week that the government cannot dictate the internal policies of church bodies, seems to me a no brainer Catholic hospitals are similar bodies and also a no brainer the SCOTUS would overturn this EO if challenged.
you would agree that there is some limitation to the conscience exception. Churches could not discriminate on the basis of race even if they refused federal funding by citing the conscience exception (though, perhaps like Christopher, you would have no problem with allowing such racial discrimination. This seems to be pushing the conscience exception much too far, however, and in a way that invites easy abuse of this principle).
I actually agree with Christopher on the race question, not that I support racist churches, but I do support their right to exist without government interference so long as they do not harm anyone. The conscience clause at issue here is an opt in clause, no one has to work for Catholic institutions. What hospital a woman who is raped ends up at is not something she opts in to and the obligation for Catholic health care providers to provide emergency contraception or to at least refer is far stronger. But no one is obligated to work for Catholic institutions.
by the arguments that the conscience exemption should be extended to this situation with the Catholic Church. Your argument that churches have a “right to exist without government interference so long as they do not harm anyone” is far too broad and, in any case, not precisely relevant to the facts at issue here. After all, the existence of the Catholic Church is not at issue here. Rather, what is at issue is a particular action of the Church (running hospitals) that is closely tied to public health and is otherwise covered by various federal mandates regulating the practice of medicine.
Would you really support the “right” of a church to run a place of public accommodation (hospitals) on a racially discriminatory basis? In other words, should a church have a First Amendment right to provide hospital treatment only to whites and not to blacks? I doubt you would go that far. If you don’t, then you acknowledge that at least some line has to be drawn around the conscience exemption. If you do, then it has to be explained why freedom of religion has no limits while virtually every other right does (freedom of speech, for example).
I don’t deny the need to draw lines to defend my own position on this. After all, I agree with the need for conscience exemptions in some circumstances — allowing health care providers to refuse to conduct abortions, for example. But surely some line exists?
About twenty years ago, my wife and I attended a weekend-retreat pre-cana class. This class was interesting for multiple reasons, mostly because, as we were told, we were a rambunctious lot compared to most. One couple, very active in their church, declared in front of everyone that they were living together and eventually it became clear that most, if not all of the couples were cohabitating already or at least having sex (no surprise to me). We all got the lecture from the priest about the Catholic Church not being a smorgasbord. I’d be surprised if any of these people are still active in the Church (we are not).
However, to the point of Christopher’s assertion, there was one couple that was much more subdued than the rest. The woman had a disease (I can’t remember what it was after all this time) and for her, a pregnancy would be a death sentence, whether carried to term or aborted. So if they were to have any intimacy, birth control was an absolute medical necessity. They viewed the Church’s position as forcing them to make an either/or choice: either be a married couple that doesn’t have sex or have it unprotected and live with the consequences. The priest didn’t budge on that.
…is that they are sold over the counter for a few dollars a box and thus irrelevant to a discussion about coverage. Yes, some of us can be celibate and live to tell about it!:)
Well, that’s the thing – some people can stay celibate. The rhythm method works some of the time. The Church is telling people to use methods that sometimes work to prevent undesired life-changing developments. And the Church is telling Catholics not to use condoms or any of the more reliable methods.
Ordaination is most certainly employment. Priests earn a paycheck of taxable income upon being hired just like anyone else.
As far as abortion vs. birth control, you may see it as we have to have one or the other, but remember it is still the church’s view that sex is only for procreation, which both of these things inhibit. By that logic it is entirely consistent to oppose both.
Trying to cast aspersions on my supposed sexism is completely out of line. In my actual view, as opposed to the one you assign to me, both men and women are ethically charged with engaging in responsible behavoir. If a child does result the man is equally responsible for taking care of that child as the woman, and anything less is tantamount to child abandonment. I do believe that treatment of any disease should be covered as should RU486.
@ Kirth-quit talking about condom efficacy and public health, its irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about whether a private religious organization as the right to set its own policies regarding a subject it views as controversial and morally fraught. I would argue, as would the Constitution in my opinion, that it does have that right and this is the exact kind of overreaching policy critics of the mandate feared and Obama is handing his critics the ball and they are running with it.
@Christopher-agree 100% and will add that you are also missing the fact that employment is voluntary. A woman who requires emergency contraception and has to get one from a pharmacy or hospital, and Kirths arguments do come into play there regarding public health and welfare trumping religious freedom. But no one forces anyone to work for Catholic hospitals, and anyone who does, does so knowing the value system they are governed by, and I would suspect this policy change will effect few real people. Frankly an employee of a Catholic hospital wanting birth control covered is a lot like that gay guy working for Santorum->pretty hard to feel sorry for-they knew what they were getting into.
Don’t presume to tell me to quit talking about something that I did not bring up.
Also, who are you to tell others who to ignore in a discussion? Do you think Christopher is unable to judge arguments on their merits, so you have to give him a list of whose are unworthy of evaluation?
One can be ordained without being employed. One can be employed without being ordained. The two are different. A Catholic parish is allowed, by law, to specify that a particular position be restricted to ordained men without fear of being prosecuted for gender discrimination. What that same parish cannot do is (a) limit a non-ordained position to men (or women) only, or (b) arbitrarily impose “ordination” as a requirement of a specific job description or a specific position in order to exclude women (especially when those same jobs are routinely performed by lay people elsewhere in the organization).
You evaded the sexist implications of my question about coverage for gonorrhea and syphilis. What we are “charged with” has nothing to do with the immediate consequences of failing to practice “responsible behavior”. What is your reaction to a Church policy that said “Coverage for gonorrhea and syphilis is unavailable to employees of the Catholic church, because the sexual activity that causes these diseases is immoral”?
Whatever its intent, the health insurance criteria you end up supporting is sexist. Men who are not celibate are covered by Church-sponsored insurance for any consequences of their “moral failure”. Women are not. That is simply sexist. That’s a fact, not an aspersion I cast on you.
this mandate doesn’t force churches to provide birth control in their health care plans.
My local parish is not mandated to provide coverage for anyone working for it. Not the secretary, not the maintenance man.
A hospital, which is a health care provider, not a ministry, must provide coverage. A university, which is not primarily a ministry, must provide coverage. Churches don’t have to do so. Parochial schools may be exempt.
This is not a regulation that interferes with the ministry of the Roman Catholic Church; it just forces it to live up to its health care obligations.
This whole manufactured “issue” is just another right-wing lie.
Funny how the “liberal” or “elite” mainstream media is so reticent to so characterize it. Bad for ratings, I guess.
issue here. Maybe David or one of our lawyers can comment, but I think it’s the the free exercise clause that’s at issue. Requiring Catholic hospitals and universities to cover birth control doesn’t interfere with the free exercise of religion.
My guess is that it is the “ministerial exception” explains the difference in the treatment of employees in regards to offering birth control coverage. There’s a difference between someone working for a parish or diocese and a large number of Protestant, Jewish, or Hindi doctors, professors, or nurses who fulfill functions that have little, if any, ministerial role.
This is a legal question recast as a political one.
There was a recent Supreme Court case
realizing that there was a left over sentence or editing. There is a Constitutional issue here, but the law would seem to fall in favor of the secular side.
You?
This is not unlike saying that the first amendment protects freedom of the press, but only for entities that the government decides serve a valid journalistic function.
It’s constitutional test for the free exercise of religion. What authority would I have to decide a constitutional question?
The Supreme Court just decided a case on the “ministerial exception.” Maybe you hadn’t noticed, but courts decide issues of Constitutionality using tests and precedent.
And they found that the government doesn’t get to decide; the organization gets to decide.
Which makes this distinction you drew above seem to be not so much of a distinction.
understand the court case or haven’t adequately conveyed your understanding. The decision is all about the ministerial exception, which is, of course a matter of law.
The Court ruled unanimously that the the teacher could not sue because of the “ministerial exception.” Not because she was a church employee, but because she was an employee carrying out a ministerial function. The facts of the case included the fact that she was ordained, had presided over services once or twice. Had she not served a ministerial function, then the case, though not necessarily the outcome, would have been different:
My understanding of the birth control decision is that it won’t apply to employees carrying out ministerial duties. As Kagan and Alito’s concurring opinion stated,
In other words, the organization doesn’t get to “decide.” It’s a matter of law. I think Catholic hospitals will be hard-pressed to argue that their staff falls under the ministerial exception.
The Church would disagree with your contention birth control is health care, it thinks it’s a form of murder. Additionally it would argue that health care, schools, attending to the poor and sick is a vital par of its ministry and many priests and religious orders maintain and govern these facilities as a key part of that ministry. You are free to disagree with Humane Vitae, most Catholics including this one do. But you cannot force your own definition of life, health care, and ministry upon the Church and supporting the State exercising coercive power to do so is quite illiberal.
Now you argue that preventing conception is murder?
And you wonder why some of us so adamantly oppose allowing the cult you advocate to have any influence on US policy.
Did you even read my posts? I have said over and over again in this discussion that I personally, and rather vehemently disagree with the Church’s position on birth control but accept it has a right to hold that view and apply it to its own employees. I have never argued that the church should be setting public health policy for wider society, that would be the theocracy you are so afraid of. It has a right to advocate thats its policies should be followed in society but it does not have a right to use the state to force that opinion down peoples throats. You on the other hand feel you do have that right which puts you in Falwell territory. Lastly sir with the cult attack you and Bob Jones University and Jerry Falwell are truly on the same page rhetorically-Bravo
So if my religion requires killing non-believers, or treating women as property, I should be allowed to do that? No. The rules should be the same for everyone. That’s part of having a society governed by laws.
To be clear up front, I’m an atheist. And someone who believes churches have done great and fundamental damage to humankind.
That said, the First Amendment means something and it is instructive that religious freedom is mentioned even before free speech and freedom of the press in the opening clause of the Bill of Rights. The so-called “minister’s exemption” (explicitly re-affirmed this past month in a 9-0 SJC decision) is implicit in the First Amendment. Under our Constitution, then, churches are simply *not* subject to the same employment rules as other employers, at least in the context of hiring those who personify the church’s spiritual beliefs.
I disagree with those who argue that the “minister’s exemption” should be further extended to also prohibit government regulation of insurance companies (even if they are operated by a church). But your statement that “the rules should be the same for everyone” is pedantic and not consistent with the free exercise of religion clause of the 1st Amendment.
That’s part of the restrictions on government lawmaking that we have in a society founded under a Constitution.
Giving religious beliefs favorable treatment is a violation of that clause. Being a bit more serious than in the last post, I hold philosophical beliefs (with the same conviction with which religious beliefs are typically held) that obscenity is not immoral and that I should be able to view or show profane or sexual content subject to no restrictions (and, in fact, have a moral duty to if it makes me happy and isn’t hurting anyone else). When I can exercise that right, I might buy the argument that people can be treated differently because their religion demands it. But in reality, the government chooses to recognize certain religious belief and not others when it makes these religious exemptions. A Catholic’s belief that abortion is wrong is no more sacred than my belief that hedonism is a moral imperative so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else or cause oneself any long-term harm. So why do Catholics get laws protecting their beliefs, while mine aren’t protected?
Should have said birth control there, not abortion. My statement was true either way though.
We just saw a claim, above, that birth control is murder.
Jeesh.
I want to be clear I am no defending the church’s policy merely it’s right to set its own policies. This policy does not violate the harm principle as Mill would define it since employees are opting into their agreement with the Church and the Church is not forcing wider society to accept its views merely those that volunteer to be employed by her. As to the hedonism are you arguing the Church is hypocritical to demand freedom in this instance and work to deny it to homosexuals? In that case we are in agreement, though unlike evangelical churches I do not think the church opposes civil gay marriage to force its views on others but do to a fear it will be forced to marry gays in the future. A fear I thought unfounded until this weeks decision and reading many otherwise thoughtful liberals oppose liberal approaches to religious liberty. What’s more offensive the church’s stance on homosexuality or it’s attempts to codify its prejudices in the Constitution? I would argue the latter is far more offensive and it’s something liberals should remember before they try to use the state to win the culture war. We should always be on the side of personal freedom.
What you call “personal freedom” many of us call something else.
When you argue that birth control is murder, you demonstrate why the rest of us need to be protected from imposing your version of “personal freedom” on anybody.
Are you an employee of a Catholic institution? Will you be? Until you answer affirmatively in either case your personal freedom is not abridged whatsoever. That said you are abridging the Churches freedom to regulate its own ministries, and that sir goes against the grain of American history and liberals writ large which should always try and permit more freedom. Also if you are an employee of a Catholic institution you are consenting to deny yourself that freedom when you sign up, even if you are not Catholic, and the Church is quite up front about that. If you don’t like it your free to worship and work for whom you please, if at all.
Jconway indicated that he himself disagrees with Humane Vitae, but yes, the Church believes that contraception snuffs out potential life (which they would call life with potential), so yes in a sense murder, but don’t shoot the messenger. The Church is free to adhere to its own dogma in its own institutions as far as I’m concerned. Besides, they are not preventing people from getting other contraceptive coverage; just saying that they aren’t going to pay for it. Our side does the same thing and rightfully so. When we oppose giving vouchers to families to use on private education we aren’t saying that families can’t avail themselves of private education, just that we the taxpayers shouldn’t pay for it. Frankly, your view is colored I think by personal experience which you have discussed in the past. I find myself strongly reminded of the anti-Catholic attitude (to the point of bigotry it sometimes seems) you have demonstrated in other discussions in which the Church has played a role.
but it simply does not say that contraception is murder. Artificial contraception is considered a sin by the church because it “frustrates” God’s gift of procreation. No Catholic theologian would say that you could murder a potential life, as you and jconway suggest.
Sorry Christopher, but you and jconway are way out in la-la-land.
I’m not sure that even the Catholic Church has declared contraception to be murder. If it did, it too would be way out in cult-space. Declaring contraception to be murder falls in the same league as insisting that the Earth is 6,000 years old, the Apollo missions faked, and that climate change is a liberal fantasy. Catholic dogma also insists that the wine of the Eucharist is literally “transubstantiated” into blood. Are you ready to receive a transfusion of this magically transformed material? I’m not. We periodically read reports, dutifully published without comment in the mainstream media, of miraculous healings attributed to prayer offered to some soon-to-be-sainted man or woman. You do understand that if these reports are literally (not metaphorically) true, then all of medical science is invalid, right? I’m sorry, but insisting on the literal truth of such magical thinking is a disorder, no matter how many people participate.
Perhaps you are comfortable allowing public policy to be made based on a belief in the literal truth of stories about golden plates shown to Joseph Smith in Manchester, New York in 1823 — and then spirited away by an “angelic guardian”, eliminating any possibility of confirming the truth of this fantastic tale. I am not.
And then, there you go again with yet another accusation of my alleged anti-Catholic “bigotry”. The clergy sex abuse scandal was and is a horrible symptom of a belief system and an institution based on it gone terribly wrong. I note the report in this morning’s Globe that William Lavada is again defending the indefensible.
If being repulsed and nauseated by the reality of the many ways that the Catholic Church’s bizarre, misogynistic, and disgusting attitudes towards sexuality, women, and of course its own corruption makes me “anti-Catholic”, then so be it. That is not, however, bigotry. It stems from on-going evidence presented virtually every day of a corrupt institution filled with systemic evil that it relentlessly attempts to impose on an already hurting world.
To the charge of being “anti-Catholic” (regarding the institution, not individual believers), I plead “Guilty as charged”. To the allegation of “bigotry”, I suggest you go soak your head.
It fascinates me how few people understand the Constitution.
The Catholic church has a right to say what they want, and tell their members what they want, without interference. That’s what the Constitution protects. I also have the right to not have the Catholic church try to tell me, a Jew, what I should and shouldn’t do. That is also what the Constitution protects.
But if the Catholic church chooses to get into the health care providing service, they are no longer allowed to restrict people’s medical choice, medical privacy rights, or freedom just because they don’t support a patient’s choice. That makes them guilty of the grossest kind of medical ethics fraud.
…and accept that I have mischaracterized the Church’s teaching on that. Though I wouldn’t go as far as putting it the same category as obvious myths like creationism or transubstantiation. Those two can be easily disproven by science, but to ask, “When does life begin?” enters the realm of the philosophical rather than the factual.
I appreciate your gesture regarding contraception-as-murder.
A condom is contraception. The Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to condom use. The science of how the condom works (or fails) is as solid as any other. There is no scientific question that a condom prevents sperm from coming in contact with an ovum, thus preventing conception.
Please, what philosophical argument supports even a suggestion that using a condom is murder? Does that mean that masturbation to orgasm is also murder? Is it murder for a woman to allow her ova to disappear from her body without the opportunity of fertilization? How is a man choosing celibacy different from a man choosing to restrain his ejaculate in a condom, when it comes to philosophy? It sounds like the philosophical basis for this whole line of argument is something along the lines of “destiny” for each spermatozoa and ovum — the mere opportunity to pair and then create life is itself life. Really?
I appreciate your gesture, I really do. Having said that, there is simply no reasonable basis — none; nada; not philosophical, not scientific, not rational, NONE — to declare that contraception is murder.
Have you not read your Aquinas dear Christopher? Transubstantiation has a fantastic scientific and philosophical basis. That said, in general I am drifting towards Anglo-Catholicism (an even smaller and less understood denominational subculture than Tridentine Romans!) and appreciate their ‘real presence’ compromise which allows me and my Methodist girlfriend to have the same simultaneous experience at the altar rail without either one of us feeling left up as it is both commemorative and sacrificial at once. Of course as a UCCer this is an issue you deal with on a monthly or bimonthly basis at best.
The Anglican alternative, “consubstantiation” did the trick for me (being the anally-retentive philosopher and theologian that I am) for thirty years of weekly or twice-weekly celebration of the Eucharist.
The concept was emphasized in the wake of the Reformation as a, perhaps The, Key Difference between the various Protestant Sects and the Church, and for that reason, the different positions have long been presented as vastly different and even in opposition to one another, by the other-phobic on both sides, for centuries.
“Transubstantiation” says that the material is physically changed. After the event, it no longer is what it was before and is instead something new. Hence the prefix “trans”.
“Consubstantiation” says instead that some new spiritual (as opposed to physical) essence is added . After the event, it is still the same physical substance it was before, and now incorporates a sublime spiritual dimension. Hence the different prefix “Cons”.
There are other huge differences regarding the Eucharist between the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican traditions. One of the more important differences is the role and importance of the celebrants and congregation. In the Roman tradition as I understand it, the celebrant performs the transubstantiation (so long as the celebrant is properly ordained), and is obligated to do so with or without a congregation. Ordination is the sacrament by which the power to perform this transformation is given to a priest. In the Anglican tradition, God performs the consubstantiation, at the invitation of the celebrant together with the congregation. The celebrant cannot do it without the congregation. Anglican theologians have argued about whether a lay person can, in an emergency, celebrate a Eucharist with a congregation. Some say yes, some say no.
The differences between the Roman and Anglican cosmology and theology is far more profound than the “other-phobia” you describe (though I like that word, “other-phobic”). Is “other-phobic” the same as “xenophobic”?
I must say Tom I am happily surprised by your knowledge and the level of respect you are according it. And for the most part you are correct. The priests celebrate mass, and this is particularly driven home if you’ve attended a Tridentine pre-V2 Mass, whether you are there or not and there is very little for the lay to do in terms of response other than the et cum spiritu tuo’s and genuflections and crossings at the right time. To me there is a majesty in the simplicity of that and feeling less like an individual and more like part of the mass of the Church all following the same directions, speaking the same language, and looking in the same direction at the same time towards Christ. But while I find it majestic it can definitely feel alienating to a lot of people, my Methodist girlfriend included. Fortunately Chicago is part of the old Biretta Belt and has a ton of great Anglo Catholic churches and while the priest does face the East during the act he or she faces the congregation during the rest of the Mass, and the real presence doctrine, at least as this Parish articulates it, seems to allow for either trans or con depending on the believers preference though Newman and other Tractarians went out of there way to stress how little difference there was between them. But to me it seems like a great merger of Orthodox structure and beliefs regarding certain practices while maintaining Western Rite liturgical practices, though Orthodox masses are also quite brilliant in their own way. I am definitely finding the Anglicans more and more attractive, particularly the Anglo-Catholic wing which is socially moderate-progressive while also maintaining a deep respect and love for traditional liturgy, music, and the apostolic succession. In many ways their Mass is a lot more Catholic than the average happy clappy guitar masses one tends to get at most RC churches these days without the hypocritical bullshit spouting from the pews. Like most Catholics mine is a love hate relationship with the Church.
…that I do not subscribe to the Church’s teachings or the logic behind it; I’m not even Catholic after all. I was doing my best to convey my understanding of such teachings and logic. Without using an extreme term such as murder it is my understanding that the Church is opposed to any action that even prevents the potential of human life from developing. I don’t believe the Church is questioning the science behind how a condom works, and I personally am certainly not doing so. Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the Church does in fact consider masturbation to be a sin on the same grounds, and yes, your “mere opportunity” line, as outlandish as might seem to you, is not that far from the mark from what I recall of Church teaching.
My original statement was (emphasis added here):
My strenuous objection was and is to the claim that contraception is murder. Not a “sin”, but “murder”. I understand that the church teaches that masturbation is a sin — so was eating meat on Friday. Not to be too flippant, but the “sin” of masturbation is useful primarily to drive traffic to the confession booth, don’t you think?
The overwhelming majority of today’s self-professed Catholics practice artificial contraception (it’s surely a near certainty that the practice of masturbation is even MORE widespread). There is a world of difference between categorizing something as a “sin” and categorizing the same thing as “murder”.
And, to bring us back to the topic we started on, we seem to agree that the practice of artificial contraception is, in fact, viewed as a sin by the church. Surely we can also agree that “sin” is a word that is all about religious belief. You didn’t say “wrong”, or “incorrect”, or “unhealthy”, or anything else. You chose — correctly — the word “sin”. That, in my view, is why no special exception should be created for this mandated coverage.
I do not want my government to determine public policy based on whether some religious tradition views something as a “sin” or not.
I do not believe that we should create a special exception based on the religious beliefs of one specific faith — especially when those claimed beliefs are flaunted (for very good reason) by the overwhelming majority of practitioners of that faith.
I am so steeped in progressive Catholic education which makes the Church out to be a lot worse than it actually is I confused the terms. Abortion is considered murder, although the abortionist and not the woman is held at fault. Birth control usage is a grave sin but does not constitute murder. My point was not that a) I personally believe either of these things or b) these things are good. Merely that this is what the Church believes and neither you nor I have a right to tell it what to do.
I find it ironic you are against the Church and claim I am telling you what to do and am violating your personal freedom when I am convinced you are never going to be a participant in the Church let alone employed by her, and thus will never be subject to any of its rules. It is wrong for the Church to advocate against civil gay marriage, abortion rights, and legalized birth control (to be clear a position it has not advocated for post-Griswald unless I am once again proven wrong) since it is in those circumstances forcing its views upon the wider population outside of its pews. Many conservatives argue that religion has a right to advocate for this, a point I will concede, but simply because it has a right does not make it right, and were they to win in that advocacy it would be a set back for democracy and that is arguably closer to a theocratic example. In this situation though the Church is setting its own policies for its own institutions and its own employees who consent to be governed by its regulations. You are violating its freedom by claiming it lacks these rights, and worse that the state has the right to impose your views regarding contraception, sexuality and public health upon the Church.
I like you Tom and we usually agree on most non-religious questions, but you really have done a poor job understanding my position and Christophers and even frankly reading most of what we posted and I am honestly troubled that you do not seem to see that you are just as irrational in trying to impose your world without religion upon the religious as the religious right is in trying to impose its conception of truth upon the rest of us. Liberals argue and disagree and agree to disagree in a polity where everyone has a right to his or her opinion, I am afraid your world would restrict that right when it comes to discussing religion and ban it rather than dialogue with it, which does ill service to both sides. Most of my atheist, agnostic, and deist friends have a tremendous respect for people of faith and have engaged my civilly and at least acknowledge my right and the right of my faith to participate in our democracy while also exercising our religion privately and even publicly where appropriate. I used to think there was a liberal consensus around these ideas, but you and others on this site have given me tremendous pause.
I invite you to reread my comments here (and elsewhere). I try very hard (although perhaps unsuccessfully at times) to address the argument you make. When I intentionally address the person, I generally try to say so. My “la la land” comment, for example, was addressed to you and Christopher and in response to Christopher’s concerns about my claimed bigotry. My “BIRTH CONTROL is a form of murder?????” is a response to the argument you made about the institution.
I will not dishonestly pretend to show respect for an institution I find reprehensible, evil, and corrupt. In that, I have always been clear that I am, in fact, “anti-Catholic” when we are discussing the institution of the Catholic Church. When you and Christopher attempt to present the arguments of that institution, I generally attempt to respond to them. I am sorry that I find most of those arguments at best unpersuasive and more often insulting and dangerously self-serving (to the institution). In my view, the institution is a dangerous force that is, in the here-and-now, doing FAR MORE harm than good in American society.
I have no problem with you or anybody else practicing whatever religious beliefs you choose. The world is full of religions, and I appreciate that the need to believe and practice SOME religion is innately wired into being human.
I believe that, as a society, we did a better job of practicing religious tolerance and acceptance several decades ago than we do today. In my view, the religious right has assaulted our culture for decades with its faith-based attempts to control what I do in my bedroom, what my spouse and daughters can and cannot do about their bodies, and about what my gay and lesbian friends, neighbors and family can and cannot do.
I, too, find myself taking “tremendous pause” to rethink the role religion plays in our society. I am accustomed to welcoming folks regardless of their religious beliefs. It appears to me that such tolerance may be enabling a collapse of the civilization that I hold dear. Tolerance is a two-way street, and I’m frankly weary of dodging the enormously high volume of fast-moving trucks that have been headed my way for about thirty years now.
universities already offer birth control: