Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Cardinal George on the HHS Mandate - Update (2/29)

Cardinal George writes that the Church is being forced to give up its mission in the world, in the areas of health care and education:

This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

Msgr. Pope seems rather to agree, and upholds the mission of the Church to evangelize by word and by action:

Yes, frankly we do have vigorous disagreement with secret (and not so secret), shameful practices. And we will not, in order to be popular or conformed to these times, distort or misrepresent the Word of God. Abortion is wrong. Fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts are wrong. Divorce, and chosen single parenthood, and so called gay “marriage” are wrong. Contraception, sterilization, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, wrong, wrong wrong.

But I cannot force you to obey me. Rather I commend myself to your conscience. And even if Scripture will not be acceptable to you, I will have recourse to Natural Law. I, indeed the whole Church, will continue to commend myself to your conscience. And even though the gospel is currently “out of season” (cf 2 Tim 4:2) and you laugh at me and call me names like intolerant, bigoted etc., I will continue to commend myself to your conscience.

As long as I live I will speak the truth in love. And however you choose to understand me I will continue to speak.

And not least, in Washington State, the conscience rights of pharmacists were recently upheld in court. Worth noting that this is not a religious decision per se, but a constitutional one.

Update (2/29) - Sebelius offers "dialogue" on the non-accommodating "accommodation" - but not with the bishops. Sr. Walsh of the USCCB has some cogent replies to this further deprivation of the most basic rights from the members of the Church, starting with this:

The current tensions over religious freedom come down to a simple fact: the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. That includes the right of Catholic and other religious institutions to define and carry out their ministry.

...and continuing with this:

The Administration’s intrusive decision about what does and does not constitute religious ministry should make every American pause. What falls after freedom of religion? Freedom of the press? Will Caesar tell you what you have to print or air?


...and ending, with copious irony (to which, unfortunately, this Administration seems as insensitive as it does to the Constitution), with this:

Certainly our government, wise as it is, can’t be expected (and shouldn’t purport) to know everything. It might well ease its burdens by leaving some things to the Almighty and rendering unto God the things that are God’s.

"Quaerere Deum"

What I admire and find so attractive about monastic life is the easy juxtaposition of the practical (the leatherman on the monk's belt in the field), the frivolous (the frisby tossing as they walk to the mill pond), and the sublime (deacon monk singing the Gospel in Latin for Mass). Follow the link to watch the video.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

(Post #100:) The Catholic Church and the Good of Women

The question came up in formation class recently, apropos of the HHS mandate, how to show and defend the fact that the Catholic Church serves the good of women? We didn't have enough time to roll that ball around more fully, so here are some more thoughts and suggestions. [NB - I will continue to add some links to this post as I find good ones.]

First, what does the world teach us? Look at something like the HHS mandate. What picture of "women's health" and the "good of women" is presented here? The claim that all women must have access to contraceptive services, including sterilization and abortion, shows several underlying assumptions:
  • sexuality, and more bluntly, sexual activity, is central to one's identity;
  • the denial of the procreative aspect of sexuality is a denial of human purpose (and therefore an embrace of materialism and utilitarianism);
  • the willingness to sacrifice another's profound good (i.e. the right to life, via abortifacient birth control) to one's own transient and purely emotional good (i.e. sexual pleasure) is promoted as a good (although it is the very antithesis of true charity);
  • the "liberation" of women via self-centered, materialist, consequence-free sexual activity encourages individualism and social instability as a good, and therefore marriage, or at least marriage without no-fault divorce, as an opposing bad.

So the picture of "women's health" being advanced here is implicitly one of women having very shallow, unstable, and (probably) short-term relationships with their own identity (sexual activity, or the constant potential of it anyway, before all else; placing an inordinate priority on "my pleasure now"); with other women (reduced to objects of materialist and utilitarian nature, good for me only for what I can get from them); and with men (reduced to objects of immediate sexual satisfaction). (Simply reverse these last two reductions in the case of homosexuality.)

One can see how true this is simply by looking at any of the main-stream media. What is the image of women presented? Advertising pictures of women are almost uniformly young, skinny, and beautiful of face and figure. They are explicitly objects of desire, meant to make us men associate one appetite with another, and therefore spend. (Interesting that we're still assumed to have most of the disposable income, just judging from this kind of advertizing.) Leading women characters on TV and in movies are less uniform, but still generally shown as strong, independent, and in control, precisely in terms of "liberated" sexual relations.

But if these relationships are thus hollow, then family relationships cannot be stable, trusting, self-giving, etc. And if family life is broken, then all other subsidiary or mediating institutions between the radically isolated individual and the State are likewise impotent.

In the case of relatively affluent and well-educated women, that radical isolation and exposure is masked. The opportunity for career advancement is better, with no (permanent) husband who might have a career conflicting with your own, no hiatus of employment for child care or maternity leave, less restriction from the "glass ceiling," etc. There's a great cost for these things, of course, since wealth and status aren't happiness. But for a much larger proportion of women, who are not nearly so upwardly mobile, or who are already in poverty, the self-centered and socially unstable lifestyle only exacerbates the problems of vulnerability. Hence the permanent and ever-expanding nature of the "welfare State," which rarely works to bring anyone out of poverty, and particularly badly and systematically fails single mothers.

What's ironic about all this is that this kind of social and economic dependency, this manner of supposedly lacking a separate personal identity, is supposed to be what feminism advocates against. The argument used to be that child-bearing and traditional marriage shackled women to men, reducing them to mere objects (in practice if not in fact or in law). Therefore they needed birth control and no-fault divorce, and an independent income, in order to be equal to men.

Here, however, in the HHS mandate (and elsewhere in politics and culture), one sees clearly how, in order to be consistent about this liberation from traditional authorities, feminism has trapped women in a new cycle of sexual objectification and vulnerability. Likewise, in order to be consistent about the equality of women, feminism has had to demonize both men and babies.

Unfortunately for this brand of feminism, there is a tremendous amount of good data to show that none of these things are truly good for women. Abortion and birth control increase the risk of breast cancer and cause very serious mental health issues. Hypersexualizing women, as in the media, makes them more likely to be victims of sexual harassment or assault and less likely to form good relationships, just as pornography does for men. Social instability, especially in marriage, makes women more vulnerable to poverty, emotional or physical victimization, and poor mental health; and makes the women's children less likely to finish high school or college, more likely to experiment with crime and drugs, and much less likely to be able to form stable social relationships in turn. And so forth. This whole picture of what is good for women actually harms women, sometimes very gravely, and also harms men, who also cannot become virtuous and self-giving husbands and fathers.

In contrast to all of this, the Catholic (and Biblical, in general) view of women's health and women's good starts at a much different point: baptism. From the fact that women are baptized exactly the same as men, and can therefore participate in the Christian life fully and equally as men, and can expect the same salvation, in all its aspects, both in this life and in the next, as men, comes the irreducible equality of women in the mind of the Church. (The question of women receiving Holy Orders is here set aside; since this is a Scriptural question, not a social one, it needs to dealt with separately.)

With equal dignity comes equal purpose. The Church has always taught that women are just as much "for salvation" as men. Ever time some ancient philosophy about the inferiority of women reappeared in the Church, it was criticized and equivocated into practical meaninglessness. For example, ancient Roman law held that women could not be "sui iuris," a free juridical person with full public rights; and various attempts to revive Roman law in the West tried to include this idea. But the practical reality of the fact of equal dignity forced all these attempts to make exceptions for things like widows inheriting from their husbands, women making bequests to churches, and women's judicial testimony being accepted in court. Make enough exceptions and the principle is void of effective meaning; this is precisely what happened, over and over.

Also because of this equal baptismal dignity, the Church has always strongly defended the unique gift of maternity for women. The Church's recognition of the sacramentality of marriage protects women's health and women's rights, against all the negative outcomes described above, and against the dehumanizing possessiveness of polygamous cultures also. And marriage must be freely entered into to be valid; coerced marriage of women, common in every other ancient culture, found no home in Christianity. Further, the Church has always held (or attempted to hold, at least) the socially powerful to a special obligation to protect widows and orphans. She invented the very idea of "civilian" and "non-combatant," mostly in order to protect women and children from the side-effects of war. Every one of our social categories today of "vulnerable" people stems from this Christian idea of special defense for widows and orphans.

Nor has the Church ever reduced women only to the role of wife and mother. In addition to married life, women have always had both institutional and non-institutional forms of religious life open to them. Indeed, the oldest form of religious life in the Church is that of "consecrated virginity," in which a woman (whether never married or widowed, whether young or old) publicly declares her intention to live "spiritually." The Church grants her protection to such women, who otherwise live in the world (but not of the world) in perfectly ordinary ways - with their families (often several women from an extended family lived this way together), or singly, owning property, conducting business, and giving a much-respected model of Christian charity to all. Abbesses of monastic houses could be extremely powerful women. Some monastic houses were "double," with one cloister for men and one for women; about half the time, the abbess rather than the abbot was in overall charge of the double house.

By defending baptismal dignity, the stability of marriage, the rights of religious women of all kinds, and the rights of widows and orphans, as well as practical property and judicial rights for women, the ancient and medieval Catholic Church laid a very firm foundation for women's authentic flourishing in the modern world. And in the new social circumstances of modernity, the same core wisdom is being used to articulate a much healthier vision of women's good, for example in Mulieris Dignitatem and the Theology of the Body. This vision does not reduce women to a sexual object, but asserts their full potential for conformity to Christ; does not offer shallow and transitory relationships, but asserts the profound joy and completion found differently in both marriage and friendship; does not expose women more to the vulnerability of radical isolation, but builds up strong and stable subsidiary networks, starting with the family; does not increasingly impoverish and make more dependent, but enriches, both spiritually and materially, by pointing to Christ's great freedom for charity.

More on HHS mandate, and related insanity

100% of Catholic bishops in US oppose the (illegal) mandate.

Secretary Sebelius was testifying before a House panel today about the process of the mandate. She admitted some astonishing things:

Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sebelius further admitted that HHS never subjected the religious liberty issues to a legal analysis, as requested by 27 senators. She also admitted that she never asked the Justice Department to consider this issue.

It gets worse. Today’s New York Times reports today that the administration announced the Obama mandate “before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.” As the Times points out, this is not a slight issue: 60 percent of all workers with health insurance are covered by a self-funded plan, and the figure jumps to 82 percent for large companies. And no one bothered to address this?

So not only is it illegal, but they didn't even bother to do the most basic sort of homework before they rammed it down everybody's throat. That's not even enlightened despotism, guys; you have to at least pretend to be more than hired goons.

I'm not sure if that's the same hearing the Democrats so maturely "stormed out of" because they couldn't get their way:

So because Issa wished to hold a hearing on how the contraceptive mandate infringes on religious liberty, the Democrats, angry that they couldn’t transform it into a hearing on how religious liberty infringes on the right to contraception, stormed out.

In other news, Rome burns while Nero fiddles... This doesn't specifically relate to the mandate, but it shows again (in case we weren't paying attention) the manipulation, dissimulation, and will-to-power of those who are in favor of it.

Pro-life demonstrators against the mandate get arrested at the White House.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Homily - Feb 15, Wednesday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time

"Be doers of the word, and not hearers only."

Probably the most common way we Catholics today hear the word, but don't do it, is with contraception. So many Catholics use contraception - I know I'm preaching to the choir right now, but so many of our friends, neighbors, co-workers, even family members. The voice of the world is loud and constant, telling us we must use contraception to be happy. And, in light of mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services that our Catholic institutions will have to pay for these immoral acts in a year, it's much on our mind right now. Perhaps you have been asked, like I have, why is it wrong? Why is using contraception the opposite of "doing the word," the will of God?

There are a lot of things to say in response to that question. I really encourage you to get to know the answers that are in Humanae Vitae, and Evangelium Vitae, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But right now, I want to offer you a very brief and simple theological argument to defend what the Church has always taught.

Look at Jesus on the Cross. Look at the blood dripping from His holy wounds. That's the blood that cleanses us from our sins.

Look at the hole in His side, where the lance went it. That's where the blood and water poured out, that gives His power to all the sacraments of the Church, everywhere and for all time.

That's the total gift of self. That image, right there, is what it means to do the word, and not only hear it. Jesus on the Cross makes a covenant with us, in His blood.

Now, imagine what that covenant would look like, if contraception were a part of the mind of God. Jesus would not be giving us the total gift of Himself. He would go up on the Cross, but not permit His blood to wash our wounds of sin. He would go up on the Cross, and not permit the lance to pierce His most sacred Heart. No blood and water would flow out into the seven sacraments we receive. He would love us, but not enough to transform us into Himself, through His suffering, death, and Resurrection. He would die, but not for us.

That's what contraception does. It's an act which denies that Christ wants to be our Savior, that that kind of love is even possible. Would people who use contraception still do so, if they understood this love? I don't think they understand. I don't want to condemn anyone for not understanding, for doing what seems to be necessary, or for being tricked or coerced into something. But I do want to condemn the idea of contraception. It's an idea that cannot be reconciled to the love of Christ. It's a false god.

St. James also says in the reading today, "The one who peers into the perfect law of freedom (the law of the Cross) and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts; such a one shall be blessed in what he does." May God in this Holy Eucharist strengthen our faith, and keep us united with Christ our Savior.

Friday, February 10, 2012

On the President's First Amendment "Compromise" Falsely so-called - Updates (2/13 and 2/14)

As everyone has no doubt seen by now, President Obama held a press conference today (2/10) to announce his wonderful "compromise" on the unjust (and illegal) HHS mandate:

Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.

Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

This is a distinction without a difference. Clearly, the question of whether the conscientious objector pays directly, or indirectly by paying a third party to pay for the immoral services, is quite irrelevant to either the wedge issue of contraction (including sterilization and abortifacients), or to the deeper issue of religious liberty. In either case, the one who tries not to be complicit in moral evil is still compelled to be complicit in moral evil.

The best response I've seen is by Bishop Slattery of the Diocese of Tulsa, OK:

We are grateful that the President has begun to listen to the voices raised in opposition to this intrusion on our first amendment rights, and we are encouraged that he understands the urgency of this matter. However, we are dismayed that he does not understand the root issues which are involved here.

There will be a time, there must be a time, when Americans of good will and strong conscience discuss these points in a rational and non-idealogical conversation.
• First, no one is asking why it is that the Catholic Church is opposed to
artificial birth control, direct sterilization and abortifacients. For two thousand
years, the Church has understood that all of these methods that prevent life
damage marriages and thereby weaken the fabric of society.
• Secondly, in describing artificial birth control, direct sterilization and
abortifacients as “Preventive care” it is apparent that the ideology which
underlies this governmental intrusion is that pregnancy is a disease and that
the conception of life should be prevented.
• Thirdly, the question of who ultimately pays for this immoral coverage has
remained unanswered by the President. Free coverage is never free;
someone will have to pay for this coverage in their premium.

He also notes that the religious liberty issue is not limited to church institutions, but also affects individuals, either purchasers of insurace or employers providing it, and even insurance companies themselves. Spot on, Bishop Slattery.

I think there is now another issue here, also. As we heard from Abp (Cardinal-elect) Dolan, President Obama promised him, in an interview in the White House in November, that he respected the Church's stand on the contraception issue[s], and wanted to protect religious liberty etc. etc. But as he proved in allowing the Sebelius mandate to remain unchanged in January, he lied. By making today's announcement of a change (even though the change is not one of substance), he's tacitly admitting that he lied before, and also tacitly admitting that he approved a policy that violated the First Amendment (!!). (If it did not, why would he capitulate, even only in appearance, to the rising demands on behalf of religious freedom?) And now he's trying to change the subject with a "cheap accounting gimmick."

The Anchoress has more round up of responses, many of them also very good. The Beckett Fund's response is particularly pointed. And Bishop Nickless gave a very clear and precise response for tonight's evening news.

Update (2/13): Abp. Chaput, among others, has an excellent response to Friday's "insulting and dangerous" retrenchment by the Obama administration. The USCCB offered its more definitive response very late Friday evening.

Update II (2/13): Lydia McGrew gives a clear and compelling rebuttal of that "98% of Catholic women use contraception" lie that figured so prominently, if irrelevantly, in the logic (for whatever that's worth) of the HHS mandate. (I found this linked via Tom Hoopes at CatholicVote.org.)

Update III (2/14): Pope Benedict gave his third speech to American bishops making their ad limina visit yesterday (see here, but it's not posted there yet). Msgr. Pope gives his thoughts on the address most compellingly. Thomas Peters draws the obvious conclusion that where no compromise is (repeatedly) offered, none is possible, and sets his sights firmly on the electoral defeat of Obama and his oppressive ilk. And the Anchoress shares another little example of that animus, in this otherwise unremarked rule change. Last but not least, the USCCB lists six more things everyone should know about the HHS mandate.