Maguire writes: "By denying contraception as part of employee health plans, what the bishops seek is more like religious fascism than religious freedom."
Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable 'in certain cases,' notably 'to reduce the risk of infection' with HIV. (photo: Alberto Pizzoli/AFP/Getty Images)
Who's Wrong in 'War on Catholics' Fight?
07 February 12
he decision of the Obama administration to ensure health care coverage including contraception in Catholic institutions has enraged American bishops who lobbied hard against it. The bishops claim their religious freedom is violated by this ruling, but the bishops are wrong and out of the mainstream of Catholic teaching, including the teaching of bishops in other parts of the Catholic world.
A number of bishops, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, have spoken strongly on the need for condoms, especially in areas ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases. The U.S. bishops are even at odds with the pope who approves the use of condoms "where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection."
The papal change on condoms effectively ended the taboo on condoms since it says that health concerns may require their use, and there are many health concerns aside from HIV/AIDS. The nonpartisan and well-respected Institute of Medicine, on which the Obama administration relied, says contraceptives can be used to treat reduce the risk of endometrial cancer and pelvic inflammatory disease and other diseases mainly affecting women.
Also use of contraception is linked to the decline in infant death. Obviously contraception limits the number of abortions since it prevents unwanted pregnancies.
But the American bishops say the administration’s decision on Jan. 20 was a case of religious freedom. In that, they are right but not in the way they intend it. The bishops are claiming the religious freedom to violate the religious freedom of those who are employed in their institutions or who are served in their tax-supported hospitals. By denying contraception as part of employee health plans, what the bishops seek is more like religious fascism than religious freedom.
Furthermore, traditional Catholic teaching rests on a tripod, including the hierarchy, the theologians and the sensus fidelium, the experience-fed wisdom of the laity. These three sources of teaching are, as Cardinal Avery Dulles said, "complementary and mutually corrective." An accurate look at Catholic teaching on contraception today shows strong support for the position that contraception is not only permissible but even mandatory in many cases.
Catholic theologians overwhelmingly support contraception. Dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities cover prescribed contraceptives. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used contraceptives. Only 2 percent of Catholic women use the "rhythm method" of birth control favored by conservative Catholics.
Therefore the decision of the Obama administration, rather than threatening Catholic teaching on contraception, is actually more attuned to actual Catholic teaching than are the American Catholic bishops with their idiosyncratic taboo on contraception.
Daniel C. Maguire is a Professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University - a Catholic, Jesuit, institution in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He is the author of "A Moral Creed for All Christians." He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Good, basic, common-sense observation!
I'm pro-choice and I am not religious, but I think that the administration is dealing dirty.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Did the Administration's policy require employers who offer health care insurance to include women's health care coverage including prescription drug benefits that were ALL inclusive and non-discriminatory? Or did they demand abortion coverage?
Who cares if you are "pro-choice" AND "not religious"? How does that contrast with some 'dealing dirty' conclusion on your part about (President) Obama - as if he was responsible personally for the acres of mindless bureaucrats and political 'experts' who, presumably) have 'focus grouped' and even studied the issues.
You have asked two disconnected questions and one personal conclusion - but I think you have vaguely implied paragraphs Joseph Goebbels could have authored proudly.
Abortion is not in any government supported insurance plan. It has been law for a long time.
The Catholics who are reacting to this newest issue are no difference from Protestants who promote the us-against-them mentality, overlooking personal freedom of citizens to act on their own behalf.
No church can dictate personal behavior or choices unless the adherents choose to allow it, including whether or not to use contraception.
However, like most oracle pronouncements, responsibility for consequences - intended or not - rests with the listeners. Responsibility for outcomes does not rest with God. Rather, humans have interpreted and then multi-translated the intentions of God over millennia. Conflicted by the paradox allowed by accepting the self indulgent view that we are "created in God's image" (presumably including self-determination and creative capacities) which allows mankind to define "fruitful" as considering 'outcomes' of our application of 'multiplying'. Surely we should not view conquest rape as a godly manifestation of 'multiplying'. Nor, might we logically conclude that, in the absence of resources (societal, governmental, individual) we multiply to the peril of progeny, self or posterity.
For me, the issue of the will of god 'informed' by contemporary 'messengers' of god - whether from the throne of St. Peter or the American Bishops - contradicts the clarity of the responsibilitie s granted in exercising our supposedly 'god given' capacity to think.
Real Issue #2 I will agree that the Religious beliefs of my employer paid for Health Insurance should be allowed when my personal beliefs are, at least to the portion I pay for, adhered to. Does the Catholic Church pay 100% of the Premium with no deductible? If not then they have no say.
Lastly, I would gladly trade no free contraception for no war, unless a proper declaration of war is made and all military funding bills do not have traps built into them.
Too many people are unable to afford the expensive US healthcare and forego treatment not covered by insurance.
Therefore, insurance coverage dictates health care for too many.
There are religious sects that believe it is against God to received blood transfusions and other blood products. What if as employers this sect would prohibit their employee's health insurance to pay for blood transfusions? Would employer's religious beliefs about blood transfusions dictate the employee's affordable and critical health care decisions?
HEALTH IS RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL BELIEF NEUTRAL AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE AND THE RESULTING HEALTHCARE CHOICES SHOULD BE THE SAME.
There has been tolerance of religious dictates and beliefs. Cannot religions also be tolerate of government assistance and those who do not share the same beliefs.
2. Women are not cattle -- they are under no obligation to calve every spring.
3. Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.
4. Who are the bishops to dictate morality to the public beyond their committed adherents, when they bear the stigma of their own cover-up of rampant pedophilia, all around the planet, for an entire generation?
There's a serious disconnect between the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and Catholic people. In fact, the Council of Bishops is more conservative than the Pope. It's an outrage.
We need to end the tax exempt status for religion.
"Cannot religions also tolerate government assistance and those who do not share the same beliefs?"
If there are "penitant", tolerant, flexible, inclusive, very progressive religious people out here, and perhaps there are, Christian or other, we don't hear much from them at RSN or in general media coverage, do we (with the notable exception of Jim Wallis, who IMO proves the rule)? Could the MSM have something to do with that? Could they actually be pushing an ultra-conservative Christian agenda? I'm shocked!
In recent decades, the synthetic, "triumphalist" Christian America pushed on FOX or in Murdochland or by the cabal of Pope Benedict clones on the campaign trail, or the really scary evangelical "Seven Mountains" crowd across the country, has been re-defined as rigidly fundamentalist, exclusive (read: white supremacy), militaristic, nationalistic, virulently anti-Muslim, pro-war (anywhere, anytime), anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-contraception.
Can you envision Jesus Christ preaching this hard right "gospel" to goat herders, fishermen and carpenters at the Sermon on the Mount? Instead of flowing white robes, he'd show up in an SS dress uniform and jackboots (They'd go well with his rockstar haircut). Besides, he's way too busy helping Tim Tebow be a football star and Webb Simpson win golf tournaments. He has his priorities. I'm rock solid with Regina on numbers 1 through 4. The best short sermon I've ever read!
This was all part of nixon's "Southern Strategy". He hoped he could consolidate all conservatives under the repug flag by race baiting and using all the code phrases needed to recruit the phony Christian psycho right.
There are only about 40 million evangelical fundamentalists in this entire country. That's about 12% of the population. Another 24% are practicing Catholics. Only about half of those are conservatives. So, only about a quarter of the country is conservative Christian.
But, they vote as a block and they've been manipulated and bought out by the right-wing propaganda. nixon's campaign was very successful for decades. The tide is beginning to turn. It will take several more decades, however.
The old testament rules! It's fans are just that: fanatics. It is astonishing how fast Reagan and Bush I's people succeeded in creating division and frantic hatred and fear. Even more astonishing how many politicians and media jumped in. Lying on their part has become acceptable.
You might also remind the catholic church and republicans that universal health care would solve their dilemma. There is no war on religion but clearly a war on American women by Christians and republicans.
RSS feed for comments to this post.