Republican lawmakers' manufactured outrage over contraception coverage would be easier to believe if so many GOP officials weren't already on record agreeing with the Obama administration.
Associated Press
We talked yesterday about the similarities between Mitt Romney's 2005 position and that of the White House this year, but Igor Volsky moves the ball forward today with an even better example.
The Obama measure closely resembles state laws providing equity in insurance coverage for contraception in six states and actually offers far more conscience protections than previous Congressional efforts to expand women's access to birth control.
For instance, a 2001 bill co-sponsored by Republicans Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Gordon Smith (OR), John Warner (VA), Arlen Specter (PA) -- S. 104 -- sought to establish parity for contraceptive prescriptions within the context of coverage already guaranteed by insurance plans, but offered no opt-out clause for religious groups who opposed contraception.
At the time, Snowe made the case that this was a "simple" matter of fairness. To accommodate the concerns of religious groups, she endorsed a "conscience clause," which as Volsky noted, "is very similar to the conscience protections included in Obama's regulation."
By 2012 standards, these Republican senators in 2001 were waging a war on religion, and launching an offensive assault on the First Amendment.
Perhaps now would be a good time to pause and note that neither Obama's nor the Republican moderates' position is extreme in the slightest. Current law requires insurers to cover preventive care, which the administration believes should include contraception. Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement.
So why pretend this is some kind of outrageous assault on religious liberty -- three weeks after the White House's announcement? Because the right, desperate to find something new to complain about, wants to play a foolish political game . They've apparently settled on contraception, which, incidentally, most Americans agree with Obama about.
Pro-choice Republicans are urging their party not to engage in a coordinated fight against contraception, but for now, this good advice is being ignored.
Leave a Comment:
How about "what a difference 30 years, 30x, $30 Trillion makes" on ALL of America, across the board?
How about a week's series on "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse" starting with "Nixon Shock" from August 15, 1971, Bretton Woods default, and massive $8 Trillion in trade deficits starting in 1982 with 30 straight trade deficit years as a Nixon Shock and Reaganomics result and "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale". Show #2 the run-up from $1.0 Trillion in National Debt, after 205 yrs as a nation (1776-1981) and then shot to the moon with the "Starve the Beast" Conservative Revolution under Reagan/Bush/Bush 21x (or off a cliff) when both P&I are factored in with its actual carrying costs of Net Interest costs. Show #3 re the vast unproductive expansion of the Financial Sector coming to domiate the American system via the third leg of the TRIPLE DEFICITS (budget, trade, regulations). Show #4: the "hollowing-out" of the American economy via all the above. Show #5: the subtitle of Stockman's NYT op-ed: "How My Republican Party Destroyed the American Economy", that summarizes the previous week's content that had the principle title of the op-ed "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse".
This would break new ground in broadcast journalism, shock & awe with the $30 Trillion, 30x, 30 year mega turn of the American economy after Nixon, Reagan, and the Conservative Revolution wrecked havoc on the American dream, not to mention empire. $1.0 Trillion, 1x was the combined trade & budget P&I baseline benchmark over 205 years up to 1981. $30 Trillion, 30x, 30 year dive off the cliff after Reagan/Bush's push.
It's as much a series on American voters voting against their own economic interests now for some 30 years... voting Republican.
What's funny (and I don't mean I'm laughing) is that to this day the average Joe thinks that a "strong dollar" is good for him. If there's one thing that a strong dollar and a trade deficit does for the average Joe, it's keeping the labor market slack and Joe from getting any increases in real income.
Pedal to the metal, full speed ahead -- never mind where we're going, Casey, just pour on the steam.
The sad thing is the number of Democrats who are so ready to curl into the fetal position at a moment's notice that they can't see that defending birth control - birth control - is a political winner.
Catholics back the administration at about the same level as the rest of society. Everyone but evangelicals thinks this is the right decision. Is it too much to ask that Democrats support a legal product that's been used by over 90 percent of women, and that's been wildly beneficial to society? Apparently, it is.
Why are evangelicals, presumably Protestants, virulently opposed to abortion and contraception--two positions held by the official Catholic doctrine, but never by any official or mainstream theology in Protestantism?
Where did this come from out of the blue? What doctrine are they citing to claim that they are in charge of everyone else's morality and behavior? Why have they arrogated this right unto themselves?
Anyone?
They've been pulling it from the "before you were formed (in the womb) I knew you....." verse from Psalms for at least a few decades now Jim.......they also like to blend the "Where were you at the time of the shedding of innocent blood?" verse from I don't remember where from the OT. Then of course they extrapolate from there into the whole apocalyptic rhetoric, blah blah blah......sorry it's been a while since I was un-born-again so I don't remember chapters and verses.
Abortion and contraception are two different animals. Before Roe v. Wade, all the states and most western countries had strict abortion laws. The churches never needed to fight against abortion since it was a crime. On the other hand, contraception has been around for a long time in various forms. It's legal status varied from state to state, but by and large men could find condoms almost anywhere. It was the easy availability of pills for contraception for women that triggered the Pope to issue an edict. However, most Catholics do not agree with the Church on contraception. Santorum is an anachronism and he overestimates the number of Christians that are opposed to contraception. His view on contraception is very fringe, but he is acceptable as a candidate for his abortion views. This current contraception issue is a tempest in a teapot and will disappear rather quickly because of public opinion on contraception. Only the the Catholic Church and the hard right Christian evangelicals are making hay over this issue, but for most people it is not an issue that they think is important. Republicans are using the issue to stir up their base, but it will quickly fade.
You mean, aside from "if the liberals are for it, it must be of the Devil?"
Please forgive me, this may get a little bit long.
There's a hypothesis that there is a "Red State Culture" (to some extent a "red neck culture") that goes back for centuries in the South. See, for instance, Walter H. Page's "The Forgotten Man" and "The Pulpit and the Stump."
This culture is highly religious and sexually strict. Young people are supposed to be virgins until marriage and once married self-supporting. You may notice that this isn't conducive to education much past puberty. Teens being teens (and sexually ignorant) it's not long before there are a bunch of shotgun weddings and the "children" leave school and set up house, with the boys taking whatever job they can get with minimal skills. Like, for instance coal mining or the Infantry.
The Church welcomes the repentant sinners, who depend on that message of repentance and redemption. And everyone loves country music.
Y'all can see how non-reproductive sex can mess up this whole cultural life cycle, though. That also helps explain why this subculture feels that LGBT threatens their marriage traditions.
Trouble today is that there are other threats as well. Like the disappearance of good-paying blue-collar jobs. Not much point in marrying and leaving home when you can't afford to move out. And then there's the fact that the traditional life was made quite a bit more tolerable by the fact that the ******* (darkies) were even lower on the scale than blue-collared rednecks.
The last couple of generations have not been kind to the pious, relatively uneducated, sexually repressed people of Greater Redneckland. They're not hard to persuade that the darkies and loss of good jobs are due to enemy action, but watching their kids get immunized against HPV, take the Pill (instead of getting knocked up like the little sluts deserve) and (gasp!) maybe even going on to college -- that last isn't an incremental problem. It's an existential threat to the whole way of life.
Which makes it a prime target for all that cultural resentment, and by association the disappearing jobs and uppity coloreds can be blamed on the same people.
Is this true? Is it a useful sociological hypothesis? Dunno. Ask my daughter, she's the sociologist.
But I really truly do advise you to read "The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page." It's in the public domain (you can't have my original printings) and available from Google Books.
I don't think this is about Red State Culture. I see this more as the last gasp of the post WWII generation of evangelicals who have been fighting cultural change since the 1950's. After Roe v. Wade, these evangelicals found the Catholics as an ally because the Church has focused on the abortion and contraception to the exclusion of other issues like civil rights and social justice. This union between the groups brought a lot of votes together on the abortion issue. Reagan and the Republicans used the Christian right to form a coalition with the economic conservatives. That in turn has spawned the Tea Party which thinks it can wag the dog (Republican party) just like the Christian right. So far it is working because the Republicans have become even more extreme. It will only end when the Republicans have an election disaster where they lose a lot of seats nationally and on the state level. But that leaves the party splintered and the leaders have to figure a way to bring the coalition back of the Christian right, the libertarians and economic conservatives together while avoiding the extremism. I don't think it will be possible.
The Republican party is making evey effort to distract the people of the United States from the "real" issues that confronts our nations. I find it difficult to believe that women would allow any party to send them back to the dark ages.
Olympia Snowe (with her annoying voice) has always made foolish decisions. Yes, I intentionally used that word defined as “unwise & imprudent acts". She has voted for stupid things and refused to vote for things that mattered. She moves wherever the noise is. She has always been deceptive; she is unable to think on her own.
As Rachel said yesterday, the media should STOP making this issue about religion. It is about WOMEN. If women think GOP cares - check the GOP policies. It is all about this "self indulged" religion to them. As if the rest of us are not Christians. My bible teaches me to love not hate & put people on the streets. These GOP do not care about anybody but their ideologies.
Where do these (GOP men) get off making decisions about women? They all should mind their MALE businesses. I cannot get over the party who (a) wants less government but (b) when it comes to women's private lives, they have an opinion? Why should they care about what happens in our bodies? They should BUTT out of women’s business - mind their MALE businesses.
a republican would complain if a democrat weatherperson forecasted rain..and the sun shined. they would argue that sun light is bad if the humidity rose to 89%. the GOP would fight the use of air-aconditioning in the middle of a heatwave if a progressive suggested turning it on to reduce the humidity in the room. let's face it..the GOP simply argues for the sake of arguing...common sense be damned!!
It's as if they were possessed, like the New Testament swine, and are all rushing headlong over the brink of the lake to drown themselves. These men--and it is mostly men, imagine that--don't get it. Women won't stand for threats to their access to contraception and neither will sensible men who don't want to worry that each liaison could result in 20 years of child support payments. Silly piggies.
My biggest fear is that the Dems will compromise on this the same way they did with the FAA reauthorization that kneecapped the unions despite their desperate need of donations and GOTV support from them: Talking Points Memo - Is the White House Caving on Contraception?
Check out this segment on "Democracy Now" that aired today, that included remarks from a man by the name of Jon O'Brien, the President of Catholics for Choice, a nonprofit organization that represents the voice of Catholics on reproductive and sexual health.
http://www.democracynow.org./2012/2/8/as_contraceptives_rule_enters_gop_race
Mr. O'Brien gives clear and objective information on this issue of the 350 U. S. Catholic Bishops who want to force their views about contraception on all women, not limited to the 68 MILLION Catholics WHO DISAGREE with them.
Here is an portion of what Mr. O'Brien said in this interview today:
"The idea that an employer, that a bishop, can get between you and your birth control, there's something that's very un-American and wrong about that. Freedom of conscience is an essential part of actually being a Catholic. So, at the end of the day, it really is for individuals to make this decision, and the bishops, as an employer, should butt out of it."
Loretta Ross, the national coordinator of the Sister Song Reproductive Justice Collective and longtime human rights activist is quite impressive as well.
These two people would absolutely be great guests for Rachel to interview on her show.
I think her viewers would be quite interested in their point of view on this issue.
It's noteworthy that the Church never made much of a fuss in the States that require contraception as part of qualifying insurance plans (including heavily Catholic Massachusetts.)
You'd almost think that this was more about politics than about doctrine.
Digby has a great post up with the legal history of the laws in the 28 states.
The bishops were shut down and the Supreme Court has refused to hear some of the cases.
Lot's of petitions started up today to tell the WH to stay strong. The public is pro birth control by an overwhelming majority.
The Republicans have clearly become the PRO-SOCIOPATH PARTY. That's what the "P" stands for in GOP.
Boehner and others are busy trying to get people off topic. 'Religious Freedom' is about a person's right to choose what religion & doctrines THEY want to follow, not about having the right to force their beliefs onto an American woman. An old guy in another country does not have the right to dictate what healthcare options an American woman has access to. Boehner & the GOP presidential candidates better wise up and listen to what the country has been saying on this topic. SGK heard us loud and clear. Woman's rights are as important as men's. Now, insert Muslim for Catholic in this conversation and you would see the GOP go rabid in the opposite direction, screaming about Sharia law being implemented in America.
And let's get honest about Rome and these Bishops, these are the same old men who knew their own clergymen were raping little boys and looked the other way. We want to listen to them, WHY?
Can it possibly be that the wives of the Republican candidates have not used birth control or that the female Republican leaders have been using the rhythm method all these years? I would not ask if the daughters used birth control, but I would think a wife who does at least gets a tacit agreement from the husband. And just how did Newt prevent embarrassing situations with the open marriages? Are all of these Republican alphas going on record that condom use is the only birth control method they have used if they used any at all?
It's like abortion -- they're well enough off to go where it's available. A flight to Canada is cheap, after all. Getting elected is much more expensive, so paying a bit more for the health care you want is a cost-effective.
I do so want someone to ask Newt about his preferred form of birth control while engaging in his numerous affairs.
Oh, I know, now that he's Catholic (dare I say his religion du jour) I'm sure he and Callista are only engaging in sex for procreation according to Catholic doctrine.
Judging from how many children Romney, Santorum, and Paul have, at least five a piece I think and multiple grandchildren, none of them were using birth control. As for Newt, I wonder how he can be a practicing Catholic after two divorces. Has the Church changed its position on divorce? If it can change its position on divorce, why not birth control?
This is not an issue about religious liberty. It's an issue about access to contraception disguised as an issue about religious liberty. Fortunately, most Americans (E.J. Dionne and Mark Shields excepted) can see through the Republican smokescreen.
The right shouldn't have picked this fight. It will come back to bite them.
You are absolutely right: this is not a religious issue. As I quoted yesterday on a similar subject, in the Feb. 13, 2012 issue of The Nation, Archbishop Tutu is reported to have noted that "some persistent customs palmed off as religious are not part of religion at all." This passage is from the article on the attempt by an international group to stop child marriage which is often condoned by various religions.
We need a serious discussion in this country, maybe even a legal clarification, of what is legitimately a "religious practice" and therefore protected by the First Amendment and what is just a cultural tradition.
There are many things that were once common religious practices that are no longer legal in the U.S. and not protected by the First Amendment. Human sacrifice, burning heretics at the stake, polygamy just to name a few.
Arguing contraception shows how short sighted you are. This argument has nothing to do with contraception nor its availability. The Catholic church is protesting the fact that the State is forcing them to do something. On military bases the letter that was sent out by the Cardinal to be read over the pulpit was edited by the state before it could be read in a military setting. That is what the Catholics concern is. It starts with forcing the provision of contraception in the name of what is good for the people and ends with people jumping a boat and heading to America to get away from Government oppression. If the Catholics don't want to hand out party balloons nobody should force them to do so just because the party will be good for the people.
I think state funded contraception is a great idea, but, and it's a big but, should only be in the form of sterilization. Because if you are to stupid or lazy to go buy a rubber then you are more likely to be to stupid and lazy to take care of your offspring. So if we the people are paying for your recreation it should be done in a way to reduce our additional cost that might be incurred down the road. I don't want my tax money to go to take care of stupid lazy peoples unloved offspring. Besides kids deserve better than having a parent that can't afford a rubber or doesn't have the self control to take the proper precautions.
last Maddow this wasn't something that came of 3 weeks after the administration spoke on this. The Catholic church issued a statement on Jan 20th. You need to pull your head out of your MSNBC and look to a few reliable sources ( even wikapidia is ahead of you in reliability).
...Chem condoms are a form of contraception. They just aren't a female form. And where exactly does this get off from? If you are taking birth control or using the ring or using some other form then you are protecting yourself and thinking ahead. By your own logic condom use would fall into that same category. BTW not everyone can use a condom because of allergies or limpness. I guess they shouldn't be given a fair shake? Most married couples don't use condoms, either.
Actually that is what contraception does. You are paying for the pill now so that you don't have to support people on tons of welfare programs later. BTW you wanna know how I know you're a male? Because you automatically assume birth control is only used as birth control. You really should read up on what birth control does and is for before making such assumptions. Oh wait that's right- you're a medical professional w/ a PhD...le sigh.
So then you're in favor of birth control? Or against it? Your two comments here contradict w/ your earlier post. Oh and by the way using birth control is having the self control to take proper precautions.
...yeah so A. remember to follow the CoD there chem. Your comment will more than likely get deleted B. Maddow didn't post this C. Maddowblog did report on this issue and you complained then that birth control is a form of abortion pill (which it's not) and you had to have it explained to you by myself and other bloggers how birth control actually works and D. it was Newt Gingrich who brought this story back up from the grave- why aren't you yelling at him for being behind the news cycle? I mean if we're going to use red herrings why not use the most blatant one?
The fact that you can't see the contradiction in this sentence is just mind boggling. Ugh if the Church doesn't want the State to intervene and is arguing "separation" as the reason...then that means that the Church can't be interfering w/ the State either. And your example is the Church interfering w/ the State. Le sigh.
Also if contraception isn't the argument chem then why did you spend the majority of your post deriding it? o.O
The Catholic church is protesting the fact that the State is forcing them to do something.
Nobody is forcing the Church to operate hospitals. They are welcome to sell them.
If a church chooses to go into the health care business, employee the general public, and serve the general public, then they have to abide by the rules that apply to all employers and the health care business.
Regardless of who owns or operates it, a hospital is not a church. Therefore, a hospital does not deserve access to special religious exemptions.
@chemdmd,
You said something that is not true.
The US government is not going to force the Catholic Church to purchase birth control pills for nuns and viagra for priests. There is an exemption for that kind of thing.
Hebrew doctors cannot be forced to observe Catholic beliefs that form the basis for withholding birth control pills simply because they work at a Catholic hospital.
Exemptions prohibit enforcement of prohibited activities for actual religious workers involved with worship activities in churches, temples, mosques and so on.
However, schools, university, and health care workers that are not actually involved in day-to-day religious worship have the right to full health coverage. The employer is not allowed to force their religious beliefs onto workers with different religious beliefs by withholding medicine that is not taboo for them.
This maintains the ban on birth control for catholic nuns while providing same for jewish professors teaching at university.
The other issue is if Catholic hospitals that would like to participate in government health care funding programs. If so, then the institution must provide contraception and pregnancy termination. If they don't want to do that, then they don't take the money.
Nobody is going to force Catholic institutions to accept government money they do not want.
I don't see the problem.
When and only when churches start paying taxes can they have a voice on the matter.
I am not overly religious these days. I was raised American Baptist, but I fall now on the non-aligned, even agnostic catagory. No where, and I've seriously looked, do the teachings of Jesus say anything about forcing another's will or view on anyone else. He may have chastised, even condemned certain acts, but there was no force involved. That is contrary to His 'love at all cost' philosophy. It is all about choice, you choose to follow His teachings or you don't. We are supposed to free of religious oppression in this country, some musty old document somewhere says something like that, how can we now allow a radical right wing, supposedly religious zealotry to force all to believe as they do? Republicans, Democrats, Independants, whatever, wake up out of your stupors and don't let a small, extremist, vocal fringe element take the freedom of choice away from you.
I'm just curious if Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed, in their business, to not cover blood transfusions for their employees? Or, if they were to run a hospital, refuse to offer blood? Horrific thought, right, but it's the same principle. Religion should not cross over to business. You can believe what you want in your home or church, but if you decide to run a business, you abide by government rules. The separation of church and state should work both ways. Religion is becoming too involved in our politics. The bishops should have spoken out for universal health care, and then they wouldn't have to deal with this issue.
"Every sperm is sacred"--Monty Python, Meaning of Life
This!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Isn't it obvious the discontent with this bill is simply the Catholic and other religious leaders being worried about losing control of their "flocks"? They've always have been the ones to be able to dictate to people what they can and can't (mostly can't) do and want to keep it that way. This bill threatens their power. With 90% of Catholic women using birth control, they're obviously not the ones freaking out.
Would it be sacrilegious to do some fact checks on the assertions made by these Bishops? For example, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Dolan knows that this does not require any Catholic institution or individual to buy contraceptives. So what is he saying? He is saying that he should not be obligated to pay out money that could be used for buying contraceptives. The "product" he is talking about is an insurance policy that requires no one to buy contraceptives or violate any Canon law of the Church.
Dolan needs to explicitly state the moral case the Church is making. Let's look at complicity in evil- something we can agree on like the position of a German citizen in Hitler's Germany. I use this extreme example, because it will help us to see how Dolan looks at this. There is some formal analysis of degrees of complicity in evil. For example there is material co-operation. You are a chemical supplier. You do not agree that the Jewish prisoners should be killed but you know that the only use the concentration camp could have for the large order of gas cartridges is to kill them. This is material cooperation. What if the the situation is more ambiguous? You know the concentration camp worker murders people in the camp. He comes into your diner. Do you serve him? Ok, how about if you are a grocer and his wife comes in to buy food for his large (8 person) family. Some of your food will go to nourish the Concentration camp worker. At some point you decide you are not morally complicit. How do you know when?
Catholics have a formal analysis for this, but even by this measure, Dolan does not appear to have a leg to stand on.
Health Care Coverage required by statute is lawful under Catholic analysis of double effect if you accept all 4 of the following conditions:
The GOP wants to hold hearings? Great. Subpoena the Cardinal designate and have him explain why the Catholic church is morally complicit and this is any different than paying wages to workers who can buy contraceptives.
I am a little confused about this, perhaps you can clarify it for me John?
If abortion is murder then wouldn't the birth control pill be the preference to committing murder?
Wouldn't the Church also want the sinful to work for them and/or to use their facilities so that they could preach the word of Jesus and God as they see it- including about why they disagree w/ contraceptive use? Not that I agree w/ the idea of indoctrinating women...but as an operating premise between the two (to provide coverage or not to provide) don't they still have more to gain than to lose?
Right Mouzer. That is the toughest case.
For the benefit of others, neither I nor I Mouzer buys their (Catholic Bishops) framing or rationale. I personally hold a radical reduction of what they are "really" doing- that this is about subjugation of women. But I do think they sincerely believe the story they are telling themselves. The purpose is to understand their rationale from their point of view.
I am not a lawyer nor a Catholic. I know that Catholic propagandists describe Plan B as abortion (and other post fertilization techniques), but I don't know if the Bishops draw a distinction between doing things prior to or after implantation. Regardless how they evaluate that question, my understanding of the Catholic thinking is that the difficult problem is in condition 4: proportionality. If you look at the link for double effect, you will see the submarine commander example. He knows there are likely children on board the Merchant ship. Yet his action is lawful because defeat of the Nazis (the good) proportionately delivers far greater good than the unintended evil effect (killing children).
So the Catholic administrator's choice is morally equivalent to that of the submarine commander in most of the cases of the catholic institutions. For example, if the Catholic Hospital administrator refuses to provide the coverage, they must close the hospital in the rural area of the state. If they close the hospital, people will die. Does the proportionate good of saving people's lives outweigh the unintended evil of the "murder" (in their eyes) of a zygote? In the case of activities delivering lesser goods- eg Catholic social aid centers, I honestly think some conservative bishops might decide the answer is no and shut down the social aid centers. It has to do how much like Murder they sincerely believe Plan B is in their heart of hearts.
If they privately believe in a more realistic assessment of what Plan B does, then although they would prefer there be NO evil effect in paying the Health care insurance premiums, conformance to the PPACA would be a case of lawful double effect.
If we are only talking about pre-conception (like barriers- condom or cervical cap) contraceptives, then IMHO, the trade off is not even close. But I don't know a lot of Bishops so your guess is as good as mine.
Ok so before departing this, if a person regardless which religion or non religion believes that a zygote is the moral equivalent of a human being with consciousness, then the principle of double effect forces one to conclude that many Catholic institutions would have to be closed down.
I see the biblical stories that leads people to believe this idea, but I do not believe these interpretations can possibly be correct because our examination of existence shows us that this is not the way cells and consciousness work. Ultimately it is an unprovable point, but I just don't think that there is anything remotely resembling a vessel for a soul until the life form is capable of consciousness.
This has been said before, but it is technically possible to "save" many more zygotes from "death" with a highly intrusive medical procedure. Just as with their conclusion on contraceptives, to passively allow their death is the moral equivalent of passing a drowning person and doing nothing to save them.
That is what the Catholic Churches are doing.
But they aren't so it is easy to start thinking that people who claim this is what their conscience is telling them are not following a principled position at all- that this is all about domination of women and has nothing to do with zygotes= human life.
Regarding your, "I personally hold a radical reduction of what they are "really" doing- that this is about subjugation of women," you need to read: "Time to Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right on Birth Control" over at BusinessInsider.
"Catholics have a formal analysis for this, but even by this measure, Dolan does not appear to have a leg to stand on."
The problem is that you misrepresent the principle of double-effect, forcing you to this invalid conclusion. You do not have a full, Catholic understanding of what the principle of double-effect entails. (As evidenced by your wrong conclusion in the submarine commander example - it certainly was not morally permissible for him to proceed so.)
For clarification:
Go straight to the source: Summa Theologiae, Secunda Secundæ Partis, Q. 64, art. 7, at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm
Or, read additional explanations from Catholic sources: Principle of Double Effect at http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56
Specifically,
I am sorry but your claim of authority is questionable. The submarine example was given by Servant of God Father John Hardon, S.J. Please check the link above. He concludes that the the submarine captain's action is lawful.
I'm sorry - I did not check the link. Until I see the print verison of Fr. John Hardon's explanation, I will not fault him (the website you reference may be paraphrasing from his book).
Using the information you provided in your comment, what is lacking is a sense of "legitimate defense" (CCC2263) and "if this is the only possible way" (CCC2267). Had you fleshed out your, "[the submarine commander]knows there are likely children on board the Merchant ship. Yet his action is lawful because defeat of the Nazis (the good)....," I might have to choose otherwise; but, a non-aggressive merchant ship, neither attacking my own submarine nor my country is not target material. Aggressive, or with good intelligence known to be imminently aggressive...now, that provides a difference.
Regardless, I had left other resources for you to educate yourself. I am sure their authority is unquestionable.
Furthermore, I'm wondering how you think you can get around the "principled postion" of the following:
@JohnMesserly: "That is what the Catholic Churches are doing."
Correction. That is what John Messerly accuses the Church of doing.
Thanks for the less condescending tone. Assumption of ignorance can be an unnecessary obstacle to getting at the truth. I appreciate the depth of your response and the time you took to present it. Unfortunately due to the flow of this blog, the excellence is buried and unseen because the crowd has moved on and is now posting on whatever the current topics are.
Yes, the Bishops are morally bound to exhaust all avenues, and typically the church has not done this. The options they have are: 1) Lobby. Bring pressure to change the regulation. 2) Provide rhetorical support for the ideas that candidates who would reverse the rule are attempting to advance. 3) Disobey the civil law and challenge in the courts. I am sure the Obama administration appreciates their moral responsibility to play out their hand as best they can and has given them a year to exhaust 2 and 3. Honestly if you look at Obama's statements encouraging groups to publicly push back on policies, he welcomes this engagement.
Do you think this new vigor can be traced to the Holy Father's statements of the nexus of politics and religion? Especially when he adopts Sarkozy's phrase positive laicity? (Somewhat ironic, n'est-ce pas that Santorum's position more French, not withstanding his allusions to the revolt against the ancient regime.
Anyway, I have a great deal of respect for the method of analysis of complicity with evil. I find it exceptionally regrettable that many of my fellow liberals cannot even bring themselves to utter the word, let alone read theological texts which hold great wisdom. I may well be guilty of some process errors here and I promise to look at that (thanks for the pointers), but fundamentally the issue turns on the difference of assessment of the evil. Don't you agree? It is the question of the status of the unimplanted zygote. Dolan believes that it is murder to chemically or mechanically prevent implantation, and so from his perspective he has every leg to stand on, and he has a moral imperative to do everything in his power to stop it. Do I overstate that?
On this question of status of the zygote. Nevermind the non catholic liberals for a moment. The congregants don't believe that. If they did, you would at least see a greater catholic shift to barrier type contraception. They have heard plenty of about licentious subversion of God's plan- jumping the conditions of the contract by taking the pleasure and defeating the intent of raising a child in a loving family. They get that, but don't equate that with murder.
The truth is the truth even if no one acknowledges it, nicht war?
“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” – G.K.Chesterton
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....
When does this creation take place? (A creation, it appears, that comes with an endowment of Rights.)
Science tells us that at conception a separate, unique, living individual of the human species is formed.
Those who would question the status of the zygote are discussing philosophy, not biology. (Heck, even Pete Singer, who some identify as the 'architect of the culture of death,' said, "...there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.")
Me, I'll stand by the Church that is on the side of Science, that holds firm to Truth, that is unwilling to philosophize away inherent humanity. Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception (CCC2270).
It is theology with a scientific context. There is no question in my mind that the zygote is life. There is no question that it shares the dna of our species. If the philosophical/ theological question requires determination of when there is a human consciousness present, science can provide a solid context for the debate. Of course this is irrelevant if your definition of murder is killing an organism that simply shares your dna. I believe presence of consciousness as vessel of the Word is the crucial question. An example of another case is turning off life support for a brain dead individual. Murder? I think not.
That does not mean I have trouble with the move Bishop Dolan made. The Church is entitled and morally required to teach what they hear God telling them.
This goes beyond teaching. The Church engages the civil world and Vatican II suggested to many liberal Catholics that they should pursue a path of accommodation with that world. Pope Benedict is a hawk and believes in the concept of positive laicity. In regards to our conversation, this requires the Church to press beyond norms for how far the clergy should permit themselves intrusions into politics. It does not require them to become political leaders, but translation of theology into pastoral care requires engagement with an imperfect world. This requires the church to exhaust all options in the civil space before accepting an action with double effect.
His Holiness said this about the balance:
Cardinal designate Dolan said in Mass last week "Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience." Dolan is willing to risk the Church's 501c3 tax exemption status in order to exhaust all options in regards to this issue. The IRS has a Political Activities Compliance program that has investigated activities like this (source). Dolan could have made his address more indirect on advice of his lawyers, but he is making specific reference to regulatory ruling and my guess is that he is deliberately confronting the boundaries of laicity.
This serves a more global purpose, because the US can be a laboratory to explore the best balance in a democracy. Of course Pope Benedict favors laicity because Christians are in the minority in many countries and militaristic solutions of projecting moral dominion are unworkable. Clearly many christian hawks do not hold that view but the policies these Hawks advocate has resulted in dramatically lower Christian populations in the Middle Eastern countries. The Church needs Turkey, Egypt and Iraq to accept a positive laicity that shows governments that religious dialog and tolerance works towards reconciliation rather than sectarian strife but this requires the government to be even handed in their treatment of religions. This balance is well accepted in Jordan, but is not in other countries being pressed by militaristic answers to the religious imperative to project dominion over an imperfect world of evils.
Every country will require the church to take actions with double effect. What Pope Benedict is saying is that the Church should be more muscular in exhausting the options legally open to it.
Any organsim that simply shares my DNA is, quite simply, a human being. No more, no less. Simple biology.
Why get hung up on "determination of when there is a human consciousness present"? The beauty of the Church is that it recognizes humanity at its lowest common denominator (see CCC2270 above) - at conception. All human potentiality is present at that moment. Drawing the line anywhere else is simply drawing a line in the sand.
The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. (CCC362)
After all, I was always me before I realized I was me.
You are right it is a philosophical position, and one I believe the Church will inexorably move toward.
It is not just a philosophical problem because by current definition of the "human vessel" CCC2270 requires that we cannot stand idly by while zygotes perish. It means all medically practical measures must be taken to save the lives of zygotes "who" fail to implant in the uterine wall. It is estimated that well over 80% of zygotes fail to implant, and that "mortality" rate can be arrested if the Church would urge congregants to visit hospitals regularly after intercourse so that their uteruses may be irrigated and the zygotes saved.
Is this an absurd assertion? No. If it is human life and there is a practical way to save that life, then it is the moral duty of everyone to help save that life.
Is the Church doing this? No.
Regarding the Obama compromise where the Church does not have to pay for a policy that covers contraceptives (article): The Church is no longer required to "buy a product that violates their conscience", as Bishop Dolan put it. Instead, the same insurance company must provide the policy holder the contraceptives free of charge.
The double effect of the Church's purchase of the Insurance policy is not avoided through simple indirection. Simply ask the question. Where does the money to pay for the contraceptives come from? That's right- the Church. So this thing is a legal fiction.
Dolan said they are studying the details of the compromise. Really he knows all he needs to know, he just needs to hear of the Cardinals will go hard line or declare a victory as a small step towards more vigorous expression of positive laicity. Probably be a week until we observe smoke rising from the Vatican on that one. What's your bet?
Actually, it is quite the absurd assertion...and is simply another straw man argument (a fallacy) extended by JohnMesserly.
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception (CCC2270). Respected means recognizing the right to life every human being inherently has. Protected means we do not harm or kill another human. There is no obligation, stated or implied, that natural death is to be impeded.
There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.--Fulton J. Sheen
It is not an assertion. The moral duty logically follows given that the zygote is a human life. You have declined to show a flaw in logic and merely assert it is a straw man.
I am disappointed that you have retreated to the strategy of labeling and dismissing rather than demonstrating the flaw in an argument presented to you.
Clearly you understand some of the writings of the Church. What you are missing is the desire to pursue the truth wherever it leads. This is what the great theologians and in so doing defended the faith. You may sincerely believe you are defending the faith but on the contrary you are doing a great service. Dogma has evolved through the centuries. That is a historical fact. The nature of conception- when a soul enters and leaves a biological vessel is a matter that will surely evolve.
It most certainly is an assertion. And a straw man - you are misrespresenting what the Church teaches and then crying, "Foul!"
Again, the moral duty is to respect and protect human life. The Church does not make it a duty to be "over-zealous" in staving off the inevitable death. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted (CCC2278.)
____— ____— ____— ______
is right in front of your eyes. It is not practical and quite over-zealous to
Actually, the pursuit of Truth led me into the Catholic Church.
Again, you are defending a philosophical 'line in the sand.' It is a biological fact that a human being is formed at conception. The Church stands with science in recognizing this Truth.
If it was " It is not practical and quite over-zealous to" recommend saving the zygote persons to the congregation, then you should have presented that objection. You did not.
If these zygotes are human persons, then it is equivalent to a person attempting to swim to shore and we doing nothing to help them. Given the premise, how can it be any different? We must do everything practical to assure that as many as possible implant in the wall of the uterus. It is estimated as many as 80% of zygotes fail to do this. What happens when we see a swimmer struggling in the water? Do we shrug our shoulders and say it is in the hands of God? No. We have helicopters out there, dropping divers to swim over to save them and so on. Those actions are not overzealous or impractical are they? Then why is a simple procedure of irrigating a woman's uterus after intercourse?
Show me the error in logic or fact.
The difference is that zygotes not implanting is the natural course of events. One is not morally obligated to intrude in this natural process. In the case of an otherwise healthy individual who is in danger of drowning (not exactly a 'natural course of events') one is obligated to protect that individual to the extent of one's ability.
Oh? If we accepted the natural course of events with pandemics, we would never have been motivated to discover what the nature of viruses was and to subvert the natural course of events in order to save lives.
Why is it a moral obligation to develop vaccines and interfere with the natural course of events, but not a moral obligation to intervene in the natural course of events that results in hundreds of millions of deaths of zygote persons every year?
Again, JohnMesserly is misrepresenting what the Church requires. One is not morally obliged to intrude in this natural process (pandemic). It is a moral good, not a moral obligation, to cure diseases (provided all is done in a moral manner.)
Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God.
We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good (CCC2288).
Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all (CCC2293).
I apologize if you believed I was attempting to represent Church teaching. I realize some terms have very specific meanings.
You have a quibble with a non essential detail of my question. I shall rephrase.
Why is there a moral obligation to administer a vaccine that interferes in the natural course of events with of a Pandemic, but there is no moral obligation to use known medical techniques to intervene in the natural course of events that results in hundreds of millions of deaths of zygote persons every year?
I wish they would allow re-editing for longer, because on rereading the words to not convey my intention. Someone could honestly have thought my question implied church teaching. It seems to me it is an obligation, and it is an interesting question on how Church teaching comes down on the subject but the point is tangential to the question we are considering as far as I can see.
Actually-what are you arguing, anyway? That the Church is somehow not prolife
To give a person an innoculation to maintain or restore health is very different than invading a woman's body and interfering in the autonomous processes of the developing embryo/fetus.
@John " It seems to me it is an obligation, and it is an interesting question on how Church teaching comes down on the subject but the point is tangential to the question we are considering as far as I can see."
Anyhow, I think it is somewhat ridiculous to be wrapped up in such scrupulous concern - when in all actuality, perfectly viable human beings are being denied life to the tune of over 1.2 million per day in America. (Being overly scrupulous can be a sin.)
If men had the babies and really had to worry about birth control, this would never be and issue. Damn that Eve!
I fail to understand why the Dems don't run a barrage of campaign advertisements around election time simply showing the Republicans previously supporting issues that they now rail against because the Dems are for it. GOP = Gala of Phonys
Religion as Government? “Religions shall pass no laws affecting citizens who do not subscribe to said religions”, Unabridged Government?
The classification of religions as charities in the US tax code was done to allow contributions benefiting religions to be taken as income deductions. This would have had to be against the Constitution (establishment clause) because these provisions benefit and support religions constitute laws in favor of religious establishments.
It is obvious in the history of tax code phrasing, later changes reduce charity distinction of religion, but excluding the word religion from the tax code would not address problem of fungible tax collections from supporting religions. Today a list of approved charities is use (Pub 78). Charities are themselves are responsible for filing forms petitioning for their status, whereas the older tax code referred to major religions formed after 1946 etc.
If I declare myself to be of the Unicorn Libertarian Faith, and to abide by at least the first Ten Commandments, under the provision that I owe everything to God and nothing to Cesar (the government), I cannot obey any tenant of the government laws that does not also abide by those same Ten Commandments. The first five of the commandments, belong to God only, and I cannot speak Gods’ name, nor accept any image of God, nor accept any currency that refers to God, or misuses God in anyway in its offices, administration and proclamations. This leaves five commandments that are as is, except for the false witness commandment. It is this commandment that forms the basis of my religion and because elected politicians cannot by their sworn professional oath, actually speaks the truth. The false witness filters into government laws based on politicians’ lobbyist, vague evidence, testimony and supported by the truth only by accident.
This will affect my treatment by government, since it will, as it must, falsely accuse me of owing taxes, and demanding payment in some form is currency on which is printed the blasphemous reference to God, and to add insult to injury the asks me to swear to truthfulness by signing the darn form.
This is the suffering I must bear, so it that this religion, essentially frees me from paying any taxes, directly or indirectly, so I do not owe the government anything, and those that work for my private charity also are free to pay those taxes either, but we all fully accept that the greater public deserves the burden caused by my religious exception to paying taxes.
Thus continues the long history of laying down rules only to change them when they cannot be followed.
Thus freed from government I can disappear from society accountable only to my Unicorn Faith, oh yea the reason Unicorns are no more, birth control, I think is was abstinence, Unicorns just not practical, much too intellectual.
Is it violation of my freedom of religion to have leaders of another religion force me to follow the health access convictions of their religion? This is not religious freedom for me since I don't follow that religion.
"...force me to follow the health access convictions of their religion..."
Tell me they forced you to work for them, and that they blocked all access to your buying the items you need for your health out of your own pocket.....then we'll talk about violation....
When I was a military dependant, my contraceptives were provided by the military medical facilities paid for by tax payer dollars. That means every Catholic who paid taxes had a hand in providing mine. I have not heard any cries to disallow this medical option to women military members or dependants of military members. Don't our legislators and spouses have medical benefits paid by tax dollars too?