The gist of the HHS debate is this. President Obama and his administration have determined that all health insurers should have to cover the costs of contraceptives and the morning after pill which can be an abortifacent (sic?) .
The Catholic Church in the U.S. opposes this, calling it a violation of conscience, because Catholic Hospitals and other Catholic organizations would have to provide health insurance that covers something morally objectionable to them.
But here's the story that the Catholic side of things isn't really talking about. I mean they will acknowledge this, but that's about it.
That is that some sources are saying 99 percent of American women have used birth control at some time in their lives. The more upsetting, though no less surprising stat, is that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used artificial birth control.
Now I don't support the HHS mandate, at all. Not even a little. But that's not what this blog is about. This blog is more of an open letter of sorts to my fellow Catholics.
See we have a problem with this HSS mandate yes. It will attempt to force the Church to act against it's beliefs. That's bad.
But we have a more serious, though not new, problem. And that is that despite the number of people in the pews, fewer and fewer are really catechized. And if they are well taught in our beliefs, they're ignoring it in massive numbers.
I am going to use social media to do my own little survey on Catholics and their beliefs and get back to you with what I find.
For now though, let me say this.
All sin is awful. Using contraceptive is as much a sin as looking at porn or saying GD. But the reason this sin has my attention, is that it's the first time I've heard of 98 percent of the Church, of it's women in this case, engaging almost collectively in the same sin.
This merits research. Until then, I urge all of my fellow Catholics, almost none of whom I know will read this, to pray and attempt to conform their wills to that of Rome's. And if you cannot, in all conscience, do that, I suggest you consider whether you are a Catholic or not.
Check out the chart in this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/the-great-contraception-battle-of-2012.html
Now, a lot of the content and commentary on The Dish has a more liberal cognitive bias, and I'm sure the data is based off of people who merely identify as belonging to that denomination (saying nothing of how commited they really are to it) - but still. That's a huge gap. Even if you give it a pretty broad margin of error it's still way up there.
My dear brother Mashiek
ReplyDeleteWe are most bothered by the news of this 98% number.
Sodom is alive and well in the hearts and minds of Americans!
In a most august manor We pupose the following, that a more spartan style of fasting and prayer is used this lenten season. We will write more on this after I contact my spiritual director
John,
ReplyDeleteWhere does personal choice play into the mix? The government might require Catholic sponsored institutions to provide health insurance which covers birth control, but this does not force the employees to engage in the horrible...HORRIBLE...sin of having protected, responsible sex (*a tear rolls down my eye).
True Catholics will stay clear of the contraceptives regardless of its level of availability. Everyone else will exercise their free will to have as much or as little protected sex as they wish. The Catholic Church does not have to act as your Big Brother, John.
The problem with the mandate is it is asking the Church to pay for something it finds sinful, Matt.
ReplyDeleteThe Church should not have to do that. People, Catholics or not, working for Church-related groups are not lied to about our insurance practices. We don't pretend to offer it all and pull out the rug.
When they accepted the job, they accepted the conditions in their insurance coverage. I don't see what's unfair or wrong here?
Yeah, individual Catholics should do their part and do the right thing, but it's also wrong to force the Church to support a sin.
I consider paying taxes to be a sin. Why do you think the government should force me to do so JOHN?
ReplyDelete"...but it's also wrong to force the Church to support a sin."
ReplyDeleteEmployers which offer health insurance are paying a portion of the monthly premium for insurance coverage. What this coverage is used for is between the covered individual, the doctor, and the insurance provider. Church-related groups may have to pay for insurance which covers contraceptives, but they're not directly involved in the decision to use it or not.
The Church is not being forced to condone birth control and "true" Catholics wouldn't use it anyway. For everyone else, that's their decision, and the Church need not assume responsibility for their actions.
"When they accepted the job, they accepted the conditions in their insurance coverage. I don't see what's unfair or wrong here?"
I don't think there is anything unfair or wrong about it. Likewise, I feel as though the anti-contraception factions are overreacting.
Because Dungy, the state needs taxes to operate. Letting you, or more specifically a large number of folks to opt out, will disrupt government operations.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the case with forcing insurance to pay for birth control.
So there are some cases in which we cannot allow a person to opt out of obligations based on ethics.
DeleteWe've already established that you are a whore, Madam. Now we're just negotiating the price.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteUnder the new compromise, it seems you are right. Apparently the way it worked before was different. I'm still learning about it.
But if the Church were forced to pay for birth control, not just the premiums, but the condoms/pills themselves, then the Church would effectively be committing a sin. It seems with this new compromise though, we've technically skipped that step.
I still don't see why they Church should be forced into this when there hasn't been a clamoring for it anyway.
The current compromise requires insurance companies to cover the costs of birth control (at least a portion of it, anyway) if the religious organization is unwilling to pay for a policy which covers it. Amusingly, there has been no mention as to how the insurance companies are to be compensated for these costs.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, even under the old plan, I think it would be a stretch to say the Church is committing a sin. The Church-related organization would be paying for an insurance policy which includes birth control, but that's all. It is not directly responsible for purchasing the contraceptives.
So, the Church-related organization pays the insurance company and the insurance company pays for the birth control - IF the employees even want it. The organizations are not involved in the decision for the employees to use their coverage to pay for contraceptives.
I don't see how the Church could be held responsible for a sin under this situation.
There is something to be said that the Church isn't paying for these services by virtue of supporting said insurance. To consider it that way, one could say that by paying their employees they make it possible for them to get the same services. So I get that.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, there are a couple other principles at work here.
I believe the government has every right force religious institutions to go against their conscience in the case of a compelling public need.
Easy example, some neo-pagan movement goes a little nuts and decides they believe in human sacrifice again. Clearly, the government can't allow this. There are many more nuanced examples as well.
But still, there is no reason to force this issue on employers at all. The result of what they have done is to create a situation where the Church-related groups that oppose this will en masse drop their coverage. Less people will get the things the government says they need, not more.
I look at employer sponsored insurance as a kindness/smart thinking done by the employer for the employee. They know a healthy employee is a better one, perhaps some even just feel it's the right thing to do.
And here we have the government, through the executive branch's machinations, telling an employer you can't give them health insurance at all unless you do it my way.
That seems to be almost as much of a problem as the violation of conscience to me.