Conservative Catholics complain that too many liberal Catholics instinctively greet every statement from the Vatican with suspicion, skepticism, or derision. It’s a fair point. The motives and judgment of those who appear unthinkingly hostile to all hierarchical authority should be questioned. Patient attention to the legitimate concerns of others and the presumption of goodwill on the part of those we disagree with are essential virtues.
Unfortunately, patience and the presumption of goodwill were not much in evidence in the response of the U.S. bishops and many conservative Catholics to President Barack Obama’s compromise on the question of mandated contraceptive coverage for employees of religious-affiliated institutions. Even before all the details of the president’s proposal were known, the bishops rejected it and then upped the ante by insisting that the only possible solution was to repeal the mandate altogether. In other words, the bishops are now demanding that no employer be required to offer free contraception coverage to its employees. To justify their response, they offered only the most tendentious reading of the possible flaws in Obama’s proposal. Now the USCCB is threatening a concerted political and public-relations campaign—during an election year—that casts the president as a determined enemy of religious freedom.
What is going on here? Is the question of contraception coverage—something most American Catholics already have, and which the bishops have said almost nothing about before now—really where the hierarchy wants to issue a non-negotiable edict? Why were they not this vocal in their opposition to the Bush administration’s use of torture? Has the USCCB thought through how these demands are likely to undermine the church’s much more important effort to change hearts and minds about abortion? Or how they will further divide Catholics?
Advertisement
The Catholic community was largely united in its rejection of Obama’s initial failure to exempt religious-affiliated institutions from the contraception mandate (see “An Illiberal Mandate” and "Bad Decision"). Many of the Catholic leaders who led that protest, such as Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, and the presidents of various Catholic colleges and universities, are guardedly optimistic about the new mandate. Ideally, the administration would have simply broadened the original religious exemption. Nevertheless, the new plan, which requires insurance companies, rather than Catholic institutions, to cover the cost of contraceptives, is a welcome development. The details of how this will work are not entirely clear. One particular difficulty has to do with Catholic institutions that self-fund their health plans. Administration officials have expressed confidence that some workaround will be found that will prevent these institutions from directly paying for contraception coverage. This is a complicated legal and administrative matter, and a degree of caution, even skepticism, is warranted. What is not warranted is the USCCB’s demand that the contraceptive mandate be done away with entirely. This is a novel interpretation of the First Amendment, and one that will almost certainly be rejected by the courts. It is also a political gift to abortion-rights groups, who will use it to make the case that the church’s opposition to abortion is motivated by a larger disregard for the health of women. Republicans have already seized on the controversy, hoping to use it as a wedge issue in the presidential race. None of these developments will be good for the church or the nation.
The fact that many Catholic institutions already comply with state laws requiring contraception coverage makes the USCCB’s extreme demands all the more curious. For Catholic institutions to participate in insurance plans where individuals may decide to use contraception is at most remote cooperation with what the church considers evil. It is implausible for the bishops to insist that the revised mandate compels them to cooperate directly in a sinful activity when even the original mandate did nothing of the kind.
So, why are the bishops reacting in this way? Are all the bishops comfortable with the USCCB’s rhetoric? Will any bishop publicly express reservations or skepticism about this strategy? Are the bishops not worried that this initiative will be seen as transparently partisan by much of the public?
In their 2010 book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert Putnam and David Campbell showed what the likely consequences of this fight will be. By the 1990s, after decades of the culture wars waged by Protestant and Catholic groups, many younger people came to think of “religion” as politically divisive and overly judgmental, especially on questions of sexual morality. As a result, the number of Americans who have abandoned institutional religion has risen dramatically. One-third of adult Catholics have already left the church. Isn’t that sobering fact more deserving of a national campaign than this self-defeating battle over contraception coverage?
For more coverage of this issue at dotCommonweal, click here.
Maybe part of the bilshops' attitude is caused by the selection process for bishop. No priest who has not shown himself unquestionably loyal to Humanae Vitae need apply. And so, even though the majority of Catholics have not received Humanae Vitae, the almost unanimous majority of bishops have received it because only devotees of the encyclical get the job. This policy began under John Paul II, another example of how that brilliant pope who never knew a doubt has left the Church much more divided than he found it.
Yes, this looks like another knee-jerk "liberal" attack on "conservative" bishops. You're turned what you think is a tactical mistake into a mortal sin, proof of a damning character flaw. That simply wasn't necessary.
I'm not sure this editorial can be characterized as a "knee-jerk" attack on conservative Bishops, as David Smith contends. It is a well balanced analysis of the status of the issue today and, I believe, a wise admonition that the attempt to broaden the issue beyond the First Amendment protection of religious institutions from being coerced into offering and perhaps paying for "medical" procedures that relgion considers immoral, may do more harm than good. It would have been wiser for the bishops to remained more focused. However, there seems to be a surprising level of naivete shown by the editors. There is no "compromise," just the expressed willingness of the administration to "look into the issue" and seek possible changes, with the likeliness nothing substantial will happen until after the November elections. The original mandate has already been published. It will have the effect of law in a year. Do the editors really believe the Administration intends to honestly change that mandate? Given the way the Affordable Care Act (which, I personally support, in part) was manipulated through Congress by the Administration and the way the spirit and letter of the agreements supposedly reached with the moderate Democratic legislators that made the passage possible have been largely ignored, the prospects of an honest compromise on the part of the Administration seems unlikely.
The bishops have never morally challenged a single insurance executive or agent for distributing contraception. Some of them are leading and honored members of the parish. An official of the USCCB even said it was no big deal if private industry promoted contraception. But while Big Business gets a pass, the USCCB is outraged that public authorities might establish contraception as a basic benefit. They insist that if employees are to have contraception in their health care plans, it will be only if women have to go to their bosses, hat in hand, asking for it.
The amazing thing is the bishops' hard line with public authorities yet refusal to say a negative word towards Big Money corporate authorities. It seems they are insisting workers need to follow their bosses when it comes to moral guidance.
It is a source of considerable astonishment to me that having contrived to execute the cognitive equivalent of a "full back bend" in Yoga, the editors seem to still want to imagine that there is some "right side up" (pun intended) way of seeing the Bishop's position as other than mendacious. Face Facts - there isn't; beginning with the Women Religious Inquisition of the past few years, the USCCB and Rome are evidently intending to put all American Women firmly "in their place." Enough already!
You say, ..."in what the church considers evil." Why "the church"? Don't you mean, "in what the pope and bishops consider evil"? "The church" includes the entire Catholic population and the sensus fidelium. Didn't Paul VI write "Humanae Vitae" and then hope that the church would receive his teaching? Didn't he do it backwards? Shouldn't he have first found out (and he had the means to find out but disregarded them) where the whole church stood on this issue, so that he could be morally certain that his teaching would be received?
So isn't it better to say that the pope and bishops teach that articificial contraception is morally evil but that the church is genuinely conflicted?
The person who keeps a monkey like that his/her back (i.e., the constant war cry: we should be 108 million!!!!!!!!), should pay for the glasses he breaks in logic! Isn't a 72 million member church a big enough church (in a country of 308 million)? Isn't 24% of the American people who identity themselves as Catholic enough? People will leave church no matter what institutional religion does (whether ultra-liberally or conservatively). Sadly, COMMONWEAL never speaks of the Catholic Church without loss (rarely an ascending development!!), even though every other church in America is experiencing far worse losses (no matter what such churches do to check the severity of the hemorrhaing they witness every year).
It may not be a universal contribution to the life of the Universal Church, but Catholics in America have the benefit of a testament to the gift of Reason in and of the Commons in our Declaration of Independence from the half-mad English crown.
Rereading the bill of particulars that finally pushed a significant fraction of the Continentals (probably not even a majority at the outset) to reject feckless leadership might be a timely exercise for those Catholics who are distressed by the minority view that 72 million (or 65M, or 52, or...) is "good enough numbers" to carry out the work of Salvation History.
That doesn't seem consistent with the Pentecost imperative.
Well written, measured editorial. And good point by Kurt. Both the Old and New Testament make this point very clearly any number of times: "The love of money is the root of all evil." In fact, according to Kathleen Norris, the desert monks talked of "bad thoughts" rather than "sin," and lust was considered one of the lesser temptations. It was seen as a form of greed, the objectifying and using of another person.
As for more obvious greed, one of the two times Jesus showed anger was when he overturned the money-changing tables in the temple, an indication of what he must think of our greed-is-good culture. With their latest comments, the bishops have identified themselves even more with the greed-is-good party.
Here in MA, the Cardinal and board of directors sold the Caritas Health System to a private company, Steward, which kept the Catholic names and now covers contraceptives for its employees. If contraception is such a big deal, why didn't he make not covering it a condition of the sale? In addition, employers (including Catholic institutions and CHURCHES) match their employees' 1.45% Medicare tax. Medicare covers contraception for the eligible disabled who wish to use it. Why no brouhaha about that?