Catholicism for all
February 13, 2012 3 Comments
I like the conclusion to Jon Cohn’s post on the Catholic Bishops continued opposition to the Obama birth control compromise:
That is one big reason why the Obama Administration, acting on the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine, has decided to include birth control on the list of preventative treatments that insurers must cover without cost-sharing in the nation’s new universal health care scheme. The Bishops’ position, which the Republicans have now adopted as their own, is that religious leaders have the right to override that decision, even though it will affect employees who have no moral or religious qualms about birth control. Writing in Newsweek, Andrew Sullivan captured the Bishops’ thinking perfectly: “Catholic doctrine should, according to the bishops’ spokesman, also apply to non-Catholics.”
Again, I have no idea how this plays politically – although, like Ed Kilgore and Greg Sargent, I think the Bishops may be isolating themselves by taking up a position that, according to the polls, even most Catholics oppose. But the principle seems pretty clear to me.
The Bishops want a veto over public policy. And the Republicans want to give it to them.
Meanwhile, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson thinks (or at least pretends to) that this is an epic blunder:
Fourth, with a single miscalculation, Obama has managed to unite economic and social conservatives in outrage against government activism and energize religious conservatives in a way Mitt Romney could never manage. Culture-war debates in America are evenly divided. But the objects of culture-war aggression do not easily forget.
If Obama is playing a political chess game, he has just sacrificed his queen, a rook and all his bishops. It would have to be a deep game indeed.
I think Gerson should stick to writing speeches.
About Steve Greene
Fully Myelinated 
I will accept the position of the Church as an affront to religious freedom if Pope Benedict and Bishop Dolan had taken analogous positions when it came to the war in Iraq. In no way did the war meet any of the Church’s standards for a “just war” yet they seemed as if it was a minor inconvenience, not worthy of their condemnation. How can the hierarchy of the Church rectify their positions on religious freedom (being required to pay for something that “violates their conscience” so) when no such argument was made regarding the war in Iraq (save by Pope John Paul)?
It’s complete and utter cognitive dissonance to not recognize the inherent hypocrisy of their wildly different approaches and statements on these 2 subjects that are not even remotely analogous in degree of propensity to perpetuate sin. Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers,” not “blessed are the babymakers.”
Amen :-). If I had more time to write today, I’d go into more of the hypocrisy of this. Every damn person and every damn institution in a society ends up paying for things they’d rather not. Deal. Welcome to society. The alternative, of course, is nasty, brutish, and short.
Do you even have to go as far as the stance on the war to get to hypocrisy? Don’t Catholic hospitals accept government money? Aren’t non-Catholics required to pay for this?
The mandate does not force employees (many of whom are not Catholic) to utilize contraception. If its enaction encourages the use of contraception, doesn’t its inaction discourage contraception to the same degree? So which gives more freedom? “Freedom” in this argument seems like a wash, so you can’t play that card.
I’ll be more willing to accept religious-freedom arguments when religious organizations abandon their privileged positions and refuse forced donations from citizens who don’t subscribe to their doctrines.