Bishops Be Crazy

[4588686]

Tales From the Kitchen Table

By Gail Collins

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinion/collins-tales-from-the-kitchen-table.html?_r=1&ref=opinion"]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinion/collins-tales-from-the-kitchen-table.html?_r=1&ref=opinion[/url]

[size=4][color=#000000][font=georgia,]This is a really old story, but let me tell you anyway.[/font][/color][/size]

[size=4][color=#000000][font=georgia,]When I was first married, my mother-in-law sat down at her kitchen table and told me about the day she went to confession and told the priest that she and her husband were using birth control. She had several young children, times were difficult — really, she could have produced a list of reasons longer than your arm.[/font][/color][/size][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]“You’re no better than a whore on the street,” said the priest.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]This was, as I said, a long time ago. It’s just an explanation of why the bishops are not the only Roman Catholics who are touchy about the issue of contraception.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]These days, parish priests tend to be much less judgmental about parishioners who are on the pill — the military was not the first institution in this country to make use of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” system. “In most parishes in the United States, we don’t find them preaching about contraception,” said Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice. “And it’s not as though in the Mass you have a question-and-answer period.”[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]You have heard, I’m sure, that the Catholic bishops are in an uproar over an Obama administration rule that would require Catholic universities and hospitals to cover contraceptives in their health care plans. The Republican presidential candidates are roaring right behind. Mitt Romney claimed the White House was trying to “impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.”[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]Let’s try to work this out in a calm, measured manner. (Easy for me to say. I already got my mother-in-law story off my chest.)[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]Catholic doctrine prohibits women from using pills, condoms or any other form of artificial contraception. A much-quoted study by the Guttmacher Institute found that virtually all sexually active Catholic women of childbearing age have violated the rule at one point or another, and that more than two-thirds do so consistently.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]Here is the bishops’ response to that factoid: “If a survey found that 98 percent of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so?”[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]O.K. Moving right along.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]The church is not a democracy and majority opinion really doesn’t matter. Catholic dogma holds that artificial contraception is against the law of God. The bishops have the right — a right guaranteed under the First Amendment — to preach that doctrine to the faithful. They have a right to preach it to everybody. Take out ads. Pass out leaflets. Put up billboards in the front yard.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]The problem here is that they’re trying to get the government to do their work for them. They’ve lost the war at home, and they’re now demanding help from the outside.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]And they don’t seem in the mood to compromise. Church leaders told The National Catholic Register that they regarded any deal that would allow them to avoid paying for contraceptives while directing their employees to other places where they could find the coverage as a nonstarter.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]This new rule on contraceptive coverage is part of the health care reform law, which was designed to finally turn the United States into a country where everyone has basic health coverage. In a sane world, the government would be running the whole health care plan, the employers would be off the hook entirely and we would not be having this fight at all. But members of Congress — including many of the very same people who are howling and rending their garments over the bishops’ plight — deemed the current patchwork system untouchable.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]The churches themselves don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion’s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]Organized religion thrives in this country, so the system we’ve worked out seems to be serving it pretty well. Religions don’t get to force their particular dogma on the larger public. The government, in return, protects the right of every religion to make its case heard.[/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia,][size=1]
[size=4]The bishops should have at it. I wouldn’t try the argument that the priest used on my mother-in-law, but there’s always a billboard on the front lawn.[/size][/size][/font][/color]

[Aloysius]

I find that in stories like that, it very often has happened that the priest didn't directly say the actual quote "you are no better than a whore on the street", but rather used an analogy trying to illustrate the sinfulness of both the actions of the contraception and the actions of a whore on the street, the nuances of which are very often lost on emotional folks... understandably, because even when it's a nuanced analogy it's very often rather cold and unsensitive. but I could be wrong, there are insensitive unpastoral priests out there that sometimes turn people away (though that approach is sometimes effective, fire and brimstone waking one up to inspire them to change their life)

anyway, on to the issue, which is liberty. it's not about trying to get the government to help them keep Catholics in line, but about allowing the Church to offer services like health care without having to offer birth control as part of that. The Catholics have the right to offer their employees a particular type of health insurance service that doesn't cover birth control. Even if you had state-run health insurance, there are still supplemental plans available from private companies; and in such a system the Church would still need to have the liberty to offer health insurance that didn't cover birth control.

bottom line: the Church's institutions WANT to offer the service of health insurance. They want to offer that service without offering the service of birth control because they do not want to pay for birth control as they believe it to be immoral. They ought to have the freedom to offer a birth-control-free health insurance plan. In fact, I would like to pay into a birth-control-free health insurance plan if I had the option. Because people should have the freedom to do with their money what they want, and that includes not having to use their money to pay for things that they believe to be immoral. And yes, the inevitable question might come up: should Jehovah's witnesses be allowed to run health-insurance programs that do not pay for blood transfusions? well, actually, yes indeed they should. If you want a program that pays for blood transfusions, you don't have to support Jehovah's Witness institutions in any way, you don't have to work for them and you don't have to use their insurance.

and really, when it comes to birth control, what is the big freaking deal?
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JYXUA8I4-tc/TIEAxn1h49I/AAAAAAAAAGM/LyRV3-gtlOo/s320/Comparison+of+Contraceptive+Costs.JPG[/img]
IF people want the stuff, they should BUY IT THEMSELVES. the most expensive option there boils down to $32.50 per month! If you can't afford the more expensive kinds, you're stuck with condoms or fertility awareness methods or natural family planning (GASP! The horror!). TOO BAD. why are we so spoiled that we think the government should have the authority to mandate that this kind of UNNECESSARY medical expense be bought and paid for by an institution that wants to offer health insurance?

[4588686]

By the way, I don't consider the Bishop's crazy. I just wanted to make a title that played on the phrase 'beeshes be crazy'

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328778937' post='2384153']
I find that in stories like that, it very often has happened that the priest didn't directly say the actual quote "you are no better than a whore on the street", but rather used an analogy trying to illustrate the sinfulness of both the actions of the contraception and the actions of a whore on the street, the nuances of which are very often lost on emotional folks... understandably, because even when it's a nuanced analogy it's very often rather cold and unsensitive. but I could be wrong, there are insensitive unpastoral priests out there that sometimes turn people away (though that approach is sometimes effective, fire and brimstone waking one up to inspire them to change their life)

anyway, on to the issue, which is liberty. it's not about trying to get the government to help them keep Catholics in line, but about allowing the Church to offer services like health care without having to offer birth control as part of that. The Catholics have the right to offer their employees a particular type of health insurance service that doesn't cover birth control. Even if you had state-run health insurance, there are still supplemental plans available from private companies; and in such a system the Church would still need to have the liberty to offer health insurance that didn't cover birth control.

bottom line: the Church's institutions WANT to offer the service of health insurance. They want to offer that service without offering the service of birth control because they do not want to pay for birth control as they believe it to be immoral. They ought to have the freedom to offer a birth-control-free health insurance plan. In fact, I would like to pay into a birth-control-free health insurance plan if I had the option. Because people should have the freedom to do with their money what they want, and that includes not having to use their money to pay for things that they believe to be immoral. And yes, the inevitable question might come up: should Jehovah's witnesses be allowed to run health-insurance programs that do not pay for blood transfusions? well, actually, yes indeed they should. If you want a program that pays for blood transfusions, you don't have to support Jehovah's Witness institutions in any way, you don't have to work for them and you don't have to use their insurance.

and really, when it comes to birth control, what is the big freaking deal?
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JYXUA8I4-tc/TIEAxn1h49I/AAAAAAAAAGM/LyRV3-gtlOo/s320/Comparison+of+Contraceptive+Costs.JPG[/img]
IF people want the stuff, they should BUY IT THEMSELVES. the most expensive option there boils down to $32.50 per month! If you can't afford the more expensive kinds, you're stuck with condoms or fertility awareness methods or natural family planning (GASP! The horror!). TOO BAD. why are we so spoiled that we think the government should have the authority to mandate that this kind of UNNECESSARY medical expense be bought and paid for by an institution that wants to offer health insurance?
[/quote]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. On the one hand you have Douthat's point. That liberals seem to want to pretend that the state is doing the Church a favor in permitting them to run these hospitals. I think this is probably bad policy. My sympathy for the Bishops wayned somewhat when they rejected out of hand the proposed 'Hawaii compromise.' That seems inflexible and gives the impression of a group looking for a fight. Employees working for Church affiliated institutions have the right contraception and there is going to have to be some sort of compromise. If the Church can't accept that then they need to get out of these areas or pay the fines. You have an absolute constitutional right to promote your views. You don't have any constitutional right to run a religiously affiliated hospital or University that's exempt from fair labor laws based on your religious views. I also find it hard to take the cries of many conservatives as genuine. This is the result of two conservative pushes, one judicial and one legislative. If health care weren't tied to employment, that is if we had a national system like the UK or Canada, then this wouldn't be a problem. And any possible claim to constitutional protection the Church might have had was shot down by the conservative justices in Department of Education v. Smith (think that's the correct citation). In the nexus of these two trends we have the current mess.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328778937' post='2384153']

IF people want the stuff, they should BUY IT THEMSELVES. the most expensive option there boils down to $32.50 per month! If you can't afford the more expensive kinds, you're stuck with condoms or fertility awareness methods or natural family planning (GASP! The horror!). TOO BAD. why are we so spoiled that we think the government should have the authority to mandate that this kind of UNNECESSARY medical expense be bought and paid for by an institution that wants to offer health insurance?
[/quote]

Well. You could very well ask why the Bishops are so spoiled as to think that a secular democracy must model their labor laws around their convoluted views on birth control. Views which not even their own flock seem to pay attention too.

[Aloysius]

more details on Hawaii compromise? have not heard of this.

It's not exactly complicated to allow people a conscience exemption so that they don't have to pay for things that they consider to be immoral.

American citizens indeed do have the right to buy birth control if they wish to. but they do NOT have a right to have this completely unnecessary product bought for them by people who do not believe it to be moral to use.

it's just like how American citizens have the right to buy bacon. even if they're Orthodox Jews, the American government is not going to enforce Kosher laws on them, they have every right to buy bacon if they wish. But even if 99% of the Orthodox Jews in this country had given up completely on Kosher, they could not use the government to force Orthodox Jewish institutions to buy their bacon for them. even if 99% of Catholics in this country were opposed to the moral issue of birth control, they could not force institutions that did not believe in birth control to buy that birth control for them.

neither birth control or bacon are necessities AT ALL. they are choices, luxuries that people should have to pay for if they want to use them.

[Aloysius]

here's my solution: if we must go through with the unconstitutional individual mandate (please excuse my editorializing there, but I do not share the ridiculously broad application of the general welfare clause), we should have as a general rule this: any organization that has a conscientious objection to any particular unnecessary medical procedure (ie, there is no illness being cured by it, no serious injury, no life threatening problem) should be allowed a conscience exemption so that they do not have to provide this unnecessary medical procedure. sure, have them prove their case that it's a legitimate conscientious objection (just like one once had to prove themselves to be a conscientious objector to be exempted from the draft), and we'd have to have medical experts testify as to whether it's a necessary or unnecessary medical procedure in order to hammer out the rules just right... but the case of Catholics and birth control can easily pass both tests: huge amount of teaching documents against birth control from the Catholics dating back centuries, and an easily established FACT that birth control is not a necessary medical procedure, but rather a lifestyle luxury. you could try to talk about low-income folks (unlikely to be those who work for Catholic hospitals, I'm pretty sure hospital jobs pay pretty well) can't afford children... but low-income folks CAN afford condoms. it's a lifestyle choice to want to be able to use birth control pills, so you better work enough to be able to afford that $30/month if you want to be on the pill. you could always cut off your cable service, you know, prioritize whether it's more important to use birth control pills or watch cable--two things that are luxuries.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Aloysius

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328780822' post='2384159']
more details on Hawaii compromise? have not heard of this.[/QUOTE]

I haven't read the legislation so I'm warry to giving a summation to anyone because I probably don't understand it well enough to be accurate. But from what I understand it means that the employer must basically inform their employees that their insurance doesn't cover Birth Control, direct them to resources where they can get coverage for Birth Control, and I think it allows the employees to form some sort of cooperative whereby they can form some sort of insurance pool to get Birth Control.

I get why the Bishops don't like the idea of directing it's employees to where they can get access to Birth Control but to say that the Hawaii isn't simply not enough, but a total non-starter, makes them seem utterly unreasonable to me, speaking as somebody who genuinely is sympathetic to the issue and thinks this may well be bad policy

[QUOTE]It's not exactly complicated to allow people a conscience exemption so that they don't have to pay for things that they consider to be immoral.[/QUOTE]

Theoretically, no. But in the political system that actually exists most people depend on their employment for their insurance something like this could really put people is a bad situation. What if the employer says that they consider heart transplants immoral (not impossibly, many religious folks considered transplants a little too close to playing God for their tastes). Employers could look for any excuse to exclude expensive medical procedures, or even less expensive but vital ones like blood transfusions, based on their religious views.

[QUOTE]American citizens indeed do have the right to buy birth control if they wish to. but they do NOT have a right to have this completely unnecessary product bought for them by people who do not believe it to be moral to use.

it's just like how American citizens have the right to buy bacon. even if they're Orthodox Jews, the American government is not going to enforce Kosher laws on them, they have every right to buy bacon if they wish. But even if 99% of the Orthodox Jews in this country had given up completely on Kosher, they could not use the government to force Orthodox Jewish institutions to buy their bacon for them. even if 99% of Catholics in this country were opposed to the moral issue of birth control, they could not force institutions that did not believe in birth control to buy that birth control for them.[/QUOTE]

I'm not responding at the moment to this point. I responded to the other parts, got here, and realized that I wasn't totally how I wanted to respond. So I'll wait until later to do so.

[QUOTE]neither birth control or bacon are necessities AT ALL. they are choices, luxuries that people should have to pay for if they want to use them.
[/quote]

Having a sex life isn't a 'luxury' unless you define luxury in a very narrow sense. It's an integral part of being human and vital to maintaining a sound marriage.

[Aloysius]

yes, and you can have sex without birth control pills. if you can't afford birth control pills, use condoms. if you just don't like how condoms feel, either work enough to afford another kind of birth control (most expensive kind runs on average only about $30/month), learn about natural family planning or cheap fertility awareness methods, or have sex without birth control.

heart transplants are demonstrably necessary medical procedures. birth control is a demonstrably UNNECESSARY medical product. no to conscience exemptions for heart transplants, yes to conscience exemptions for birth control (and under my posts solution, I'd back track away from allowing JWs to be exempt on blood transfusions, again my solution is IF we must have a mandate, THEN allow conscience objections only for unnecessary medical procedures)

Edited February 9, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

Hawaii compromise sounds like it would require a Catholic institution to run a pro-contraception program.

It's not exactly about the money, it's about the morality of supporting contraception. an extra $30/month per woman who wants to use the program is nothing, and it's something that would be covered in insurance premiums anyway. the Hawaii compromise just asks them to do one thing they consider immoral (promote contraception by directing people on how to access it) instead of the other thing they consider immoral (buying the contraception for them). both things are direct cooperation in the act of contraception, so they are both indeed non-starters. Catholic institutions should not have any mandate requiring them to cooperate in any way with contraception if they don't want to. this doesn't restrict employees of Catholic institutions from obtaining contraceptives in any way, shape, or form, it just means that if they want information about contraceptives they probably have to ask Planned Parenthood or their local pharmacist instead of their employer who, woe is me!, doesn't have a program to educate them about an unnecessary medical product.

[Papist]

I never understood why birth control is even offered on health benefits/insurance packages. Fertillity is not an illness or disease that needs to be eradicated/removed/etc. Our culture has been royally duped to believing that the standard lifestyle for women includes that they be on birth control and that it is a medical necessity in thier life.

[dominicansoul]

pregnancy is an illness

fetuses are parasites

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328779485' post='2384155']
By the way, I don't consider the Bishop's crazy. I just wanted to make a title that played on the phrase 'beeshes be crazy'
[/quote]

Glad you explained that, though I don't know what the phrase you quoted is, either...

[Aloysius]

beeshes is a philer word, I assume you know, and the phrase refers to how crazy women are. it is, perhaps, one of the most profound truisms that has ever been uttered among in modern popular urban culture.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328801804' post='2384220']
beeshes is a philer word, I assume you know, and the phrase refers to how crazy women are. it is, perhaps, one of the most profound truisms that has ever been uttered among in modern popular urban culture.
[/quote]

Yeah, I got that... Just that, in my circle of aquaintances-- 35-45 year old homeschool moms-- you just don't hear that phrase all that much, I guess.