In an earlier blog I commented on the signatories of a letter from the University of Notre Dame in reaction to the supposed compromise of the Administration on the HHR mandate. Here is the actual text of the letter, dated February 10, 2012, and titled "Unacceptable": enjoy, if that is the correct term--
The Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an "accommodation" for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover ("cost free") these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.
This so-called "accommodation" changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reaon for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration's insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.
It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not "paying" for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.
It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying "five day after pill" pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.
The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.
Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
HHR & ND
Some folks thought that the University of Notre Dame had "gone soft" on moral and political issues, especially in light of their invitation to President Obama to deliver the commencement address a few years ago. If this is the thought-pattern you also have, I suggest it is time to think again...
On 10 February the Law School at Notre Dame issued a six-paragraph letter simply titled "Unacceptable." It is a critique of the HHR mandate, and impressive as the letter itself is, what is far more impressive is the list of signatories. Allow me to "do the math":
1. The basic signatories are 5: John Garvey, President of Catholic University in Washington, DC; Mary Ann Glendon, Robert George and Carter Snead, professors of law at Harvard, Princeton and Notre Dame; and Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
2. University and College Professors who have signed include those from the following institutions: University of Chicago, Stanford, Columbia, Georgetown, Princeton, Villanova, University of San Diego, Brigham Young, Jewish Theological Seminary, Yeshiva University, Valparaiso, University of St Thomas, Baylor, Wheaton College, Fordham, University of Alabama, George Mason, Franciscan University of Steubenville, University of Texas, University of South Carolina, Roanoke, University of San Francisco, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, etc. This is a remarkable cross-section of Catholic "liberal" and "conservative," of Protestant and secular, of Christian and Jewish. Religious freedom and 1st Amendment rights are not a narrowly denominational issue, as can be clearly seen by this list of names.
3. The total number of signatories is 118, including journalists and writers as well as college & university faculty and officials. Of these, 26 are faculty, adminstration or affiliated with the University of Notre Dame--or almost 1/4 of the total. This should not be a suprise since the letter originated from Notre Dame. It should rather be a matter of gratitude that it did.
On 10 February the Law School at Notre Dame issued a six-paragraph letter simply titled "Unacceptable." It is a critique of the HHR mandate, and impressive as the letter itself is, what is far more impressive is the list of signatories. Allow me to "do the math":
1. The basic signatories are 5: John Garvey, President of Catholic University in Washington, DC; Mary Ann Glendon, Robert George and Carter Snead, professors of law at Harvard, Princeton and Notre Dame; and Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.2. University and College Professors who have signed include those from the following institutions: University of Chicago, Stanford, Columbia, Georgetown, Princeton, Villanova, University of San Diego, Brigham Young, Jewish Theological Seminary, Yeshiva University, Valparaiso, University of St Thomas, Baylor, Wheaton College, Fordham, University of Alabama, George Mason, Franciscan University of Steubenville, University of Texas, University of South Carolina, Roanoke, University of San Francisco, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, etc. This is a remarkable cross-section of Catholic "liberal" and "conservative," of Protestant and secular, of Christian and Jewish. Religious freedom and 1st Amendment rights are not a narrowly denominational issue, as can be clearly seen by this list of names.
3. The total number of signatories is 118, including journalists and writers as well as college & university faculty and officials. Of these, 26 are faculty, adminstration or affiliated with the University of Notre Dame--or almost 1/4 of the total. This should not be a suprise since the letter originated from Notre Dame. It should rather be a matter of gratitude that it did.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
POLITICS AS USUAL?
In a very strongly worded statement about our current struggle with the Obama Administration on the Health & Human Services mandate and its encroaching on religious freedom, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput remarks, "Catholics are confused and angry. They should be." More than that, though, I feel sad and frustrated.
There are very few people in our country who are not aware (at least subliminally) of the scope and depth of commitment to service and direct aid to the poor of the institutions of the Catholic Church. It might be a local parish’s St Vincent de Paul Society, or Catholic Charities USA, or Catholic Relief Services world-wide–where there is a need, the Church responds. We do this because we are convinced that it is our responsibility as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ.
Health insurance plans offered to employees of Catholic institutions like these have historically prohibited any kind of coverage for abortions, including "morning after" pills like Ella or RU486. Exceptions are also typically included for prescriptions for contraceptives for treatment of other health conditions. Is there anyone who does not know the Church’s position on the morality of abortion or contraception (whether you agree with that position or not)?
It is hard to think that there is not somewhere in this Administration a voice (a nominally "Catholic" voice?) that is saying, "We’ll make them pay–with a double meaning to the words.
There is an old saying, "If it ain’t broke, don’t ‘fix’ it." Exactly what was "broke" in the outreach to the poor that goes on under the aegis of Catholic institutions that would require this kind of disregard for that institution’s moral stands?
Shortly before he gave his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, President Obama was quoted in an interview as saying he "struggled" with the issue of abortion. I am presuming that his struggle (insofar as it ever really existed) is over; he evidently wishes to impose his conclusion on others, willy-nilly.
It is very sad and frustrating. It is even angering. Unfortunately, it is not confusing. It is simply politics.
There are very few people in our country who are not aware (at least subliminally) of the scope and depth of commitment to service and direct aid to the poor of the institutions of the Catholic Church. It might be a local parish’s St Vincent de Paul Society, or Catholic Charities USA, or Catholic Relief Services world-wide–where there is a need, the Church responds. We do this because we are convinced that it is our responsibility as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ.
Health insurance plans offered to employees of Catholic institutions like these have historically prohibited any kind of coverage for abortions, including "morning after" pills like Ella or RU486. Exceptions are also typically included for prescriptions for contraceptives for treatment of other health conditions. Is there anyone who does not know the Church’s position on the morality of abortion or contraception (whether you agree with that position or not)?
It is hard to think that there is not somewhere in this Administration a voice (a nominally "Catholic" voice?) that is saying, "We’ll make them pay–with a double meaning to the words.
There is an old saying, "If it ain’t broke, don’t ‘fix’ it." Exactly what was "broke" in the outreach to the poor that goes on under the aegis of Catholic institutions that would require this kind of disregard for that institution’s moral stands?
Shortly before he gave his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, President Obama was quoted in an interview as saying he "struggled" with the issue of abortion. I am presuming that his struggle (insofar as it ever really existed) is over; he evidently wishes to impose his conclusion on others, willy-nilly.
It is very sad and frustrating. It is even angering. Unfortunately, it is not confusing. It is simply politics.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
GETTING COVERAGE
The controversy about the new restrictions being placed on the exercise of conscience by the Obama Administration's proposals for its health care law focuses on the areas of contraception, sterilization and abortion. A particular fact in this controversy needs to be kept in mind.
Currently, the Archdiocese of Mobile has a health benefits plan for all employees through BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama. In this plan, there are a number of specific exclusions listed. Excluded from coverage are procedures like cosmetic surgery, hearing aids, for treatment of obesity, routine well child care, speech therapy...
Also explicitly listed are the following--
Services or expenses for elective abortions.
Oral contraceptives or other birth control methods except when they are prescribed by a physician for a medical condition and not for the purpose of birth control.
Services or expenses of any kind for or related to elective sterilizations.
We learn 2 things by this list--
1. The issue of alternative uses for contraceptive drugs is taken into account in our current coverage.
2. What the Catholic Church is asking is not that it be allowed to eliminate any coverage, but rather that it simply be allowed to continue its current health-care policy, which is in line with Catholic moral teaching.
The number of other exclusions makes it clear that there are limits to what can and should be covered by insurance. Inevitably, there must be some out-of-pocket costs for health care, and these vary from corporation to corporation, from business to business, from church to church. The idea of leveling the playing field with universal health care is a noble one, except when issues of conscience and moral teaching come into play. Currently, health care for the Archdiocese of Mobile is not "universal," but then it is not "nothing," either...
Currently, the Archdiocese of Mobile has a health benefits plan for all employees through BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama. In this plan, there are a number of specific exclusions listed. Excluded from coverage are procedures like cosmetic surgery, hearing aids, for treatment of obesity, routine well child care, speech therapy...
Also explicitly listed are the following--
Services or expenses for elective abortions.
Oral contraceptives or other birth control methods except when they are prescribed by a physician for a medical condition and not for the purpose of birth control.
Services or expenses of any kind for or related to elective sterilizations.
We learn 2 things by this list--
1. The issue of alternative uses for contraceptive drugs is taken into account in our current coverage.
2. What the Catholic Church is asking is not that it be allowed to eliminate any coverage, but rather that it simply be allowed to continue its current health-care policy, which is in line with Catholic moral teaching.
The number of other exclusions makes it clear that there are limits to what can and should be covered by insurance. Inevitably, there must be some out-of-pocket costs for health care, and these vary from corporation to corporation, from business to business, from church to church. The idea of leveling the playing field with universal health care is a noble one, except when issues of conscience and moral teaching come into play. Currently, health care for the Archdiocese of Mobile is not "universal," but then it is not "nothing," either...
Friday, February 3, 2012
PRESSURES
Below is a letter I sent today to The Mobile Press-Register. Whether or not they print it, you can at least see it here (and on my Facebook page):
It is sad that the Susan G Komen for the Cure Foundation has given in to societal and political pressure and has agreed to re-fund Planned Parenthood. But the original issue to which they were responding should not leave our sight. Planned Parenthood advertises services for women that it simply does not provide. Being caught in this kind of lie ruined the political hopes of one-time presidential candidate Gary Hart (I know this is ancient history). It also raises a fundamental question: if Planned Parenthood has knowingly and falsely solicited support on the basis of non-existent services, it has violated a public trust. One can fairly ask, what other deceptions is this organization involved in, and why? Such behavior should be more than enough to limit or terminate public funds; how much more so should a private foundation be within its rights to curtail funding, as well?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
WHY WE BELIEVE
How does an act of faith (our personal acceptance of an item, or a system, of beliefs) come about? It will surprise no one that I turn, in questions such as these, to Bl John Henry (Cardinal) Newman and his theological insights and analysis. From him, I perceive two essential steps in leading one to make an act of faith: a stimulus of the imagination, resulting in the desire to share a vision; and an examination of conscience which attunes the soul (or not) to the content of the vision the imagination has presented. The end result is a choice which Newman described in one place like this: “One can believe what one chooses. But one will be held accountable, in the end, for what one chose to believe.”
This is already getting heavier than most folks would like! I hope I can be more straightforward in presenting what I think is important here.
The short version (from the quote at the end of the 1st paragraph) is that I am responsible for my own convictions—holding them and living them. I am emphatically NOT responsible for forcing my (or anyone else’s) convictions on another. This is the distinction Newman makes between “faith” and “bigotry.” When struggling with whether or not to leave the Church of England, he would write, “Can I (it is personal, not whether another, but can I) be saved [refusing to become a Roman Catholic]?” But to answer such a question properly, without falling back on excuses like “It’s what I want to do,” or “I think I’d like it better,” or some other such evasion, one must explore the depths of one’s conscience—where God’s word is spoken to us who are willing to listen. “Conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ,” he would write. We must actually listen.
Still, we must first feel the call. It is why I have often referred to an essential ingredient of evangelization as offering others the “attractive confrontation” of Jesus Christ. They must be drawn; drawing must lead to openness to conversion…
And we are drawn by a vision offered to us by someone who is attractive, or whose vision is attractive. Newman writes: “The heart is commonly reached, not through the reason, but through the imagination… Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us.” And the key is falling in love: “The sheep could not tell how they knew the Good Shepherd; …yet doubtless grounds there were: they, however, acted spontaneously on a loving Faith.” St Peter (John 6:68) said as much at the end of the Bread of Life discourse, when Jesus asked if the Twelve also wanted to leave: “Lord, to whom shall we go?” Peter admitted he had no understanding of Jesus’ words, but he’d fallen in love with the Master and would not let such a small thing as a lack of comprehension divide them.
“One can believe what one chooses. But one will be held accountable, in the end, for what one chose to believe.” What we believe is a function both of to whom (and to what) we are attracted, and how we listen to the voice of our true conscience, rather than the urgings of our own desires. In this way we will discover what, and how, and why, we believe.
This is already getting heavier than most folks would like! I hope I can be more straightforward in presenting what I think is important here.
The short version (from the quote at the end of the 1st paragraph) is that I am responsible for my own convictions—holding them and living them. I am emphatically NOT responsible for forcing my (or anyone else’s) convictions on another. This is the distinction Newman makes between “faith” and “bigotry.” When struggling with whether or not to leave the Church of England, he would write, “Can I (it is personal, not whether another, but can I) be saved [refusing to become a Roman Catholic]?” But to answer such a question properly, without falling back on excuses like “It’s what I want to do,” or “I think I’d like it better,” or some other such evasion, one must explore the depths of one’s conscience—where God’s word is spoken to us who are willing to listen. “Conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ,” he would write. We must actually listen.
Still, we must first feel the call. It is why I have often referred to an essential ingredient of evangelization as offering others the “attractive confrontation” of Jesus Christ. They must be drawn; drawing must lead to openness to conversion…
And we are drawn by a vision offered to us by someone who is attractive, or whose vision is attractive. Newman writes: “The heart is commonly reached, not through the reason, but through the imagination… Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us.” And the key is falling in love: “The sheep could not tell how they knew the Good Shepherd; …yet doubtless grounds there were: they, however, acted spontaneously on a loving Faith.” St Peter (John 6:68) said as much at the end of the Bread of Life discourse, when Jesus asked if the Twelve also wanted to leave: “Lord, to whom shall we go?” Peter admitted he had no understanding of Jesus’ words, but he’d fallen in love with the Master and would not let such a small thing as a lack of comprehension divide them.
“One can believe what one chooses. But one will be held accountable, in the end, for what one chose to believe.” What we believe is a function both of to whom (and to what) we are attracted, and how we listen to the voice of our true conscience, rather than the urgings of our own desires. In this way we will discover what, and how, and why, we believe.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
A SAD NOTE
While I was in Rome, I had the chance to attend a Conference and Ecumenical Celebration of the Word, sponsored by the Franciscan Atonement Friars at the Centro Pro Unione. While there I learned of a new multi-lateral ecumenical document, The Reims Statement, entitled “Praying With One Voice.” It was published this past August 2011, under the auspices of the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC).
This document was produced by participants representing Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed traditions, among others; they come from England, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa; members are respected scholars and Church-people, some of whom I know personally. They make straightforward observations and recommendations under three headings: “Liturgy and Ecumenism,” “Common Texts,” and “The Revised Common Lectionary.”
But sadly, I think there is a fly in this ointment which so wants to be a “balm in Gilead.” It comes in section two of the statement. There, the participants write: For the first time in history, Christians in the English speaking world are using common liturgical texts….They are being experienced as a gift, a sign and a way to Christian unity in our diversity….Prayed together, shared common texts become a part of the fabric of our being. They unite the hearts of Christians in giving glory to God…
This is a noble vision, but it seems we Roman Catholics have taken a step away from it (this is the “fly”) by the promulgation of the new English translation of the Roman Missal, 3rd Typical Edition. What has happened has been a change of what was the Catholics’ use of “common liturgical texts”—a change made unilaterally, seemingly without regard for the ecumenical implications. To give an example of this problem: when ICEL (the International Commission on English in the Liturgy) made the translation “And also with you” for the Latin Et cum spiritu tuo, this was not a rendering that necessarily sat well with Anglicans and Episcopalians (they were quite comfortable with “And with your/thy spirit” from their Book of Common Prayer), yet they did acceot this adaptation, along with the bulk of the other ICEL-proposed translations of the “Common” (ie, Gloria; Holy, Holy; Lamb of God). We were, then, “praying with one voice.”
How will we do so again? Will the Catholic Church renege on its new commitment to the translation principles of Liturgiam Authenticam and return to the older ICEL texts? It is not likely. Will other English-speaking Protestant denominations change to our new version? Especially in the case when to do so means a return to a preferred translation once given up for the sake of unity, it is not reasonable. So it seems we are at an impasse.
The "Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity," In One Body Through the Cross, makes the comment: …magisterial deliberations of the Roman Catholic Church should regularly involve non-Roman Catholic consultants. If the bishop of Rome is to teach for and to all the baptized, he must receive reliable counsel regarding the faith and life of the entire Christian community (no. 66). Though this comment refers specifically to the teaching office of the Church, yet the same suggestion can be made with regard to the sanctifying office in its worship. After all, we believe that the rule of worship is the rule of the faith (Lex orandi [est] lex credendi]. Much could be gained by such consultations, and much that is undesirable, like unnecessary divergence, might be avoided. We are proud to name our the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church; we should be proud also to have a truly “catholic” process of theological reflection and decision-making (which may fairly be distinguished from ‘decision-taking’).
The Reims Statement is a very short piece, fitting into a trifold. To see the statement and more information about the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC), go to http://www.englishtexts.org/.
This document was produced by participants representing Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed traditions, among others; they come from England, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa; members are respected scholars and Church-people, some of whom I know personally. They make straightforward observations and recommendations under three headings: “Liturgy and Ecumenism,” “Common Texts,” and “The Revised Common Lectionary.”
But sadly, I think there is a fly in this ointment which so wants to be a “balm in Gilead.” It comes in section two of the statement. There, the participants write: For the first time in history, Christians in the English speaking world are using common liturgical texts….They are being experienced as a gift, a sign and a way to Christian unity in our diversity….Prayed together, shared common texts become a part of the fabric of our being. They unite the hearts of Christians in giving glory to God…
This is a noble vision, but it seems we Roman Catholics have taken a step away from it (this is the “fly”) by the promulgation of the new English translation of the Roman Missal, 3rd Typical Edition. What has happened has been a change of what was the Catholics’ use of “common liturgical texts”—a change made unilaterally, seemingly without regard for the ecumenical implications. To give an example of this problem: when ICEL (the International Commission on English in the Liturgy) made the translation “And also with you” for the Latin Et cum spiritu tuo, this was not a rendering that necessarily sat well with Anglicans and Episcopalians (they were quite comfortable with “And with your/thy spirit” from their Book of Common Prayer), yet they did acceot this adaptation, along with the bulk of the other ICEL-proposed translations of the “Common” (ie, Gloria; Holy, Holy; Lamb of God). We were, then, “praying with one voice.”
How will we do so again? Will the Catholic Church renege on its new commitment to the translation principles of Liturgiam Authenticam and return to the older ICEL texts? It is not likely. Will other English-speaking Protestant denominations change to our new version? Especially in the case when to do so means a return to a preferred translation once given up for the sake of unity, it is not reasonable. So it seems we are at an impasse.
The "Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity," In One Body Through the Cross, makes the comment: …magisterial deliberations of the Roman Catholic Church should regularly involve non-Roman Catholic consultants. If the bishop of Rome is to teach for and to all the baptized, he must receive reliable counsel regarding the faith and life of the entire Christian community (no. 66). Though this comment refers specifically to the teaching office of the Church, yet the same suggestion can be made with regard to the sanctifying office in its worship. After all, we believe that the rule of worship is the rule of the faith (Lex orandi [est] lex credendi]. Much could be gained by such consultations, and much that is undesirable, like unnecessary divergence, might be avoided. We are proud to name our the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church; we should be proud also to have a truly “catholic” process of theological reflection and decision-making (which may fairly be distinguished from ‘decision-taking’).
The Reims Statement is a very short piece, fitting into a trifold. To see the statement and more information about the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC), go to http://www.englishtexts.org/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
