The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is trying to play the martyr once more. This time, they are trying to claim the mantle of James Madison and Martin Luther King Jr. as they self-righteously hold themselves up as the defenders of religious liberty.
What they really are doing, though, is the opposite. They are asserting their desire to take over the religious and moral beliefs of anyone with whom they come in contact. Their desire is not just to operate freely themselves, not just to restrict the freedoms of others, but to affirmatively take over the moral thinking of everyone else.
You’re LGBT and want to adopt? Unmarried and want to be a foster parent? “Sorry,” say the bishops, “but we’ve taken over your moral and religious beliefs, so the answer is no.”
You or a loved one want to come to a catholic hospital or nursing home and be able to unplug life support when YOU decide to, in consultation with doctors and according to your moral and religious beliefs? “Sorry,” say the bishops, “but you signed your moral and religious beliefs over to us (and so did your doctors) when you (and they) walked in the door, so the answer is no.”
You want to have your tubes tied after a C-section, following a difficult and dangerous pregnancy, according to your moral and religious beliefs? “Sorry,” say the bishops, “but you signed your moral and religious beliefs over to us when you walked in the door, so the answer is no.”
You want to have a pregnancy terminated after your doctor tells you the fetus in your womb will never live outside it and you are increasingly likely to die if you try to carry the fetus to term, a decision you’ve made in accordance with your moral and religious beliefs? “Sorry,” say the bishops, “but you signed your moral and religious beliefs over to us when you walked in the door, so the answer is no.”
This isn’t protecting religious freedom. It’s an attempt to coerce the political powers at every level to give legal cover to the discriminatory, patronizing, and highly parochial views of the USCCB, especially in situations where they are using public money to carry out these views. They want to enforce by law what they cannot accomplish by persuasion and preaching, even to the people in their own pews.
If the bishops were truly honest and transparent about what they are doing here, there’d be a revision of Dante’s sign, hanging over the door to every bishop’s office and over the entrances to far too many catholic churches: “Abandon all independent thinking, ye who enter here”.
Sorry, bishops, but the answer is no.
It appears I am not alone in this line of thinking, with the emphasis and delightfully direct language in the inimitable original of Mr. Charlie Pierce:
Are these idiots kidding me? The Letter From Birmingham Jail?
May god forgive them for such towering, impious self-regard, because I have no intention of doing so.
The Clan of the Red Beanie went celibate balls to the wailing wall on Thursday, issuing a Statement on Religious Liberty that turns the English language inside-out, repositions religious repression and pious bigotry as statements of freedom, makes a mockery of the informed consciences of a good slice of the American Catholic laity, and is a statement of meddling in the secular government that would be almost tragic, if it didn’t drip so garishly with lachrymose sanctimony about how heavily these ermined layabouts have been oppressed by the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and by the fact that some states have decided that, no, they can no longer function as tax-free havens for discrimination on the basis of who does what to whom with their sexyparts. But, before we get to that, we have to deal with one representative passage which makes me wonder what exactly some of these guys were burning in the thurible during the Holy Week services . . .
Shorter Mr. Pierce: Sorry, bishops, but the answer is ‘HELL NO!’” (Do go read the whole thing — it is truly a work of religious art.)
Mr. Pierce ends thusly:
Religious people can contribute to “our common life” or to “the common good” as much as they ever have, and they don’t need government’s permission to do so. But the state alone can decide who provides what services under state contracts, and the state can decide the rules that will govern those contracts, and the state can decide to waive those rules or not. And the state can decide to what use, if any, religious organizations can put the state’s own buildings and facilities. It can decide who, if anyone, gets a waiver from the secular law. In most cases, it has decided in a democratic fashion that anti-discrimination statutes contribute more to “our common life” and to “the common good” than does the Catholic Church’s opposition to freedom for gay couples to marry. In most cases, it has decided in a democratic fashion that allowing women a measure of control over their reproductive lives contributes more to “our common life” and to “the common good” than the preposterous view of humanity found in Humanae Vitae. It is repressing nobody in having done so, except some career autocrats who dream of crowns and yearn for palaces.
And let all the non-Roman Catholic Bishops say “Amen!”




41 Comments

Thanks Peterr. You piqued my interest so i did read all of the Charlie Pierce piece. And having grown up in the Roman catholic faith i Know well the distortions found there. All the offshoots and sects and whatnot that base their beliefs on a bunch of manipulated altered stories to suit their lazy need to “Believe” something is what our society is. Bless you Peterr and yes i will have some wine before i retire.
One of Pierce’s commenters left this gem:
Amen, indeed!
Peter, I sincerely hope I’m fortunate enough to meet you sometime. We’re both in the KC area, so it could happen. What a lucky church to have you!
I don’t remember Newt Gingrich ever being on Law & Order. But, obviously he was and played himself.
I have never understood the Republican Party’s anger towards birth control. They claim religious freedom. I say freedom for whom? Freedom belongs with the individual, NOT the church.
If I am a patient in a hospital, can a doctor look at my religious history and deny coverage. Sir, you are a Christian Scientist, so I cannot give you life saving antibiotics, but can only pray away the disease. Madam, you are not allowed birth control since you are a Catholic.
All Obama’s regulations state is that the decision for birth control relies in the person, NOT the boss (of the person).
Those crazy, knee-slappin’ bishops. Thoses guys are a hoot.
Thanks, Peterr. We really need you here. Keep up your good work.
You are probably correct about the decision. But that’s not the issue. The funding is the issue. But that issue is harder to argue against.
The federal government will both force religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching
This is not a matter of whether contraception may be prohibited by the government. This is not even a matter of whether contraception may be supported by the government. Instead, it is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.
Actually, it is matter of whether any religious institution is legally allowed to impose its religious/moral beliefs outside of the church itself and upon people who don’t knowingly accept those beliefs when they visit/study at these places? Does ownership of a hospital, school/university, adoption agency, or other confer upon the place the status of “church?”
What a hospital does and provides can not and should not be determined by religious leaders, but by the people. When one provides health insurance as a benefit, you don’t get to choose what specific services are provided. If it bothers the church so much, then don’t provide the benefit.
What is it about these obligate, parasitic shits that pass for religious leaders that their need to control is so great that they can’t leave other people alone, that they can’t mind their own goddamn business? Religious devotion is not about personal belief and commitment but instead a function of making others Obey? What part of “my kingdom is not of this world” or “render unto Caesar” escapes these CINOs (Christians In Name Only)? The appeal of controlling the lives of others is reaching epic proportions in the US. And deference to authority, experts and leaders on the part of the citizenry is part of the package.
Getting women’s sexual and reproductive behavior under external control along with the construction of a particular type of heterosexual family arrangement through coersion in pursuit of the “correct” kind of society is one of the foundations of Fascism.
“Letter from Birmingham Jail” indeed. Well, even the Devil can use scripture to suit his own purposes.
Yes, because the alternative is anarchy, where religious institutions refuse to adhere to code for their buildings, follow labor laws in general, hide kidtouchers from prosecution, and otherwise operate completely outside the law as their “teachings” require.
This isn’t even an argument. It’s like an 8th grader’s sudden realization that there is a wide world out there and determination to destroy all of it that isn’t just like them.
impose?
I’m a vegetarian. I don’t want to pay for your steak. Am I imposing my beliefs on you?
Of course that’s untrue, or at least wasn’t true before ACA. Any employer could pick any plan with any number of services covered or not covered with different co-pays and deductibles that fit their budget.
That’s what’s likely to happen.
It’s time for the catholic church to lose its tax exempt status!!
Gay marriages.
No one has intimated that the catholic church would be forced to perform gay marriages, or recognize them (except in employment situations).
Simply put there is the religious side of gay marriages and the secular side. There are a number of Christian religions that not only recognize gay marriages, they have gays that are part of their church’s hierarchy.
So what gives the catholic church the right to prevent secular gay marriages and fight these other churches?
Recently, two bishops in Washington sent letters to their parishes asking for parishioners to work with petitions opposing secular gay marriages.
The law states that a church can retain its tax exempt status when they are addressing issues that affect them. It does not allow churches to get involved in politics.
Only one example of the catholic church’s power evolving to a point where it needs to be curtailed.
Actually, it isn’t about funding, it is about whether an employer can impose their religious beliefs on their employee. Health insurance is considered part of the employee’s compensation but even if it was If the price of the insurance does not change if birth control is offered then it isn’t about ‘funding’. There is no imposition on the employer as there is no difference in what they are paying, but there is one on the employee’s religious freedom if the employer gets to veto even the option. This is one where the Bishops and every other sanctimonious ass should have been raked over the coals and told they weren’t allowed to do this.
As to whether the hospital can and should allow “procedure X”, that may be a more difficult question of religious freedom. This is where the question of whose religious freedom has priority. And sadly a great case can be made for the hypocritical red beanie squad and their allies’ position.
And yes, I meant every insult on this crowd. They are hypocritical. They are more interested in power then in the actual teachings of Christ. And the loudest Christians are the ones least likely to be more interested in the New Testament then the Old one. And all of them are determined that everyone be Christian (I don’t want to be around when they start fighting which church gets to be the big cheese of Christianity in America). Not one of them is really interested in Religious Freedom.
“. . . issuing a Statement on Religious Liberty that turns the English language inside-out . . .”
Newspeak is not only the purview of secular leadership. Hell, it was the priestly keepers of the faith who invented it. Permitting independent thought is no way to run any control system. It is also a recipe for losing members not gaining them, and that affects the bottom line.
So, you’re saying that birth control pills don’t control birth, people do?
I disagree, but you’ve proven my point about funding being harder to argue against.
If the employer said the employee would be fired for using contraception, you would be right. But in this case the employer is not forbiding the empoyee from using contracepton, they just don’t want to fund it.
Also, the employee is not “vetoing the employees option”. The employee can use all the birth control they want. Just don’t make the church pay for it.
It’s a funding thing.
Making them forfeit their federal funding is not coercing them to anything.
No, I think you get credit for that bon mot.
I don’t know where federal funding comes into play. The new ACA requires companies of a certain size to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. The HHS mandate requires that health insurance to cover contraception.
You’re right, they’re not being coerced. They’re being required by law.
“. . . if it didn’t drip so garishly with lachrymose sanctimony about how heavily these ermined layabouts have been oppressed by the provisions of the Affordable Care Act . . .”
What was it that George W was trying to push on the public about how welfare services should be privatized and turned over to religious charity because churches are so well-suited to that task and the genuine, Good Samaritan benevolence of Christians would be overflowing and more than up to the task? And now we see a rich religious institution that gets out of paying its fair share of taxes trying to avoid providing comprehensive coverage to the very people it claims it is so interested in saving. These bishops are cheap hypocrites who are trying to maximize their benefits while avoiding their costs. Tapeworms have more regard for their hosts.
Oh, so you’re saying that offering birth control pills is not the same as swallowing them?
They do want freedom: The freedom to impose their will on others and act as they choose without consequence or benevolent responsibility for those they seek to control. To call this attitude selfish is inadequate. It is a genuinely sociopathic desire that is unhealthy for a social species like ours whose very existence depends on a reciprocally altruistic, symbiotic relationship between individuals. Relief from taxes is not enough. These destructive parasites want the whole tamale.
I give it a “3″. NO good, driving downbeat, hard to dance to.
It may also be a question of wether or not a representative democracy can withsand repeated and prolonged assaults by groups who are not interested in compromise, the greater good, or any personal sacrifice that might contribute to the welfare of others but only their own selfishly-imagined piece of the pie. “Gimme that, it’s mine!” is not the way to act if democracy is a priority.
Maybe churches should be allowed to dictate health care provided they pay their fair share of taxes in return for the privilege. Then we would be able to determine if their resistance to paying for birth control is about articles of faith or mammon.
What I want to know is when Catholics will stop handing over cash in the collection plates. I was raised Catholic; I am related to and know many practicing Catholics, all of whom use birth control. But do they ever stop attending church, register dismay with their parish priest or bishop, stop handing over cash every Sunday? NO, and no.
I makes me almost as angry at them as the bishops.
Katherine
“Yes, because the alternative is anarchy, where religious institutions refuse to adhere to code for their buildings, follow labor laws in general, hide kidtouchers from prosecution, and otherwise operate completely outside the law as their “teachings” require.”
This is the stance of the Taliban and other religious fundamentalists who insist the the Law of God supersede the laws of man. “We answer to a higher law that only we can read and interpret,” they insist. Like any totalitarian despot, they demand to be both the Law and at the same time to exist above it.
It simply becomes a case of what is freedom? And what is the desired state of freedom in this country? IF a law ever forces an individual catholic to not live to their faith, the bishops may at some time have a point. From what I can tell they have zero point here…whatsoever. This whole issue is bizarre.
If getting my steak is dependant upon you paying for it, especially if I do work for you as an employee, then yes, that is a form of imposition. Also, if my steak-eating ass helps subsidize your vegetarianism through taxes that you get to avoid, then your lack of fair play in your unwillingness to help pay for what is important to me compromises our healthy, symbiotic relationship and is likewise a form of imposition in that the vegetarian is getting something from the steak eater for nothing.
Fair enough. If there were no other way to obtain it except through insurance you have a point. But that’s not true.
Said the person who wan’t someone else to pay for their contraception.
It’s amazing that the ones who want to keep their own money are selfish and greedy, but those who want to take other peoples money are not.
Once again, you’re too clever by half. You really should take your show on the road.
What don’t you understand about the concept of health insurance? The whole idea is taking someone else’s money to pay for health care. It works very poorly as it is a for profit enterprise. Everyone is paying for everything, no? It’s a pool of money that everyone pays into on the plan. If I get sick, I am not getting my prescription for free. If someone gets contraception, they are not getting it for free either. Where on earth are people getting this conception that it is free??
So are you honest to goodness telling me alan that someone who is on a health insurance plan through their employer and uses that plan to obtain contraception is getting it for free?? And someone else on that plan who isn’t getting contraception but gets other medication is not getting it for free but paying for it?? The level of stupidity that takes to take that stance is incomprehensible.
Ah, I think I understand now, finally. You’re saying that the mandatory shoving of the literal body of Jesus Christ in the form of a cracker down my throat is OK, but the option for me to chew on a tasty birth control pill is completely out of the question.
If a comprehensive health care is part of how an employee is compensated for their work, how is that getting someone else to foot the bill? The efforts of the bishops have a whole lot to do with taking other people’s money in the form of lowered benefits.
Here’s a big part of the point of some of my comments here. I think the idea of one’s “own money” is a false one. Do we each make our “own money” in a vacuum? The notions of one’s “own money” strikes me as very anti-social and no kind of healthy perspective from which to run a representative democracy.
I see no difference between the catholic ch and the taliban. Both operate on similar principals in that women are second class citizens and will remain there until there is no church. I was raised catholic and believed all their teachings hook line and sinker. It was later in my life that I discovered the church was only after perpetuating their own belief and not taking care of the social needs of the poorest of all. One church decided they wanted a $64,000 stained glass window, wasn’t needed, instead of providing free food for their soup kitchen. When I raised a fuss, they basically said get lost. We then started our own little free standing church where we discussed the issues of the day, Vietnam War, Women’s movement, Civil rights, etc. until we decided we really didn’t need any thing resembling a church.
Is it relevant to point out that the priests don’t need birth control as they “diddle” little children?
I think these people would have more credibility if they leave sexual details to others….celibacy and control of sexual desire have meaning in the church, of course. But truly the church has a very compromised voice on this topic.
Ha! Thanks for the levity.
It’s always relevant to point that out.
“A homosexual, disturbed priest feels that he can preach to me
The right way to go and raise a family
And I’m forced to look at him and say “you mean
You’re guessin”"
–”The Ballad of the Hulk” Jerry Jeff Walker