"Who is the Church? And How Does the Church Discern Morality?"

.

Theologians see need for broader discussion on conscience

By Joshua J. McElwee


Note: This article was first published February 10, 2012, by the National Catholic Reporter.


As the conversation surrounding the controversial birth control mandate continues, prominent theologians are saying President Barack Obama's decision on that subject just underlines the need for a much broader discussion among Catholics regarding the complex moral issues of our day.

On the birth control issue, Catholic bishops have made their position clear. In more than 160 letters to dioceses across the country, they have variably called the administration's decision an "affront to religious liberty" that would cause Catholics to "violate our consciences" regarding the morality of contraception.

Yet, in conversations with NCR and in their own postings online, several theologians are wondering if a more nuanced and lengthier discussion is in order. Each expressed regret that the bishops' recent outcry seems to narrow down the fullness of Catholic moral teaching to issues of sexuality.

"Conscience is such a hugely important topic," said Lisa Fullam, an associate professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif. "The fact that it tends to only be discussed in the light of sexuality is unfortunate."

At the heart of a broader discussion of moral issues, theologians say, would be how Catholics understand the notions of evil and conscience, and how this particular question raises many others about Catholic participation in a much wider range of morally questionable activities — from war to sweatshops, and even including the production of food.

As Julie Hanlon Rubio, an associate professor of Christian ethics at St. Louis University, put it, this decision may reflect that Catholics "need to think about the ways in which our partnerships with government, corporations and even culture may lead us to compromise our most deeply held values."

The focus of Catholic moral teaching in the past has been on "individual issues," not involvement in governmental structures or societal institutions, Rubio said. In fact, the practice of moral theology first came about to help confessors know how to identify individual sins in the confessional.

"More recently, we've come to think more in ways that individuals cooperate with social evils, or participate in social sin, or hold up sinful social structures," she said.

The theologians also said that the focus on sexual issues is due to our understanding of the notion of "intrinsic evil." Long a staple of Catholic discussions of morality, the notion is somewhat hard to define. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not use the phrase, but it does say: "There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil."

In other words, Fullam said, an intrinsic evil is one in which "there is never any justification" for an action that aims at an evil "as a sole intended end."

Thus, she said, any judgment of sin must include consideration of a person's intention. Most moralists, she said, would agree that in order to describe something as an intrinsic evil, you would first have to know something about the intention and circumstances of the person who has undertaken that act.

It's clarifications like that, Fullam said, that show there is a lot more nuance to moral issues than may seem apparent at first glance.

The birth control pill cannot be considered evil by itself, she said — after all it is "just a substance."

That's why hospitals can prescribe the pill to women who use it for some medical reason. The intention, she said, is preventing disease: "Contraception in that case is a side effect."

The importance of judging intention to understand the effect of any sin seems to underline the level of nuance necessary to judge complex moral questions.

Ultimately, Fullam said, each and every act requires discernment along the lines of some basic questions proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas: "What is the point of what you're doing and what are the circumstances?"


Societal considerations

If all the actions we undertake, both individually and as a society, require a careful discernment of our moral ends, the question remains: Why does it seem that the bishops — and even Catholics in general — more seriously engage questions of sexual morality, while leaving many questions of social sin unanswered?

Look at the lack of outcry over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said David Cloutier, associate professor of theology at Mount St. Mary's University in Emmitsburg, Md. While Pope John Paul II clearly opposed that war, U.S. bishops did not instruct their faithful to refrain from paying their taxes, which might fund the military, or to express disagreement in other ways.

Examination of social issues like war is typically the subject of "lengthy inquiry," focused on "different circumstances," Cloutier said, in contrast to the seemingly straightforward nature of Catholic teaching on sexuality.

Rubio said she tried to explore the subject of cooperation with evil in a paper about the morality of buying clothes that may have been made in sweatshops.

But, she said, "it was really difficult to draw out the lines of connection" on that subject, considering the "limits of knowledge" and other ethical questions about whether it is better for people in impoverished countries to have low-paying jobs than no jobs at all.

"It gets really complicated," she said. "It seems much more complicated than 'Am I cooperating with the evil of contraception?' "

In the same vein, Rubio said one of her colleagues wanted to evaluate the morality of meat-eating in light of the conditions of those working in meat factories and had the same difficulty.

Despite that difficulty to discern clear-cut answers to morality in some areas, Rubio said the attempt to do so emphasizes that in the Catholic tradition "there is definitely an affirmation that there is such a thing as structural sin, and we participate as individuals and we can be guilty of that."

That's why, although the bishops' statements on moral issues — particularly sexual ones — can sometimes seem blunt, Rubio said she appreciated their attempt to "talk about cooperation with evil," particularly when they bring up the issue in regard to voting.

"Although it tends to be focused on just a few issues," she said, "the idea I think is very useful: What do I do when I vote? What am I cooperating with?"

Theologian Daniel Maguire of Marquette University in Milwaukee comes to the topic with more fundamental questions: Who is the church? And how does the church discern morality?

The bishops' positions on the health insurance mandate cannot be separated from U.S. Catholics' widespread negligence in following the church's teaching on contraception, Maguire said.

It's no secret that since the 1968 promulgation of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the Catholic ban on contraception, many faithful haven't followed the teaching. In fact, a study by the Guttmacher Institute last April estimated that some 98 percent of Catholic women in the U.S. who have had sex use contraception.

When considering the position of the church on any issue, Maguire said, it's important to remember that the bishops are not "the entire picture."

A fuller picture of how Catholics have discerned moral truths in the past, he said, would include a "tripod" of views: those of the hierarchy, the "magisterium of the theologians," and the "grace-filled, experience-filled wisdom of the faithful."

History, Maguire said, shows the importance of all three viewpoints. When a pope in the early Middle Ages said torture was morally wrong, many theologians rebuked him. And while official church teaching outlawed usury for many years, many members of the laity continued to collect interest on loans.

Cloutier said the level of dissent on birth control might indicate why the bishops are taking such a vocal stand against the administration's decision on the subject. He said the bishops might see it as an issue of "symbolic power."

"The whole tradition has been arguing about contraception as a stand-in for a lot of other issues about authority and dissent for a long time," he said.

That dynamic becomes especially clear, Cloutier said, when you consider that the mandate may exclusively impact the structures — schools or universities, for example — over which bishops have traditionally been able to show their dedication to the teaching by banning coverage in health care plans.

For Fullam, the number of those who have decided to neglect the official church teaching might also say something about how Catholics have decided to give weight to their own consciences when evaluating a question of morality.

A recent survey of some 1,400 representative U.S. Catholics seems to give credibility to that opinion. When asked who should have the final say in determining right and wrong, some 50 percent responded that individuals, not church leaders, should be the final arbiters of morality on several issues, including those of divorce, abortion, homosexuality and contraception (NCR, Oct. 28-Nov. 10, 2011).

While "it is logically possible that the vast majority of Catholics stumble into mortal sin" by neglecting the teaching on birth control, Fullam said, it is also possible that many "gave the matter serious thought," used "all of the resources at our disposal for formation of conscience," and came to a decision that "this teaching is not binding on my conscience."

If that is the case, she said, then the church "needs to look hard at why, and what this means."

It also reflects the fact, she said, that there is a notion of the "reciprocity of consciences" in Catholic teaching.

"While the faithful learn from the magisterium, the faithful have consciences, too," Fullam said. "And maybe, in some circumstances, the magisterium can learn from the faithful.

"The sheer magnitude of practical sense on the matter of birth control means it's a question that maybe hasn't been settled as completely as some people think," she said.

Yet, no matter how the morality of birth control is considered, Maguire said the focus of Catholics on sexual ethics tends to neglect a whole range of other teachings that are just as important.

Recalling conversations he has had with politicians seeking advice on how to win over Catholic voters, Maguire said that abortion is the "only issue" the politicians are normally concerned about.

"And yet Catholicism has a rich social justice theory," he said. "And they don't know anything about it. That's a real shame."

Joshua J. McElwee is an NCR staff writer. His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Daniel Maguire on the Progressive Core of Catholicism – The Wild Reed (October 18, 2010).
Daniel Maguire on Catholicism's "Long History of Demeaning Sexuality" – The Wild Reed (October 19, 2010).
98% of Catholic Women Have Used Contraception the Bishops Oppose — Dino Grandoni (The Atlantic Wire, February 10, 2012).
Why I'm a Catholic for Contraception — Karalen L. Morthole (CNN, February 10, 2012).
U.S. Bishops Oppose Obama's Compromise Birth Control Plan — James Vicini (Reuters, February 11, 2012).
Men Dealing Badly with Women: The USCCB and Women's Reproductive Health — Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, February 12, 2012).
Liberals Enabled Bishops in Contraception Battle — Sarah Posner (Religion Dispatches, February 11, 2012).

Quote of the Day

. . . [In the current birth control controversy] the bishops and other Christian groups are appealing to the role of "conscience," a concept on which the bishops themselves and recent popes have put little emphasis, in contrast to the role of "obedience." If they are going to appeal to conscience, then they must also respect the consciences of responsible adults — Catholic women and men, and non-Catholics who work at Catholic institutions.

They must respect the role of parents to decide how many children they can have, and can afford to take care of. No one is forcing Catholics to take contraceptives. It is a question of access, and hence, of justice.

They must also respect the role of Catholics to share their expertise in health care and in public policy, as Vatican II argued. Catholic theologians and other professors at academic universities have the responsibility to search for truth and to work for justice. The Catholic moral tradition has long argued that there is a difference between morality and public policy.

. . . So here is the question, as I see it, as a Catholic theologian and lifelong Catholic, educated almost entirely at Catholic institutions, and taught to work for human dignity, the common good and social justice: Should the U.S. bishops speak for all Catholics on a matter of national public policy, an issue that most Catholics disagree on within their own church? The bishops have refused to discuss this issue with their fellow Catholics for more than 40 years. And the bishops are all male. What about Catholic theologians, academics, social workers and health care professionals? What about Catholic women? What about the 98%?

— Keith Soko
"Bishops Don't Speak for Most Catholics on Contraception"
CNN
February 4, 2012

See also the previous PCV posts:
We Are the 98 Percent
Something to Think About — February 11, 2012
Obama, Catholics, And Why I Walked Out of Mass on Sunday
Out of Step With the Flock: Bishops Far Behind on Birth Control Issues
Overpopulation and the Catholic Church: Can't We Become Part of the Solution?

Related Off-site Links:
98% of Catholic Women Have Used Contraception the Bishops Oppose — Dino Grandoni (The Atlantic Wire, February 10, 2012).
Why I'm a Catholic for Contraception — Karalen L. Morthole (CNN, February 10, 2012).
U.S. Bishops Oppose Obama's Compromise Birth Control Plan — James Vicini (Reuters, February 11, 2012).
Men Dealing Badly with Women: The USCCB and Women's Reproductive Health — Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, February 12, 2012).
Liberals Enabled Bishops in Contraception Battle — Sarah Posner (Religion Dispatches, February 11, 2012).

Something to Think About . . .

.

Related Off-site Links:
98% of Catholic Women Have Used Contraception the Bishops Oppose — Dino Grandoni (The Atlantic Wire, February 10, 2012).
We Are the 98 Percent — Joan Walsh (Salon.com, February 7, 2012).
Bishops Don't Speak for Most Catholics on Contraception — Keith Soko (CNN, February 4, 2012).
Why I'm a Catholic for Contraception — Karalen L. Morthole (CNN, February 10, 2012).
U.S. Bishops Oppose Obama's Compromise Birth Control Plan — James Vicini (Reuters, February 11, 2012).
Liberals Enabled Bishops in Contraception Battle — Sarah Posner (Religion Dispatches, February 11, 2012).

Obama, Catholics, And Why I Walked Out of Mass on Sunday

By Victor Landa


Editor's Note: This commentary was first published February 9, 2012, by NewsTaco.com.


I did something this past Sunday that I’ve never done in my life. I walked out of mass in protest. No, fire and brimstone didn’t descend upon me; my leaving wasn’t followed by the gnashing of teeth. In fact I’m sure that if anyone noticed they probably thought I was going to relieve myself – which I was, in a real sense.

Some pertinent background: I was raised Catholic. I was born in a Catholic hospital and was educated in Catholic schools. But for many years I’ve nurtured a healthy distrust of all organized religion – my own Catholicism included. For the past several weeks, though, I’ve been going to mass on Sundays again. The priest who celebrates the mass I go to is a long time friend, I consider him a mentor, a spiritual and intellectual leader. So I returned to church because I missed his presence in a Sunday service context.

The mass is a Spanish service, standing room only, I’d say 90% immigrant, awesome choir included. I felt at home, although not entirely in place with the overall organized religious context. Still, my friend the priest hadn’t missed a beat since I last attended one of his services: vibrant, relevant, compassionate. After that first service, he saw me, gave me a bear hug and said, “I was so happy to see you here.”

So I went back, twice. Then last Sunday he wasn’t there. Another priest was substituting for that day. I’ll call him Father “Spaniard of the condescension.” He reminded me of the reasons I had stopped going to church. It took him all of 90 seconds to turn his homily into a diatribe against President Obama’s directive concerning healthcare insurance in Catholic institutions. He misrepresented the directive saying it forced women to have abortions, and then he said the congregants shouldn’t vote for Obama.

That’s when I blew. I felt my fists tighten, my neck expand. My wife turned to look at me with what I sensed was concern (not so much for me; I think she was afraid I’d challenge the priest out loud. But I wouldn’t, out of respect, for the same reason I still push my chair in when I leave the dinner table: Catholic school upbringing.) I said, under my voice, “I didn’t come to church to be told who to vote for.” And I walked out.

So what do you do when you walk out of church to a parking lot filled with empty cars? I paced. Over the years I’ve learned to tame what was once an unmanageable temper. I give myself room to be angry, and get over it – it’s my responsibility after all. Ten minutes later, when the froth had gone, I returned to the back of the church and stood through the rest of the service. I didn’t confront the priest. In fact I said nothing to him, at all. I’ve also learned strategic patience and knowing to choose my battles.

This Presidential directive, though, has been taken out of context. It doesn’t force women to have abortions, regardless of what Father Spaniard says. All it does is raise the question of preventive services for women who work in Catholic institutions – excluding churches. All together Catholic hospitals and universities employ hundreds of thousands of women, not all of them Catholic. The directive makes preventive services accessible to them, that’s all. It also includes an 18 month period to look for creative ways to follow the directive. It’s about healthcare, and it’s about the law.

On the political side, it was a calculated move. I’ve said before that everything the President does is calculated. This time he may have gotten the equation wrong. I don’t think he expected the loud and angry fallout. Just as I didn’t expect politics in my church. I emphasize “my” church, because I don’t belong to one of those evangelical congregations where politics is religion. In fact, the one time I disagreed with my friend the priest was when he allowed then presidential candidate Michael Dukakis (we go back that far) to speak from the pulpit during a Sunday service. I didn’t walk out that time, my conviction-to-action link still needed some simmering. But I felt it was wrong.

Here’s the thing: I wouldn’t have minded if Father Spaniard would have asked the congregation to pray for a resolution to the healthcare directive, or to pray for the President to understand the Catholic institution’s position. But he crossed a line when he told the congregation not to vote for Obama.

I understand the long legacy of social and political movements that have had their birth in churches – the U.S. civil rights movement, the Mexican independence of 1810 to name just 2. But those were movements, not political ads. What’s more, 60% of the congregation that morning were women, and 90% of those probably don’t vote because they’re not citizens. You’d think a leader would know his congregation better (you may have noticed that I’m not quite done getting over it).

In the end, this directive will be fodder for punditry and homilies for weeks to come. And I’ll make my way back to church on Sunday, hoping my friend leads the entrance procession. This time, though, I’ve got an earful for him.


See also the previous PCV posts:
We Are the 98 Percent
Out of Step With the Flock: Bishops Far Behind on Birth Control Issues

Recommended Off-site Link:
As Contraceptives Rule Enters GOP Race, Will Reproductive Rights Affect 2012 Election? – Democracy Now! (February 8, 2012).

UPDATES:
President Obama Makes 'Accommodation' on Birth Control Policy – CommonDreams.org (February 10, 2012).
Catholic Group Backs Obama's Compromise Birth Control Policy – Associated Press (February 10, 2012).
U.S. Bishops Voice Objections to Revamped Birth Control Rule – Associated Press (February 10, 2012).

We Are the 98 Percent

By Joan Walsh

Editor's Note: This commentary was first published February 7, 2012, at Salon.com.

Catholics who ignore the church's teaching on contraception
shouldn't expect Obama to follow it

The Obama administration is facing a political crisis for making a common-sense decision: acting on the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that health insurance plans cover contraceptive services. This is a test for the forces that mobilized to get the Susan G. Komen Foundation to reverse its politically cowardly decision to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. Clear political thinking about women’s health made a comeback in the backlash against Komen’s move; we need to make sure that clear political thinking prevails on the new Health and Human Services contraception regulations, too.

Predictably, the GOP presidential candidates are whacking Obama on the issue; fittingly, Rick Santorum is surging again, as this latest battle in the culture war rages. As always, the biggest hypocrite is Mitt Romney, who is attacking the president’s decision even though he went along with the same regulations in Massachusetts. And when the state enacted the universal health insurance law he used to be proud of, it covered the same “family planning services” as the new HHS regulations.

I knew the president’s decision would be controversial, but I underestimated the firestorm he would face. Since 98 percent of Catholics practice forms of contraception forbidden by the church at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control, I assumed many of them would speak out in favor of the new regulations. How could they expect the president to follow church teachings if they did not?

I was wrong. Too many Catholics are insisting that while they may personally disagree with the church on contraception, they defend the bishops’ opposition to the HHS moves as a matter of “religious liberty.” Others are silent. But silence lets the most right-wing forces of reaction prevail. It’s time for the 98 percent to speak up.

This is indeed a matter of religious liberty – the liberty of non-Catholic women who work for Catholic employers to have the full spectrum of healthcare coverage, regardless of what the church believes.

Twenty-eight states already require church-run agencies to cover contraception in the health insurance they provide employees. Catholic Charities sued to oppose the regulation in New York, and lost. The world didn’t end; Catholic agencies in New York and those 27 other states now cover contraception. And they should: Women who have access to family planning services have lower infant mortality rates and healthier babies than those who don’t. Others take the birth control pill to deal with endometriosis or other reproductive system issues. Contraception has to be part of comprehensive healthcare for women.

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe Tuesday, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod left the door open to a compromise with the bishops. That sounded dangerous. The worst move for the administration would be to take a courageous stand, rile up the right wing and Catholic bishops, and then cave and demoralize the women’s health advocates who are mobilizing to support the president. Later on Daily Rundown liberal Catholic E.J. Dionne suggested possibilities for compromise on the issue, while ultra-conservative George Weigel shot him down. There will be no “compromise” that leaves everyone happy. Either this is a matter of equity and the right approach to women’s health, or it’s not. And Catholics who ignore the church’s teaching on this issue have a special duty to speak up.


See also the previous PCV post:
Out of Step with the Flock: Bishops Far Behind on Birth Control Issues

Related Off-site Links:
Catholics Need to Preach What We Practice — Joan Walsh (Salon.com, February 2, 2012).
Bishops Stand Strong Against Birth Control Mandate — Barbara Bradley Hagerty (NPR, February 9, 2012).
Policy and Politics of Contraception Rule Fiercely Debated Within White House — Jake Tapper (ABC News, February 9, 2012).
Catholics Unite in Opposition to Contraception Mandate — Brian Roewe and Zoe Ryan (National Catholic Reporter, February 9, 2012).
Culture Wars and Lady Parts — Abby Zimet (CommonDreams.org, February 9, 2012).
A Plea for Compromise — Dennis Coday, National Catholic Reporter, February 9, 2012).

Catholics for Marriage Equality MN Launch Online Petition

Group urges Archbishop Nienstedt to focus on Catholic social justice initiatives, not divisive politics

SAINT PAUL, MN – Today, the Catholics for Marriage Equality Minnesota launched www.focusonsocialjustice.com, an online petition urging Archbishop Nienstedt and all the bishops of Minnesota to refocus their energy, time and commitment away from the divisive constitutional "marriage amendment" and back towards laudable Catholic social justice initiatives.

“Recent comments by Archbishop Nientedt have unnecessarily turned our church into a lightning rod on a controversial political issue,” said Michael Bayly, Executive Coordinator of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN. “We urge Archbishop Nienstedt and all the bishops to redirect our church's time, energy, and money towards feeding the hungry and caring for the homeless and the sick, and away from this divisive issue which is causing unnecessary pain and hostility within the local Catholic community and beyond.”

This petition and all of its signers will be delivered to the Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis at a later date. Catholics for Marriage Equality MN encourages and welcomes Minnesotans of any and all faith backgrounds to sign the petition, which can be found at www.focusonsocialjustice.com.

The Unconscionable Consequences of Conscience Exemptions

By Jamie L. Manson


Edito's Note: This article was first published January 25 by the National Catholic Reporter.


Of all of the reactions that I've read to the Department of Health and Human Service's refusal to change the rules on contraception coverage, I've noticed that few commentators have referred to the formal name of the government mandate the bishops are fighting.

The provision is called the Affordable Care Act. This new law is intended to ensure the just treatment of women and couples who cannot afford adequate medical treatment when it comes to contraceptives and who want to raise families in a safe, responsible manner.

This act is a promising attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies and offers perhaps the most ethical and realistic approach to reducing the abortion rate.

The bishops' reaction was characterized by increasingly typical cries of victimization and hysteria. This self-pity only further diminishes the seriousness with which U.S. Catholics take the hierarchy. The sad truth is, if the numbers of Catholics leaving the church are any indication, most Catholics in the United States probably see the hierarchy more as victimizers than victimized.

Some have labeled this decision as President Barack Obama's attack on Catholics, echoing the inflammatory, paranoid spin bishops are putting on any government decision that doesn't go their way lately. This decision is not an attack on Catholics, but rather a groundbreaking move to protect women and to guarantee them greater access to adequate, affordable health care.

The decision demonstrates that protecting women's health, safety and freedom is part of the common good. In this way, it reflects a key element of Catholic social justice teaching: promotion of the common good and protection of individual freedom.

Although the hierarchy has historically argued otherwise, the conscience of an individual Catholic laywoman or layman is not ipso facto inferior to the conscience of any bishop. As David DeCosse argued so articulately in NCR earlier this week, the model of conscience used by most bishops "emphasizes obedience, law, and hierarchical authority and thus departs from the Catholic tradition's close linkage of conscience, practical reason, and freedom."

The decision affirms the Catholic principle of the "primacy of conscience." According to the Catechism, "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his [sic] conscience" (No. 1790). Informing the conscience is a "life long task" (No. 1784) and "To this purpose, man [sic] strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his [sic] gifts" (No. 1788).

Lay Catholics will be permitted to exert their practical reason and freedom of conscience to choose, in an informed way, the medical practices and treatments that are healthiest for them and their families.

The hierarchy claims that this decision will force Catholics to either obey the law or violate their consciences. But whose consciences will be violated? According to the Guttmacher Institute, 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women (and, by association, their male partners) have used some form of contraception.

Perhaps Obama has learned, as many Catholic laypeople have, that the definition of the Catholic church encompasses far more people than the hierarchy. The church includes laypeople, theologians and ethicists who have, with good reason, rejected this doctrine. The majority of the church has refused to receive this teaching. Perhaps Obama saw, as many of us do, the bishops' actions as an attempt to legislate beliefs that they cannot get their own people to obey.

In making this decision, the president represented the needs of the people and protected the civil rights of women and workers. This includes not only Catholic women and men, but also the many non-Catholics who are employed by organizations affiliated with the Catholic church. These workers will no longer be subjugated to a church teaching that, compared with other religious tradition, is rather extreme. Even conservative evangelicals do not object to the use of contraception within marriage.

Once women are allowed access to oral contraceptives, the hierarchy will be able to honor an overlooked provision in the church's teaching. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 14 percent of women use oral contraceptives for purposes other than birth control. That is more than one in 10 prescriptions. According to Humanae Vitae, women can take the pill for medical purposes. For decades, the church has prevented these women from receiving essential medical treatment and has therefore acted contrary to its own doctrine.

When an employee obtains a prescription for the pill, the hierarchy does not know whether the purpose is medical or contraceptive. They assume, of course, that the pill is used for contraception. By allowing the hierarchy this exemption, the government would have allowed the church to continue to make decisions about their employees' private, sexual lives.

If the bishops had been allowed that power, then they should have had exerted equal power in refusing to pay for prescriptions for Viagara, Cialis and other sexual performance drugs for men. They should have demanded the right to know how men would use these drugs. Are they using the drugs with their wives? Girlfriends? Mistresses? Would the church ever intrude on heterosexual men and their personal sexual lives in this way?

Perhaps the most important accomplishment achieved through this decision is the government's refusal to create a precedent for religious organizations to get a pass from obeying civil rights laws. A few decades ago, individuals and organizations whose religious beliefs opposed desegregation wanted to be exempt from the Civil Rights Act. We can all look back in gratitude that the government refused their request.

If the bishops had gotten their way, it would have opened up a Pandora's box in which any religious group could claim exemptions from obeying a multitude of laws on religious grounds. I have little doubt that part of what propelled this fight was the bishops' desire to set a precedent on which they could base their refusal to provide benefits to employees in same-sex marriages and civil unions.

The fact is, Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies take in millions of dollars in federal and state grants every year. They should be accountable to the same civil rights laws given to other agencies that receive the same funding.

Some Catholic leaders have argued that, in order to meet the "narrow" exemption requirement, hospitals, schools, universities and social service agencies that do not want to comply with this new law will be forced to seriously reduce the number of people they employ and serve.

If this should happen, it might be one of the worst cases of the church's honoring one teaching at the expense of dozens of others.

For more than a century, Catholic social justice teaching has argued for the rights of workers, especially the right to adequate medical benefits. More than a dozen church documents teach the preferential option for the poor, workplace justice, the protection of women's rights, the primacy of the person and the common good.

There is only one teaching on contraception. It is a teaching that disregards the findings of the Majority Report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. It is a teaching that has also been rejected by the sensus fidelium.

Nevertheless, as leaders of Catholic institutions spend the next year adjusting to this new law, Catholic organizations will still contemplate turning away the sick, the poor, the orphan and others in need because they do not want to obey the civil rights laws set by the government that funds them. They are entertaining the possibility of violating dozens of social justice teachings in order to keep a hard line on a rule that almost no one accepts or follows.


Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School, where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.

Quote of the Day

I don't like that Archbishop John Nienstedt is threatening to punish priests who openly disagree with him over a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman ("Priests Told Not to Voice Dissent," Star Tribune, January 15).

In a few weeks, I'll be 85. I'm a charter member of my church. I raised four children, all of whom attended Catholic schools. I've been active and engaged in my church all of my adult life.

That the archbishop would threaten the careers of priests who have devoted their lives to social justice is unconscionable.

If a fraction of this effort was put into weeding out the priests who had abused young children, we wouldn't have had the huge scandals and cover-ups or so many lives ruined by abuse.

I know that in speaking out about the archbishop's heavy-handed behavior, I risk alienating friends and family. But I must speak out.

This issue isn't a gay-rights issue – it's a human-rights issue.

– Beverly Sullivan
Letter to the Editor
Star Tribune
January 21, 2012

Recommended Off-site Link:
Archbishop in Minnesota Opposes Marriage Equality, Dissent in Equal Measure – Editorial (CommonDreams.org, January 17, 2012).

See also the previous PCV post:
Archbishop Nienstedt's Marriage Amendment Message to Priests: "The Stakes Could Not Be Higher"

Archbishop Nienstedt's Marriage Amendment Message to Priests: "The Stakes Could Not Be Higher"

Note: The following letter from Archbishop John Niensedt has come to the attention of the editorial board of The Progressive Catholic Voice. Originally published in Archdiocesan Updates (Volume 34, Number 12, December 2011), it is addressed to the priests and deacons of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

We believe it is important to republish this communique as the central issue it addresses, i.e., the hierarchy's support of the "marriage amendment" to the Minnesota Constitution, is one that many Catholics in the Archdiocese feel strongly about. Also, we at The Progressive Catholic Voice believe it is important to model a way of being church that is open, honest, transparent and participatory. We welcome your feedback to both our sharing of the Archbishop's letter and its contents.

__________________________________________

Dear Fathers and Deacons,

At our recent Clergy Study Day on October 19, I gave the following talk. I offer it here again for those who were not in attendance.

My dear brothers, I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that in this movement to protect and defend the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman we are faced with one of the greatest challenges of our times. None of us can deny that the institution of marriage and family life are unraveling before our very eyes due to no-fault divorce, wide-spread cohabitation and promiscuous sexual activity. The end game of those who oppose the marriage amendment that we support is not just to secure certain benefits for a particular minority, but, I believe, to eliminate the need for marriage altogether. This can only lead to continued destabilizing the family unit itself. Both those realities will happen if marriage is redefined or, perhaps better put, “undefined.” Today we can say with clarity what the natural reality of marriage is. That may not be possible in years to come if we fail to be successful now. As I see it, we have this one chance as Minnesotans to make things right. The stakes could not be higher.

We did not choose this challenge nor do any of us relish the confrontation it will bring, but neither can we remain silent in order to get along. We must witness to the truth so as to realize the common good of our society. While the greatest good is surely life with God in heaven, we must, in truth, seek to foster the good here on earth. And we are not the first to confront this task, our brothers in California, Maine, Hawaii among others, have all taken up this defense and have been successful in doing so.

In doing so, we must never vilify or caricaturize those who argue otherwise. Indeed, we must acknowledge that all men and women are God’s sons and daughters. But it is this very truth and the fact that the truth is one and bears no contradiction that the Church and her ministers must witness here and now.

It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

I see our united effort as a part of the New Evangelization, that of building a new culture for marriage. You know, this effort to pass a constitutional amendment is not an end in itself. We began a year ago to host 25 seminars across the Archdiocese to explain why marriage is what it is and why we believe in it.

Presently, I have appointed teams of a priest and a married couple to go into each of our Catholic high schools to address the topic of marriage.

I want the focus here to be a positive one — let’s celebrate the reality of what God designed from the beginning as affirmed in the first chapter of Genesis and that Jesus reaffirmed in the 19th chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel.

I am actively raising funds to assist in this educational endeavor. And if you and your parish wish to benefit from these programs, please let me know.

I thank you for your support. I count on your prayer. Be assured you have the same from me. Together, let us turn to our Blessed Mother — mother of all families, Mother of the Church and patroness of the new evangelization. Through her maternal intercession, our Lady will secure for us that which is needed most in these days — protection, wisdom and peace through the grace of her Son and Savior, Jesus Christ.

May God bless us all.

With every good wish, I remain

Fraternally yours in Christ,

The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt

Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

Food for Thought

The following comments from the website of the National Catholic Reporter were originally posted in response to Richard McBrien's January 2 article concerning Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, N.Y., "Bishop Ponders Reasons Americans Leave Catholic Church.

___________________________

[The bishops need] to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through the people of God and through the ongoing development of culture around the world. To listen to others beyond the Vatican and the Chancery offices might actually open some eyes, some minds, and some hearts. When the only people you actually engage in conversation are all like minded – it is easy to assume you have all of the answers – but the reality is in this setting, we don't even have the questions. All too often, we as a church act much like the old Baltimore Catechism – here are the questions and answers and that's all that you need to know; just pray, pay and obey and then wrap yourself in the mindset of Pius X and Leo XIII - and build high walls around yourself. I might be amazing to follow the dictate of Jesus who told his disciples – "Pay attention" "Don't be afraid" Pay attention.

– Charles Bolser

In my view, Charles, you are correct. Since this is a communal structure of the People of God, it is up to us to redefine, reconceptualize, and rethink the old idea of 'church.' What is needed is a Council of the People of God; certainly NOT a Vatican Council. Rather than running around in a panic trying to put out fires (clericalism, chauvinism, sexism, homophobia, sexual abuse, coverups, financial fraud, dogmatism, legalism, an environment of fear and negativity, etc.), we need to understand that the Spirit is giving us this opportunity to start over: this will be the fruit of the Council of the People of God. It is so obvious that the old system does not work anymore; before we lose another generation, it is time to begin the REFORMATION and RETHINKING while there are still a few believers left! Fear not, the Spirit will direct us to seize this opportunity to grow again in a vision of Christianity that was with our founder. After so many centuries of secular imperial structure and hierarchy that we have accepted along the way, we will be able to return to a community of believers and abandon all the detritus that has accumulated with the old system thus freeing us to live in peace and joy.

– Rome Watcher

There really are a variety of reasons. One acquaintance of mine left to pursue a call to ordination. She really did not have a choice – obviously. Another acquaintance stopped going to Mass after strong opposition by Catholic bishops to gay marriage laws, like the one in New York, even though these laws do not force religious bodies to change their teachings on marriage. Still another acquaintance, who is divorced from an abusive husband, is an active member of her parish but feels disrespected.

There is another group of Catholics who have not formally left the church, but who rarely participate in the life of their parishes. They do not have strong feelings against the church, but they appear to see going to Mass as just another nice activity which they have little time for in the midst of busy lives. How do committed Catholics respond to these brothers and sisters?

– SBeth

[Richard McBrien's article] makes good sense save the one element which bothers me most. Through our baptism we are members of the church. I fail to understand the basis for any statement declaring who has left the church. What exactly do they mean by 'left'. Do they mean some of us do not attend? Perhaps they mean do not contribute? Put another way it could well be that many true belivers are convinced that they have been abandoned by an ecclesial structure which has become very unchristian in its rigidity, inflexibility, and adamant rejection of Vatican II. One only has to study the Papacy from say the 13th to the 16th century to see that as an
institution it does not have a glorious or holy past. Apostolic succession would be impossible to trace through the schisms and the multiple claimants to the papacy. Yet, the current structure in its absolute claims is closer to the period of the Medicis and the Borgias than the open window created by Vatican II. Many of use see no sensse in even bothering to try to have a voice. The only thing I have to offer is that we are members of the church, we have not left, the body of Christ is wounded and there is no sign of healing from the top. The arrogance is stifling. . . .

– TomC

Recommended Off-site Link:
A Bishop Ponders the Catholic Exodus – Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, January 3, 2012).

See also the previous PCV posts:
Creating a Liberating Church (Part 1)
Creating a Liberating Church (Part 2)
Creating a Liberating Church (Part 3)
The Call of the Baptized: Be the Church, Live the Mission