Consider a cake. By itself, it has no meaning, except for Marie Antionette, religious wise. A cake is a cake. A baker decides to sell cakes. Not holy cakes, just cakes. He has been selling cakes to a customer for years. But the customer comes in to buy a cake, and because the customer wants the cake for a gay marriage, the baker will not sell the customer a cake. compare this to the kosher deli described above. Pork is against the Jewish religion, the cake is not against the bakers religion.  The kosher deli is being forced to provide a product that is against its religion, but the baker is just providing a product he supplies every day.

Christine - Most Catholic organizations ‘self-insure’, so they directly pay for all covered medical expenses administered by the insurance companies.  Even for the conventional coverage you describe, it is still significant to delineate coverage in general and specific ways. 
.
If you want to extend the concept of accounting to a ridiculous end, you could say that the kosher deli owner indirectly sells pork because he buys baked goods from a guy who eats or sells it, tracking the money back to someone culpable.  I fully support the bishops in their resolve to push back against the ‘soft totalitarianism’ of the Obama administration, which is using sleazy Chicago-style politics, (blatant lies, pervasively corrupt communications) to undermine our country.  People of good faith have got his number.

There is something else that boggles my mind about this whole debate. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you think about the concept of how health insurance works, you would realize that preventing a particular institution’s money from being spent on something they object to on moral grounds (such as contraception) is a virtual impossibility. This would only happen if the religiously affiliated institution used a health insurance company that did not provide coverage for that particular service AT ALL. Health insurance companies are financial institutions. In order to pay out health claims, they collect premiums from ALL members/employers. Many health insurance companies are very large and cover a huge number of people/employers. All the money that is collected is used to pay for claims for ALL members. The premiums of “well” people are used to pay the claims of “sick” people. There is a communal sharing of costs. This is how the insurance companies can afford to pay all the health claims and still “insure” that there will be money available to cover your individual claims when you need them to. This is how the budget gets balanced. In fact this is how any insurance works. Life insurance, car insurance, you name it. It’s not as if the money paid by one company alone is used to pay the cost of only it’s own members’ claims. If that were the case, each employer would have it’s very own insurance company. Instead, the money goes into the “common pot,” so to speak, to cover all of the medical claims of all members. In the end, a religious institution’s premiums will go into the common pot just like the premiums of any other employer or individual plan-holder and be used indiscriminately to pay claims. All the religious institutions would succeed in doing if this mandate is defeated is preventing their own employees from having covered access to these services—imposing it’s own beliefs onto it’s employees.

No, Beth - The incomprensible Obamacare, with its limitless license for the executive branch of government to make sweeping mandates like the contraception coverge option, is the core problem here.  We are going to war here over a TERRIBLE law, one that was shoved down the throats of most thinking Americans.  It in itself was a ‘law’ that did not have anything close to a popular ‘mandate’ to back it up and ensure compliance. 
.
What is clear is that the Obama administration wants to end Catholic, and other religiously sponsored health care, to be replaced be a draconian, totalitarian government-sponsored wreck.  The thought of this makes one’s blood run cold - impersoanal healthcare foisted by bureaucrats, with big pharma lurking in the background.  The ‘mediating organization’ - non-governmental, but set up for the common good - like Catholic healthcare, is a foundational structure in our country that should be preserved and encouraged.  It works, and unlike the government option, has a conscience and well-thought out ethics attached.

Have any of you read the Constitution?! I’m mostly troubled by what “Loud” claims in his/her ALL CAPS post: “we have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to the free exercise of our relgions. Any other subsequent law MUST BE MADE WITHOUT CONTRADICTING any of the constitutional rights, this one included, or it is INVALID(the term for this is “unconstitutional, in case you libral weirdos didn’t know).”

Please! Read the Constitution! Religious freedom doesn’t mean what you think it means! Part of religious freedom is that I have the freedom to not be subjected to the rules of YOUR religion.

The Supreme Court has said it over and over again: Religious freedom is not absolute. Religious freedom doesn’t give you the right to break a law. You’re probably shaking your head right now, but do yourselves a favor and edify yourselves. Do some research. Here, I will do it for you.

Look up this Supreme Court case: UNITED STATES v. LEE, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) . Just copy and paste it into Google. From this court decision: “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

Read that a few times. Yup, you can’t break the law claiming “religious freedom.”

Now Google this one. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

Here’s what Justice Scalia had to say: “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

I know you’re all going to ignore me and tell me to get a life because you’re firmly rooted in the reality you wished you lived in, while the rest of us live here in the reality in which the Supreme Court affirms time and time again that you don’t get to break a law in the name of “religious freedom.”

Tough pill to swallow, isn’t it?

“Seperation of Church & State unless the state wishes to impose its will on the Church?”

That’s all well and good, but it sure seems to me like the Church is trying to impose it’s will on citizens of the State. It goes both ways.

Life,Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness.
Seperation of Church & State unless the state wishes to impose its will on the Church?
The first order of business for dictators, despots, totalitarians and the like is to suppress and oppress religious expression.
It is not about CONTRACEPTION!

Excellent point made in a way that most Americans can understand. Had to search long and hard for it though.

If the Kosher Deli is likened to a church then they should be able to restrict contraceptives. If the Kosher deli is likened to an external bakery that is not a church or in this case a synagogue then it is not protected by the first amendment in the manner or considered to have the ability to impose their beliefs. The taking of federal money by a college or a hospital makes it so it signs a contract and is not an extension of the church/synagogue but acts as an agent of the state it is saying it is upholding contractually. It is no longer the Kosher deli it is just a deli. The Jews though can still tell anyone in their synagogue that they cannot eat that which is not Kosher.

Christine,

For starters, The Church’s first obligation is to save souls! The Church looks at ALL issues from this lens.

“Non-medical professionals do not get to decide what is and is not valid medical care. There are documented medical indications for marijuana in certain cases. This should not be abused, in the same way pain medication should not be abused, but just because you don’t like it does not make it an invalid form of healthcare. In a state where medical marijuana is legalized for cancer patients, etc., yes it should be covered just like any other physician prescribed medication.”

The Catholic Church DOES get to decide on morals because that is the commission given to it by Jesus, which is why the Church is HATED so much. In case you were not aware, there are brilliant doctors who are ALSO priests. There are brilliant lawyers, accountants who are also priests, etc… FYI, the famous “Big Bang Theory” was started by a priest; some of the advances in medicine were also done by priests. Gregor Mendel – the founder of genetics – was an Augustinian Friar. So, the argument that “non-medical professionals do not get to decide what is and is not valid medical care” goes right out the door! Also, the medical profession has ethics, which deals with moral codes of conduct. In fact, the ORIGINAL Hippocratic Oath - that has been changed by the current medical profession - prohibited abortions. Doctors have a moral obligation to protect life - even the life of the unborn. But, due to political pressures, a “fetus” is no longer seen as a life. They are violating the Oath they took. And just because something is legal does not make it moral. There are plenty of doctors who also oppose medical marijuana. In fact, there is MORE research opposing the use of marijuana. But, the media chooses to focus on the ones who are pushing for it. The research is biased in trying to justify marijuana.

“While birth control is primarily used for contraception is IS NOT the only reason it is prescribed. It is also used in some cases to regulate a woman’s period and it is frequently prescribed for severe menstrual cramps. There are potential side effects, just like ANY other medication, and it is a doctor’s job to determine if it is appropriate for each individual patient. Potential side effects are only being brought into the discussion because this is something you (and others) disagree with. I don’t see anyone opposing any other medications because they have potential side effects, just this one.”

NFP has shown to also regulate a woman’s cycle - no chemicals necessary. And there’s a difference between side effects - like headaches, insomnia, restlessness, etc… versus the termination of a fetus. 2 VERY different “side” effects: one is not immoral, the other one is. So even if you are “regulating” your period, you are still unintentionally aborting fetuses - assuming you are having sex - because you DON’T know which eggs have been fetilized . NFP? No side effects!!!!

“It almost sounds as if you are suggesting that a solution to this problem is for employers to not provide health insurance. With the way the health care system is set up in this country, medical care is extremely expensive and health insurance is practically a necessity. People who are uninsured are in a very difficult position. Medical costs have a very real potential risk of bankrupting a person or a family. To speak as if health care is a privilege is sad indeed. So please, don’t make it out that any employer who provides health insurance at all should get a gold star.”

It’s not the government’s role to provide health insurance. Just because the free market costs of medical care are high, does not give permission for the government to interfere. Look what happened to the housing market. You think the housing problem was bad – which was caused by the government -  wait until Obamacare becomes fully effective!!! You think the cost of healthcare is bad now…

Also, contraception is not healthcare because pregnancy IS NOT a disease: It’s a NORMAL function of a woman’s body. Guess what? If you have sex and you get pregnant, then your body is working RIGHT!!!! The underlying issue here is that people - particularly unmarried people - want the right to have sex whenever they want without consequences. Can you abort STD’s from your body? NO!!! The only sure way that you can “prevent” pregnancy is either to a)abstain or b) be disciplined enough to have sex during the infertile periods.

Do you know that Planned Parenthood (PP) was started by a woman who wanted to eradicate the black community? In case you’re not aware, the majority of PP clinics are in the Black and Hispanic communities; they target these communities on purpose. This erasing of certain segments of the populations was practiced by the Nazi’s in WWII. Yet, Planned Parenthood is being funded by our tax dollars. And they are the largest distributors of contraception and abortions. Can you abort AIDS from your body?

“Also, contraception and abortions are two different things. Contraception prevents pregnancy; it does not terminate it. While I understand that both issues are important to the Catholic Church, they ARE two different things.”

No they are not because they both deal with the SAME 2 underlying issues: 1)Children are “burdens” and 2) being “Closed” to life. Those are the main 2 reasons why people use contraception, which are contrary to God’s design for couples and humanity. Abortion is failed contraception! The increase in abortions is directly proportional to the increase in the use of contraception: the more you use it, the higher the risk of it failing. Most of the women having abortions are also using birth control. The more you take away the “risk” of something, the more people will do it. So, contraception appears to take away the “risk” of getting an STD or getting pregnant. Yet, why is it that there are MORE STDs and MORE abortions? I thought contraception was supposed to “fix” that? I guarantee that if people waited to have sex until they were married, you would see a STRONG decrease in abortions and unwanted children. Also, adoption is a viable alternative if a person gets pregnant when they did not want to. Abortion is not the answer. God is in control of who gets pregnant, not us, because contraception is not 100%. Even women who have had their tubes tied and men who have has vasectomies have created life. Contraception does not protect you from sin.

“How’s this for an analogy: The Church does not believe people should use contraception. It teaches that people who have sex with contraceptives are sinning. It also teaches that gluttony is a sin, but is there anyone saying that religious-affiliated institutions should have the right to deny their employees medical care and prescriptions for obesity-related conditions that stem from gluttony? Should employers be allowed to deny pre-natal care to unmarried women because it teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin? Should they deny medical care to a person who has HIV or AIDS if they contracted it through extra-marital or homosexual sex? How Christian would that be? You can argue all you want, but all of these scenarios are much closer analogies than the parable of the ham sandwich.”

Glutony is not a mortal sin: it’s a venial sin. 2 different things. But, nice attempt at drawing a parallel. In dealing with people with HIV and AIDS, the Catholic Church was the FIRST organization in the FRONT lines in showing care and compassion - not the government. Hospitals were created by the Catholic Church. Also, Rachel’s Vineyard provides the MOST compassionate care to post-abortive women - not Planned Parenthood. It goes to show how merciful God is that He tells the Christians to care for those who HAVE sinned. How’s that for Christian compassion???

“Also, unless I am mistaken, the mandate would be that the health insurance plans COVER it, not provide it for free. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never gotten ANY prescription for free through my health insurance. There would be still costs/copays involved.”

There’s nothing for “free”. That’s the problem: covering it means that the Catholic Church – the employer – will have to PAY for it. So, they are being forced to pay for something that violates their conscience. And that is not allowed. Again, one does not need to work for a Catholic institution. Let me ask you this: as “bad” as the economy is, who you work for an escort service assuming you were having trouble getting a job - and if it violated your conscience?

Christine - Again, you go far afield on the subject of medical insurance.  We can discuss what is/is not included in health insurance, but any reasonable person should know that costs have skyrocketed, in part, because we ‘cover’ so much that is not medically necessary, like birth control and IVF treatments.  I am not talking about care for STI’s or HIV/AIDS, etc.  But WHY should we cover birth control pills, which are relatively cheap and pervasive??
By the way, I think we should not cover Viagra for men.  Why should the old goats, long past their sexual peak, be ‘propped up’ using our precious health insurance $$ resources?  Let the old guys go fishing with the grandkids, which is what older men should do, in my opinion!
.
I work with teens, and know that many, many girls are put on the pill to ‘regulate their periods’.  Well, you must know that irregular periods in adolescence are a hallmark of human development, not a disease, in most cases.  Mothers use the euphemism to justify, often unconsciously, the decision to neuter their girls, letting all the bad things follow from that - early sexual activity, and attending heartbreak.  Suicide in sexually active teens is rampant, and is a major indicator for depression and other ills.
.
I will pray unceasingly for this sick and sad and decrepit administration…

Quo Vadis - Excuse me, but whoever said I was on them? This is an issue I speak about on principle. And my partner you speak of? I’m sure my husband would gladly pay for them if it were right for us, but that is not the point. Condoms are not a solution for the other reasons the Pill is frequently prescribed. (This is a fact many are conveniently avoiding.)
I never said it would be outlawed, my point was that some here have said “just go get it somewhere else” like planned parenthood, etc. and I don’t feel women should have to go to a place other than their doctor for the Pill. And it is not “cheap,” we are talking about a prescription medication. And once again, it IS prescribed for reasons other than contraception.
And thank you for branding me a whore (I know you didn’t say the word, but you didn’t have to, the message was loud and clear) when I am simply speaking up for the right of women (with their doctors) to decide for themselves. And the fact is that if it were not covered by insurance (again, covered, not FREE) it has the potential to be prohibitively expensive, especially newer, low-dose versions. All this talk of “my partner” and getting treatment for my STIs. The fact that some people automatically equate speaking up on this issue with promiscuity is presumptuous and sad.

Rafael,

A couple of return comments.

Non-medical professionals do not get to decide what is and is not valid medical care. There are documented medical indications for marijuana in certain cases. This should not be abused, in the same way pain medication should not be abused, but just because you don’t like it does not make it an invalid form of healthcare. In a state where medical marijuana is legalized for cancer patients, etc., yes it should be covered just like any other physican prescribed medication.

While birth control is primarily used for contraception is IS NOT the only reason it is prescribed. It is also used in some cases to regulate a woman’s period and it is frequently prescribed for severe menstrual cramps. There are potential side effects, just like ANY other medication, and it is a doctor’s job to determine if it is appropriate for each individual patient. Potential side effects are only being brought into the discussion because this is something you (and others) disagree with. I don’t see anyone opposing any other medications because they have potential side effects, just this one.

It almost sounds as if you are suggesting that a solution to this problem is for employers to not provide health insurance. With the way the health care system is set up in this country, medical care is extremely expensive and health insurance is practically a necessity. People who are uninsured are in a very difficult position. Medical costs have a very real potential risk of bankrupting a person or a family. To speak as if health care is a privilege is sad indeed. So please, don’t make it out that any employer who provides health insurance at all should get a gold star.

Also, contraception and abortions are two different things. Contraception prevents pregnancy; it does not terminate it. While I understand that both issues are important to the Catholic Church, they ARE two different things.

How’s this for an analogy: The Church does not believe people should use contraception. It teaches that people who have sex with contraceptives are sinning. It also teaches that gluttony is a sin, but is there anyone saying that religious-affiliated institutions should have the right to deny their employees medical care and prescriptions for obesity-related conditions that stem from gluttony? Should employers be allowed to deny pre-natal care to unmarried women because it teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin? Should they deny medical care to a person who has HIV or AIDS if they contracted it through extra-marital or homosexual sex? How Christian would that be? You can argue all you want, but all of these scenarios are much closer analogies than the parable of the ham sandwich.

Also, unless I am mistaken, the mandate would be that the health insurance plans COVER it, not provide it for free. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never gotten ANY prescription for free through my health insurance. There would be still costs/copays involved.

Christine - What is your problem?  Nothing in this horrible HHS mandate situation will prevent you from getting contraception from your doctor, and it is relatively cheap.  Why should ANYONE have to pay for your birth control anyway?  Why not get your partner to pay?  Write a law to demand that! 
.
As I walk to the pharmacy counter in my town to pick up prescriptions, I have to walk through AN ENTIRE AISLE of condoms, whether I like it or not.  They are ubiquitous and inexpensive.  Nobody is outlawing your precious contraception pills!  And if you contract STI from your sexual activity, our (common) insurance pays for that, too.
.
I want to weep at the shrill, repulsive and embarrassing public statements by liberal women on this issue.  Mother Mary’s heart is pierced with sorrow.

Christine,

You don’t have to work for a Catholic institution. Although it’s not easy to find work, that’s not the employer’s fault. They have a service to carry out, which is healthcare according to their beliefs. Also, contraception is not healthcare. That’s the lie!!! Just because a person wishes to do with their body what they want, does not mean that an employer has to provide coverage for it. If a smoker wants to smoke marijuana, should the employer provide the marijuana? (There are those who are trying to pass off marijuana as healthcare). If anything, contraception causes MORE health problems - not prevents them. So, contraception is a health RISK. Employers DON’T have to carry health insurance for their employers. There are many organizations that opt out of this. The Catholic Church does not believe that a woman has the right to murder a child in her womb. And you speak about right: What about the rights of the unborn that abortifacients cause when they abort a fertilized egg?????? Who’s defending their rights???

As others have said, it is easy to find another deli (in this ridiculous analogy) it is not easy to find another job. We are not talking about personal food choices, we are talking about healthcare. For better or for worse healthcare is tied to employment. As someone currently looking for a job, I can attest that finding A job is difficult, forget being picky about who your employer is based on the potential restriction of certain forms of health care. Birth control is a prescription medication that is used for various reasons, one of them being contraceptive. It is utterly unfair for an employer to restrict access to healthcare prescribed by a doctor. The reason for the use of birth control is no one’s business except the patient and the doctor. This goes beyond freedom of religion (for the institution) and becomes the imposition of a set of beliefs on another group of people (the employees.) Since when are the freedoms of large institutions allowed to trample the freedoms of individuals? Individual citizens cannot help the fact that healthcare is tied to employment, nor can the help the fact that we live in a day and age where all kinds of medical care and services are very expensive. Buying a ham sandwich down the street is considerably less expensive than paying for a prescription medication out of pocket. There is no reason for an individual to be forced to follow their employers beliefs. Correct me if I am wrong, but the vast majority of employers do not provide 100% paid for health insurance. Just about all employers have at least a partial contribution by the employee. It is not the employer alone who pays for these health plans. Let them ease their conscience and say that the coverage for this particular service comes from the employee’s portion of the premiums and call it a day.

Also, it is also not a solution to “pick up “affordable” contraception EVERYWHERE. Go to Planned Parenthood, they hand them out freely.” A woman in the care of her physician should not have to go elsewhere to get a medication. There is such a thing as continuity of care and a woman’s own physician has the most comprehensive records and information about her health. There are possible side effects and a woman’s physician is in the best position to determine whether or not to prescribe birth control. Going to multiple medical establishments for something as simple as this is not in the best interest of the patient.

There were two female members on the ten member panel: Dr Allison Dabbs Garrett Vice president for academic affairs at Oaklahoma Christian University and Dr. Laura Champion the director of Calvin Coolidge College Health Services.  Of course when you do not agree with someone, they do not exist.  Let alone there gender.

To Ed who has far too much time and hate….peace of the Lord be with you.

Thank you for taking up the fight. This is not about contraception. This is not about women. This is Obama bullying the Catholic church. You can pick up “affordable” contraception EVERYWHERE. Go to Planned Parenthood, they hand them out freely. That is not the issue. Democrats always play the women/contraception card and as a woman I am tired of it. PLEASE people…stand up and fight. Do not give up.

“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” GK Chesterton

I’m supporting Catholics belief religious liberty.

Thank you Bishop Lori! Great article!!!

Bishop Lori,

We are happy that you are on the Ad hoc committee.  We need the help of all Catholics to defend our religious liberty and are grateful for you holy words and spirituality.  Obama admin. cannot push their beliefs on the rest of us.

If this is about “women’s healthcare” then why aren’t employers being forced to pay for the care of women who choose pregnancy and childbirth without co-pay (and higher premiums)???

Despite the truly horrifying implications of the Obama administration violating our constitutional rights, I do see a silver lining.  In this age of information, carcinogenic, and abortifacient contraceptives are FINALLY being exposed for what they are.  Not only are they NOT health care, but millions of Catholics are finally starting to face the truth and choose who they serve, and whether they want to actually ingest “human pesticides”.  The Bishops and pastors should have been keeping this rapacious “wolf” away from the flock by teaching how contraceptives violate souls and marriages.  As for religious liberty, I wonder how many “catholics” who thumb their noses at the teachings of the church will feel differently when the state mandates when they can or cannot have a child.

Our government has been paying for (mostly poor) people to get contraception and sterilization for decades, through Medicaid, etc., and has coerced thousands of (poor, sick, disabled) women to abort their pregnancies as well, (social workers often make the appointments for their ‘helpless’ charges). 

We’ve had enough social engineering and coerced eugenics!  Leave us alone!  And to the women who ‘need’ contraception, get it yourself.  There’s a whole aisle in the drug store for condoms, so cut back your smart phone/texting/mani-pedi costs and pay the money yourself.  We don’t want to pay for your dissolute sex life anymore!

Call me dull witted, but it seems to me that one of the reasons—not the only one to be sure—why the ham sandwich analogy does not apply is that neither now, nor at any time in the conceivable future, will taxpayer money be subsidizing kosher delis—or Italian delis for that matter—to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars a year.

When that starts happening, that would be the time to look into whether kosher delis, because they are accepting lots and lots—not just incidental amounts—of taxpayer money, shouldn’t consider putting ham sandwiches on their menus—assuming it was arguably an unreasonable or unfair hardship to get them elsewhere—and hiring non-Jews to prepare and serve them.  Much like if you are an Orthodox Jew you can hire a non-Jew to turn on your lights—and ballgame—on the Sabbath.

Really, Bishop Lori seems to be relying on O’Hannity reasoning for his analogies.

Now, though this will take a bit of a buildup, here’s a potentially more challenging analogy to twist your brain around.

The central argument against “artificial” contraception in Humanae Vitae is that human reason, complemented by but not authoritatively overridden by divine revelation, tells us that it is “intrinsically” immoral to fiddle with the God given rhythms of a woman’s “natural” fertility cycle.

Check the document if you don’t believe this is the argument – and the primary one. Here’s the link.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

While this natural law argument is repeated in various ways throughout the document, Sections 13-14 are the best place to find the natural law argument focused.  And, of course, look at Section 16 on “tak[ing] advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system,” also known as the rhythm method.

[And please note, for the purposes of this post I am excluding abortifacient pharmaceuticals, which, as a matter of fact, don’t particularly interfere with fertility rhythms broadly speaking, but basically only implantation after conception.

I do happen to think that such pharmaceuticals—not to mention surgical abortion itself—require separate consideration from the point of view of moral theology.  But I am not addressing that part of the problem here, leastwise because it would appear—though I am by no means 100% sure about this—that abortifacient pharmaceuticals were not even on the radar screen of Humanae Vitae in 1968 when Humanae Vitae was released.

That doesn’t mean that use of them is not also “against the natural law” and would be so argued by Paul VI if he were around to rewrite Humanae Vitae today.  I’m just making the point that the argument against abortifacient contraception would require a different sort of natural law argument, i.e., one involving a discussion of the legitimacy of homicide (in the descriptive, and not in the normative sense), an argument quite different from the one you find against “artificial” contraception, in the sense of The Pill, in Humanae Vitae.

By the way – and please indulge me – I like to refer to this natural law argument for the inherent evil of contraception as the Chiffon conception of natural law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8

Also note for the record, the Church’s natural law argument against artificial contraception as inherently evil is, in moral theology terms, stronger than its argument against homicide.  Thus, for example, while the Church has come out against capital punishment – after about two millennia of countenancing and sometimes participating in it – it has explicitly noted that capital punishment, unlike artificial contraception, is not inherently evil.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1970/20/7020705

And then there are those just wars.  But to give credit where credit is due, no matter how much dyspepsia it gave to those two great Catholics, Sean Hannity and Bill “Loofah” O’Reilly, it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who emphatically said that he did not regard pre-emptive wars generally, or the impending Second Iraq War in particular, to be examples of just wars.

]http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#ratzinger]

But enough of this excursus on abortifacients. To get back to the main point about artificial contraception circa 1968, in the clearly dominant sense of The Pill with which that Encyclical was concerning itself.

Humanae Vitae does, of course, in addition to the Chiffon argument, also provide consequential arguments against artificial contraception.  These are focused in Section 17 under the title “Consequences of Artificial Methods.”  These arguments have generally to do with how society, the family, marriage, respect for women, and the desideratum to keep Big Brother – in the form of secular government – out of the bedroom will likely go to Hell in a hand basket if the floodgates are opened up to artificial contraception.

But as important as these consequentialist arguments are in the economy of Humanae Vitae, they are, from a logical point of view, secondary to the Chiffon argument.  The cash value of this for moral theology purposes is that consequential arguments are not sufficient by themselves to declare a particular act as “intrinsically/inherently” evil, which Humanae Vitae has as its specific objective to do in the case of artificial contraception.

If you’re even tempted to gainsay what has just been said, think again about capital punishment and just wars, which, as terrible as they can be, do not rise to the level, at least for Catholic moral theology, of being inherently evil, as, by way of contrast, artificial contraception, at least according to the Chiffon argument, does.

To repeat then for final emphasis, the inherently evil/non-consequentialist argument in Humanae Vitae, the principal argument against artificial contraception, is the argument based on the Chiffon interpretation of natural law.  The consequential degeneracy of society that Humanae Vitae thinks – some would argue, prophetically – would follow if we took our finger out of the dike on artificial contraception is important, but not the conceptual heart of the matter.

Though I should note that Garry Wills has recently argued that, in effect, these consequentialist arguments are symptoms of the real “psychological” argument that underlies Humanae Vitae and the celibate hierarchy’s objection to artificial contraception.  But, as I imagine the wit and wisdom of Garry Wills is not all that appreciated at this site, I’ll just provide the link to Wills’ argument:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/10029-contraceptions-con-men

and move on to my own wrap-up.

So what about that analogy I promised you?

Well, take this challenge.

Go through the text of Humanae Vitae carefully.  And wherever you think you have spotted an instance of the Chiffon argument against artificial contraception – not abortion or sterilization – but the Chiffon argument against fiddling with “the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system” through the intervention of socially produced means—in this case pharmaceuticals, but pharmaceuticals are only one instrument among many possible instruments for man to presumptuously, and inherently evilly, fiddle with God’s plan—substitute the appropriate terms that refer to “the natural and immanent rhythms” of the bowels or the urinary tract – pre the imposition of that social engineering known as toilet training.

If this seems goofy beyond belief, think about the fact that the goofiness may be inherent in the original Chiffon argument against fiddling with “the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system,” and not in the fact that there does not seem to be an easy way to consistently distinguish between the socialization – for a “higher” purpose – of the “immanent” reproductive cycle, and the “immanent” bowel and urinary tract cycles that we were all born with – and which the squirrels on my porch and the birds of the air still enjoy, but which, fortunately, social planning intervened to alter by the time we were two or three, for most of us.

Seemingly not so inherently evil that sort of fiddling, eh?

But do have at it.  And don’t shoot from the hip or secondary sources.  Go to the original text.

The only other thing I would ask is that no one cite as his authority for why the analogy doesn’t work that he happens to know that it is in God’s plan that we not take a dump immediately whenever and wherever our bowels tell us it is time.  This may in fact be true.  But it would be unfair for those of you who have such privileged access to the mind of God to lord it over those of us who do not feel that we do.

I am really saddend by all the hate-speach directed at the author and at the Catholic church.  No one is forcing you to work at a Catholic operated entity.  If you do no like the policies therein, go work elsewhere.  It’s like the vegetarians demanding Burger King sell veggie brugers: don’t eat there!  Eat somewhere else or start your own restaurant.  I’m sure people are fuming comparing this, or the ham sandwhich to “women’s reproductive care” (a phrase I am not fully comprehending anyway).  Well, then you just don’t get it: IT is all about freedom and choice.  You would rather protest to the Gov’t and then have Big Brother impose its will on people and businesses.  It is not the Government’s job to pay for, care for, control, etc. your health.  God gave you one body, take care of it.  I thought contraceptive us was a private matter between a man and a woman??

To all of you people whining about how health care is being denied: since when did women NEED contraception? Pregnancy isn’t some sort of disease that must be eradicated.  If a person just wants to have sex, is that any reason for an employer to pay?  It’s like me going up go my boss and saying that he needs to pay for my new TV.  The whole point of sex is to make new little people. Why would a church have to pay for something that goes against the very purpose of a bodily function? *waits for flood of rage*

@Jim978
You are clearly better informed on the background information on the EEOC and HHS Regulations and Rulings.  So the Administrative branch has decided that contraception and abortifacients must be made readily available to insure women’s health.  There is little doubt of this position given the events of the past few weeks.  One portion of society believes that some action is compelling enough to limit the free exercise of religion and another portion believes differently.  There have been enough references to scientific fact and surveys to make the average head spin.  I do not see any additional “change” coming from the Administration and the Legislature would be tied up in knots trying to make a law so we have only the Supreme Court ultimately to make a decision that is constitutional and hopefully provides for the continuation of our civil society.  I am extremely opposed to the mandate without question.  Once we get our ruling we are left to make decisions of accepting the consequences of complying with the ruling or civil disobedience whichever way it goes.  As you point out with your last paragraph, one does not have to pay the insurance one can pay the tax penalty.  There are consequences that must be accepted.  It is unfortunate that political processes often require compromise between strongly held views that then forces people to make decisions of the ethics and morality of accepting the compromise.

I think this one will “leave a mark” on our country.  I am pulling for a ruling against the mandate without question but gearing up for the consequences either way.

This analogy is wrong for the current contraception debate. The government is NOT mandating that churches supply contraceptives to their parishioners or to anyone that comes to their institution. If you want an analogy to the current law it would be that a delicatessen that hires more than 15 employees cannot refuse to reimburse an EMPLOYEE’s travel expense if their meal included pork.  They don’t have to supply the pork.  They don’t have to have pork anywhere in their establishment.  But they can’t deny their employee’s right to eat pork elsewhere.

Our Church leaders should vigorously oppose ALL Intrinsic EVILS.  We do not get to pick & choose which commandments we will obey, do we ?  When the CINO Gov. of N.Y. fulfilled his promise to the homosexuals & had the gay-marriage bill jammed through, it only passed because of two N.Y. senators that switched their votes.  They to are CINO’s & both are “KNIGHTS of COLUMBUS” !  There was no outcry from the Chaplin of the Knights, Bishop Lori, then or since ???  Supreme was asked to evict these two heretics, again silence & inaction.  Many Knights resigned over this abomination.  Another slap in the face to every Catholic is the annual “Catholic Campaign for Human Development”, CCHD.  Our Bishops defend this fraud, telling us the money collected is for the poor when in fact it goes to numerous groups that are Pro-Abortion, pro-homosexual marriage & outright anti-Catholic & communistic.  They gave for instance, millions to ACORN who put the Abortionist in the oval office under the guise of the “seamless garment”, social justice, common-good garbage !  Being a Bishop is not easy, If one accepts the promotion, HE should be willing to strongly support every Church position, especially stopping the slaughter of BABIES !  By the way, those two CINO’s actually took a political contribution (BRIBE) from the Mayor of N.Y. to insure that disgusting bill passed, Judas still lives !!!!!!!

RE: Ceolfrid of Dealgancaester,“Forcing Catholics [sic] institutions to provide for contraception and abortion is not wrong because it violates the free exercise of religion: it is wrong because contraception and abortion are defined to be wrong by the Catholic Church.”
.
Actually, it is wrong on both levels. Yes it is wrong because God, through His Church, says it is. But the state does not make laws solely based on what God says; therefore, the Church must take action against the state based on the state’s own laws (just as Jesus used the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ own Scriptures - since some used only the Pentateuch while others used the full Septuagint - as the authority with which to hold them accountable for how they lived, etc.).
.
—————
.
RE: Everyone who buys into the deception that the Catholic Church doesn’t care about/honour women.
.
Based on whose definition? I have always felt respected as a woman by the Catholic Church. They respect my womanhood my femininity; they don’t expect me to act like a male in order to see me as equal to males. I am equal in dignity because I am human. But in the secular/pro-choice world the very things that make me a woman (and not a man) are not respected. I am told that I must act and dress like a man in order to be honoured, my fertility, my motherhood are not respected. Very deceptive indeed!
.
There are a multitude of Catholic women who are held up to both men and women as “models of Christ.” And of course it was a woman - not a man - whom God gave the greatest honour to by making her the mother of His Son!
.
Think about what you say/the opinions you hold. Mindlessly trusting and mimicing misinformed/biased/deceptive others won’t bring you any credibility.

The article is insulting to women, to Catholics, and to free people everywhere. Consider this: people’s health care isn’t a kosher deli. Still, let’s entertain the ludicrous story for a moment: if the kosher deli got tax breaks and other subsidies from the government, the argument falls apart: religious entities should pay their fair share of taxes. But remember, health care in the USA comes from the employer. There is little, if any, personal choice in one’s health plan. People must have health insurance with adequate coverage in this day and age, and adequate coverage is not a matter of religion. Not every employee of the Catholic church is Catholic, and even if they were, an individual’s conscience is between him and God. The Church does not have the right to force people not take medications prescribed for personal health because the Church defines one purpose of that medication as a sin. Birth control pills don’t prevent contraception if people don’t have sex, anyway - and there really is no way for the Church to know if people are having sex. The Catholic Church should refuse to sell, buy, or use alcohol, if the intent is to preserve life. People drink themselves to death every day; look at the commandment not to kill in that light. Bottom line: the Church has no right to take away free will: to do so contravenes God’s law and plan, by the Church’s own teaching. That is not what Jesus taught us about living rightly.

My daughters are both registered nurses. Neither works in a catholic hospital. They want to because the wages are higher, the benifits better and the general working conditions much better, even though they would not get birth control they never even considered it a big deal. If they use it or not I dont know and leave that between them and God. Why dont they work in catholic hospitals? The demand for health care professionals is so great that their existing employers give them pomotions or rasises to keep them. I believe teachers are in demand also. So my friends please dont worry about my daughters,they will be fine without you or the government trying to decide what is right for them. God bless you all any way.

Well, someone has to eat that part of the piggy. Even though Christians are not Jewish, I see no reason why we can’t also eat Kosher if we want to. This positively reeks of that story in Maccabees about the mom and her sons who refused to eat “tainted” food to save their lives.

This is one reason we Knights of Columbus love Bishop Lori!  Absolutely brilliant!  I want to see the film of the members’ faces as Bishop Lori spoke!

First, no one is forced to work for a Catholic institution. Second, if free birth control is so important, why not require the drug manufacturers to provide them to doctors or pharmacies free of charge, where they can be handed out like candy. Make planned parenthood provide free pills and ‘services’ without taking government or insurance money to pay for it. Seems fair to me—this way those who want them get them for free and those who don’t want them have no need to be involved.

There were women who testified. Do a little searching past your nose and you will find this, among others:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/02/the-women-that-testified-to-congress-that-planned-parenthood-missed.html

Disagree, but disagree based on truth, not lies perpetuated by planned parenthood.

Even aside from the infringing on our religious freedom, it’s also annoying me because I am already sterile due to a medical condition.  The government is going to make my medical insurance premiums more expensive, so that the insurance company will provide me with crap I don’t even need for “free”. Me, and all the other people who are already infertile. And this “free” reproductive health insurance will Not cover services that help fertility-challenged people who actually Want to have babies.  It only helps to prevent or destroy.

It’s not that we want the government to outlaw birth control.  It’s that we don’t want the government forcing people to buy it or provide it against their will.  Why should we be forced to buy Anything we don’t want?  Who is the government to tell a business that they have to give something to anybody who wants it for free? How is this even legal?  It’s not just about destroying religious freedom (though that is very serious). It’s also about the government taking power for itself that no government should ever have.

For those in favor of the mandate, the claim that “women’s health” is morally superior to the killing of an unborn child goes to show how far you are willing to go. Whether you agree with the Catholic Church or not - and their freedom to preach AND practice this - you need to look at this from the standpoint of moral superiority. Those in favor of the mandate are claiming that “women’s health” takes precendence over an unborn child’s rights. At least a woman can choose whether she wants to practice contraception or not. An unborn child who gets killed in his/her mother’s womb: Who’s standing up for their rights? What “choice” does he/she have? That’s why ALL issues go back to the right to life FIRST. That’s why it’s also FIRST in the Declaration of Independence. Also the Right to Life takes priority over the Freedom of Religion. ‘Cause without life, you have no other freedoms and rights.

Dick Morris made the wise observation that the left changed the issue from abortion to contraception because they know that they can’t win the battle on abortion. So, he said that the left made the issue that of contraception because they will have a more favorable chance of winning the issue on popularity. Most people do not object to contraception, as compared to the amount of people that object to abortion. In other words, what the underlying argument says is, “You can be in favor of contraception and be against abortion at the same time.” Most non-Catholic Christians are against abortion but practice contraception. Sadly, there are - let me stress - “baptized” Catholics that are also against abortion, though, practice contraception. So, the left has a “stronger” chance at accomplishing this objective if they can take the attention off of abortion and make it about “women’s rights, women’s health” via the “popular” vehicle - even among “98% of Catholic women” -  of contraception.

Finally, I feel that 2 very subtle points are being missed here. This arguement feeds right into the mentality that says CHILDREN ARE A BURDEN and that practitioners of contraception are essentially CLOSED TO LIFE. Contraception is the means to the end. This is the mentality of the CULTURE OF DEATH. Also, use of contraception is the ULTIMATE rejection of a woman and male because you are NOT accepting their fertility. You are in essence saying, “I love everything about you EXCEPT your fertility.”

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel, between Christ and Antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is therefore, in God’s Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously…”
Cardinal Karol Wotyla, 1976

@Steve961

You say, “The question here is what is the compelling need of the free society that must be protected for the government to impose a limitation on the free exercise of religion.”

The EEOC has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights prohibits discrimination based on sex (just like it prohibits discrimination based on race), and it has ruled that plans providing prescription coverage but excluding contraceptives are discriminating against women.  The Department of Health and Human Services has adopted the Institutes of Medicine’s Report on Women’s Preventative Health Services which found that “contraceptive education, counseling, methods, and services” are necessary for women’s health.  Clearly, the governement has found what it considers a compelling interest, promoting women’s health and ensuring nondiscrimination.

Furthermore, you state that, “A lack of free contraception and abortions is just not an essential right that the society must protect.”

I’m not sure why you conflate contraception and abortions.  I also wonder about the use of the term “free contraception.”  Would you take a different position if contraception was not free but required a copay?  Probably not.  But to the point, it is not contraception that is the right that must be protected.  It is the right to equal treatment and and access to health services.  Contraception is the means to an end (one you disagree with for reasons I fully understand), not the end itself.

Finally, no employer is required to provide contraceptive coverage ... or any other health care benefit.  The law gives employers an option.  An employer may provide specified benefits or pay a penalty tax.  The tax would be painful (to say the least), but paying a penalty doesn’t deny anyone the right to practice their religion ... unless their religion forbids the payment of taxes, of course.

Thank you Worthy Supreme Chaplain for writing this parable.  I will copy and paste it into an EMAIL to send to all.

Every single objector I have read completely misses the point, even when they show an ability to read.

No one is denied the ability to obtain & use artificial birth control by the fact that not everyone is willing to buy it for them. Whether it can be validly called “health care” or not doesn’t matter, as the analogous story attempts to illustrate.

The analogy attempts to paint a picture showing that no person (“A”) should be forced to buy something for another person (“B”), because a third person (“C”) thinks that the item in question is good, especially when the item in question is widely available & easily accessible.

The above analogy points out that pork is widely available & easy to get, regardless of what any particular person thinks of it. Orthodox Jews or Muslims who object to having to buy ham sandwiches for anyone who feels like having one is not making it impossible for anyone to obtain it.

Alcohol is widely available and easy to get, regardless of what any particular person thinks of it. Alcoholics objecting to being forced to buy beer for anyone who wants it are not “denying peoples right to get drunk.”

Birth controls are widely available & easy to obtain, regardless of employment or insurance status, regardless of what any particular persons think of them. Catholics opposed to it objecting to being forced to buy those things for anyone who wants them are not “imposing their beliefs on others.”

Instead of ambiguous calls of “birth control” how about a concrete example? Say condoms?

Condoms are widely used, available & easily obtainable. A pack of condoms costs under $5 - not a particularly onerous burden for someone determined to have “consequence free” sex.

A drug store owner morally opposed to condom use should not be forced to buy condoms to freely hand out to anyone who walks into the store and demands one.

If people want to do something I don’t like, my refusal to pay for that action isn’t a denial of their ability to do so, and even if I don’t care or like what someone else is doing, paying for their actions isn’t my responsibility.

If anyone is worried about other people not being able to afford “birth controls” then y’all are perfectly free to whip out your wallets to buy tons of condoms to hand out to all comers, or create foundations that provide grants to people looking for drugs & surgical sterilization.

I wonder what will happen when we get to the part (and it is coming) that the Government decides who has access to approved medical and surgical proceedures ( they will decide what those are too) and and you find that the rules say ( they will make those as well) you’re inelligible or the proceedure that you need is not approved? Well, you can appeal your case (to them of course) and the answer is “no”. I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is a constitutional protection. Can’t pillory the churches. All those musty, archaic guys want you to live. Write to your Congressman?Can’t live on promises. What will you do? Probably kick yourself in the butt (if you have the strength) for being so short sighted way back when you thought it was ok to take that freedom of religion bunch to the woodshed. I don’t think funerals are covered by the way.

I am sure when Jesus told the parable, “The Prodigal Son,” some people listening said the father in the story was a poor analogy as evidence for a loving God. To those who were honestly searching for truth, the story made perfect sense.

All of the women who are fighting for women’s “reproductive health” are hopped up on birth control and hormonal so, quite frankly, I am glad that no women were present. Regardless, this conversation should’nt be concerned with gender as it does take two to conceieve. It astounds me how women are so BLIND to how contraception enslaves them and turns them into objects to be used for sex yet they call that feminism. Where is the empowerment in being an object?

I am totally with the Bishops on this and I pray for their continued strength as they fight this battle but we can’t place all of them blame on them for the lack of formation and proper catechesis. The laity are not just a flock of dumb sheep - we have reason! We should also be educating ourselves and fighting the good fight too. I hope that we can use this as a teachable moment on the beauty of sex within marriage and the dignity of the human person.

love this article

The whole, apparent, resistance of the Church to the HHS mandate for Catholic institutions to provide contraception and abortion is, in my opinion, based upon a false premise.  Forcing Catholics institutions to provide for contraception and abortion is not wrong because it violates the free exercise of religion: it is wrong because contraception and abortion are defined to be wrong by the Catholic Church.

thank you Bishop Lori.  i have know this “accommodation” was a lie but could not come up with the reasons.  this helps most definitely clarifies it for me.  i hope it helps clarify it for our secular government.

Dear Bishop Lori, first let me manifest that I am Roman Catholic and that I also firmly oppose a Government law or mandate that in essence intrudes upon matters of Catholic faith or dogma.  However, I fear that your analogy is essentially ill-begotten, ill-conceived and poorly contrived, and is in logical terms merely an unfortunate, senseless and counterproductive rhetorical ploy.  The Catholic Church can by no stretch of what apparently can only be your own particular imagination, or in any other consistently valid way, be construed as a Kosher Deli nor can Catholic Dogma or Teaching conscionably be compared, even if figuratively, as pork meat.  This seems to me to be a patently ludicrous analogy that stems from a mere figment of your own imagination.  On its face value your argument, if it can called an argumnent, is stlightly preposterous and in no way instrumental in combating effectively the law that is being proposed.  I sincerely hope that in future you would try to frame your thoughts or arguments in opposition to this law in the form of coherent, rational discourse and valid argumentation and not, in what appears to be a patently condescending manner, as established truth or God-given revelation in the form of poorly framed parables premised on severely flawed pseudo-analogies. I believe you do no great service whatsoever to the Church or to me personally as a practicing Catholic who stands in firm opposition to what is tantamount to an objectionable governmental intrusion into matters of Catholic faith, morals and practice.  Most respectfully.

I am an independent woman, a Catholic, a mother, and I find it absurd to think women believe free acess to birth control is our “right”. What about the rights of unborn children, infact why can’t the government have instituted major tax breaks or reward women for having children, for promoting life. Since birth control has existed, nothing, I repeat nothing good has come from it. In fact, divorce rate, infedilty, abortion, deprssion, and abuse are all analogous in growth with the growth of availabilty of the pill. Ask any sociologist, these are not religious facts, just facts.

I have just forwarded this to a good Jewish friend, who I’ve known for more than thirty years.  As a lawyer, she will probably argue that contraception is ‘health care’, not a good analogy for pork, etc., but I say this is an apt analogy for what Obama and company are trying to do to us.  They are now going after the Catholics, (an easy target when you consider the apostasy of Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius), but…

they will go after the Jews next, you can be sure…

We need to oppose the contraception mandate, and put Obama out of the White House this year!

Thanks, Bishop,
The was an excellent statement. I’m astounded however at the comments here
against the Bishop.
Why are women and ‘reproductive services’ singled out for special treatment? How aren’t diabetes medicines or heart medicines and even vitamins ‘mandated’ by this government? At least they have real health benefits and preventitve cares usefulness. I don’t see why women should be given these free and insurance companies forced to pay for them( with the premiums from their customers).
There seems to be ulterior motives here by the government I thinking. and why is Planned Parenthood treated like the 4th branch of government for this administration? they seem to have to approve everything first before this administration can act. Women buy your own pills or stop having sex. Also why aren’t condomns paid for as well by insurance companies? is this administration sexist?

Eight holy men in a room discussing restricting women’s access to contraception…. awkward visual.  Restricting the hearing to men and then deflecting it to an abstract “religious freedom” distraction when the only material effect of this is to restrict woman’s rights - disaster.  Obama just lucked out - the GOP is trying to roll the clock back to 1955 - he will simply ignore conservative christian male demo and energize the vote of independent woman,  SuperPACs will have a field day with visuals of this hearing.

Yeah, the women I know really like it when a celibate-childless unmarried middle-age cleric compares their individual rights to a ham sandwich.

The Catholic Church has the right to excommunicate (CCC#2272) these heritics and should do so that is if… money is not the main throust of the church.  Pelosi, sebilius et.al. need to be called out.  Abortion is according to the Catechisim of the Catholic Church (CCC)is EVIL (CCC#2270) also supporting EVIL makes the individuals equally responisible (CCC# 1868).  Jesus even indicated that there is a special place in HELL for those that lead his sheep astray. It’s like the old story about “Patrick going to Confession and ‘said he took a rope from Mrs. O’Mally the priest said that wasn’t too bad just return the rope Patrick didn’t mention that their was a cow on the other end” bad confession right.

If anyone is interested in seeing the video of Bishop Lori’s testimony, I have posted it on my blog:

http://catholic-video.blogspot.com/

Or you can watch it on Vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/36914640

Keri,

You asked:

“And Bishop Lori, does the delicatessen receive a large proportion of its income in the form of payments and subsidies and tax breaks from the federal government?”

This question is irrelevant, because the HHS contraception mandate applies to Catholic institutions regardless of whether they accept any government funding.  For example, Christendom College (a Catholic college in Virginia) makes a point of not accepting ANY government funding of any kind.  And yet they too would be subject to the HHS mandate.

Given the choice between insurance that covers dental care and insurance that covers birth control, I will take dental care in a heart beat. But no employer is required to cover dental care. (And if you do bet it, most dental care coverage is pretty awful.)

As a mom of 7, my question to some of you is this, how does having an abortion improve a woman’s health? Also, how is it that doing something that our bodies are naturally made to do, such as get pregnet and carry a child full term, deteriorate a woan’s health. I mean the whole agruement behind the contraception madate is the improvement of women’s healtcare. How does not having a baby improve a woman’s health?

Every analogy has a weakness in that it is not the situation at hand.  An individual can easily argue holes into the discussion.  The post by Jim978 is valid in the discussion about limitations on constitutional rights.  Of course artificial contraception is a violation of fundamental views of the Catholic Church but that is really a different discussion.  Civil laws such as the Constitution are made so we can all get along in a civil society.  This does mean that no right or freedom can be considered absolute for the obvious reason that my free exercise of my right may harm another failing to maintain a civil society.  Analogies like the kosher deli are useful for framing arguments but we ultimately have come back to the need for a civil society versus anarchy or despotism. 

The question here is what is the compelling need of the free society that must be protected for the government to impose a limitation on the free exercise of religion.  Free access to contraception an abortive services is not compelling enough.  The Church teaches indirectly that we are all free to chose sin.  The Church by its defined role exists to teach us what to do to avoid sin and live eternally with God.  If an individual elects to place their soul at risk by chosing abortion there is a limit on what they can be made to do.  That is a huge leap from the government saying not only are people free to choose a sin but you as a Church or Catholic body must pay for this.  “Discrimination due to race” is clearly a harm to the civil society and nay perceived freedoms to do so must be limited by government action.  A lack of free contraception and abortions is just not an essential right that the society must protect above the right to a free exercise of religion.

My Mother to Thee I come

This is NOT a brilliant analogy, clever and cute though it might be.  No one’s asking that contraceptive devices be available for people to pick up at the front desk as you would pick up a ham sandwich from the deli counter. 
And Bishop Lori, does the delicatessen receive a large proportion of its income in the form of payments and subsidies and tax breaks from the federal government?

This is the perfect argument against the HHS mandate! This is a secular argument for the secular public square.

There is almost no possibility that the HHS mandate will go through. Eventually, Supreme Court will abolish it. Obama’s a smart guy. He’s taken some classes at a law school, I think. He should know this. This mandate he’s proposing will only alienate people who would vote for him. His goals will not be accomplished. He sets himself up for his second 9-0 Supreme Court opposition. Has he become an idiot? Why does he do this?

In any case, I’m a committed secularist! Obama is an anti-secularist: he supports a decided religious/anti-religious agenda, and this is against the principles of secularism. I cannot in good conscience vote for him.

I believe contraception to be the greatest evil ever visited upon mankind. It’s cost in blood and treasure is simply incalculable. One must be a moron to consider it “health care.”

The ignorance of some of the respondents to this article astounds me; to have little or no idea what an analogy is and its usefulness in examining the validity of an argument for another issue. The issue here isn’t whether “women’s health” is analogous to a ham sandwich, it is whether the individual’s conscience rights are analogous in both cases. Go take a course in Aristotelian Logic and then come back and make the case that there is no similarity. In my view, the analogy is spot on.

This analyogy falls apart for me when I consider the deli is a business. It pays taxes on its profits, unlike the Catholic Church. It does not ask to be exempt from property taxes, income taxes and other taxes in order to exercise religious beliefs. If charities are given exemption from taxes, in part because they relieve the government of some of its burderns, and the government has determined everyone is entitled to healthcare, seems to me the organization should be required to provide healthcare or give up its charitable status.

“Tell me, if 38% aren’t using the pill, and another 17% are sterile by medical necessity or choice, why is no one questioning the 98% statistic parroted by so many?”

They are referencing to the “EVER USED” statistic on page 5, so the reference is indeed accurate.  Here is snip:
“Note that virtually all sexually experienced women have used some method of contraception: 98% in 1995 and 2002, and 99% in 2006–2008.._”

The reason was that is relevant is the woman will judge this against their entire life experienced and not one year. 

I stand corrected on not realizing it was the Bishop using the Kosher parable and not one of he other men. But I still don’t see why he did not simply explain the Catholic reasoning on BC as that IS what this is about and why he is there.  The direct INTENDED effect of Congressman Issa wil be to restrict equal American women’s access to contraception based on place of employment and not to impose dietary restrictions.

Dear Bishop Lori,
I add my voice to Wesley Vincent’s also humbly asking you to please consider overturning your previous acceptance of the state mandate to administer Plan B in all CT Catholic hospitals. I and other faithful pro-life Catholics in Connecticut have been praying for this since 2008. I too will support you.
Thank you.

FANTASTIC!  Thank you!  Stopping life from starting is not health care and killing isn’t either - where did America get the idea that killing is OK in the first place? If someone insists on preventing Americans from BEING, they can just go down the road for their free stuff, and not push their anti-life views and ideas on God-loving people who want His will to be done.  The truth is the truth no matter what and this article speaks the truth!

Imagine that Rick Perry were elected President. Imagine that he thought the 2nd Amend. meant that everyone had the right to carry a gun everywhere. He gets a national conceal/carry law passed.  Then he decides employers should pay for the bullets, and enforces that decision.  Could the Pres. make such a decision?  Would their be an outcry? How would that suit?  What is the difference?

ANYONE WHO IS FOR ABORTION IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. IF YOU ARE A CATHOLIC AND CONTINUE TO THINK THAT KILLING BABIES IS OK, YOU NEED TO GET TO CONFESSION, AND ASK FOR GOD’S FORGIVENESS

Bp. Lori, if you read this, please know that I appreciate your appearing before Congress today to stand up for our Catholic faith.  Thank you for serving our Church and for standing up for our beliefs.

May God continue to bless you.

@Jim978
To briefly summarize the constitutional issue: if a law implicates a fundamental right, as it does here (i.e. free exercise; perhaps also expression, speech, and privacy) it will be evaluated under the highest level of constitutional review, “strict scrutiny”. To survive, the law must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored, meaning it must be the least restrictive means of bringing about that state interest.
The interest here seems to be increasing access to a “preventative” service. The problem is, you don’t have a right to free healthcare, let alone free birth control. While promoting reproductive rights of women may be a compelling state interest, the rule isn’t narrowly tailored because there are other ways to increase access to affordable birth control for women who want it without violating the rights of their religious employers. In no way is the rule necessary to promote the interest.
So, this mandate is clearly unconstitutional, and religious groups will have a great case when this goes to trial (that is, if Obamacare isn’t overturned on the whole by the Supreme Court in the meantime). You assert that no employer is required to provide health care, however you fail to recognize that the penalty for not providing the health care mandated by the government would cripple most businesses. I myself am an employer, who because of my religious convictions, will not provide a health insurance plan for my employees that covers services which are morally objectionable to my Catholic faith. I will not fall in the parameters of Obama’s narrow exemption for the smallest of employers who won’t be required to provide coverage to their employees. So, since the constitution exists to protect me in this situation (the marginalized minority), do I have an appeal or do I have to “get with the times”?

Catholic Mothers and Dads, I beg of you, in spite of what may be many generations of your family serving our country valiantly and honorably in our armed services, please do earnestly and prayerfully consider whether you would want to see your young son or daughter enter our country’s military in these present days, under our present Culture of Death regime.

Because, Mothers and Dads, at the stroke of a pen, any U.S. President can authorize anything he wants. He can roll over the Church. He can order the torture of prisoners or the mistreatment or even killing of non-combatants in a combat zone - civilians, for instance. And this spells disaster not only for the victims, but for the unfortunate young U.S. military recruit who receives the order to commit an atrocity. Because once that law goes into effect, his commanding officer can lawfully order your son to commit an atrocity against a civilian, against a prisoner, in violation of his conscience and in violation of the law of God.

But because these atrocities will have been authorized according to the law of the land, and your son will manfully refuse to obey an order to commit them, he will be disgraced and punished, and there will be no recourse for him. And as you can see from the comments of many on this thread, there will be little sympathy for him from the increasing number among his fellow Americans who think as Orcs. (“Might makes right!” “Do as your told!” “Follow the orders of your lawful betters!”; “How dare you to think?”)

Your son will go to prison, and will receive a dishonorable discharge that will follow him for the rest of his life.

I am proud of the service of my late father, both my grandfathers, my uncles, one of whom died in the line of duty. But they all served in an United States that had not yet gone over to the Dark Side.

If I had a son or daughter of military age, I would do all in my power to keep them as far from any present-day government enterprise as the East is from the West.

“They can offer a plan that provides certain enumerated benefits (including contraception) or they can pay a tax instead.”

It’s not a “tax”; it’s a fine, and the cost of paying the fines will quickly drive the Catholic-run entities out of business.

That’s like saying, “they can offer contraceptives and abortifacients or they can be closed down.”

I think I will start up a Catholic-run business a bookstore - cafe and call it “Saint Jerome’s Bookstore and Cafe”. I will comply with each and every legal and insurance requirement that Mao-Tse Obama and his Culture of Death crew comes up with. And I will conduct a mandatory monthly meeting of 100% of my employees, with the most fire-and-brimstone-ingest fire-and-brimstone Catholic preacher that every came across the face of the Earth, to preach against. . .  well, against what the Culture of Death loves and gotta have.

Contra and killing babies.

In fact, the job interview will include a video about just these topics. And hand-outs.

I think all Catholic operations ought to do just that.

Throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, it seems many bishops and pastors didn’t want to talk about this. Now those chickens are coming home to roost. Now, by God, Catholic business owners may go down, but if they do go down, it won’t be without preaching what the pastors should have been preaching from the Church pulpits all these years.

We’re takin’ it to the streets!

I still can’t believe how many Catholics voted for Obama in 2008.  Well, here is one of the many outcomes folks.  Happy?  Lesson learned? 

Probably not.

@Rover Serton: Really, no women leaders in the Catholic Church? Research Mother Angelica and Mother Theresa for starters. How many awesome devoted directors of religious Ed are female? Youth ministers, musicians, etc. What is your definition of leadership? I don’t know what the average Catholic believes, but it is irrelevant: If a truth is believed by nobody, it is still true. If a lie is believed by many - it is still a lie. The Catholic faith is not a democracy, it is a kingdom. Contraception is inherently disordered and always will be. God Bless.

I stand corrected, I missed that the bishop was using the Jewish deli as his example.  Although that does not help much. Eight men and no woman.  The picture has already been picked up used to make the point that eight conservative males were allowed to testify while several woman were excluded. The point of this hearing was to deflect a contraception issue into to a hot button election year religious freedom issue. The ONLY thing at stake really is woman equal access to reproductive healthcare with this regulation.  No Jewish deli will be affected.
Congressmen Issa is was afraid of hearing from woman.

@Loud,

Of course birth control can be obtained in other places and doesn’t need to be provided the employer.  The same is true of every other medical service.  No one has a right to employer provided health insurance and no employer is required to provide health insurance.  There is no mandate for employers to provide contraceptives.  What the law say is that employers have a choice.  They can offer a plan that provides certain enumerated benefits (including contraception) or they can pay a tax instead.  Taxes are never popular and you may disagree with this tax, but while providing access to contraceptives may violate the conscience of some it doesn’t violate any religious principle I am aware of.  I’m pretty sure that’s what “render unto Caesar” was all about.

Keep in mind also that constitutional rights are not absolutes.  Remember that despite the first amendment, it’s still illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.  The same is true for the free exercise of religion, especially in the area of employment law.  If business owners are members of the Christian Identity movement which believes that only white poeple have souls, are they free to discriminate in hiring by excluding anyone who is not white?  Of course not.  You may believe they should be able to discriminate, but there are laws that prohibit an employer from discriminating based on race (even based on religious beliefs) and those laws have been upheld by our courts.

When they say it isn’t about money, it IS about money.  Whey they say it ins’t personal, it IS personal. When they say it isn’t about contraception, that it is about “religious freedom”, it IS about conception. 

To the outsider looking in, it appears the Catholic church is, once again, attacking women.  No reproductive freedom, no Women leaders, no women talking in church (2nd timothy speaking). 

Sorry, the HHS mandate is not rejected by the average catholic or the average ham sandwich.

My goodness the our detractors could have benefited from a Catholic education. Reading for understanding is so very important.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf
This is a 2 year study by the CDC published in 2010.  Look at Figure 4 on page 15. It tells quite a different story than the 98% of women using the pill so often quoted by the Obama administration and the media.  Tell me, if 38% aren’t using the pill, and another 17% are sterile by medical necessity or choice, why is no one questioning the 98% statistic parroted by so many?

Bishop Lori,
Thank you so much for standing up for the rights of your flock. YOU ROCK!

NH,

It dosen’t matter how hard it is to obtian a job, birth control can be obtained in other places, it dosen’t need to be provided by the employer. So your argument falls short there.

And first of all, we have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to the free exercise of our relgions. Any other subsequent law MUST BE MADE WITHOUT CONTRADICTING any of the constitutional rights, this one included, or it is INVALID(the term for this is “unconstitutional, in case you libral weirdos didn’t know). ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE/ADD AN AMEMDMENT, so unless it is officially amended BY CONGRESS to remove our right to the free exercise of religion (which is an evil thing that I pray never happens, it opens people up to a host of trouble for anyone who has beliefs) then this law has no power.

I’ve often thought of the Jewish deli analogy myself.  But everyone knows that a good Jewish deli isn’t going to serve ham.  Catholics have been using contraception for years—and everyone knows it, yet the Bishops have stood by and done nothing—and everyone knows it.  If you abuse your religion, no one will have respect for your religion, and you will loose what you have.

Veskebjorn, get a life.

I appreciate Bishop Lori’s courage and effort here.  With the exception of women who use it to help with certain hormonal imbalances, I still I’m left shaking my head that “the Pill” is considered “medicine.”  By definition, medicine is “a drug or other preparation used for the treatment or prevention of DISEASE.” It seems sad and perverse to view children as a “disease” that needs to be prevented.  It’s little wonder that so many essentially consider abortion to be “back up contraception”.

“The Pill” is classified as “Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. The American Cancer Society website has published that list, where the pill ranks along side asbestos, coal tar, benzene, and tobacco products.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

The Pill increases the risk of liver cancer and cervical cancer.

And another recent study just showed that “the Pill” greatly increases the risk of an aggressive form of breast cancer:

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.short

There are other significant negative effects such as those documented at length as well, even in Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste

http://www.viewzone.com/estrogen.html

Why is the we as Catholics unwilling to take on the debate about Contraception and focus just on Religious Liberty?  Religious liberty is important don’t get me wrong.  Oral Contraceptive are harmful for women, marriages, and families—science confirms this.  We can win the debate!  There is a sufficient alternative and solution—- Let us promote Natural Family Planning—which regulates births wonderfully and respects human dignity but it takes virtue. We have a crisis of Faith thus virtue in our culture.  Maybe our bishops and priest are the wrong ones to teach Natural Family Planning?  I think we have a vocation crisis of concecrated women.  This is not exactly the Church’s fault—we have a culture that discourages authentic womanhoon e.i seeing motherhood and pregnancy as a disease.  I invision a religious order of concecrated women in habits doing parish missions teaching Natural Family Planning to couples.  Wow that would change the Church and the culture!

As an Orthodox Jew who came into the Church in 2010, I applaud the Bishop’s clever and effective analogy. In our home, we still observe kashrut (Jewish dietary laws)because my wife, the daughter of a rabbi, continues her Jewish faith. I spent too many years avoiding pork to be interested in it now, and I abstain from it out of respect to my spouse. It is easy for me to find a law requiring pork in a kosher deli (not many of those around any longer) as offensive as it is to think that our federal government would require Catholic institutions to support artificial birth control and abortions. What happened to many of the kosher deli, after they compromised on kashrut, would surely happen to Catholic institutions that knuckled under to this HHS ruling. Even if 90% of Jewish people eat pork (not the reality at all) it would still be against Orthodox doctrine. If just 30% of Catholics attend Sunday’s Mass, should we end that rule as well? Maybe it is easier for me, a Catholic with a Jewish background to see how the HHS measure is an affront to religious freedom when you use pork as an example.

dch,
Do you even know what you’re talking about?  Lori isn’t Jewish.  You don’t even have to know how to read to know that.  Did you even look at the picture?

Really? Is this even valid? NO. If a deli doesn’t serve ham, go elsewhere. If your employer doesn’t offer you the healthcare you need, it’s not so easy to find another job. This is completely ridiculous and should be a non issue. Women deserve access to healthcare, some stogy old priest should not have the power to restrict it.

I do not understand how anyone can back this argument. Yes, a deli should not be required by law to serve pork, because if consumers want pork, they can go to another deli and get it. Our healthcare system is foolishly tied to employment. Thus, a consumer of healthcare does not have the freedom to simply use a different healthcare provider if the one provided by her work does not cover contraception. I agree that a church should not have to pay for services that it does not condone, BUT since the individual freedoms of American citizens are directly tied to these services, I would rather have the church burdened than the individual citizen. Move to cut the link between employment and healthcare, and then this will not be an issue.

I agree wholeheartedly with Bishop Lori’s arguments and support all the bishops in their effort to overturn this mandate. I pray they will continue to fight and do whatever it takes to never buckle to the pressure of the government as the Church seems to have done in several states.
I must say that I have heard this analogy before today, and something truly saddens me: What is it about our government that we must be reduced to comparing a child to a piece of meat in order get them to listen?

With prayers for the strength of our leaders and in union with Christ,
Lisa

I like the analogy. I will start to draft my list of health and educational services that I don’t want to pay for and that I don’t want anywhere near me. I hope Lori will be good enough to speak on my behalf.

larrytanner.blogspot.com

That hearing had NINE MEN and ZERO women. 
The big joke was this Jewish guy talking about lunch meat to AVOID the real issue at hand. So why the hypothetical?   
This IS ONLY about contraception and limiting woman’s rights and freedon - its not a hypothetical.  Nobody is trying to restrict lunch.  LOL

Recycling a old women’s group slogan: a ham sandwich has the same relationship to women’s reproductive health care as a fish has to a bicycle.

Lori’s comments reflect the church’s contempt for its flock, almost all of whom are in open rebellion against the dictates of the church, including contraception, divorce, extra-marital sex, masturbation, and much more. Please also note that Lori is part of the Council of Bishops, which last year opposed the Affordable Care Act in a manner which made clear that the council was opposing the Bishop of Rome’s advocacy of free, universal healthcare.

The question of the line separating the religious freedom of a group and the religious freedoms of individuals who are not members of that group is a settled question in U.S. law. In 1990, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most right-wing justices in history since the late, unlamented, Chief Justice Taney, wrote the majority opinion in “Employment Division v. Smith.” Scalia’s decision says religious liberty is insufficient grounds for exemption from laws. Scalia said, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Few doubt that the same reasoning must apply to women’s health care.

Finally, the same or similar mandates already apply in 28 states to religious groups. In 8 of these states, even the churches themselves must make contraceptives and abortions freely available to their employees. Why have the hierarchs waited till now to object so vehemently? My guess is that Rome, having lost all of Europe and now even Ireland to other religions or secularism, is trying to maintain some political authority in the Americas.

I regard this effort as doomed. I am pleased that these old men are making it, however, because so many U.S. citizens have been ignorant till now of the contempt and loathing in which they are held by the Church of Rome.

A right to eat ham sandwiches (which I frequently exercise) is no way contingent upon finding somebody else to pay for it or compromised by anybody’s refusal to do so.  There is a right to eat pork, not an entitlement.

We might also make the analogy:
1.) Alcohol is a legal drug that we are learning can have health benefits.
2.) Many people drink beer, even violating the tenets of their particular religion to do so.
3.) Since beer is nearly universal and the government has an interest in promoting the health (and happiness) of its citizens, all employers should provide home delivery of beer to their employees as part of the health reform.
4.) Churches with religious teaching against beer can provide their employees with a gift card for the liquor store instead of actually providing beer, but organizations that do anything besides pray are not exempt.
5.) No employer will be forced to actually drink the beer.
6.) The refusal of anyone to deliver beer to my doorstep necessarily limits my access to beer and infringes upon my religious liberty to drink beer, no matter that the grocery store down the block has plenty of it available for purchases.

Of course this is entirely absurd and I should buy (or better yet, make) my own beer if I want to, but why is not not absurd when “beer” is replaced by “birth control”?

Dear Bishop Lori,

Thank you for going before the committee this morning and representing the case for religious freedom with great clarity and moral force. May God have mercy upon all of us and protect all of the freedoms we have enjoyed in this nation of ours - beginning with yours.

Warm regards,
Susan - member of the LCMS

Dear Bishop Lori,
It is my understanding that the bishops of Connecticut agreed to a state law similar to the HHS mandate resulting in Catholic Hospitals effectively distributing morning after pills. Will you and the other bishops of Connecticut revisit and overturn the acceptance of that mandate? We will support you.

Good analogy. Let the counter-arguments begin!

-Observer from Canada.