Timothy Dolan: Bishops and Obama’s White House not working out “wrinkles” on mandate

Correction, BishopSean, I meant Luke 11, 46-52. These are verses which echo the Book of Job, I think, in warning us not simply to rehearse inherited judgments about good and evil, but to keep our minds open to new ways of understanding the past and to receiving anew the Gospel itself. The texts sow many seeds, many meanings, more than a single truth, according to the questions with which we approach them, and while truth is unchanging, our questions change with the times.

Hi BishopSean. Per the US Constitution, "tolerance" is enough. Christians sometimes object that we should regard those who are different with neighborly love, not just tolerance. But I value tolerance because we simply do not KNOW enough about what sin is, whereas we must agree on basic values, especially freedom of individual choice. Without free will, there is neither sin nor virtue but only coercion. IF the churches adopted tolerance, they would embrace gays and feminists and draw them in to worship and spiritual journeys within their communities. Christian love stops short of moral judgment about individual souls. Whenever we privilege moral judgment, we exclude some from the graces of community and we narrow our vision to the "like-minded." I think Christians yearn for some new revelation to adjust inherited antipathy to equal participation of women and gays. That revelation may emerge from the witness of Christian communities that include gays and women even as ministers or priests. So, I suggest, we do not yet know that "tolerance becomes the last virtue for a totally corrupt society." If and when sure knowledge comes, it must find us all standing together and listening, ready to help whoever needs help. The signs of the times tell me that much: full inclusion first and only then full understanding. I think Luke 11:41 has it right on tolerance.

The bishops have been after President Obama since he was nominated. Their disgraceful behavior over the commencement at Notre Dame was reported world wide. This is all politics and their pronouncements carry no moral weight whatsoever. Why don't they just go back to protecting child rapists!

Hi, Eiriamach. I'm grateful for your contributions to dialogue. I note you wrote about “the sign of the times.” In Vatican II, it meant that the Church should work with and learn from modern world. Jesus used the phrase “sign of the times” in Mt. 16:3, 24:1, etc. However, another sense of “sign of the times” that doesn’t refer to Messiah’s arrival and Kingdom. The sign (spirit) of our time (Age) is not that of the Spirit of God. It involves: tolerance, meaning not accepting differences but rather to not be judgmental. Thus tolerance becomes last virtue for a totally corrupt society. But Romans 12:2 says "be not conformed to this world." It means Pragmatism, meaning the “mass mind” rules and that Christians have no right to go out into all the world, except to tell the world it is perfectly OK. It involves LAWLESSNESS, meaning distain for legitimate authority—even spiritual authority (Acts 23:1-5). And it means Self-Centeredness. Humanism touts individual self-expression and self-fulfillment as life's supreme goal. “But when Christ calls a person, He calls him to come and die.” (Bonhoeffer). Regards.

Gearoid writes, "Now this has set an unhealthy precedent which has set all the major religions in the US on a combat footing and coalitions are being formed to oppose it." I've read through the lists of signers of Cardinal Dolan's letters to the Obama administration. It seemed to me that in addition to RCC bishops and priests, a few orthodox rabbis, the signatures were those of evangelical clergy. I did note that no Episcopalian signed Dolan's letters, although one breakaway North American Anglican bishop did sign. It is far from true that clergy are rushing to support the USCCB's anti-contraceptive-insurance for workers and anti-marriage equality for gays initiatives. The impact of Cardinal Dolan's political activities has been to clarify the conservative-reformist splits among the Christian denominations in the USA. In other words, greater polarization within the Body of Christ--moving further apart is not an edifying ecumenical outcome for Christians.

@Gearoid4, on contraception and abortion statistics, no. Some unplanned pregnancies result in abortions, but women who cannot afford birth control cannot afford abortion. A significant number are criminal rapes and unreported rapes and incest, and some are because of non-viable fetuses. It is important to note that one reason the bishops' anti-contraceptive campaign has much opposition is that it makes their anti-abortion campaign look hypocritical. Nicholas Kristof in Nov 3 NY Times: "Contraception already prevents 112 million abortions a year, by U.N. estimates. The United Nations Population Fund is a bête noire for conservatives, but its promotion of contraception means that it may have reduced abortions more than any organization in the world. Republicans are seeking to cut more money from global family planning—which, in poor countries, would mean more abortions and more women dying in childbirth. Conservatives have also sought to slash Title X Family Planning programs within the United States. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that in a year these domestic programs avert 973,000 unintended pregnancies, of which 406,000 would end in abortions. Guttmacher calculates that these family-planning centers in the United States actually save taxpayers roughly $3.4 billion annually that would otherwise be spent on pregnancies and babies."

Ethos and rules must be relevant to the occupation: medical ethics, privacy of client records, etc., and government rules for employment: safety standards, non-discriminatory treatment, etc. Insofar as a hospital is Catholic-owned, I'd expect its ethos to derive from the beatitudes and love of neighbor--heal the sick and injured and comfort the dying, for instance. Willing parishioners fund hospitals and schools? No, these institutions are dependent on client fees, government HHS grants, and private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. Some make huge profits, all tax exempt. If the bishops order the hospitals and schools to disobey the HHS rules, they will lose govt money, and, I'd expect, a huge taxpayer outcry might result in their losing tax-exempt status. I suspect that the hospitals and schools are already working out their strategies for becoming independent from the Church; dis-affiliating would be the only way to save themselves if the bishops order non-compliance with HHS rules. Independence might be the best outcome: patient care would be decided entirely by medical personnel, academic curricula by academicians, etc., and burdens off taxpayers. No federal court would take your position that the HHS rule is an unwarranted intrusion of gov't into religious life. Employees' sex lives are private and must remain within the purview of their consciences, not bishops' teaching.

But when an employee works within a Catholic or other religious Institution, don't they have to respect the ethos and rules which govern those places of employment? Catholic hospitals and schools etc were funded by the pennies of willing parishioners and they constitute an integral part of the Catholic Church across the world. They have in effect been protected by the legal restraints in the First Amendment which prevents government or religions from injudiciously stepping on each-other's toes. This latest Healthcare act was done in bad faith by the Obama regime and is an unwarranted intrusion which now threatens to overturn this Constitutional guarantee of long standing. When you say that 50% of pregnancies are "unplanned", do you mean that the contraceptive precautions taken orally or inserted internally have not worked? As this would tally with the statistics that US clinics give for the failure of contraceptives as one of the prime causes for women to abort the growing lives inside them

Gearoid4, the "territory occupied by Faith groups" is *not* the consciences of employees of Catholic hospitals, schools, and agencies. The bishops are intruding on choices which belong to a woman and her physician, or her partner, and her God/conscience. Nothing in the First Amendment reserves to any church the right to limit employment benefits for workers in accordance with religious doctrine--except that tradition has allowed it for church employees. As Pat123 said, that intrusion of religion into employment law and health policy would constitute tyranny and "establishment" of church teaching. No element of the HHS Rule violates the freedom of religion or conscience of any Catholic employer. The employers will not be paying for contraceptive insurance or writing policies or sponsoring benefits; in fact, they will be paying (or their employees will be paying) less and having no involvement in claims. Fifty percent of American pregnancies are unplanned, with serious consequences for the nation, for employers, and for families. And while pregnancy and birth are natural processes (required medical skills in pre-natal, delivery, neo-natal and post-natal care), regulation of a hormonal system is a medical task requiring expensive exams, prescriptions and monitoring. Houses of worship are exempt from the HHS rule, but church-affiliated hospitals, schools, and agencies are not, and these employ millions of workers. It would be dangerous precedent indeed for the administration or the courts to allow employers to control employment benefits according to the employers' religious doctrines. It will not happen, and it would be wrong to deprive women of their moral choices in such way.

I don't think so, Pat123. You see the First Amendment is clear on the illegality of federal government entering into the territory occupied by Faith groups and conversely the interference of religions in the affairs of government. Now on that basis, religious groups are rightly up in arms about the implications of this latest Healthcare mandate which stipulates that all bodies/institutions, regardless of whether they are religious or not will have to pay for insurance policies which cover such "reproductive" practices as contraceptive bills and sterilization. The exemption clause is so narrow as to be deemed useless. Now this has set an unhealthy precedent which has set all the major religions in the US on a combat footing and coalitions are being formed to oppose it. So you see, there is a very widespread perception that the Obama regime have overstepped the legal boundaries of government in relation to the internal affairs of how religion should regulate their own beliefs and practices.

Hi Gearoid4, I think you have it backwards. The US Constitution does promise religious freedom, but that would be to everyone, not just Catholic employers. The Bishops' stance is that only their religious rights matter, not those of their employees, and that the Church's rights are more important than the health needs of their employees. All people in the US have rights, not just the Catholic leadership. Allowing such an exemption would amount to a partial establishment of a state religion, which would be unconstitutional. It is entirely proper for religious leaders to admonish their parishioners to follow what they believe to be the true path, but imposing that path on others is not only tyranny, but also unchristian and, probably, unconstitutional.

It became "political", Eiriamach, when the secular government in the guise of the Obama regime decided to interfere with the internal affairs of religious bodies by imposing legislation on them which contravenes their consciences and their rights under the First Amendment. Naturally the Church realized what was at stake and accordingly has issued a robust defense against this invidious mandate. This situation was forced on the Church and the die has been cast, so to speak. You use the "Sensum Fidelium" in a distorted way. The teaching against the use of artificial contraception to frustrate the reproductive cycle of a woman in terms of the procreative nature of the sexual act has been a constant since the Church was founded. It is based on sound biblical principles which celebrates the beauty of fertility and procreation as being in the Natural order of things. One cannot overthrow this belief by reliance on opinion polls as this is a totally unreliable and unsound way to base one's religious tenets. Vatican 11 re-iterated the Church's age-old pro-life message in relation to the rejection of practices which prevented or halted the development of life in the womb. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would be with His Church from the time of His absence until the period that He would return. There is little doubt that this promise has been fulfilled and this is evident in the prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae(1968) which distills the clear traditional teaching on the immorality of contraceptive practices.

I agree that this has more to do with politics than any spiritual truth, but setting that aside for now, Access to free or low-cost birth-control medications has not only been shown to be a medical necessity, but also an economic choice in health care. That is, if the Church thinks they will get a discount for denying this basic need to its employees, they are sadly mistaken. Rates are set by actuaries who know that a health plan without access to these medicines is more costly than one with. So, will parishioners be happy knowing that their leadership is spending more to get less? Is it a Christian act to deny basic medical needs to one's employees? Many churches have been closed for economic reasons in the US. How many more will be closed, because of higher health care costs? And, of course, with higher costs, how will the Church pay for all those lawsuits? Clearly, this is far from a simple or settled question.

@Gearoid4, every time you miss my point or misconstrue it, you sharpen the contrast between what "church" is and what hierarchs like Cardinal Dolan erroneously think it is. The Christian Church is about living one's life in the Spirit, and it is about carrying out Christ's mission-- not the bishops' political agenda-- in this world. Opinion polls tell us the minds of the people, and religion surveys tell us the direction of the people's understanding of Christ's missions for them. I have said on IC at least a half-dozen times that I am not a relativist. I do not decide what is right on the basis of votes or poll numbers in favor or against. But every Christian must assess the signs of the times. Second Vatican Council decisively associated the inerrancy of church teaching with the sensum fidelium, and any claim to papal infallibility as well rests upon the beliefs of Christians across the centuries and across the denominations. Unless the bishops and people are of one mind on it, no teaching can claim to encompass "eternal" and uncompromising "truth." Bishops ignore the sensus fidelium at the peril of their standing within the community of faith. Doplan and crew are well out on a very shaky limb. Listen and you'll hear it cracking.

Its all about the Churchs power to control people because of their hope in an eternal life. Do what the guy with hte funny hat says, and he will put in a good word with teh man upstairs. What a farce...please. The greatest gift Jesus gave us was free will, and teh greatest commandement is "Love thy neighbor as yourself" Why cant the Catholics accept these truths? It is not about freedom to worship as the Vatican sees fit, its about freedom to worship as teh individual sees fit...