Sex and the Bishop (Sacramento: health insurance, schools, earthquake)

[WesternPilgrim]

The Sacramento News and Review interviewed Bishop Jamie Soto this week.

I thought the bishop's answers to questions about the HHS mandate were pretty good:

"We didn’t pick this issue—it was thrown at us. It’s what’s happening and how religious organizations are now going to being defined. We have a significant portion of religious organizations [schools, hospitals, social-service groups] that are being taken out of our control. And that is what’s upsetting to us. The federal government now says they can deem what is acceptable or not. We used to have the conscience clause for these organizations, and we will no longer have that. For example, if we wanted to serve immigrants, if we didn’t want to do euthanasia, if we wanted to serve the poor ..."

"These organizations are ours, and we have always been granted the conscience clause that allows our institutions to remain Catholic and to also remain under the church’s control. And that’s been defined differently by this administration. And that’s really the crux of this issue. And we didn’t pick that issue. We were begging the administration to give us the conscience clause ..."

"But we have been fairly vocal about it (the 'destruction of the safety net'). For example, the bishops in California, we published a letter on the budget. The media just ignored it ..."

"Well, we raised a lot of different issues, and one of them is the safety net and mutual sacrifice, and how California is getting into some very tough times. We all have to make sacrifices, not just the poor. And we also actually try to address the issue of taxation, hopefully in an articulate way. And again, the media just ignored that letter. And then Obama comes out with this contraception thing, and all of a sudden now, this is sex, this is what these guys care about."

[ryuns]

I certainly appreciate his perspective and his answers were well thought out and well spoken. I have a bad feeling this thread will devolve quickly, but I hope my comments are taken in the spirit in which they're intended. Here's why I disagree with the Bishop:
-Being an employer in the United States means following a lot of laws. We require you to handycap ramps, build earthquake safe structures, and follow other rules surrounding employment. They don't have a problem with those, of course, but one could imagine
-His answer regarding sex for procreation has a number of flaws. For one, it is always a little odd to hear a man who isn't even allowed to have sex voice his concern for the devolution of sex in our society, which reduces credibility from the first step. It's obviously out of touch with the reality that nearly everyone uses or has used contraception and if we couldn't our species would literally be doomed. Also, it's completely unscientific--we're one of the few species for whom sex is primarily about pair bonding rather than simply procreation. (Witness the increasing sex drive of pregnant woman, for one.)
-The Catholic Church speaks from a place of zero authority on this matter. It has a patriarchal power structure, but speaks of women's health as if they had any authority. They have a long history of rejecting science outright. And, finally, they don't pay taxes. My pragmatic side would give them a little more leeway if I weren't effectively subsidizing their work, only a piece of which benefits society.
-In any case, here's the bottom line: The church pays for insurance, the insurance offers contraceptives. No one is forced to use them. In society, we all pay for things we dislike. Every month my pay check has line items for federal taxes which go to support programs I love and programs I hate. Though I abhor war, I don't have a religious objection to it, but if I did, I'd still have to pay taxes to support the war effort. Such is life in our republic.

[Malloric]

Just in regards to hospitals, I think it's fine if they want to keep the conscience clause. That, however, means separation of church and state. No more government insurance, no more government payments for indigent care. I'm fine with that. If you want to be a religious institution, fine. If you want to be part of socialized medicine, however, you play by the governments rules.

Contraception coverage is a who cares. There's a large societal benefit to it being covered since kids are expensive and often occur unplanned to be paid for by society. Contraception could cut down on those costs. If it's against your religion to have recreational sex, just don't have recreational sex. The majority of Catholics have a different view of that than their official religion. The minimal effect on insurance premiums isn't that big a deal, and we pay for lots of things we don't support. I didn't support Iraq... where was my preferential treatment, or I mean conscience clause, then?

[WesternPilgrim]

No time to reply at the moment, but thanks to you both for respectfully expressing your thoughts on the subject.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by ryuns

-Being an employer in the United States means following a lot of laws. We require you to handycap ramps, build earthquake safe structures, and follow other rules surrounding employment. They don't have a problem with those, of course, but one could imagine

Actually, some of these laws are a problem for churches as well. I recall a church in Sacramento that was being restored, and the project was held up for months over ADA compliance issues. Seems there wasn't provision or space for a wheelchair ramp to the altar. Well, the public liturgy of the Catholic Church requires certain physical acts, and when a priest or acolyte can't perform them, he simply doesn't participate in that liturgy. Besides, if ever a clergyman in a wheelchair needed access to the altar, there would be an army of men and altar boys ready to assist. Ultimately, the county backed down and the church was not required to install the ramp. Not sure where that stands in terms of compliance with the law.

In any case, the issue is a matter of justice. Laws are good or bad, just or unjust, and should be evaluated as such. Part of the problem the Church is experiencing is that it hasn't spoken out about unjust laws in the past with much of a voice. A law requiring contraception to be covered by health insurance, like we have in California, is unjust all the way around regardless of whether religious institutions have a way of getting around it. Catholics - the kind who actually try to be faithful to Catholic doctrine - working in insurance and health care have had their rights violated for decades with nary a peep from the bishops. So, in a sense, this is a case of "too little and much too late" from the bishops.

But that doesn't mean their message is wrong. This is a bad law, period, because chemical contraception is immoral and it's wrong to force anyone to facilitate immoral acts against their will. NO employer should be required to do this. The Church should not only be defending its own institutions, but all institutions.

Originally Posted by ryuns

-His answer regarding sex for procreation has a number of flaws. For one, it is always a little odd to hear a man who isn't even allowed to have sex voice his concern for the devolution of sex in our society, which reduces credibility from the first step.

I don't think it does. Does one have to be sexually active to know that rape is wrong? Or that adultery is wrong? Or that sexual abuse of any kind is wrong? No, that these things are morally wrong can be known from reason, without direct personal experience. Having said that, the bishop has learned plenty from the experiences of others, and that's a valid way of gaining insight into the human effects of certain behaviors.

Originally Posted by ryuns

It's obviously out of touch with the reality that nearly everyone uses or has used contraception and if we couldn't our species would literally be doomed.

Everyone tells lies, even priests, and yet the Church teaches that telling lies is intrinsically immoral. A deliberate lie can even be a mortal sin. If the government passed a law mandating that Catholics tell lies, the Church would fight it tooth and nail, no matter that "everyone is doing it". The fact that Catholics don't always live up to their faith is not an excuse for running roughshod over the Church's moral teaching.

As to your reference to overpopulation, that's a big topic about which many scholars disagree. I answer only with this:


7 Billion People: Everybody Relax! - YouTube

Originally Posted by ryuns

Also, it's completely unscientific--we're one of the few species for whom sex is primarily about pair bonding rather than simply procreation. (Witness the increasing sex drive of pregnant woman, for one.)

This isn't a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical or theological premise. From a Catholic and natural law perspective, the premise is demonstrably false. Again, it's a big topic, but there's plenty of ammo on the Catholic side for anyone seriously interested in challenging the arguments.

Originally Posted by ryuns

-The Catholic Church speaks from a place of zero authority on this matter.

That's fine, you don't have to accept its authority. The Church only asks that you engage its arguments on their own merits, not on the authority of the messenger, and that you at least recognize that millions of your fellow Americans do accept its authority.

[caligirlz]

This is a really interesting topic. As a quickie reply, I will say that I never really understood why the Catholic church got so many more exceptions than the average Christian church engaging in state or federal business, and I'm specifically talking health care. I know after working most of my adult years in the healthcare industry, that when a business accepts govt dollars there are certain requirements that must be met. I remember when GWB launched his faith-based exception initiatives, and suddenly any faith-based ministry/church could essentially go into the social services arena, and get govt monies to run their programs, again with certain stipulations. And many took advantage of this opportunity when maybe they should not have. It seemed to me that there was a lot of abuse of the system.

I find it rather interesting that Catholic Health Care West recently cut their ties with the Catholic church and became "Dignity Health" in order for them to "position the organization to succeed in a changing health care environment." California Catholic Daily - (http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=d1cfa6a3-acc1-427b-a3c0-bb064177b171 - broken link) That was a very smart move on their part to maintain the "business".

I know that when the churches started their community outreaches/social programs they had very good intentions. I think they still do. They are basically following Jesus' instruction to take care of the poor, the sick, the widows. It's biblical. It's just that the social climate has changed so drastically from their original starting point. And I think many of the modern day churches have brought in secular business models instead of relying on biblical models. I don't believe that the church should accept govt monies unless they are willing to follow the govt requirements, just like everyone else. Really, bottom line, none of the faithful saints of old relied on the govnt to supply their needs, they relied on God alone. Perhaps our modern clergy should go back & read a few books about the church fathers, and maybe even their bibles to see how one actually can & does live on faith.

Which brings me to my next point. We were sitting around the lunch table at work last week, and conversations led to this very topic. The two others at the table were up in arms that the Catholic church was so out of touch with their parishioners, since in their opinion, the "majority" of parishioners were not even in agreement with the church. My friends were also adamently opposed to the church controlling someone's access to birth control.

My concern with those type of statements are: if you know a business has certain restrictions that you morally disagree with, then why would you apply for a job AND accept it? And if one no longer agrees with an organization, in this case the Catholic church, then why does that person still call themselves a Catholic? If you disagree with the basic tenets of the faith, then why would you want to call yourself a Catholic? or a Christian? It seems to me that it is the parishioners who have turned their back on the faith, and have left it, shouldn't they identify themselves as something else, rather than trying to change the faith itself, further diluting it into something now common to man? I'm not Catholic, but I certainly applaud the Catholic church for finally standing up for it's faith. I hope they can withstand the attack.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by caligirlz

My concern with those type of statements are: if you know a business has certain restrictions that you morally disagree with, then why would you apply for a job AND accept it? And if one no longer agrees with an organization, in this case the Catholic church, then why does that person still call themselves a Catholic? If you disagree with the basic tenets of the faith, then why would you want to call yourself a Catholic? or a Christian? It seems to me that it is the parishioners who have turned their back on the faith, and have left it, shouldn't they identify themselves as something else, rather than trying to change the faith itself, further diluting it into something now common to man? I'm not Catholic, but I certainly applaud the Catholic church for finally standing up for it's faith. I hope they can withstand the attack.

Brava! This is precisely why I converted to Catholicism about 30 years ago. The protestant faith in which I was raised, schooled and served began to "modernize" in what I can only consider a concerted effort to appeal to the masses (no pun intended) and change doctrines that had been extant for around 500 years. I found some of those changes to be out of sync with scriptural directives and standards and admired the Catholic church for maintaining its stances even in the face of popular sentiment. A church that had the power of its convictions appealed to me and still does. I'll leave it at that.