Whose Crusade? [Jay]

I am not Catholic, nor do I share all of the concerns or beliefs of the Catholic Church as it pertains to contraceptives.

I wanted to get that out of the way lest anyone mistake what I am writing as towing the party line. The ridiculous rhetoric decrying a supposed Catholic war against contraceptives is out of control. I reached my limit reading this in a Washington Post article by Lisa Miller:

And now, with their crusade against birth control, the Catholic bishops are helping to articulate and elevate that unspoken and archaic value in public.

The unspoken and archaic value referenced is Lisa Miller's interpretation of Catholic teaching on contraceptives as meaning “women should put their fertility first – before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence – because that is what God wants.” Never mind that the teaching on contraceptives is part of a larger ethical worldview that shows a great deal more sophistication than Ms. Miller articulates. Whether she is aware of this or just jumping at shadows out of ignorance is not the point of this post. My focus is that the charge from her and others that the Catholic Church is crusading against birth control – presumably an intentionally inflammatory use of phrasing – is an outrageous distortion of the facts.

The Catholic Church did not launch an attack on contraceptives in the United States. The United States government launched an attack on the Catholic Church and the bishops had the audacity to defend themselves and resist the moral dictates of our current administration. The Catholic Church was doing as they ever do; providing health care, placing children in adoption, helping people in need, and so on. They contribute so much to the cause of good that they employ people as permanent staff in too many professions to list in order to serve a broader mission of benevolence motivated by their beliefs.

Do they accept government grants to do that work? Yes they do, but here is a little known fact about why the government gives grants to charitable organizations. They are given because what these organizations do is deemed a public good. The government recognizes that local grass roots organizations are capable of efficiency and productivity that a disconnected and larger bureaucracy cannot match, so they give financial support to encourage the continuing service to the community. In order to use those funds the charitable organizations agree not to directly proselytize to the beneficiaries of their charity while pursuing their mission. If you operate a food bank for the homeless and accept government funds, you must separate sharing the gospel from feeding those in need. You can still do both, but you cannot do them at the same time because the government aid is given to feed the homeless and not to spread your religion. You also give up some freedom of association in that you must not religiously discriminate in hiring people to pursue the mission that is supported by the government funds. This is important because people talk about charities like the government is doing them a favor in allowing them to exist when – in fact – legitimate charitable organizations are doing our community a favor by serving their missions and accomplishing goals that the government couldn't duplicate.

What the government does not do is force you to take financial support from them or demand that you violate the institutional conscience that inspired your work in the first place. That is until now. Now we are being compelled to join a government healthcare system and within that system Catholics have been informed that they must behave in a manner contrary to their beliefs. President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius crafted a legal requirement for all employers to provide insurance plans with free contraception for their employees without exception for those religiously opposed. The effect of this law is that Catholics were told you can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to what you do you must behave like secular institutions regardless of your privately held beliefs. They can think like Catholics, but they can't function like Catholics if they want to employ anyone.

The administration offered a compromise that amounts to an insulting slight of hand. If your conscience forbids you to pay, the federal government will force the insurance companies to foot the bill. Putting aside that there may be such a thing as a Catholic insurance company or that this still forces the Catholic Church to act as an agent in a transaction they believe to be sinful, the supreme idiocy of the compromise should be obvious. How do insurance providers deal with additional costs? They raise their rates. Who will pay the higher premiums to cover the added expense to the insurance companies? That's right, the employer – or in this case the Catholic Church.

And here is where we get to the Catholic crusade against contraception. It takes place in the form of the Catholic Bishops rejecting the concept that the government of the United States has the right to dictate to them the limits of their conscience.

This is not about access to contraception. Isn't the wonderful and benevolent Planned Parenthood taking care of all of the healthcare needs of women? And forgetting the seemingly endless number of places to receive free contraception including some clothing stores in New York City (see here), one could always take the radical step of – I don't know – getting a job with an organization that would be happy to foot the bill for your birth control needs. This is about our beloved federal government helping us to see how much better the world they would craft for us is than the one in which we currently reside. We would get free healthcare and free contraceptives. We would have toxic light bulbs that last forever by employing the simple trick of not actually providing sufficient light. Our gas prices would be so high we would be forced to purchase Volts and waste money in propping up alternative fuel models that go bankrupt anyway. If only we understood how silly our consciences were and how they hold us back from a world where everyone is happy except those simpletons that define happiness differently than the powers that be. So don't you dare tell the federal government that they can't force you to act against the teachings of your faith or else you will be a rotten, nasty, woman hating crusader, too.

Making N.I.C.E. [Bob]

In the third installment of his Space Trilogy series, That Hideous Strength, C. S. Lewis' main character (Mark Studdock) was seduced with the promise of joining the inner ring of a powerful English society that used questionable tactics to establish an "efficient" state bureaucracy run by controllers who saw themselves as being a cut above the rest of the world. The name of the society Mark yearned to join was the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments -- N.I.C.E.

Lewis described N.I.C.E. as:

"the first fruits of that constructive fusion between state and laboratory on which so many thoughtful people base their hopes for a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints ... which have hitherto hampered research in this country. It was also largely free from the restraints of economy ..."

This, in fictional form, was the epitome of what Lewis feared would become a socio-political reality. Some of his reviewers begged to differ. The New York Times described That Hideous Strength as "superlatively nonsensical excitement, challenging implications," while Time magazine called it a "well-written, fast-paced satirical fantasy." That was in 1946.

Fast forward to 2009.

John C. Goodman, writing in National Review (September 21, 2009), reports on the contemporary British health commission:

"which currently recommends against any treatment that costs more than $45,000 to save a year of life. Because of [the commission], British cancer patients are denied access to drugs that are routinely available in the U.S. and on the European continent, and thousands die prematurely."

The name of the commission is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, but the Brits refer to it by the more commonly recognized acronym: N.I.C.E.

I wish I could make this stuff up. In fact, when I read it I assumed that Mr. Goodman had made it up. He didn't. But the creepy stuff doesn't stop there.

The reason Mr. Goodman cited this fact was because N.I.C.E., according to former Senator Tom Daschle, is the model on which we should base American health care reform. He says so in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis. And, barring the inconvenience of paying those pesky income taxes that only those of us who are not driven to work in a limousine should have to bear, the good Senator would have been the one overseeing our American N.I.C.E. guys. Instead, we have HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who, under the plan being offered, will not only fill that role but also be the one to decide which pool of federal funding may, or may not (?), be used to fund abortions.

So, yes, Sarah Palin's hyperbolic comments about "death panels" in the health care reform bill being considered were not accurate. But that said, and given the ideology and bureaucratic impulses of our current cast of political characters, does anyone truly doubt that, as Jay and Serge pointed out in Podcast #19, there will be rationing? When resources are limited and controlling costs is the reason the reform is being pushed in the first place, this will be the inevitable result. Someone will be charged with responsibility of deciding who gets what. Someone like Mark Studdock.

And that is a hideous strength for anyone to wield.

---

A Parable for The Church of God In Christ [SK]

The Church of God in Christ (COGIC), which claims to be pro-life, has issued a statement calling on all denominations to do the right thing and support President Obama’s health care reform plan. (Note: The President doesn’t have a plan of his own. What the COGIC really means is House bill HR 3200, which the President supports.) The writers of the statement demonstrate a genuine and laudable concern for the poor who cannot afford medical coverage. However, to the surprise of many pro-life advocates, the drafters of the statement take the President at his word that abortion will not be funded in a health care bill. They call on Christians of good will to set aside their political views and support the President’s reform efforts, which they insist are Biblically mandated.

I don't question the good intentions of those drafting the statement. And unlike some, I don't question their pro-life sentiments. But are Biblically informed pro-lifers unreasonable to remain skeptical of the President's plan? Consider the following parable.

It’s 1860. The President of the United States is pushing a controversial economic recovery package that will provide government subsidies to plantation owners struggling to make ends meet. The President has a point: Statistics show that 400,000 southern farms are without an economic safety net and thus face bankruptcy or foreclosure in the near feature. Should that collapse happen, mounting personal losses would adversely impact the national economy. To press the point further, the President invokes Biblical commands to love our neighbors and recruits sympathetic clergy to convey that view to the faithful.

There’s a rub, however. Although the President denies it, multiple sources—both independent and political— confirm that his economic recovery plan would allow government funds for the purchase of slaves. Collectively, the nation’s newspapers—universally sympathetic to the President’s views—come to the same conclusion though it bears little on their eager support for the plan. Meanwhile, congressional members who support slavery have commanding majorities in both the House and Senate. They see the practice as essential to any recovery plan. The President’s political position is near impregnable: He doesn’t need a single vote from the opposing party to pass his plan. Moreover the speaker of the House insists that any plan for economic recovery must fund the purchase of slaves as a necessary part of jumpstarting the Southern economy. If need be, he’s prepared to force a straight party line vote to get the desired result. All indications are he can deliver on his promise. Indeed, the legislative committee considering the President’s recovery plan voted down every single amendment that contained specific language forbidding the use of funds for slavery.

As for the President, his views on slavery are undeniable. While a senator in the Mississippi state house, he thrice voted to deny legal protection to any slave who escaped his master and sought refuge in a neutral territory. As a Presidential candidate, he emphatically assured the nation’s leading pro-slavery group—Planned Laborhood—that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Ownership Act, which would overturn all meaningful restrictions on slavery. He repeatedly stated that slave ownership was an essential economic right. During his first week as President, he issued an executive order funding the acquisition of slaves in foreign countries. One month later, he overturned existing funding restrictions on using slaves for medical experiments.

Despite these facts, the President—without a shred of evidence—calls anti-slavery advocates opposing his plan liars. In an unprecedented move, he submits a written speech to Congress insisting that his plan does not fund the acquisition of slaves, though again he does nothing to refute the specific charge—attested to by multiple sources—that his plan does in fact do just that. Two weeks later, he gets a valuable assist when The Southern Baptist Convention signs a statement urging clergy of all faiths to follow its lead in endorsing the President’s plan. The White pastors drafting the statement insist they are anti-slavery, but take the President at his word that the practice will not be funded.

Their statement reads in part as follows:

"Based on our understanding of the Holy Scriptures it is not only our mandate to encourage men and women to come into right relationship with their Creator, but also to proclaim and advocate justice and compassion throughout all creation.

'Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.'
Prov 31:8-9 NKJV

We are here today to speak on behalf of millions of Americans who cannot afford or obtain adequate economic provisions. In this the richest country in the world 400,000Americans are without an economic safety net. Because of this, they and their children face untold hardship and unnecessary suffering. Millions more will soon face similar challenges. In the midst of this crisis, they face limited economic opportunities that leave them exposed and unable to meet the needs of their families.

The Southern Baptist Convention calls upon the other major White denominations, and our brothers and sisters of all races in their major denominations and the rest of the faith community to set a moral example which moves our country beyond the noise of racial division and partisanship by supporting the President’s courageous initiative to address this vital issue. People of faith all over this country have a responsibility to stand for the millions who suffer from a lack of adequate provision by pleading the cause of the needy, and raising their voices in support of the President’s economic reform agenda.

Question: Would any rational person today consider anti-slavery Christians unreasonable for distrusting the President and Congress on this?
-