RANT - COUNTER RANT: WHAT'S IT REALLY ALL ABOUT MR. & MRS. JOHN Q. SMITH FROM ANYTOWN USA?

I can’t tell you how relieved I am.

 

Last week in the Letters to the Editor of the Akron Beacon Journal, Mr. Thomas Fann, while pointing out that many people feel that certain provisions of HHS mandate impedes their freedom of religion, he assures us, “It does not.”

 

I was worried.  I am so glad he cleared that up for me.

 

Of course, he goes on to say that there really are limits to freedom of religion so even if it does really impinge on your faith: too bad.

 

Back to feeling bad again.

 

“We are all free to believe what we want, conduct our lives according to our beliefs and worship as we please.”

 

Okay, I’m with you again.

 

“However, our religious freedom does not give us the right to force others to change their behavior to fit our beliefs.” 

 

Of course it does.  Mr. Fann demostrates this himself.  His system of beliefs says that it may force another individual to violate his belief system by making him become directly culpable in what amounts to an intrinsic evil to him.  You can’t have it both ways.  Either we can force others people to behave according to a belief system or you can’t. 

 

“Attempting to prevent or impede what many employees feel are valid (and legal) health-care choices is not a religious freedom protected by the Constitution.”

 

Here again Mr. Fann plays the game of denouncing a behavior for those he’s against, and then shows how perfectly logical it is for him to do it.  None of the people against the HHS mandate are forcing anybody to do anything.  Nobody is protesting that such items should be taken out of the store; nobody is protesting clinics because they are handing out free birth control, but Mr. Fann places the desire of one person to have birth control paid for by a person who finds it morally repugnant over and above the religious freedom of the provider.  One can still have the freedom to act according to his conscience (and have it paid for), the other may not.

 

And “legal” does not mean moral.

 

And since when is it not protected by the Constitution?  Of course it is.  On what planet is protection of religious liberty not a part of the Constitution?  It is a handy argument to make up with absolutely no citations or references.  “It just isn’t” is not an argument.

 

“Employers are free to reject contraception for themselves, but religious freedom does not give them the right to make that decision for their employees.”

 

First, I am thankful that Mr. Fann has given me permission to reject contraception.  But I have not read a single article anywhere of an employee of any company has been fired because they used contraception even though his employer finds it to be morally abhorrent.  Or maybe there has been a rash of front page articles that I missed. 

 

The only person making demands on anybody’s behavior (and tapping their resources) is Mr. Fann and backers of this portion of the HHS mandate.  (This reminds me of 2 Maccabees chapter 7).

 

“Where are the employees going to get the money?  From their paychecks, from the same employer who refuses to pay for contraception coverage on the grounds of ‘religious freedom.’ I don’t see the difference.”

 

And that is the problem.  You don't see the problem.  First of all, I highly recommend that you do not take a job writing an etiquette column.  If I give you a gift, it is yours.  I no longer have control over it.  If I give you twenty dollars and you use it on cigarettes, there is really not much I can do about it.  A paycheck is the same thing.  Once I give you the money it is yours.  What you do with it is your business.

 

Secondly, I recommend that you do not take a job writing an ethics column.  There is a huge difference between indirect and direct culpability.  It is one thing for me to give twenty dollars to a teenager who then goes out and buys smokes, it is another thing to make available smokes for the teenager “because he is going to smoke anyway.”

 

There is one thing Mr. Fann and I do agree upon.  It is this sentence: “This issue really isn’t about religious freedom; it is about control.”

I couldn't have said it better.

UPDATE

Here is an excellent update for understanding what occured today with this health care initiative.  According to this article the religious freedom aspect has yet to be determined.  We may have to wait another year to find out how that will run its course.

HHS vs IHS

“Bareness is God’s playground.”

It is too early (Thursday morning) to have anything too intelligent to say on the HHS mandate ruling.  The full understanding is not yet known and conflicting reports keep coming in.  The exact nature of the ruling and the future for Catholics (and, in reality, the future of all people of faith) is not yet known and we wait with our collect breath held.

In any event, there is no cause for despair.  There is only room for hope.  If there is one thing we learn from Scriptures is that good things are about to happen when the worst is happening.  It is when all earthly hope seems lost that God finally steps in.  It must be that way otherwise we would always assume that this is the natural order of things.  But God steps in when time runs out, when usefulness is past, when all is lost, when the end seems to have come.  It is only then we can say as the Psalmist proclaimed, “If God had not been on our side . . .”

If it should turn out that this latest ruling is in conflict with our faith, that government mandates directly interfere with our relationship with God, have we not repeatedly seen even to this day that this is precisely when the Church unifies, rises up, becomes strong, and saint and martyrs are made?  Should this be the case there is only room for hope and sanctity which may require sacrifice.  It is a time to be thankful that we live in a time when we not only give God lip service, but have the opportunity to serve Him in a dramatic way.  Remember the reading of this morning, “Not everyone who cries out to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my Father.”

Conversely, if people of faith do not have their religious freedom violated, we may be in a more difficult situation.  We may relax and think all is well.  It is not and it would be dangerous to think we may take a collective sigh and not worry and pray any longer.  The Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus said recently that “We can see clearly . . . an attempt to redefine religion in American society.”  At every turn there is pressure to minimize religion in society, to narrow the definition of a religious institution, to narrow what it means to be a minister, to narrow religious freedom to freedom of worship.  There have been many attempts to narrow the rights of churches such as when it pitted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Lutheran Church.  The Catholic Church has had Government reduce, fully defund, and/or no longer make referrals to Catholic adoption centers and human trafficking ministries because of our religious nature even though we have repeatedly had far better (and less expensive) success rates.  Because of this we cannot afford to be satiated in a victory.

This may be the dawn of a new day.  And as we know, dawn only follows after the darkest hour.

TUESDAY QUOTE OF THE WEEK CCLV

FINDING TRUTH WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND:  "It is a fact that the after-effects of rape will never be erased from a woman's memory, just as she will never be able to forget that someone treated her as an object, someone attacked her with a brutality unworthy even of animals.  But not even abortion will erase this memory: those who suggest it, those who impose it, those who request it, answer violence with violence, not only towards the woman but especially toward the child, whose life should be respected like any other life concieved."  from Maria Luisa Di Pietro, Institute of Bioethics, Catholic Unicersity of the Sacred Heart, Rome

QUOTE II:  "We drink from our own wells."  Gustavo Gutierrez

IN OTHER NEWS:

Thought this was funny.  A spider was spotted hanging down in front of Eric Armusik's painting of St. Sebastian.  He looks a bit more worried about the spider than about the arrows being shot at him. 

Take in a pro-life movie this Lent (before it dissappears!)  October Baby is now playing.  More on the movie here.

M. W. sends this in:  "The March issue of the St. Austin Review (StAR) is now out. This issue is dedicated to exploring "Faith and Fiction" and contains two excellent reviews by St. Sebastian Chestertonian Matt Akers." Read more here.

E. F. wrote in to say, "Hi Fr. V.---do you know Daniel Matsui? I love his work. I thought you might be interested in seeing some of his stuff or maybe signing up for his newsletter."  Actually I do like his work and it was one of the reasons I ordered the Missal in which his works appears.  Unfortunately the rest of the Missal was a bit of a dissappointment.  Anyway, here is the online version of his newsletter.

This is Sebastian relaxing after his vetenarian's check up yesterday.  He lost another few pounds.  Looking good dog!

This past week the Akron Regional Chamber Orchest (ARCO) who is in residence at St. Sebastian and the St. Sebastian Parish Choir joined forces to perform Faure's Requiem this past week.  Great job people!

I am very proud at how many St. Sebastianites went to the rally about the HHS mandate in downtown Cleveland.  Here is the WKYC channel 3 coverage of the event with a video.  This was just one of about 150 such events that went on across the country at roughly the same time.  More coeverage here.

The Diocese of Cleveland Enewsletter asks, "Did you know, there are three First Friday Clubs in the Diocese of Cleveland that host a monthly speakers series luncheon? They include: First Friday Club of Cleveland; First Friday Club of Greater Akron; and the First Friday Forum of Lorain County." Find out more here.

MONDAY DIARY: OBSFUCATION

Before we get to the Monday diary there is at least one thing you need to know and I am generally surprised at how many people do not know this: The HHS mandate DOES cover abortion. You will have to provide a co-pay for your child to be treated with penicillin, but abortions under this plan will be absolutely free and, if allowed to go forward, is to be paid for in part by the Catholic Church – or at least they will try to make this happen.

So this past Friday there was a rally in Cleveland to protest the HHS mandate. I was feeling rather low that I would be unable to make it as we had school confessions that had to be cancelled once already, and having the pressure of being awfully close to Easter thought it an impossibility. But low and behold we were out of confessions earlier than I had anticipated and running into another person from St. Sebastian who was also lamenting the fact that we were not there, we jumped in the car and headed to Cleveland (not being wise enough to check and make sure where it was before we left.)

We ended up on the wrong side of town (where everybody was heading for the Film Festival) and had to hoof it across downtown to make it to the correct spot by the giant “FREE” stamp. We were only about 5 minutes late. There was a decent sized crowd there (I am horrible at guestimating crowd size. I am always way off when compared to an actual number.) I don’t know why, but I was rather surprised that it was an actual protest. There were signs and banners, petitions to sign, motivating speeches over loud speakers, singing and chanting. I leaned over and said to the person I was with, “Oh my gosh, we are radicals!”

You know, at one time and not all that long ago, everybody taught and generally believed what the Catholic Church teaches about sexual ethics. Since the 1930s when the Anglicans made an exception in contraceptive use for extreme circumstances slowly everybody else moved away from that common understanding to what we have today. (Apparently after 2,000 plus years God started to change His mind.) Now enlightened people believe that the virtuous path is to sicken our bodies to make them reject their natural functions, to sterilize ourselves, or destroy the living presence in the womb that can only be a human being at our whim. Some enlightenment.

So the Church did not change, everybody else did – and there is a general push to make the Church Red Rover, Red Rover let Catholics come over. All of a sudden instead of being the mainstream we find ourselves countercultural rebels. I’m not sure if I think it is cool or scary.

There is one thing for sure however, Catholics do not make good protesters. As a lot we sit in back, mumble our responses, and slip out early so we don’t have to fight traffic. So to get them to chant in full voice, “HEY! HEY! HO! HO! THE HHS MADATE’S GOT TO GO!” is rather an ominous task.

The crowd was lively and very well behaved. I was extremely proud at how well Saint Sebastian Parish was represented! It was a long drive at a difficult hour and we showed in good numbers. I am glad I will be able to say that this is one of the ways that I tried to make a difference in this matter one day.

THEN THE NEWSPAPER COVERED THE STORY

I was very glad that the Plain Dealer covered the story front page above the fold. But then I read the article and became very disappointed. The article was very misleading. It was misleading in the following points:

1. It repeatedly states that the protest was about contraception. Yes, in part. Totally missing was any mention that the HHS mandate also covers abortion. Not once was this mentioned. If “the powers that be” truly believe in this mandate then be honest. Be very clear what it is about. Let it pass on its own merits and don’t be sneaky about it. Want to know the Catholic Church’s position on this matter? It has been perfectly public for over 2,000 years. Have the courage of your convictions.

2. It says that the mandate will effect “some faith-based institutions.” This is so highly understated as to be funny. Besides parishes there is barely another institution that will qualify outside of the Amish Church. Schools, hospitals, Universities, Social Services, almost NOBODY meets the criteria to be exempt. It is doubted that the work of Jesus Himself would have been exempt.

3. Most misleading of all is the end of the article stating that the “morning after pill” is not an abortion inducing drug. This is from the EWTN site, “So how can it be said that the "morning-after pill" or any "emergency contraception" is not abortifacient? Or that it merely prevents implantation? In fact, those who say that the "morning-after pill" is not abortifacient but prevents implantation do not realize that they are affirming its abortifacient nature when they say that it prevents implantation: since this action can only take place after fertilization and works by preventing the continued development of the embryo, it can only be abortifacient.

"This is so true that, in order to deny its abortifacient action, those who are proposing its use have also had to redefine pregnancy. By calling into question years and years of scientific certitude on the basis of which the period from fertilization to birth has always been defined as "pregnancy", some now maintain that pregnancy only begins after the embryo's implantation in the uterine wall, therefore not before the sixth day at the earliest or before the l4th day at the latest. Thus, a product that prevents implantation could not terminate a pregnancy and could not be abortifacient!

"Some, of course, are hesitant about this redefinition of pregnancy and, in order not to press the issue, will merely speak of a similarity between an action that prevents implantation and one that is abortifacient: but it is obvious in any case that this semantic manipulation has a precise purpose. In this way—as The New England Journal of Medicine says—it is possible to manipulate public opinion into accepting "emergency contraception". Merely redefining contraception to include the prevention of implantation does not alter the fact that the prevention of implantation is problematic for some people (NEJM, 1993, 328/5, pp. 354-355)."

4. Finally the PD drags out the found wanting statistic that 98% of Catholic women support the use of contraception. It is obvious they did not read the report from which it came but are parroting what they have heard. The survey did not include all Catholic women but only those who would consider themselves “in danger” of becoming pregnant. (If you did not think it a “danger” you would not be included.) You were also excluded if you were open to being pregnant, if you were pregnant or recently pregnant. There was also no effort to see if you were a practicing Catholic or a cultural Catholic.

Not fair, not accurate, not complete. Makes you wonder.

WHO'S IT GOOD FOR?

That the HHS mandate is unconstitutional, a breach in general rights that could have significant ramifications for everyone in the future, is the grounds upon which the Catholic Church and its supporters in this issue fight against it. It is not about birth control or women’s rights or abortion or forcing people to be Catholic or any other of a number of side issues.

Period.

That being said, just who is this mandate good for? Is it good for women? Let us be honest, women already bear the fuller load of responsibility for the consequences of sexual encounters by way of the construction of our bodies. We are told that “reproductive health” services will greatly enhance her freedom. I argue that it will erode it further. With this mandate the responsibility for the consequences of sexual activity now will fall more heavily and officially on the woman’s shoulders. “It’s your problem,” she might hear when facing the possibility of pregnancy. “Didn’t you protect yourself? Don’t look at me. Do ‘something’ about it.”

As we further and further destroy the social structures that would have supported her – structures that said, “Men, take responsibility for your actions,” she becomes more and more autonomous and alone – an object for men to use. She as a person will become more periphery to men’s lives other than what she can do for them.

Further, the Catholic Medical Board (CMB) Women Physicians state, “OCPs (abortifacients, oral contraceptives) contribute to significant disease and dysfunction, such as increased rates of blood clots, strokes, and heart attacks (especially in smokers); increased rates of HPV transmission; and increased incidence of cervical cancer and liver tumors. The same synthetic hormones in OCPs that make a woman’s body behave as if pregnant all the time also change her body chemistry, rendering her more susceptible to STIs. As physicians, we frequently must care of women suffering from the unanticipated side effects of OCPs.”

So is this good for men? We can’t expect to teach men starting in grade school about every aspect of sex, tell them how to “protect” themselves, and then how to get out of it should something go wrong, and expect that to make them more responsible human beings. As men continue down the path of seeing women as an object they can use like a magazine or computer image, something that can be done away with when it is no longer as pleasurable as it once was, then men become less too – they become untethered, lone cowboys that are taught that when the going gets tough, the tough get going on to the next woman.

So is it good for children? We already see the breakdown of the family in modern culture. Do we wish to see it erode further? That divorce does not affect children is a fallacy. Ask any grade school teacher after one month of school who has a parent at home and who comes from a divided family and they will point them out.

Again from the CMB, “A child is not a disease, nor are fertility and pregnancy. They are physiological states of healthy individuals.” Children also are not objects or accoutrements to our lives but unique human beings formed by the actions of two other humans who hopefully take responsibility for this miracle they helped create.

So is it good for our pocket books? Once more from the CMB, “With regard to “cost savings” in health care, the Guttmacher Institute’s own data show that increases in contraception use lead to increased demand for abortions, and that women are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies when using contraception. There are no valid statistics demonstrating that use of contraception and abortion have improved the health of women and children. In fact, the rates of premature and low birth weight infants have been rising precipitously since rates of abortion and OCP use have increased. One in 8 babies is now born prematurely. NICU care now accounts for 25% of the entire maternal/newborn budget!

"Finally, it is important to realize that mandating “free contraception” is not free—it will mean higher insurance premiums for everyone and/or less money for the treatment of real diseases.” Think of it this way; before there was a manufacturer of OCPs, a distributer, a seller, possibly a doctor and you involved. Now with this mandate we will add government officials to oversee that it is being implemented and paperwork being sent to insurance companies who in turn must then have more staff to send out money to the sellers of these products who have to have staff to keep track of it all. It is not a less expensive process, it is a more expensive process.

Lastly (really) the woman who most needs this service is probably among the least likely to receive it. The truly poor will not have the full time job long enough that it will even pay business provided insurance. She will most likely continue to do without while the rest of the nations continues to train itself that it is her problem and that she should be able to take care of it.

So ask yourself the question:
If it isn’t good for women
If it isn’t good for men
If it isn’t good for children or families
If it isn’t good for your wallet
If it won’t reach the poorest of the poor who might actually need it
If it isn’t healthy for women’s bodies
If it isn't good for religious freedom
Who is it good for?

There’s a question worth pondering.