Just so we’re clear, the Catholic Church is right: contraception is wrong. It does not reduce abortions; contraception increases abortions. It does not improve marriages by removing the risk of unwanted children, it destroys marriages. No, contraception isn’t really contraception all the time: when the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, it prevents implantation of the days-old child by reducing the uterine lining, around 25% of the time. Which means that women on the Pill, if we assume around a 1/3 chance of pregnancy (conception and successful implantation, the advice given in NFP that ”if you haven’t gotten pregnant in three cycles, something might be wrong”), then women on the Pill, especially younger women, generally more fertile and sexually active, may be averaging an abortion a year. And when the Obama administration says “contraceptive services”, they include post-sex contraceptives, which are large doses of the usual chemicals, which will either prevent ovulation or abort a just-conceived child.
But the issue isn’t really contraception.
I suppose I should start farther back, with Obamacare itself. The pro-life movement was up in arms, crying that any government takeover of health care would end in taxpayer-funded abortions and contraception. “Oh, what a bunch of worrywarts!” scoffed most of the bishops and many members of Congress. In some cases, anti-Obamacare advocates were maligned as “anti-poor”. We were assured, “Mandatory abortion or contraceptive coverage? That’ll never happen!”
Well, your Eminences, welcome to the ”never” your encouragement of Obamacare has created.
While I’m thrilled to hear that every single Catholic bishop in the U.S., along with a good many Protestant leaders, including people who suppported Obama, have issued statements against the contraception mandate, I’m a bit underwhelmed. Abortion and contraception have been rampant in this country for decades, and the bishops and priests have largely failed to fight them. It isn’t a moral triumph to finally acknowledge that you ignored people being killed or maimed after they’re dead. Better late than never, but better on time.
But back to the mandate. Contrary to our dying local paper, the problem isn’t that there wasn’t an exemption for houses of worship. Actual churches would be exempt from the mandate, since they employ and serve almost exclusively people of their own faith. The problem was that absolutely nobody and nothing else would be exempt.
Our local paper condescendingly allowed that if churches insisted on not paying for contraception for the women who worked in the parish office, fine. However, the editorial went on, when the churches do “secular work” like taking care of migrants, adoption placements, hospitals, schools, etc., then they weren’t really churches anymore, and, thus, had no right to ask that their religious beliefs be respected. They have to play by the secular laws when they do secular functions, “reasoned” the editors. (Which takes us back to the Obama administration’s preference for “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion”. They aren’t the same thing.)
EWTN is suing the federal government, since they don’t qualify for an exemption, but they are adamantly opposed to contraception in general, and paying for it in particular. Since the Catholic TV network is not directly controlled by an order or a diocese (there were power struggles with the USCCB trying to claim it, so it went private some time ago, although many members of the board are clergy), it wouldn’t even qualify for consideration of an exemption. So, while they air programs explaining how contraception destroys marriages and is frequently abortifacient (and therefore murder), they would be required to participate in (i.e. pay for) an insurance program that offers free contraception to EWTN’s employees. In Catholic moral discussions, we describe this as levels of “cooperation with sin”. Just because you didn’t choose the evil, if you facilitated or encouraged it, you are still somewhat culpable.
I would note that EWTN has hit the nail on the head, when many bishops have missed a bit. The problem isn’t that Catholic Charities or your local Catholic school (or any of the Protestant organizations or ministries similarly tied to denominations that do not approve of contraception) shouldn’t be forced to pay for something they don’t believe is moral. Most bishops are clear that those types of organizations should not be forced to violate their moral principles in order to avoid massive, coercive government fines.
The problem is deeper. I (and you, by the way), as a normal citizen, would be required to buy health insurance from a company that is mandated to provide certain services that I believe to be deeply immoral. Today, it’s contraception and the early chemical abortifacients. What comes tomorrow?
If Obamacare and the latest mandate stand, Catholic social services will shut down across the country. Schools, hospitals, etc. The Obama administration already yanked a federal grant for human trafficking assistance, because the USCCB (US Council of Catholic Bishops) office wouldn’t provide abortions to the rape and prostitution victims it rescued (never mind their excellent record of service spanning decades). A number of local Catholic Charities adoption agencies (and, presumably, a number of other, smaller agencies with similar reservations but less publicity) have closed because they refused to call gay “marriage” a legitimate family arrangement and place children for adoption in such families. The religious agencies are forced to shut down as unprofessional or anti-regulation, and the government increasingly gets to hand out the goodies of social services.
The alternate allegiance to the church that helped you is shifted to the all-powerful government.
All of this goes to emphasize the brilliance of the foundation of both the Constitution and Catholic social teachings. In Church documents, we call it subsidiarity: the idea that issues should be dealt with at the lowest level possible, for reasons of efficiency, personal relationships, and proper power and responsibility allocation. The government was never meant to be the all-powerful, omnipresent force in everybody’s lives that it has become.
Archbishop Chaput, as always, clarifies the problem. It isn’t, he argues, that this mandate was ill-advised in an election year or poorly thought-out:
But it’s clear that such actions are developing into a pattern. Whether it was the administration’s early shift toward the anemic language of “freedom of worship” instead of the more historically grounded and robust concept of “freedom of religion” in key diplomatic discussions; or its troubling effort to regulate religious ministers recently rejected 9-0 by the Supreme Court in the Hosanna Tabor case; or the revocation of the U.S. bishops’ conference human-trafficking grant for refusing to refer rape victims to abortion clinics, it seems obvious that this administration is – to put it generously – tone deaf to people of faith.
I’m guardedly optimistic that the USCCB has decided to reconsider what else they’ve supported when they’ve embraced Democratic politicians for their social programs but ignored their other positions. If we’re only going to defend the rights of religiously affiliated organizations to have conscience protection, though, we’re missing the point again, and we’ll be discussing the next “surprising” anti-Christian piece of regulation shortly.
Thank you for this really thoughtful response to the situation we find ourselves in. I have begun to think that this wasn’t actually the misjudgement by the administration in an election year that it initially seemed to be–I think it’s the wedge issue to reshape Obamacare into something they can highlight as a win in the lead-up to the election. And I’m afraid it may be working–so many are happy with the so-called compromise,and absolutely refuse to see what’s actually happening here. Like you, I’m frustrated with religious leadership that has seemed to be blind to the trash until it washed up right on our own beach, but cautiously pleased that they are at least providing a united front. This is so much bigger than this single issue.
Some people seem happy with the compromise, but the USCCB is not. Cardinal Dolan soundly dismissed the so-called compromise as absolutely no such thing and said nothing had changed; the Church will NOT comply with the HHS contraception mandate. Finally, someone went far enough that there is no disputing what’s going on, even if the mainstream media is gushing over how generous Obama has been with these stubborn, backwards Catholics by offering them a year to figure out how to violate their consciences and a compromise that hides the guilt by removing it one step to the insurance company, instead of the insurance policy.
Awesome take on this ugly situation. Yes I’m glad all the bishops have come together on this–yes, a bit late for all the dead–well-stated! Very late, too, for all those who don’t even know (for sure) that it is a MORTAL sin to contracept, but never TOO LATE to accept this teaching and stop. Never too late for priests to be reinvigorated, to start sermonizing on what realities we face on a daily basis, and what we must all do to overcome the sins of the world. The lovely letters the bishops have written derserve a short applause, and now, let’s see some real action to follow. This is probably the best thing for our Church–we’re all getting a clear picture, and its time to man-up, or walk away. Either you are Catholic and believe the two thousand years of written history, theory, theology, discussion, councils, and encyclicals; or you are a protest-ant. First step: admit the wrong-doing; 2) A clear plan for the future including proclamation of the TRUTH in a very public way so that no one can claim “I didn’t know.” Sheesh, yesterday I saw a post on facebook that said “what is HHS?” I really wanted to reply WHAT HOLE HAVE YOU BEEN IN???? Perhaps that mind-set is why we are where we are, and many bishops live in that same HOLE! We the laity MUST be busy educating our clergy in the real world. The Pope tells us we must in his ad limina letter of 1-19-12. Also Canon 212–it is our Duty! My parish is undergoing an “assessment” by a Jesuit priest who has spoken twice at Call To Action in Detroit, and has been outspoken on Women’s ordination…now why should we pay a known “dissenter” $10,000 or more to analyze what our parish should do to improve? https://www.rentapriest.com/citi/newsletters/1306585627.pdf This sort of #@%$& is what has lead us to where we are now with HHS. A pinhole leak was fine, and they kept saying “it’s fine” when the leak got bigger and bigger, and now elephants crawl in and out of the hole and they scratch their head and say “Do ya think there’s a small problem?” Lord, help us!
A great story was making the rounds a while ago. Allegedly, a group of American bishops were on their regular visit to see the Pope, when Saint John Paul II was in Peter’s Chair.
“People don’t pay attention to us like they used to; lots of Catholics don’t even know it’s immoral to use artificial contraception,” explained a bishop over lunch. “Your Holiness, it’s just too hard in the modern world to follow the teachings on contraception, and we can’t hold people accountable for this sin.” Other bishops nodded agreement and pastoral concern around the table.
“Ah, yes, following the Gospels is often difficult, and it will weigh on their souls, although perhaps lighter because they didn’t understand. But, truly, the much greater sin is on those who did not tell them the truth when it was their duty to do so,” replied the Pope.
And all the bishops, whose duties are supposed to be all about teaching the Truth with boldness, even to the point of death (it’s why they wear red, to signal their willingness to be martyred), suddenly became very, very interested in the soup course.
***
I have nearly cried in desperation at the utter lack of leadership in the hierarchy. Yes, there are some great bishops… and a lot who never rock the boat, even when it desperately needs a good shake-up. A pro-life leader (a convert to Catholicism, after denomination after denomination he’d been in had watered down or deemphasized their pro-life stances) suggested that nobody should be eligible for elevation to bishop if he hadn’t been arrested at least once protesting for the unborn.
Of course you are right about the religious liberty issue. But the deepest unengaged issue yet is that of contraception itself, which perhaps we have good reason to hope will be accomplished in the near future. The bishops showed a bit of courage when they release a pastoral on natural family planning a few years back, and maybe know they can go beyond mere protection of religious freedom and so the part that Benedict XVI recently called the “convincing witness” — defending truth without compromise in a robust witness that has power to attract!
I really doubt those studies. You are citing a pro-life site, you know. So it would obviously be biased.
As opposed to the “impartial” pro-abortion sites that tell you it’s “just a lump of tissue” when, in fact, the baby has a detectable heartbeat (and other identifiable parts, like a head and arms) by the time the mom realizes her period is a week late and starts to suspect she might be pregnant?
If you have a specific objection, please state it. What about the studies did you find unrealistic or unbelievable? Aside from being in favor of responsibility, keeping marriage vows, etc. what bias is it that you are objecting to in the articles I cited? We can’t have much of a conversation if we just point fingers at each other and yell, “You’re biased!”
I am aware that I’m citing pro-life sites. Everyone has biases; some try to be more fair than others. Any bias the pro-lifers have is in favor of life, family, and self-control, and, unlike the pro-abortion side, pro-lifers admit that life is sometimes hard, no matter which choices are open to you.
Whatever your views on God, the whole point of my post was that this is not a “Catholic” issue. If the government can force one of the largest organizations in the U.S. to violate its principles, in violation of the Constitution, they won’t stop there. Eventually, they’ll start forcing something down your throat you object to, too. Fight it now, or fight it later when the precedents are set and everyone else is defeated already.
Because the information doesn’t make sense. Contraception does reduce pregnancy rates, so rather than increase abortions, it should decrease them. You yourself said it, the site you cited is in favor of family values, so they would also try to discredit contraception in whatever form they can, even if it doesn’t make sense. Pro-choice sites may not be that much better, true, but to be honest they don’t strike me as nearly as biased as pro-life ones, not to mention that I don’t visit them often. I don’t exactly like contraception either, but I’m not dishonest about it.
Contraception would decrease pregnancies, assuming that sexual behavior remains the same.
It didn’t. When the Anglicans led the charge in 1930 as the first large Christian denomination to legitimize contraception, they insisted it was only for married couples with prayerful reasons. Similar arguments were put forward on the secular side, claiming that making contraception easily available would ease burdens on already large families and/or overworked mothers. Children would be wanted, better cared for, and the beneficiaries of more happy and stable marriages between their parents.
What happened, instead, is that many people used contraception to engage in pre-marital and extra-marital sex with less risk of pregnancy (and therefore, of getting caught). More and more people having sex meant the unintended pregnancy rate went up, not down. (Demand for legalzed abortion followed quickly.) Illegitimacy rates skyrocketed. Divorce rates skyrocketed as cheating flourished. Even married couples, we’ve seen over time, have been adversely affected. There are several theories as to why, including hormonal side effects of the Pill, any form of contraception creating a barrier between spouses, and stress over unwanted pregnancies (and even, in some cases, threats of divorce or violence if the wife refuses to abort unwanted children). Children have shifted from being a gift of marriage to being seen as somewhere between an optional accessory and obnoxious parasites who kill all their parents’ fun. We used to honor women as mothers, now we are inundated with voices shreiking that stay-at-home moms are useless parasites (like their children) who should go do something useful for society. (Thanks a lot, modern feminists.)
It can be argued that this all came from disassociating sex from its first natural outcome: children. Over the decades, we’ve started to disassociate sex from its second natural outcome: bonding between the partners. The hook-up culture, IVF, and rampant pornography were logical outcomes of declaring sex to be not necessarily related to babies.
All of this was predicted in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, written in 1968 as pressure mounted in the Catholic Church to legitimize contraception.
I’m not being dishonest about contraception. Plentiful contraceptives have reduced pregnancy rates in families, so that having more than two kids is seen as a sign of being “too stupid” to use better sterilization methods. Europe, Russia, Canada, and Japan, especially, used contraceptives so effectively that they are heading into population freefall because they didn’t bother to have even enough children to replace themselves. (Greece is collapsing because they have too many people retiring and demanding their generous promised benefits, but not enough young workers to tax to pay for them. The rest of Europe is right behind them.) Meanwhile, contraceptives also encouraged a rampant culture of sexual irresponsibility that has given us millions of children in struggling single-parent families because their dads never wanted a kid, they just wanted some fun, and more than a million abortions a year in this country alone.
Contraception should decrease pregnancy, but, if you’re being honest, you have to look at the whole system. If the “information doesn’t make sense” to you about the negative effects of contraception, then please show me the statistic that shows unintended pregnancies (and divorce, child abuse, and abortion) have decreased since the 1930′s. Cheap contraceptives have been available pretty much everywhere for some time now, so if the pro-lifers are wrong and Paul VI was overstating his case, there should be evidence.
So, contraception does decrease pregnancy rates, but somehow increases abortions? How is that possible?
Second, where do you get the sources to all of this? Are they trustful?
And third, there’s nothing bad with decrease in population, in fact, it’s what we need and what we deserve for abusing of the planet. Overpopulation is a severe problem, something we need to fix.
How is it possible? Simple: contraception decreases pregnancy in any given relationship, but encourages other relationships that otherwise wouldn’t have happened, thus increasing unintended pregnancies and, therefore, abortions. Please see Dr. Janet Smith’s website for further info. I did explain this in my reply to your previous comment.
I did not fully address all of your possible concerns in the initial article you commented on, since it wasn’t about contraception. The post was about the HHS mandate’s gross violation of Constitutional principles and common sense, which has been none too common in DC for a long time.
(China thinks it needs to “fix” it’s overpopulation problem, too. The results have been remarkably ugly. I’ve posted repeatedly on this, they should be under the pro-life category (check the right sidebar). Plus, there’s the Population Research Institute’s work, especially the “Overpopulation is a myth” series.)
That’s why the UN said that in just a few decades, the population will increase to 9 billion, right? :/
Overpopulation is a problem, forests in my country are being destroyed to give room to new houses, oil will go away in 50 years, water is getting scarce, and alot of other problems too.
“Oil will go away in 50 years…” Yeah, we’ve heard that one before. In fact, oil was supposed to be gone by the 1980′s.
“… forests in my country are being destroyed to give room to new houses…” Is that because people’s standards of living are finally improving? Or because there’s more people? Or because your country uses poor farming practices? There are lots of explanations possible, and you can’t just assume it’s the reason you want it to be.
And the UN’s scare tactic report wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Just for starters, they assumed that every country’s fertility rate would rebound, without precedent or explanation, to at least replacement levels. (Even countries that give massive tax breaks haven’t been able to increase their fertility rates after they’ve fallen below replacement levels.) The UN is heavily invested in keeping people cowed by climate change panic and the “need” for the UN to come in and mandate everything.