The Catholic Church, represented by the US Catholic Bishops Conference, as part of its campaign against a new government directive that would have required many non-for-profit organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, to pay for contraceptive services in insurance coverage offered employees, recently made the following declaration:
"The mandate forces [Catholic] institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral."
The immoral "things" referred to are contraceptive services overwhelmingly approved by and used by American women during some portion of their lives.
The Catholic Church has therefore declared that US women, as a class, are immoral, for using contraceptives.
This mirrors the conclusion about the morality of American women made by organizations such as al-Qaeda.
While the White House today sought to quell the furor with a compromise with religious institutions on the new DHHS rule, the central question of what is precisely at stake has been focused mainly on what the Catholic Church and its faith-based allies in the debate, have declared an "assault on religious freedom" or matters of "conscience".
Today, in initially reacting to the White House compromise, the Bishops Conference said:
"…the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them."
The statement went on to reinforce the earlier message about the alleged morality of contraceptive use:
"Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,"
However, since the question of contraceptive services really involves issues of medical science, and doctor-recommended health-care procedures and practices, considered sinful by some religions, but highly beneficial by doctors, one might find it odd that the input of scientists and medical professionals on this issue has neither been sought out nor much discussed by news organizations reporting this matter.
The question may now be raised—is the Catholic position extremist?
And if so, particularly given the impact on the health and well-being of the majority demographic of the USA, should the President have budged an inch in protecting US citizens from religious extremism?
It seems the White House attempted to make sure today that any compromise on religious liberty grounds would have no impact on the delivery of health care to women.
There remains the question if that were not the case, or if the Church or other religious groups still object to the compromise, will the White House reject the religious arguments, and stick to the commitment to women's health?
Comments