Commonweal Symposium Part II

Commonweal Symposium Part II by MSW.  MGB: Kaveny raises the question of whether the Bishops are attempting to engage in Christendom, which is the use of the Church's power over its members who are elected officials (like the Vice President) to have their views given a weight they do not deserve. Any such attempts must be resisted, especially when they involve the Communion line. Indeed, such attempts are rightly called seditious. No non-Catholic politician would accuse the Church of this, for fear of alienating Catholic voters. Catholic politicians, however, should have the courage to do so, or at least share these concerns with the Papal Nuncio - who is responsible for the conduct of his bishops in this regard. (Were I President, I certainly would of, especially regarding the Secretary's right to partake).


Moreland offers an interesting take on the rights of institutions, but ignores the fact that this entire debate comes about because another institution, the medical profession as given voice by the Institutes of Medicine, also is a valid intermediary in public policy and has, in fact, based their judgment not on some radical commitment to feminism but on the medical necessity that women receive this coverage for no cost.

Laylock also points out how the Church argument has strayed into attempts at undoing contraception rather than simply defending its own rights. He is especially canny in pointing out that some of this attempt is about sexual moral issues rather than life issues. I would go further to state the Church is essentially wrong on their understanding of the life issues involved, since contraceptive methods mentioned are all affective prior to gastrulation, when the blastocyst is controlled solely by the DNA of the mother. The DNA of the father does not regulate development until gastrulations occurs. As the higher is reflected in the lower (as a theological principle), one can cite this as proof that ensoulment cannot have occurred - so there is no life issue - only a sexual one. It is quite a stretch to believe it is appropriate that the Church have an opinion on the personal sexual ethics of either their employees or the public at large.

Silk's comments on Americanism as a heresy, which is not about foreign policy but the belief that somehow the American Church can take a different line on issues than the Church as a whole, are worth reading the entire Commonweal piece.

All of the arguments ignore the fact that there is no constitutional reason to object to the current policy (which covers contraception) or the new one by HHS which merely stops the copay - a fact that has already been litigated in federal court regarding an identical state policy. This puts to lie the Church's contention that they must somehow resist a change when they have been living with paying for contraception through insurance since December 2000, when the EEOC enacted it. A truly intellectually honest analysis would start with that fact.