A "friend" posted this article on Facebook, and since it's about Obama and Catholicism, how could I not click? (Also, being from the Washington Post, I felt it could not be completely ridiculous.)
Michael Gerdon summarizes recent actions of the Obama administration that he calls its "War on Catholicism." Perhaps it seems extreme, but he's alluding to a quote from Sebelius. His case rests on two main incidents: 1) the decision to cut funding to a Catholic Charities program that helps victim of human trafficking and 2) a policy mandating the coverage of birth control in insurance policies, including those of Catholic institutions that are not "churches."
(Side Note: It amused me a little that Gerdon thinks "Catholics were reassured" by Obama's rhetorical at Notre Dame. It did not reassure those who were upset about his invitation.)
I'm sure you can imagine my internal rant about HHS's decision to stop funding a program that has been proven effective at helping trafficking victims, simply because they don't refer for abortions. (If you can't imagine it begins: "I'm sorry, are you saying that abortion is the solution to human trafficking?") So I won't subject you to that.
I hope for policy changes because, as Gerdon states, the victims of these policies are not the bishops: they are the poor and vulnerable about whom (*gasp!*) the Church cares. More than that, I realize the importance of Catholics being involved in the political process to change them, because Obama and Sebelius won't on their own.
However, right now, policies are what they are and there is a distinct possibility that Catholic Charities won't get the grant back. What happens then? Does a lack of funding mean that Catholics stop caring for the poor and vulnerable?
Quite the opposite. If Catholic charitable organizations aren't getting funding from the government, this serves as a wake-up call for Catholics in the pew. We care about people: our next door-neighbors, our next world neighbors, and everyone in between. So if the government doesn't fund effective aid organizations, we must. (Not that we should stop giving if the government starts. The wake-up call is to a duty that has always existed.) It's something politically conservative Catholics have been saying for a while: It is not the government's job to love our neighbor. It's ours.
As a political progressive I think it is precisely the government's job to love our neighbors, and it can do it much more effectively than private organizations. The thing about catholic institutions is that the things that make them catholic are precisely the things that make them unsuitable to provide the services they provide. The government has a duty to ensure that everyone, not just catholics, has access to good health care. If catholic institutions are the only ones providing health care in an area, and they refuse to provide some kinds of healthcare that noncatholics need, then they are effectively denying those noncatholics their right to health care. That is a problem that HHS is very appropriately addressing. We live in a religiously diverse society, and so we need institutions that provide all services to all people. Limiting the the services available to one group by the beliefs of another group is not a workable way for a diverse society to function. How would you feel if catholics were unable to acquire alcoholic beverages, even for communion, because mormonism or islam opposes alcohol?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's actually that ridiculous to call it a war on Catholicism. I'm currently working on my Admin Law paper (hence why I checked FB and your blog ;) about Sect. 2713 (the contraception mandate). If you look, we can see how the process unfolded and how Catholic/religious groups were not even invited to speak on the issue before the IOM (the group that HHS delegated rulemaking authority to), while at the same time other groups consistently hurled anti-Catholic statements.
ReplyDeleteWhen considered in conjunction with the fact that Catholic Charities is losing not only the human trafficking grant, but also foster care and health care grants (on a much smaller level) around the country, it does seem like there is an attack being levied at the Church. I think it would feel less like this if those denying funding gave Catholic groups the opportunity to prevent their side without being consistently misquoted.
For example, most ppl think that Catholics don't think that the new health care bill should include any provisions for contraceptive coverage. Perhaps this is true on an individual level, but all the Catholic/pro-life groups I know of (including the USCCB) are not making that argument. Instead, they're simply stating that those who object to it, should not have to fund it. Responding to Frank's comment, above, the situation is not should Mormons or Muslims be able to prohibit Catholics from acquiring wine, but whether they should be forced to fund it. I would answer "no" to both.
Amy,
ReplyDeleteI'll definitely grant that the health care debate gets a little more complicated for exactly the reason you give, though I don't want to go into the details of that. It sounds like you're a a little farther along in law school than I am (I'm a 1L), so I wouldn't stand much chance debating the details of the healthcare law. However, the cases that Beth was talking about weren't of catholics being asked to fund other people's potentially objectionable health care, they were about the government being asked to fund catholic institutions, so I don't think the issues you raised about funding are applicable. Catholics weren't being asked to fund anything.
Well, Frank, but see, even the way you frame your response -- "the government being asked to fund catholic institutions" -- is not wholly correct. Catholic Charities isn't asking for money for religious purposes (which I know you weren't suggesting; however, phrasing matters when it comes to Est. Cl. issues). They are asking for money to render needed services for ppl in need. And while I understand your point that not every individual who utilizes Catholic orgs' services is necessarily in agreement with the Church teachings, I believe that as long as the the religious organization is able to meet the needs of the individual, their religious affiliation should not matter.
ReplyDeleteNow, many ppl will say that if an organization does not refer ppl for emergency contraceptives, than they cannot serve trafficking victims. But I'll refer you to Beth's comment above (re: abortion is never a needed solution) and put this discussion aside since, though related, it bears on a different point.
And I might be inclined to agree with you if Catholic organizations had never received government funding. But for years, years!, these organizations were deemed appropriate grant recipients. Now, all of a sudden, they can't do their jobs any more? The Catholic Church has been preaching the same thing for 2000 years. They haven't changed; the government's attitude towards them has.
And, again, I'll grant you that one isolated instance does not a "war" make, but putting all of this together, some scary trends start to emerge, esp. for those Catholics who see themselves fulfilling a role in the public square. And especially for the millions upon millions of individuals who benefit from Catholic Charities, hospitals, and education every year.
Beth, please forgive my use of "than" rather than "then." It's been a long 32 pages of my paper thus far ;)
ReplyDeleteFrank, best of luck with finals! First semester 1L year is the scariest; it gets well . . . not easier or really better . . . but less scary from here on out!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmy, of course, I'll forgive you! Even the best of us have slip ups, and I am in a grammatically generous mood, having just discovered that one of my new friends is *at least* as enthusiastic about the Oxford comma as I am. There are some decent guys out there ;-)
ReplyDeleteFrank, I want to address one point you made; Amy seems to be doing a better job than I would on the rest. You claim that it *is* the government's job to love people. I disagree. I think we are on the same page that the government has a duty to care for its citizens. Love is inherently personal : a person loves. An institution cannot love because it is not a person. A government provides out of duty or because of the love of the people who comprise the government. That's why, no matter how much the government does, we will always be called to each other.