Support the Café
Search our site

Bishops overplaying their hand?

Bishops overplaying their hand?

National Catholic Reporter suggests that the Roman Catholic bishops may have jumped the shark in their latest demands:

In the three weeks between President Barack Obama’s Jan. 20 announcement that there would be no expansion of the conscience exemptions regarding Department of Health and Human Services mandates for contraceptives and his Feb. 10 announcement of an “accommodation” that effectively does expand those exemptions, the U.S. bishops enjoyed a rare moment of public support from many progressive Catholics.

Groups like the Catholic social justice lobby NETWORK and the Catholic Health Association, as well as prominent liberal Catholics like E.J. Dionne and Chris Matthews, joined the bishops in calling for broader exemptions for Catholic colleges, charities and hospitals.

When the president announced his accommodation, it was clearly a win for the bishops. The president had set a one-year timetable to address religious concerns, but the firestorm he had ignited required him to address the issue more quickly than planned.

Instead of taking a victory lap, though, the bishops declared themselves unsatisfied with the accommodation and shifted the goalposts of the debate.

….

Reese added, “As long as the fight over the HHS mandate was seen as a fight to protect religious institutions from government interference, there was wide support for the bishops. Once it became a fight over contraceptives, the bishops lost almost all their support.”

The real danger in the bishops’ shift from a defense of religious institutions to a defense of the conscience rights of individual employers and corporations, however, is one to which conservatives, and especially the bishops, should be highly attuned. It reinforces the idea that religion is essentially a private matter, between one’s conscience and God. There is no room for the magisterium in such a view and it aligns neatly with the views of some non-Catholic liberal scholars. “I am all for religious liberty,” Boston College’s Alan Wolfe said. “But in my view it is human beings that deserve liberty, not institutions. Indeed, when institutions gain liberty, people lose it.” Reinforcing the idea that conscience and religion are essentially individualistic things is surely not something the bishops want to reinforce in America’s highly anti-authoritarian and uber-individualistic culture.

….

The U.S. bishops, then, must tread carefully in the public square. Even though they got the president to modify his position on the conscience exemptions with great alacrity, they could easily overplay their hand. “People are sympathetic to the bishops when they are trying to protect religious institutions, but when they push their public policy agenda, whether it be against gay marriage or for immigration reform, they are treated as just another voice in the public square,” Reese said. “If people agree with their arguments, they follow them. If they don’t, they don’t.”

And then there is the group of nuns filing an brief on behalf of the Obama healthcare plan. Reported on Think Progress:

Amici curiae represent the leadership of Catholic women’s religious orders from across the United States. Amici and the orders they serve have a long history of public service in healthcare in America dating back to the 1700s. These services include founding hospitals and free clinics and providing free healthcare to the underprivileged and uninsured. The work by Amici gives them a unique perspective on the unmet healthcare needs of the poor, as well as on the positive impact that will result from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or the “Act”). . . .

Amici have witnessed firsthand the national crisis that prompted Congress to pass the ACA. In particular, Amici have seen the devastating impact of the lack of affordable health insurance and healthcare on women, children, and other vulnerable members of society.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Pearson

Besides, you really cannot honestly expect to take a moral stand on anything and then whine because it costs you something. That just doesn’t fit.

P.S. I think my brain works pretty well too.

Elizabeth Kaeton

As far as I’m concerned, my very functional brain tells me that the RC bishops lost all moral authority over the predatory sexual practices of their priest and the incompetency of their bishops to handle the aftermath.

Anyone with a functional brain knows that this is neither about ‘religious freedom’ for the bishops nor votes for Obama in November.

This is about two things: (1) contraception as part of good, preventative health care for women and (2) the rights of employees to have access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance which includes good preventative health care.

If you get government funds, you have to play by government rules. Since I’ve been a tax payer, I’ve paid for more wars than I care to remember. I am theologically opposed to war but I still pay my taxes.

Last time I checked, we’re a democracy, not a theocracy. Thanks be to God.

tgflux

Then sign me, ChristopherJ—

Dysfunctionally-Brained for Health-Insurance for ALL (including Women, which then automatically includes Birth Control) JC Fisher

>;-/

Christopher Johnson

Then don’t. Just don’t force the bishops to live under your rules.

Particularly since just about everyone with a functional brain sees this brand new and transparently fraudulent “right” to have somebody else pay for your birth control for exactly what it is. Nothing more or less than a cynical attempt by the Obama Administration to buy November votes, the Establishment Clause and the Constitution be damned.

Peter Pearson

I’m having a very challenging time figuring out which way the RC bishops want to play… they don’t want anybody to tell them what to do but they would like to tell everybody else what they should do? Right? When you compare the logic of this issue with that of the gay marriage debate, it gets really cloudy. So gentlemen, which way do you want it? Very many of us are not your loyal subjects and do not wish to live under your rules.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A
2020_011

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café