Janet Smith
If only our Bishops had thought to consult with David Gibson
By Janet Smith
"In opposing payment for contraception, the Catholic Church is exercising witness to the need for marriage to be open to procreation. The Church believes that this is a mandate of Christ himself and that to cooperate in a systematic way with the supplying of contraception fails to do justice to that witness."
— Janet Smith
How foolish the bishops were not to call upon David Gibson for a lesson in casuistry or hair-splitting! In his February 14 (Religion News Service) column entitled "Bishops' contraception objections fail their church's own moral reasoning", Gibson forgets the fundamental principle that all moral agents are responsible for determining when they will engage in action that involves any degree of material cooperation. Demonstrating that the degree of cooperation is immediate or remote in no way settles an issue. For the immediate evil of an action may not be the only evil that needs to be taken into consideration. The possibility of causing scandal has always been a major consideration in assessing the morality of cooperating with evil.
Moreover, the standard of concern for cooperating with evil is much different for an institution than for an individual. An institution, such as the Catholic Church, exists to teach and give witness to important truths of the faith, among them moral truths. Any systematic cooperation with evil conflicts with the very purpose of the institution and should be avoided when possible.
The bishops have decided that they cannot in conscience cooperate with the evil of paying for contraceptives for their employees. And there really is no denying that the "accommodation" — just as the original mandate — means that Catholic institutions and Catholic insurers will be forced to pay for contraceptives (actually the accommodation added that offense to their mandate).
Some of the bishops' reasons, it seems, have never been pondered by Gibson. The Church considers contraception to be always wrong for many reason, among them because it is an assault on a woman's healthy fertility system and that some forms work by causing early term abortions. The hidden costs of contraceptive practice are huge (increase incidence of breast cancer, strokes, migraines, etc.). There is good evidence the increased availability and use of contraception actually increases the incidence of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Single parenthood is certainly a major cause of poverty in this country. There is strong evidence that the contraceptive lifestyle is a major cause of divorce. Why should Catholics have to pay for nonmedical care that has terrible physical, relational, and social consequences? (Of course, some women may take the hormones in the "pill" for some physical conditions such as endometriosis but they are not thereby contracepting.) This is just a sketch of the reasons — and there are deeper and more profound ones — that shape the Church's condemnation of contraception. Those objecting to the bishops' stance believe contraception is essential health care and cannot begin to comprehend the ground of the bishops' objections. But perhaps they could grasp how ridiculous it is that the only free service to be supplied by health care is contraception! Not antibiotics, not chemotherapy, not infertility treatments — all of which directly serve life.
But this matter is about more than contraception. The fact that so many religious groups and institutions who do not object to the use of contraception have joined the bishops in their opposition to the mandate demonstrates that the key issue is religious liberty. In opposing payment for contraception, the Catholic Church is exercising witness to the need for marriage to be open to procreation. The Church believes that this is a mandate of Christ himself and that to cooperate in a systematic way with the supplying of contraception fails to do justice to that witness.
Already invaluable services are being denied to the poor and needy because governments have forbidden Catholics to act in accord with fundamental beliefs. Catholic agency, for instance, no longer receive government funding to help rescue women from sexual trafficking. That is a direct evil that has resulted from Obama's obsession with contraception. Obama is the one who will be responsible for Catholic institutions either closing or confining their services to Catholics only. I invite Mr Gibson to school Obama in the wrongness in undercutting the effectiveness of institutions that provide tremendously needed social services because his beliefs do not accord with theirs.
You can read David Gibson's column here: http://www.religionnews.com/culture/social-issues/are-bishops-ignoring-their-own-moral-theology
© Janet Smith
March 3, 2012
"In opposing payment for contraception, the Catholic Church is exercising witness to the need for marriage to be open to procreation. The Church believes that this is a mandate of Christ himself and that to cooperate in a systematic way with the supplying of contraception fails to do justice to that witness."
— Janet Smith
How foolish the bishops were not to call upon David Gibson for a lesson in casuistry or hair-splitting! In his February 14 (Religion News Service) column entitled "Bishops' contraception objections fail their church's own moral reasoning", Gibson forgets the fundamental principle that all moral agents are responsible for determining when they will engage in action that involves any degree of material cooperation. Demonstrating that the degree of cooperation is immediate or remote in no way settles an issue. For the immediate evil of an action may not be the only evil that needs to be taken into consideration. The possibility of causing scandal has always been a major consideration in assessing the morality of cooperating with evil.
Moreover, the standard of concern for cooperating with evil is much different for an institution than for an individual. An institution, such as the Catholic Church, exists to teach and give witness to important truths of the faith, among them moral truths. Any systematic cooperation with evil conflicts with the very purpose of the institution and should be avoided when possible.
The bishops have decided that they cannot in conscience cooperate with the evil of paying for contraceptives for their employees. And there really is no denying that the "accommodation" — just as the original mandate — means that Catholic institutions and Catholic insurers will be forced to pay for contraceptives (actually the accommodation added that offense to their mandate).
Some of the bishops' reasons, it seems, have never been pondered by Gibson. The Church considers contraception to be always wrong for many reason, among them because it is an assault on a woman's healthy fertility system and that some forms work by causing early term abortions. The hidden costs of contraceptive practice are huge (increase incidence of breast cancer, strokes, migraines, etc.). There is good evidence the increased availability and use of contraception actually increases the incidence of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Single parenthood is certainly a major cause of poverty in this country. There is strong evidence that the contraceptive lifestyle is a major cause of divorce. Why should Catholics have to pay for nonmedical care that has terrible physical, relational, and social consequences? (Of course, some women may take the hormones in the "pill" for some physical conditions such as endometriosis but they are not thereby contracepting.) This is just a sketch of the reasons — and there are deeper and more profound ones — that shape the Church's condemnation of contraception. Those objecting to the bishops' stance believe contraception is essential health care and cannot begin to comprehend the ground of the bishops' objections. But perhaps they could grasp how ridiculous it is that the only free service to be supplied by health care is contraception! Not antibiotics, not chemotherapy, not infertility treatments — all of which directly serve life.
But this matter is about more than contraception. The fact that so many religious groups and institutions who do not object to the use of contraception have joined the bishops in their opposition to the mandate demonstrates that the key issue is religious liberty. In opposing payment for contraception, the Catholic Church is exercising witness to the need for marriage to be open to procreation. The Church believes that this is a mandate of Christ himself and that to cooperate in a systematic way with the supplying of contraception fails to do justice to that witness.
Already invaluable services are being denied to the poor and needy because governments have forbidden Catholics to act in accord with fundamental beliefs. Catholic agency, for instance, no longer receive government funding to help rescue women from sexual trafficking. That is a direct evil that has resulted from Obama's obsession with contraception. Obama is the one who will be responsible for Catholic institutions either closing or confining their services to Catholics only. I invite Mr Gibson to school Obama in the wrongness in undercutting the effectiveness of institutions that provide tremendously needed social services because his beliefs do not accord with theirs.
You can read David Gibson's column here: http://www.religionnews.com/culture/social-issues/are-bishops-ignoring-their-own-moral-theology
© Janet Smith
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
