This past Sunday, we celebrated the Feast of Pentacost - where the Holy Spirit descended upon all of those assembled in a form similar to tongues of fire. This is an important point. She did not descend (and the gender in the original biblical Greek is feminine for Spirit) on the Apostles alone, who then blessed the others - but instead touched everyone in the community. Likewise, the baptism of the Spirit and other gifts were generally expressed - not a product of ordination.
It was not until centuries later that a monarchical episcopacy evolved - mostly because when cities had multiple communities, the Overseer (which I would translate as Pastor rather than Bishop) kept control of the distribution of Communion rather than creating additional pastors of equal station. At first, bishops were elected by the people. It was only later that the clergy took on this function, which was then fought over between the civil government and the papacy in the western Church. Given that, like in the early Church, the people now have as much literacy as the clergy (a development that took place within the last 150 years), the people can be trusted with this function again, especially in societies where the state is not attempting to control the appointment of bishops, such as the United States.
This brings us to the queston of the religious freedom lawsuit, which the Archdiocese of Washington has joined, along with the local Catholic Charities organization and Catholic University of America. To my knowledge, the decision on joining the lawsuit, or even insisting on a need for religious freedom vis-a-vis the rights of employees to contraceptive health care, was taken at the top of the organizations in the lawsuit. Further, unless Jones Day is donating their labor, I suspect that the cost of the lawsuit is coming from the Cardinal's Lenten Appeal (I have not heard of a separate fundraising effort and most pro-life activities funding comes from the Appeal).
I don't suspect that prior to undertaking this initiative, the Cardinal or even the Director of CCDC (or the President of CUA) bothered to ask the affected employees, the clients and students or even the donors about whether they wished resources to be devoted to a lawsuit that is best described as Quixotic (since it is likely not ripe absent the issuance of a final HHS rule). I suspect that had be been asked, we would have said no to the whole thing. Our claim on the gifts of the Holy Spirit is as sound as that of the clergy. If the true lesson of Pentacost were really front and center in the minds of the bishops, they would have at least asked (although they likely know the answer - which is why they did not).
Perhaps there is a way to make them take notice. If you made a pledge and don't like what the Cardinal is doing here, send a letter objecting rather than your usual monthly payment. If enough of the faithful do it, perhaps His Eminence will take note.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
kenneth houck
Snowden
Howard Schneider
Jonathan Wolfman
Kathryn O'Hehir
Mango Sherbert
Salon.com
Comments
First, of course, there are a dozen similar suits and most, as I read, believe that harm is imminent or invoked because the plaintiffs allege that the insurance regulations in dispute have effectively already been drafted in final form, heard, approved, and imposed.
Second, the employees, clients, and students weren't asked for their opinion because they are not paying directly for these lawsuits. Their paychecks aren't going to be docked. Services will not be reduced. Tuition won't be increased.
Further, the lawsuits are about the government's alleged violation of the Free Exercise clause. The students, clients, and employees don't have standing in that matter, only the Chruch does.
However, I excluded donors from the issue upon which I was commenting. They don't have legal standing, but they may be asked to pay directly.
The point is much like the 'limiting principle' concern of the individual mandate associated with ObamaCare. If this isn't unconstitutional, then what is the government prevented from imposing on Americans under the Commerce Clause?
Similarly, if forcing the Church to support or to provide therapies to which it has a moral objection, then what cannot be imposed upon entities with religious sponsors in the future?
From Bradfield v. Roberts:
Nothing is said about religion or about the religious faith of the incorporators of this institution in the act of incorporation. It is simply the ordinary case of the incorporation of a hospital for the purposes for which such an institution is generally conducted. It is claimed that the allegation in the complainant's bill, that the said 'Providence Hospital is a private eleemosynary corporation, and that to the best of complainant's knowledge and belief it is composed of members of a monastic order or sisterhood of the Roman Catholic Church, and is conducted under the auspices of said church; that the title to its property is vested in the Sisters of Charity of Emmitsburg, Maryland,' renders the agreement void for the reason therein stated, which is that Congress has no power to make 'a law respecting a religious establishment,' a phrase which is not synonymous with that used in the Constitution, which prohibits the passage of a law 'respecting an establishment of religion.'
If we were to assume, for the purpose of this question only, that under this appropriation an agreement with a religious corporation of the tenor of this agreement would be invalid, as resulting indirectly in the passage of an act respecting an establishment of religion, we are unable to see that the complainant in his bill shows that the corporation is of the kind described, but on the contrary he has clearly shown that it is not.
The above-mentioned allegations in the complainant's bill do not change the legal character of the corporation or render it on that account a religious or sectarian body. Assuming [175 U.S. 291, 298] that the hospital is a private eleemosynary corporation, the fact that its members, according to the belief of the complainant, are members of a monastic order or sisterhood of the Roman Catholic, and the further fact that the hospital is conducted under the auspices of said church, are wholly immaterial, as is also the allegation regarding the title to its property
I can just see this now: “The Church will conduct a poll among the laity at all Masses on Pentecost regarding its policies associated with the use of birth control pills as a form of contraception. Please vote!”
Moreover, how is the issue you address in this post a spiritual one? The Constitution, the courts, the funds necessary to pay attorneys and do research, as well as the potential effect of any judgments rendered all lie in the secular and temporal planes, don’t they?
Paul: Free EXERCISE. . . not . . . well . . . why bother.. . .
Besides, would it really matter if the hospital were not religiously sponsored? It's owners/operators might still object on the grounds that they had a moral dilema over the national requirement that certain forms of contraception be supplied.
As I have written other places, if health care benefits are an alm, then the Church should not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing when distributing them. If they are an earned benefit, than it is none of any employer's business how they are used. If they are so sure of the rightness of their position, they should trust their employees to follow it.
Of course, the current position on chemical contraception is simply wrong. It is not the same thing as abortion to prevent a blastocyst from attaching because a blastocyst still operates under the direction of maternal DNA only. The paternal DNA does not impact development until gastrulation, which comes later. Since the lower is a sign of the higher reality, you can infer that ensoulment has not yet taken place. If one has no doubts about that fact, use of this form of contraception is moral.
The Church takes a bold stance against eugenic sterilization. However, sterilization for the health of the mother is not at all the same thing. Circumstances matter.
If the Church really wants to stop employees and students from using contraception, it should increase salaries and student aid so that an additional child is not an obstacle to family well being or the continuance of education. At work/school day care would also be a nice feature. Counseling natural family planning instead still retains the bad intent of forcing women to limit fertility for economics. Once you endorse that intent by counseling NFP, the means is irrelevant.
It would seem that a viable alternative these days would be for employers to offer higher wages or salaries in lieu of providing health insurance (and other optional benefits). Their employees could then make their own choices regarding coverage. This better world would be enhanced by government remaining out of the health insurance market by not specifying what coverage had to be provided.
At one time, this was the norm – meaning that employers did not provide health insurance and government did not interfere in either health insurance or care. The difficulties today arise largely from the insertion of our national government in these matters and an insistence by socialists that all outcomes for each citizen be identical no matter their religious or moral belief, needs, wants, etc.,.
========
With respect to the Church’s position regarding contraception, it is predicated upon a fundamental principle that nothing should interfere with the natural process of conception or birth. Further, the Church also has an underlying fundamental principle that all sexual intercourse should be primarily, procreative, and secondarily, unitive.
These principles logically lead to a preclusion of procedures such as vasectomies and tubal ligations. Hence, these principles also render parsing what happens to eggs and sperm, or to their descendent forms, irrelevant.
===========
I don’t see much of a link between the manner in which bishops are appointed and the issue of who determines canonical dogma.
Nevertheless, both secular and religious authorities began to insert themselves into the selection of bishops as early as 325, shortly after the First Council of Nicaea. In medieval times, kings, popes, and lesser religious authorities generally insisted on nominating candidates for, and/or vetoing the results of, local elections of bishops where such voting still occurred. The current process of sole papal appointment of bishops was eventually enshrined in the canon law of the Latin Rite in 1917 after 1,500 years of transition to it.
However, the encyclicals of the Church on human life have not been the products of the bishops in any real sense. The various catechisms of the Church may all have been reviewed during various conferences of bishops. That does not seem to be a strong link to the development of church doctrine on the issue of contraception.
In fact, little of substance on this issue of procreation seems to have changed since the earliest days of the Church. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception
You don't understand the Establishment Clause and at this point it's safe to say you never will.
Michael,
I was pointing out why the suit is ill-advised. It should never get "ripe" enough to be considered, as it is, on its face, a twisted interpretation of Establishment Clause freedom. BC through insurance isn't a gift from the Church, it's part of a secular employee's compensation for performing secular services in a secular institution that conforms to secular law.
I think the reason the Church doesn't poll the faithful is obvious -- the faithful don't agree that BC is a sin. If it was, then pretty much all Catholic women will at least spend a great deal of time in Purgatory, if not Hell.
Birth control per Church doctrine is one of those things most Catholics ignore and have ignored for a very long time. It's one of those things they just do, and always remember to never bring up the subject in front of the "company men."
It is likely that the Church would disagree with your implication that “They (celibates) do have an idealized view of sexuality . . . .” It is likely that the Church would claim that it is interpreting scripture and providing guidance to man as it interprets God’s law. I make this point since your claim is that you are trying to make a spiritual argument.
No doubt that the Church could be incorrect, since it governed by fallible men on Earth. However, the sole Arbiter in such matters is generally unavailable for comment.
Such belief must certainly be discarded in order to argue that moral standards are relative to any perceived, secular, shifting reality of social norms. Recall that the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life has not changed greatly during the Common Era.
========
As it happens, the Torah was written from 600 BC to 400 BC during a period roughly coincident with the Babylonian exile. The Mosaic Law therein, as applied to sexual conduct, is found mostly in the books of Genesis and Leviticus.
This written version, along with the oral tradition of the Torah, codified sexual intercourse among Jews and has largely passed to us. However, other cultures codified such behavior long before the Torah, some as early as 3,000 BC to 2,000 BC. Consequently, it’s not likely that people in Babylonia, or elsewhere, over the past four or five millennia, were as ill-informed of the (external) physiological, psychological, or moral aspects of sexual intercourse as you may be trying to suggest.
========
Your point may be that we know much more about the biology of reproduction now than in the past. If this is your claim, then you are certainly correct.
The difficulty comes in trying to connect the science with the morality. This is like connecting the secular and temporal planes to the spiritual plane.
It’s not as if they can’t 'coexist'. It’s just that they can’t be coupled in the easy fashion you seem to be suggesting.