Surprise, surprise: secularist elites don't mind "Catholics", but...

... they cannot stand, abide, or otherwise say anything good about Catholics who have the audacity to folllow Church teaching and who place their hope in Someone higher than calculating technocrats. Who would have ever imagined such was the case? Oh, yes, anyone paying attention to the growing cultural, social, and religious rifts of the past several decades. The opening Exhibit is the first paragraph of the February 10, 2012, New York Times editorial:

In response to a phony crisis over “religious liberty” engendered by the right, President Obama seems to have stood his ground on an essential principle — free access to birth control for any woman. That access, along with the ability to receive family planning and preventive health services, was at the foundation of health care reform.

Note the assumptions and perspectives, all of them faulty or disingenuous:

1. This conflict over the HHS mandate is the fault of "the right" because, don't you know, the intelligent and compassionate among us would never, ever stand in the way of what they blithely term "reproductive justice" and "access to women's health care". They and all their friends know it's good, and anyone who deigns to think or say otherwise is clearly a woman-hating cretan (more on that in a moment).

2. So how did "the right" start this kerfuffle? By wrongly insisting, in the words of one prominent pundit, that Obama's "administration mishandled this decision not once but twice". By getting angry over nothing. For example, another columnist, writing with obvious anger the day after the January 20th announcement, stated the "president’s decision yesterday essentially told us, as Catholics, that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us." Well, what else do you expect from "the right". But, of course, those remarks were made, respectively, by E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, and Michael Sean Winters of the National "Catholic" Reporter, two men who are only on the right when driving a car within North America.

3. "Religious liberty" is either not an issue at all, is only a tool of "the right" used to scare the mindless masses of dogmatic fundamentalists who cling desperately to their Bibles, guns, and (in the case of Catholics) their rosaries and spirits. The real liberty is the freedom of a women to do anything at all she wishes with her body (save, perhaps, pray with sincere faith or enter into holy matrimony as a virgin) and, in addition, to be free of any and all impediments to the various services, devices, and medicines that will aid her along the path to fulfillment, freedom, and feminutopia.

4. Birth control is an "essential principle" of both the President's political and social agenda, as well as the "foundation of health care reform." This makes perfect sense if you smoke cracked reality for breakfast or read the New York Times during the same breakfast, because it's not clear at all how birth control will help with the leading causes of death in the United States:

• Heart disease: 599,413
• Cancer: 567,628
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
• Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
• Diabetes: 68,705
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

[Granted, having and raising kids can occasionally strain one's heart and even increase the chances of accidents, but is that really a reason to make "family planning" (aka, contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients) and "preventative health services" (contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients) the essential principles of a massive, unprecedencted healthcare overhaul? More seriously, why is it constantly said that the Catholic Church is fixated on sex? One reason is that the only area of life in a post-modern technocracy that escapes the increasingly exacting and controlling hand of the all-knowing, every-growing state is that of sexual activity. Yet even that is not entirely accurate, because the received wisdom is that any and all sex between consenting adults is well and good—as long as pregnancy and giving birth is avoided like a combination of the ten causes of death listed above.]

5. Finally, this entire matter is all about right-wing politics, Yep, the "right" is playing politics with the freedoms, rights, and liberties of women because those radicals are puritanical control freaks who cannot stand anyone having a bit of fun.

That last point is very important because it's difficult to find anything in the New York Times or other mainstream outlets that recognizes, when all is said and done, any ultimate reality other than politics.

Thus, the editors opine, "The president’s solution, however, demonstrates that those still angry about the mandate aren’t really concerned about religious freedom; they simply don’t like birth control and want to reduce access to it." Of course, the same editors would never say those practicing their right to use vulgar speech, display crucifixes in urine, or verbally abuse a conservative politician "aren't really concerned about freedom of speech and expression; they simply don't like Christianity, crucifixes or lower taxes." Besides, a growing number of non-Catholic Christians and Jewish leaders, among others, who aren't necessarily opposed to contraception are publicly denouncing the HHS mandate because they recognize that "instead of encouraging the different faith communities to continue their vital work for the good of all, the Obama administration is forcing them to make a choice: serving God and their neighbors according to the dictates of their respective faiths—or bending the knee to the dictates of the state."

Moving on to Exhibit #2, a February 12, 2012, NJ.com column that compares the unfettered happiness experienced by liberated 21st-century women with the mysogynist, dark dogmas of—yes, you saw it coming!—"organized religion", which refers mostly to Catholics, the Catholic Church, and Catholicism:

Something about women having sex for the sheer joy of it seems to unhinge the ultrareligious mind, even here in the West where things are better for women but not exactly benign.

Which brings us to the dust-up over requiring religious organizations to pay for contraception despite their doctrinal objection.

Opposition to contraception in this scientific age seems medieval. Maybe so, but it’s a matter of religious freedom and belief, the Catholic bishops insist. It’s also a political issue for the church.

The Catholic church must oppose contraception if it’s to keep faith with its true believers, especially women who have lived by that rule for generations despite the hardship it often imposed. This is the church’s most devoted constituency — its base, so to speak.

What a wonderfully non-creative display of anti-religious cliché tossing! It has it all: Catholics hate sex, Catholics treat women like dirt, Catholics have weird and stupid beliefs, Catholics are just politically-motivated power hogs, Catholics are hypocritical, etc. Why not just say that being Catholic is like joining a secret club that requires you to kill your first born, call it "reproductive justice", and throw a screaming fit if anyone dares a wince, let alone a rebuke? Oh, wait, that's what Planned Parenthood does. So sorry. Carry on.

How, then—sticking just to the practical affairs of the world—to explain the fact that the Catholic Church is the oldest provider of health care to women, children, and men in the world? That prior to Catholicism the poor and the needy and the marginalized were mostly ignored and trambled upon? That hospitals for those in need didn't exist prior to Catholicism? That Catholic pregnancy centers and orphanages and other agencies are so concerned with helping women and children, most of them poor and in need of every sort of support?

Because the Catholic Church did not and does not start from the popular premise that politics dictates who we and how we should think and act, but that faith and reason, especially as expressed and presented by the Church, are the foundational guides. The Church, in the words of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, is an "expert in humanity ... able to understand man in his vocation and aspirations, in his limits and misgivings, in his rights and duties, and to speak a word of life that reverberates in the historical and social circumstances of human existence" (par. 61). That same volume points out we must look at the origins of human life and the fact of God as Creator in order to understand the real nature and purpose of mankind:

The Book of Genesis provides us with certain foundations of Christian anthropology: the inalienable dignity of the human person, the roots and guarantee of which are found in God's design of creation; the constitutive social nature of human beings, the prototype of which is found in the original relationship between man and woman, the union of whom “constitutes the first form of communion between persons”[38]; the meaning of human activity in the world, which is linked to the discovery and respect of the laws of nature that God has inscribed in the created universe, so that humanity may live in it and care for it in accordance with God's will. This vision of the human person, of society and of history is rooted in God and is ever more clearly seen when his plan of salvation becomes a reality. (par. 37)

I quote from the Compendium at length as a preface to another piece in the New York Times, this a February 11, 2012, column by Nicholas D. Kristof, who has apparently been inspired (I employ the word with great sloppiness) by his colleague, Maureen Dowd, to use a term both silly and sophomoric: "pelvic politics". Kristof wants the Catholic bishops to get "beyond pelvic politics", which is quite a hoot considering it is Kristof and friends who are so enamored with pelvises and politics, whereas the bishops are focused on principles, truth, and justice. Kristof smirks:

I may not be as theologically sophisticated as American bishops, but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.

This is part of a little shtick that Kristof has employed before, as when he lambasted (with a most cavalier cluelessness) the actions of Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix a year ago, writing, "Then along comes Bishop Olmsted to excommunicate the Christ-like figure in our story. If Jesus were around today, he might sue the bishop for defamation." It's unfortunate that Kristof's relationship with facts and logic isn't as cozy as his relationship with his faux Jesus. Kristof's dislike for bishops and Church authority in general makes him immune to the really significant issues at stake (his claim to theological ignorance is spot on; unfortunately, his ignorance seems to embolden him). And so he goes on and on about "sexually active American women of modest means" and "the cost of birth control" and "the centrality of birth control" and such, so that you can only conclude that apple pie is as American as birth control, only not nearly as fabulous, healthy, and perfect—if only those nasty bishops would get the heck out of the way: "If we have to choose between bishops’ sensibilities and women’s health, our national priority must be the female half of our population."

(Sarcasm on:) Don't you see that this entire mess is all about the bishops holding a perverse and irrational grudge against sexually liberated woman and the little pills that bring them childless joy, commitment-free love, and six-figure salaries? (And, really, what more is there to life than pleasure and power? Well?) This is not about what it means to be human, the nature of life, the order of creation, the necessity of marriage, the importance of family, the religious foundations of society, and the eternal meaning of all that is. Nope, this is about sex, money, and politics. (Sarcasm off.)

To put this is fairly blunt terms: do you define freedom as the ability to rut without responsibility, or the liberty to pursue truth and goodness? Each year that passes, Pope Paul VI's great encyclical, Humanae Vitae, proves ever more prescient. But it was not just prophetic, it also proposes and exhorts:

And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God. (par 23) ... 

For man cannot attain that true happiness for which he yearns with all the strength of his spirit, unless he keeps the laws which the Most High God has engraved in his very nature. These laws must be wisely and lovingly observed. (par 31)

So, yes, it really is about religious liberty, which is ultimately the freedom to seek truth, worship God, and obey Christ without fear of fines, persecution, or worse.

Comments

[Laura P.]

Excellent post, Carl. I don't know why I am still astonished at the obtuseness of those on the left and others who just don't "get it".

[Kim]

I love that word - "feminutopia." I was there once; let me tell you, I was neither fulfilled nor free.

[Peter L]

I really enjoyed reading this piece,excellent points made.

I couldn't of written it better myself ;-)

[Dan]

No. 4, that artificial contraception and abortion are considered the "foundation of health care reform" is what is really grotesque about all this. Obamacare was sold as helping the low wage worker who can't afford health insurance. Now we learn that what it really is all about is financing the mass sterilization of the populace and coercing the Catholic Church to participate in the process.

[LJ]

The Catholic church must oppose contraception if it’s to keep faith with its true believers, especially women who have lived by that rule for generations despite the hardship it often imposed. This is the church’s most devoted constituency — its base, so to speak.

That line there says a lot about how the left, at least in Washington and particularly the cadre around President Obama, see the Church. They think in terms of constituencies, betraying the fact, as they also do in throwing out the stats on Catholic women who have used contraception, that they consider the Church as a ground up democratic institution like most Protestant sects, where doctrine is determined by the majority. To them it is only a political force and that is re-enforced by the political pundits who talk incessantly about the "Catholic vote."

As far as their misrepresentation of the Church's actual teaching it does make one wonder if their ignorance is willful. How could they be that stupid? Twisting the issue away from the First Amendment is a political strategy, but the only way they can do that is to mock and misrepresent the Church on the issue of contraception.

Opposition to contraception in this scientific age seems medieval. If there is one thing that I find excessively irritating it this truth by calendar mentality. "...seems medieval...", and the point is what exactly?

[Marielle Regnier]

You as Catholics do what your religion tells you, if you think this is right, but let the others do what they want, let God be the judge of all this, believe me He is aware and in control, don't try and take His place and think you are good people, Jesus was all love you certainly are not. You are always criticizing and finding faults are you so perfect that you can do this, just surrender your power to God give Him the power of your life and see what happens.
Happy Valentine day to all of you.

[Charles E Flynn]

Chronological snobbery

[Dan]

Like everyone else, I've been focused on the religious liberty aspect of this but I am now realizing that Obamacare's requirements concerning artificial contraception are insane entirely aside from whether the requirements violate anyone's conscience. These requirements are making it national policy to provide artificial contraception to the entire populace free of charge. This is a milestone in the cultural progression of modernity's disintegrated view of sexuality. I don't believe there ever has been on the part of the federal government such a deep commitment to, and endorsement of, artificial contraception. It is tantamount to a national declaration that artificial contraception is a positive good. This is why there is so much resistance to any conscience exemption -- access obviously isn't the issue since, according to Guttmacher, 99% of women already use contraception. The felt need for the approbation of contraception aside, there is also the practical question of why we as a nation subsidizing in a massive way the sterilization of the populace. The whole thing is really mind-boggling.

[LJ]

Absolutely fascinating, Marielle Regnier.

Fascinating because I have heard it several times from various quarters in the course of this debate. And there is an interesting pattern to this from the left. They have consistently in the past tried to deflect or get in front of an issue by accusing their opposition of doing precisely what it is that they themselves are doing.

So in this debate the Catholic Church and other Christians are then accused of trying to deny people access to contraception. I don't know where you stand politically but how do you get from the government demanding that Catholics subsidize, pay directly for or otherwise provide services that violate their own teaching, and objecting to that on the grounds of the First Amendment; to the odd notion that Catholics are trying to stop others from doing what they want? I don't follow that at all. It is the government that is trying to force people to do what is against their own conscience.

As to the rest, yes, Jesus was and still is love. He started a Church (Matthew 16:18) some 2000 years ago and we Catholics are still around. And as you point out, we are indeed sinners. No serious Catholic will dispute that.

As to criticizing and even mocking those irrational, silly and malicious arguments, pronouncements and declarations that support evil and/or attack the Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, it all falls under St. Peter's admonition I think,(1 Peter 3:15); whereas attacking people personally does not.

But we do agree that it is essential to give Christ the power in our lives. Amen to that.