Archbishop Chaput: Making Sense Of Another Ambiguous ‘Compromise’
To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).
– Augustine
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that prudence is the auriga virtutum, the “charioteer of virtues.” It's “right reason in action,” the guide to correctly applying all other virtues. Rash action, no matter how well intended, violates prudence and usually does more harm than good. God gave us brains. He expects us to use them to judiciously pursue the highest moral good for others and for ourselves.
At the same time, the Catechism warns that prudence should never be used as an alibi for “timidity or fear, duplicity or dissimulation.” Real prudence has a spine called fortitude, the virtue we more commonly know as courage. And courage, in the words of C.S. Lewis, “is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality.”
Here's why both these virtues are vital in the weeks ahead. On Friday, February 2, the Obama administration issued for public comment a set of revised regulations governing the HHS “contraceptive mandate.” At first glance, the new rules have struck some people as a modest improvement. They appear to expand, in a limited way, the kind of religiously-affiliated entities that can claim exemption from providing insurance coverage for contraceptive and abortion-related services under the new Affordable Care Act.
White House apologists and supporters have welcomed the proposal. The New York Times called it “a good compromise.” Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL Prochoice America have praised it. And at least one Washington Post columnist implausibly called it a victory for America's Catholic bishops.
The trouble is, the new rules are very complex. And they may actually make things worse. In the words of Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard Bradley:
“Gauging the net effect of the new administration proposal [is] hazardous. But one can say with confidence the following: (1) religious hospitals are, as before, not exempt 'religious employers'; (2) religious charities are very likely not exempt either, unless they are run out of a church or are very tightly integrated with a church. So, a parish or even a diocese's Saint Vincent De Paul operations would probably be an exempt 'religious employer,' whereas Catholic Charities would not be; (3) the new proposal may (or may not) make it more likely that parish grade schools are exempt 'religious employers.' But Catholic high schools are a different matter. Some might qualify as 'religious employers.' Most probably will not.
"It is certain that Catholic colleges and universities do not qualify as exempt 'religious employers.' The new proposal includes, however, a revised 'accommodation' for at least some of these institutions, as well as some hospitals and charities. The proposal refines the administration's earlier efforts to somehow insulate the colleges and universities from immoral complicity in contraception, mainly by shifting -- at least nominally – the cost and administration of the immoral services to either the health insurance issuer (think Blue Cross) or to the plan administrator (for self-insured entities, such as Notre Dame). This proposal adds some additional layering to the earlier attempts to insulate the schools, but nothing of decisive moral significance is included.”
The White House has made no concessions to the religious conscience claims of private businesses, and the whole spirit of the “compromise” is minimalist.
As a result, the latest White House “compromise” already has a wave of critics, including respected national religious liberty law firms like the Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom. And many are far harsher than Professor Bradley in their analysis.
The scholar Yuval Levin has stressed that the new HHS mandate proposal, “like the versions that have preceded it, betrays a complete lack of understanding of both religious liberty and religious conscience.” In reality, despite the appearance of compromise, “the government has forced a needless and completely avoidable confrontation and has knowingly put many religious believers in an impossible situation.”
One of the issues America's bishops now face is how best to respond to an HHS mandate that remains unnecessary, coercive and gravely flawed. In the weeks ahead the bishops of our country, myself included, will need both prudence and courage – the kind of courage that gives prudence spine and results in right action, whatever the cost. Please pray that God guides our discussions.
Richard Weisgrau
10:36 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Dear Archbishop:
Your overwhelming advocacy for the prevention of birth control amazes me. It is not that I fail to understand your dogma. I do. I spent decades in Catholic elementary, high school, and college. By the time I was 13 I began to question, and at 19 I renounced the those rules you espouse as God's. I cannot reconcile the Church's hard line on birth control and its cover up of child abuse by its priests. I recall being taught that priests were God's representatives on earth. At that time I did not know that God appointed pederasts to be his representatives. I don't think that God did that. If I did, I would have to reject God for doing so. Now you ask me to believe that the Church's stance against birth control has divine origin and that politicians are fighting God's will. Sorry Archbishop, you lose. I just can't believe that God cares more about birth control than he cares about the children abused at the hands of his representatives on earth. Can you explain that to me. Isn't that your job?
michael
7:17 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
well said
Rita Smith, M.E.V.
1:55 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Richard, I disagree with your statement to Archbishop Chaput. He is instructing all of us in truth! Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae words were prophetic and we are reaping the evil from birth control. Also, Blessed Pope John Paul II the Great's encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae) If you have the time, both encyclical's are a wonderful resource for the following website www.thepillkills.org The sex scandal within the Catholic Church has been very heart breaking and as Christians we are to pray for the victims and their families. Also, we are to pray for the clergy for their repentance and thank God that the no tolerance policy has been enforced. Sadly, the HHS Mandate is violating our freedom of religion. Our beloved country was founded on God given rights which is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Archbishop Chaput is a God send to the Phila. Archdiocese. We pray for Archbishop Chaput and all the clergy everyday for their faithfulness to their priestly vocation. Without our Priests, we have no Sacraments and the Summit of our faith, which is the Holy Eucharist. Pope Benedict XVI has called a Year of Faith. "Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue, there is no goodness, no love; and where there is no love, there is no God; without God we do not get to Paradise. These virtues form a stairway; if one step is missing, we fall down."....St. Padre Pio. May God grant victory of eternal truth.
Mr. Wynnewood
12:14 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Oh Garsh - the Catholic Church and the issue of birth control.
*sigh*
Of course - taking the moral high ground might perhaps be easier if the Church didn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining why they harbored pedophiles for decades. But...........I digress.
Simply put........the Catholic Church has a choice; it can continue to shrink, close schools. close churches, see it's flock decrease year after year. Or, it can address the needs of it's flock. And in the 21st Century, one of those profound needs is to be able to plan when to have a child. Would a loving God condemn a couple that took steps to have children only when they were in a position to provide for those children?
It's my understanding that Catholics ALREADY use contraceptives. And if the law of these United States stipulate that employers MUST provide birth control as part of their healthcare benefits........wherein lies the problem? Other than a refusal to jettison the archaic dogma that defines the Catholic clergy
Catherine
9:14 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
My Wynnewood, you're so right: More than 80% of Catholics approve of the use of birth control. Plus, one of the main reasons The Church is being forced to close schools and parishes is because money that could help maintain these buildings is being used to pay financial settlements to abuse victims. Meantime, Chaput himself is permitting pervert priests to go back to pastoring, saying the men are no longer a risk. Pedophiles never change, even if the last incident was forty years ago.
Kim
6:55 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
It really doesn't matter what the individual chooses to do.The church has it's teaching and they have (had) the freedom to follow that belief. I can't even believe that this is turning into a let's bash the Catholic Church stream. Would you feel the same if other religions were being forced to go against their faith? I say NO! The outcry would be heard! Even the rabbis came out in support of the religious freedoms we all share. Once again, it's Obama picking and choosing which liberties we get to keep. Did you ever read The Lottery? Hint...look out....your freedom will be next! Mr. Wynnewood, I usually don't like quoting Jesus to others, but it's appropriate in this case. He said, "Come follow Me!"....not the other way around. Christians have free will to make whatever choices they wish. Also, don't you worry about the Catholic Church, I have a feeling they will be just fine....sinners and all!
Allan Bach
7:33 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Kim, some believe that, because one is a Christian, one must be without any moral stain - perfect in all aspects of life. Truth is, the Church is comprised of real people, people with the same possible flaws everyone has. This is the reason most are members of a Church - they desire to deal with their shortcomings (sin) by accepting the forgiveness that Christ offered through his death and resurrection.
I never let the negative comments affect my faith. People are free to write or say anything they desire. However, if I do get the opportunity to discuss my faith, in person with others, I, to the best of my ability, do not speak from the position that I am better than they because I am Christian. I engage in dialogue to present my views and beliefs in a responsible manner with the hope that I may influence them in a positive way.
People, especially Priests and Pastors, who attack young children sicken me, but they will deal with God some day and, short of repentance, face their due justice.
Keep posting, Kim. Your comments reflect the light that is shining within you.
Mr. Wynnewood
8:22 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Well Kim..........here's the rub; I could be wrong but there doesn't seem to be a Biblical admonition against the use the birth control. (Unless of course there were more than 10 Commandments that I somehow missed.) And whereas I assume you woud prefer to follow the Church leadership in all matters, as a product of 12 years of Catholic schools and as a student of history my feeling is that these men (Catholic leadership) have no more right to interpret God's plan anymore than I do. Therefore, I am unwilling to condemn a couple that chooses to use birth control.
As for the President, unlike the Catholic Church's leadership, Mr. Obama was freely elected by the majority of the American electorate. Frankly, I'll take my chances with him rather than a group of men who claim to have an inside track to God's thoughts. Lastly, if you think the Church's position on this matter is any less political than the President's then, in my humble opinion - you would be wrong.
Peace
Richard Weisgrau
10:16 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
@ Kim –– "The church has it's teaching and they have (had) the freedom to follow that belief."
So what happen to their beliefs when it came to protecting children from being molested by priests? Or, did they not believe they had an obligation to do so? Or, did they ignore their obligation to do so? Hmmm, not hard to answer that one based upon the evidence we see worldwide and for at least 5 decades. How about the legal case in which it took a defense that Fetus is not a person to defend agains a law suit (until a day or two ago when it was guilted out of that hypocrisy ) Sorry, it is the Church bashing itself when it cites its moral beliefs as the reason for taking a stand against birth control for the masses of people that want it and use it. They don't want us in their priests bedrooms and I don't want them in mine.
JK
8:49 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
I am not Catholic but I respect all beliefs. The basic core of this issue is 'should the government force individuals to financially support actions that are against their principles'? Let's not get bogged down with rhetoric. The answer is yes or no.
Richard Weisgrau
10:05 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
So, if you are a pacifist, does that mean you should not pay taxes because a hefty share goes to support Defense Department, which was once called the War Department. I don't like giving government subsidies to oil companies, but I still pay my taxes. Thing is that we all support directly or indirectly some things we do not agree with. That is what happens in a democracy.
Mr. Wynnewood
1:46 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
JK - the question as you stated it...........does NOT have a yes or no answer. Unlike the Catholic Church, one of the hallmarks of American democracy has been the willingness and the obligation to compromise. It's when we fail to compromise that things fall apart. And compromise is what the President is hoping to do in this matter.
Trust me..........if we're going to allow Americans to choose whether to financially support something based on their real or supposed "principles" then......if you think the currebt National Debt is large now..........!!!
What if it's against my principles to use my tax dollars to buy nuclear weapons? What if it's against my principles to allow the Federal gov't to regulate the phramaceutical industry using my tax dollars? Should the IRS send out menu pricing for Americans on April 15th? When you vote, if you vote, you elect people to make those decisions. Don't like the job they're doing - vote them out.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church already enjoys tax free status. And if they're going to be an "employer" they have the obligation to operate in the same manner as all other employers. Unfortuntely for the President - it seems like his attempt to meet his religious critics half-way has not satisfied them.
Alyson D'Alessandro
9:25 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Several comments were deleted for violating the Patch Terms of Service.
http://limerick.patch.com/terms
John Q. Public
9:32 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Thanks. Some of those comments were very offensive.
Richard Weisgrau
10:17 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Good work. Nice to see a forum that is well moderated.
Kim
10:45 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
No one is asking anyone to support the Catholic Church or it's teachings. Focus people....you either believe in religious liberty or you don't....bottom line! You can't pick or choose! I think we can all agree that what happened in the church was unacceptable, but that has NOTHING to do with this issue. Also, no one is trying to take your birth control away. You want...get it...just don't ask the church to pay for it. Get over yourselves!
Richard Weisgrau
12:54 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
So you think it is alright for the Church to deny non Catholics and Catholics who use birth control (the vast majority) that work for its schools, hospitals, and its other institutions the same access to birth control that all other Americans now have, that is, through their employers' insurance programs. In other words its teachings affect the lives of others who don't sign onto those teachings. The Church is saying our way or the highway. May seem right to you, but it doesn't to me. T
Kim
10:46 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
JK, I meant to give you 2 thumbs up!
Kim
1:54 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Richard, you people like making an issue over a nonissue! Any woman can go get her free birth control at Planned Parenthood! Why do you care so much who pays for it? It sounds like you just want to stick it to the church. I don't expect my church to pay for my son's condoms just in case he gets lucky this weekend! So, I guess my answer is YES I do think my church or any church should continue to enjoy the same religious liberty they have had all these years. Here's a thought, why don't these woman who disagree with the church's position and are that hard up and can't afford their own birth control, GO WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE!
Mr. Wynnewood
2:10 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Kim, I could be wrong but with your statement above you seem to have as much of a problem with the Affordable Care Act as you do with it's requirement that Catholic employers play by the same rules as every other employer.
Richard Weisgrau
3:06 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Kim, we just see it differently. I don't see a religious freedom issue here. Catholics and the Church can practice their religion. To me it is a matter of fairness to those employees who do not subscribe to the Church's belief. Asking or forcing those people to go look for other jobs is as unfair as denying them the birth control coverage that all other employers must give too their employees. The Church is an employer and as such it ought to comply with the law. If the Church does not like the Law it can fight it in court. If the Law is unconstitutional then it should be stuck down. Personally, I do not approve of the mandatory birth control provision of the Law, but my disapproval is based on the premise that no employer should be forced to provide such coverage.
Kim
2:19 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Mr. W, What the hell are you talking about? My whole post was about birth control and the church's right to enjoy religious liberty? I will not engage in any further discussion with you because it is obvious that you have a HUGE issue with the church and it's clouding your view. This. Is about RELIGIOUS LIBERTY...end of story.
Mr. Wynnewood
6:57 am on Thursday, February 7, 2013
"...end of story."
Indeed
gerhard sweetman
1:04 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Freedom FROM religion vs science,logic,reason
Kim
3:40 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Richard, you don't understand that the church can not contribute to what they see as an ending of life. It is a basic tenant. They will need to close their doors. They will close hospitals that care for ALL faiths. Charitable organizations and institutions will need to close. Either way those people will not have their jobs! They truly view it as a sin. They can not knowingly sin like that. Whether people agree with their belief or not doesn't matter. Until now, people of all faiths had the freedom to follow their religion and "conscious". This may be a strange analogy, but should a Kosher market be forced to sell product that isn't Kosher? People shouldn't be forced.
Richard Weisgrau
9:34 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Kim, birth control is not ending life. It is preventing life from occurring. There is no victim. When it comes to ending life, the Church ended a lot of lives in its history. The Crusades, Inquisition, slaughter of native Americans unwilling to accept Christ by the Spanish, not taking a stand during WWII against the genocidal behavior of the Nazis. Then there are the ruined lives of molested children. It seems like a double standard to me: we must protect potential life while the Church has been able to destroy the living. As for the Kosher market, it just isn't a good comparison. The Church has not been forced to hand out birth control means. Under the newly proposed compromise it really has nothing to do. Insurance companies will handle it directly.
Kim
10:01 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
They would have to supply more than birth control. Can we not get caught in the woods? I am not going to debate Catholic teaching with you. The Catholic Church does not endorse birth control either. The fact is they will not go against their teaching. It's a shame people like you can't respect their religious liberty. The crusades, the inquisition...blah blah blah...what does that have to do with the here and now and ...one more time...RELIGIOUS LIBERTY? The church came out and said the "compromise", which Obama claims he's making is no real compromise! I think the church knows what goes against it's teaching more than you. I still think the Kosher market was a good example. It showed me your bias!
Richard Weisgrau
10:38 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Well Kim, when it comes to bias you have plenty of your own. For the record, I went to St. Louis Grammar School, St. Josephs Preparatory High School, and St. Josephs College (now University). I earned my bias the hard way by being immersed in Catholic doctrine and teaching. I became very informed in those years and thereafter. My Jesuit education taught me to delve into matters and not be limited by Dogma. Jesuits are famous for that. Quite a few Popes did not like the Jesuits because they questioned too much and stressed independent thought. So my bias is institutional in its origins and my opinions are based upon those origins. As for the Kosher comparison? What kind of bias was that and what made you think it was a good example to send me? A man is more than a name. A belief if more than a rule. Most Catholics believe birth control is OK. The Church is not a democracy. It is a dictator ship. I was taught by my Jesuit teaches to oppose dictatorship since it stifle independent thought.
Bill
10:54 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Uh, another Catholic lost to the Jesuits. No wonder the order is shrinking as fast as the Nun orders that refuse to wear a habit.
Richard Weisgrau
11:10 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Jesuits redeemed themselves from their diabolical destruction of Native American Cultures by becoming open minded and teaching their students to be so. It is not the Jesuits who have driven out Catholics. It is a Church that has sealed its mind with centuries old Dogma that in some cases defies science, in some cases defies law, and in other cases defies the sanctity of the person (as in children, but not limited to them). And Nuns without habits is great. Modernization has a place in convincing people that a message is contemporary and not archaic. Archaic, now that is a word that describes the leadership of the Church. Orthodoxy regardless of whether Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, or other applies antiquated standards to modern realities. Shell we really go back to an eye for an eye. I just read that the Iranians have invented a machine that quickly cuts off thief's hands. Maybe the Church should burn me at the stake for heresy. I really felt bad for Joan of Arc.
Kim
11:12 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Richard, What the heck are you talking about? Your name? Am I missing something? It is obvious that you are stuck in your bias. This is about church tenants...plain and simple. Once again, it doesn't matter what individual Catholics believe. My negative experience with individual Catholics, which I admit, can be the worst offenders, has taught me the important thing is me and my relationship with God. I feel blessed with my faith. I think it was Ghandi who said he loved Christ...Christians...not so much. I can not defend others bad behavior. I do believe that no church should be forced to go against it's basic tenants. There is nothing ese I can say in that matter. It's a shame you can't respect others. Is that what your Jesuit teaching taught you?Shameful!
Richard Weisgrau
11:38 pm on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Kim, please do not equate disagreement with disrespect. I do respect your views even though I disagree with them. THAT IS what Jesuits taught me to do. Within the Church, Jesuits have been doing that for centuries. As for Ghandi, he is one man. I am another. We can disagree, as you and I do. It is great that you are blessed with your faith (really). I wish I was, bit I am not. For me, like you stated, "There is noting more I can say." I am leaving this conversation with an appreciation of others' points of view and a better understanding of my own. Another thing the Jesuits gave me.
Kim
6:25 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
I agree we should leave the conversation. It's just a shame that you never addressed the heart of the issue. You never said whether you believe in the basic principle of religious freedom...something our men and woman have fought and died for. Also, you don't show respect when you tear someone's religion apart. I could give plenty of examples of good Catholics and the works they have done. It was obviously the discussion was pointless since you obviously don't like Catholics in general. I hope you find tolerance in your journey.
Richard Weisgrau
12:05 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Of course I believe in religious freedom. I did not criticize Catholicism. I was critical of the Church, which is an institution not a religion. Catholicism did not protect child molesting priests. It was the Church that did that. It is the Church that attacked Catholicism by such actions. Peace. I am gone.
michael
7:22 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
why is it that pro lifers so want to save the fetus, but want nothing to do with it once it has come into this world. the church i am sure approves of viagra and of course hiding pedos till they get caught, and then helping nazis escape after ww2. and doing nothing when millions of jews where being killed - a preaching politics and hate but that is something Christ never preached - bigotry and ignorance is the core of the catholic chuch
signed a recovering catholic -
Kim
11:29 am on Friday, February 8, 2013
Bull crap! Many Christians gave their lives for their fellow Jewish neighbors and friends. Isn't the motto...never forget. I guess people get to pick and choose what they get to forget. Michael and Jack, maybe you could help each other by getting the huge chip off each other's shoulder. You may need help. It seems quite large!
Kim
12:12 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Richard, obviously you need to go see Jack and Michael. You seem to have the biggest chip of all. I am going to look up the teaching of The Jesuit Church, something tells me you are NOT a good representative!
Richard Weisgrau
12:35 am on Monday, February 11, 2013
Kim,
I don't need assistance from Jack and Michael. I have no chip. I made no claim to being a representative of the Jesuit Church, whatever that it. You constructed that, not me.
Kim
12:52 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Richard, I did some reading. I was able to get the premise of "Jesuit ideals". It is clear that you have a long way to go on your journey! Good luck!
Richard Weisgrau
12:40 am on Monday, February 11, 2013
Kim, you cannot seem to stop alluding to things I never wrote. I never mentioned "Jesuit ideals." I have no idea what those are or if they exist. Here is what I wrote:"I do respect your views even though I disagree with them. THAT IS what Jesuits taught me to do. Within the Church, Jesuits have been doing that for centuries." Now that is a comment on being taught to be an independent thinker, not a dogmatic follower. Where is you see me mention "Jesuit ideals?" Please try to absorb what I wrote and write rather than indict it falsely in your commentary about it.
gerhard sweetman
2:04 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Morals/gods word/my word/ethics/all ends up as DO AS I SAY OR KILL OR BE KILLED
Kim
2:18 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Gerhard, The only person you're amusing is yourself with your stupid posts.
Kurt Reimer
6:48 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
It was interesting to gain some sense of the complexity of exactly which flavors of institutions may or may not be exempted from the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage. I suppose the ArchBishop is within reason to complain about that, though I'll bet that this complexity results from trying to strike a balance among multiple competing interests.
But I have less sympathy with His Grace's characterization of the Obama administration's compromise as not a compromise at all. It IS a compromise, and the ArchBishop sounds like one of the extreme Parties accommodated by it. As I understand it, it is up to the individual to independently pursue contraceptive coverage, which the insurance company provides free since it saves money.
It is not the responsibility of the Obama administration to shield Catholics from the Near Occasion of Sin. OTOH, I bet the Govt would be vulnerable to a Class Action suit on 14th Amendment grounds, the equal protection clause, without this compromise.
gerhard sweetman
7:28 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
1 Church into politics 4yrs Bush war : womens issues
2 Church into politics 4yrs Bush real estate rape : womens issues
3 Church into politics ++yrs stupid expensive healthcare : womens issues
4 Church into HIV 30++yrs lack of testing solution/control : womens issues
gerhard sweetman
8:50 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
Church into ED meds, cause fornication/adultery No insurance covers
Church into ED meds(viagra etc) cannot buy Canada or outside $1.86 vs $25 here
Church into Govt,politics,science, taxfree=Wrong goals,Need Freedom FROM Religion
Kurt Reimer
11:37 pm on Friday, February 22, 2013
Gerhard, your posts seem like input to a FORTH interpreter or something. You need to write sentences to talk to people. It seems like you have something to say, but I can't tell what.