Catholic Church Priorities

Commentary By Ron Beasley

The Catholic bishops are not satisfied:

Unacceptable — former Vatican Ambassador, Prof. Robert George, others respond

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services.  Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.  It is certainly no compromise.  The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust.  Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

Of course it doesn't satisfy them - nothing short of making birth control illegal again would because it interferes with their ability to control sex and women.  But in the midst of this outrage we are reminded once again that the Catholic hierarchy has zero moral authority.

8,000 instances of abuse alleged in Archdiocese bankruptcy hearing

Sealed documents filed in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee bankruptcy identify at least 8,000 instances of child sexual abuse and 100 alleged offenders - 75 of them priests - who have not previously been named by the archdiocese, a victims' attorney said Thursday.

Was this another example of Obama playing three dimesional chess?  Greg Sargent thinks it might be:

Birth control may now be wedge issue against GOP

At his press conference this morning announcing the new shift in contraception policy, Obama said: “I understand that some folks in Washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be.”

The irony is that after this announcement, this very well may become a wedge issue — against Republicans.

That’s because anyone who comes out against the proposal Obama outlined today will be asked a simple question: Are you saying that employers should dictate to female employees whether they should or shouldn’t have access to birth control coverage?

Now I think this was a political winner for Obama from the begining but Sargent is right - it's now an even bigger winner. 

Comments

[RAM]

You say the bishops are opposed to birth control "because it interferes with their ability to control sex and women."

I've come to believe it's more due to their dogged attempts to maintain a target-rich environment for child rapists.

[Bill H.]

I don't really care what bishops like or dislike, and so long as we have a healthcare "insurance" model which includes routine, anticipated care then it certainly should include birth control. However, I do rather dislike setting a precedent in which the government can dictate that a private company must provide a service for which it cannot charge a fee.