Posts Tagged ‘45 CFR Part 147 [CMS–9992–F] RIN 0938–AQ74 Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’

How Prof. Cathleen Kaveny Didn’t Explain it All on the Daily Show

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

M. Cathleen Kaveny, the John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, Commonweal Magazine contributor, John T. Noonan, Jr. protege, and Humanae Vitae critic, appeared on the Daily Show on 3/1/12.

Daily Show host Jon Stewart asked a great “man on the street” question in his mostly straight-up interview of Prof. Kaveny: Why all the apocalyptic language from the U.S. Catholic Bishops about the HHS mandate?

Prof. Kaveny did not directly represent the point of view of the Bishops in answering the question, but stuck to the Commonweal, or as I like to call it, the Cogleyweal narrative of urbane dissent from Humanae Vitae. This urbane dissent undermines the ground around Humanae Vitae’s teaching while not directly challenging it, in part by illustrating in various ways that not all Catholics view this matter the way the Bishops do.

A more direct and complete answer to Mr. Stewart’s question might have been this:

1. The Bishops see abortion as a most fundamental and total crime against a single human because it viciously and arbitrarily violates that person out of existence at that person’s supreme point of innocence and defenselessness. Abortion in the eyes of Catholic teaching negates every principle on which other acts of simple justice and social justice rest, and therefore must be opposed in a fundamental way.

2. Many forms of artificial contraception prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, and are thus also forms of abortion.

3. Because Catholic teaching sees these acts, including sterilization, as immoral in a fundamental way, therefore Catholics have built religious institutions, including hospitals and clinics, where Catholics can perform acts of charity while not participating in actions they consider immoral.

4. Civil libertarians, especially in President Obama’s home state of Illinois, who formed the core group advancing his political career and who have key posts in his administration, have long pressed the government to remove the above independence from Catholic institutions.

5. By posting the HHS mandate to the Federal Register without modification in “45 CFR Part 147 [CMS–9992–F] RIN 0938–AQ74 Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” the White House has given the original mandate the force of law without any “accommodation.” Talks between the staffs of the White House and the U.S. Catholic Bishops about the details of this “accommodation” are not substantively progressing. At this point, the “accommodation” is nothing more than an unfulfilled promise in a string including the “sensible conscience clause.”

6. The White House’s proposed “accommodation” would still force religious institutions that are self-insured to pay for sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception that in some instances acts as an abortifacient. (Somehow, the anonymous Jesuit editorial writers at America Magazine and some Commonweal Magazine personalities think that the mere offer of an “accommodation” makes everything OK now, and are back to supporting the White House instead of the Bishops based apparently upon another unfulfilled promise).

7. The U.S. Catholic Bishops, in order to not participate in supporting a grave evil of sterilization and the distribution of abortifacients, see that it might be necessary to close Catholic hospitals and clinics, built with great sacrifice over the course of many generations, rather that follow the law as it is now written, since the law as written forces Catholic institutions to violate the very principles on which they were founded.

8. In 2009 at Notre Dame University, President Obama promised a “sensible conscience clause” to Catholics. He has not delivered on this promise, it is not contained in the HHS mandate, and it has not been provided in the recent “accommodation.” It is thus reasonable for the Bishops to continue to press for such conscience protection.

9. Therefore, we have heard absolute, life and death, “apocalyptic” language from the U.S. Catholic Bishops.

As long as the public view of this question is that this matter is only about birth control, but not also equally about human life and religious freedom, the Bishops haven’t broken through sufficiently into the consciousness of the public. To the extent that Prof. Kaveny did not help articulate the Bishops’ view, she assisted in undermining the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ position.

Jon Stewart’s question is a good one: Why the apocalyptic language from the Bishops in this issue?

Much rides now on whether the U.S. Bishops can answer Mr. Stewart’s question effectively in public square, and for the Catholic “man and woman on the street” and others of good will to learn how critical it is to support the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ stand for life and liberty.

The very existence of Catholic institutions, free to follow Catholic consciences, is riding in the balance. Prof. Kaveny, at least in her Daily Show appearance, despite being highly qualified to do so, apparently did not vigorously help to defend the moral independence of Catholic institutions in a free society.

Seemingly yet another case of Notre Dame’s Forgotten Freedom!

For more on the intellectual origins of Prof. Kaveny’s position on Humanae Vitae, please see my scholarly article on Msgr. Reynold Hillenbrand.

For a response to Prof. Kaveny from Fr. Robert Barron and the Word
on Fire blog, see this link.

© Copyright 2012, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

Share

The Anonymous Jesuits’ Terribly Unfortunate–and Slapstick–Editorial

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

In the future, when a Catholic physician, nurse, or health-care professional is faced with a government-enforced requirement that they violate their conscience, they will have the nameless Jesuit editorial writers at America Magazine who composed what New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called “a terribly unfortunate” 3/5/12 editorial to thank in part for their loss of religious liberty.

Writing of the U.S. Bishop’s objections to President Obama’s 2/10/12 “accommodation” — which was not implemented in any official way in the Federal Register, which published unchanged the original HHS mandate as announced, giving it the force of law — the anonymous Jesuits stated of the U.S. Bishop’s objections to the HHS mandate:

Some of these points, particularly the needs of self-insured institutions like universities, have merit and should find some remedy. Others, with wonkish precision, seem to press the religious liberty campaign too far.

The anonymous Jesuits thereby (1) admit that the bishops’ principal concern about self-insurance did not yet have a remedy from the government, and (2) somehow complain that the bishops are too precise (precision being somehow the exclusive territory of anonymous Jesuits).

In this turning point of their entire editorial, the anonymous Jesuits thereby inadvertently admit that the bishops indeed are correct. On neither item (1) nor (2) do the anonymous Jesuits dispute the facts of the bishops. On the second point, the anonymous Jesuits object to the style, “wonkish,” not the substance, of the bishops objections.

Nevertheless, the anonymous Jesuits, having comically admitted in spite of their best efforts to the validity of the bishops’ objections — which despite the bishops’ good faith efforts in dialogue with the White House have not yet “found some remedy” — then launch into a lecture of the bishops, and attempt to turn even Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate against them. (It is good to see, at least for a few seconds, America’s anonymous Jesuits recognizing papal authority.) This anonymous Jesuit lecture the White House staff reportedly recently used against the staff of the USCCB.

I have been educated by, and have worked for Jesuits. They are very smart and capable people to a great extent. Some, like my late and holy teacher David J. Hassel, SJ, were an inspiration. Some other Jesuits, unlike the humble Fr. Hassel, take themselves, unfortunately, soooo seriously. But, despite the old joke about Jesuits, God has yet to have been revealed to be sitting at his desk behind a name plate reading “God, SJ.”

So I have advice to anyone who would better appreciate the anonymous Jesuits of America Magazine: Count to ten, say a Hail Mary, and read what they write at least three times. One will almost always find within their own statements, despite their cleverness, a fundamental contradiction to the very point they attempt to make. You see, in this case the anonymous Jesuits were concerned with style instead of substance, and have slipped on their own banana peel in the process.

The person in charge of “finding some remedy” on the self-insurance problem, Cardinal Dolan, has reported very little progress. It is difficult for Cardinal Dolan to find the remedy on the self-insurance problem when the White House staff use the very America Magazine editorial agreeing that the self-insurance remedy is needed–but criticizing the bishops’ style–against the bishops.

So how do the anonymous Jesuits propose that the self-insurance problem be solved, when they themselves have placed a stumbling block in the way of solving it? Perhaps it will somehow “find a solution” on its own. I can almost hear Cardinal Dolan saying, “Thanks a lot, guys.”

It would be difficult to find a better example of an engaged, sincere “pastoral” effort than the behavior of Cardinal Dolan, who has been respectful to the White House despite mostly getting nowhere. Too bad these anonymous Jesuits can’t recognize a true pastor when they see one.

For more on Cardinal Dolan’s point of view, look here.

To those who commented admiringly on the anonymous Jesuits’ editorial, I say: You need to count to ten, say that Hail Mary, and read the editorial the two more times. You’ll surely notice a few things you didn’t see the first time.

For those Catholics who somehow still think the anonymous Jesuits are right, I suggest that, since this is such a critical issue, that you please make a fully-informed decision by reading the Federal Register to see what is now the law. Then please read Caritas in Veritate. Then I ask you, as I ask the anonymous Jesuits, how one can support the HHS mandate and at the same time hold to these lines from Caritas in Veritate:

The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life[27]. This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae[28]. The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that “a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.”[29]

My America Magazine subscription? Canceled many years ago — because the anonymous Jesuits abandoned some of the very principles noted in the quote from Caritas in Veritate directly above.

Also, my compliments to the bishops for not taking the bait from the White House and taking the Church into schism on this issue.

For more jokes about Jesuits, click here.

© Copyright 2012, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

Share