So, what is my evidence? After watching some TV news the other day, my wife informed me with great satisfaction that she'd just heard Marco Rubio say that this conflict is not about contraception; it's about religious liberty. (She thinks he's pretty sharp and wants him for President). This sentiment was echoed by Rick Santorum on the campaign trail:
It’s not about contraception. It’s about economic liberty. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives. And it’s got to stop!
Hallelujah. For the sake of winning the immediate battle, I'm willing to go with this as a matter of strategy, if it is indeed the winning strategy. But, I assured my wife, the conflict is in fact about contraception, or, as Jonathan Last of The Weekly Standard puts it, "it's about sex. The upheaval of the 1960s was a many-splendored thing, but it produced one permanent orthodoxy for liberalism: an absolute commitment to sexual liberation." It's true. I was there.Now, I know that every reason the Obama admin and its sycophants put forth to justify the sexual liberation mandate is offered under the guise of essential health care for women, sometimes accompanied by a long list of uses for contraception other than birth control; but those aren't the ones given by Linda Rosenstock, chairwoman of a panel of experts "convened by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, which advises the government," and which government in the form of HHS accepted the IOM's recommendations. She says that "prevention of unintended pregnancies is essential for the psychological, emotional and physical health of women." Yes, those little tykes, intended or not, can tucker you out and even drive you crazy, and carrying one to term puts a crimp in your tennis game. In other words, it's about keeping kids out of the picture in order to maintain a woman's viability in the workplace, her freedom from the oppression of motherhood, her figure in a bikini, and her right to a sexual spontaneity formerly reserved to the feral male of the species.
In other other words, it's all a lie. Contraceptive use is rarely about women's health, but always about a woman's right to have sex any time of the day in any room of the house with anyone she wants at any age from adolscence to the onset of menopause, unannoyed by the prospect that a child might issue from it. Children, a natural consequence of sex, are now the womb's illegal aliens, so illegal that they can be legally killed for showing up without notice.
So even though it's all a lie, the mandate's proponents are fearless in their repetition of it. Why? Because most Americans, even most Catholics, agree with them. Even if many are not sure that it's essential health care, they are sure that it's essential, a prerogative not to be interfered with. When some among the conservative pundit class have tried to point out the lie, they get accused of all sorts of things which amount to only one thing: a hatred of women. "You want them to rotate between the kitchen and the bedroom, don't you? You want to take away their contraception. What kind of monster would do that?" Conservatives shrink from this charge of wanting to do away with contraception, so instead they search for what they imagine is a higher ground: "Whatever your position on contraception, you ought to defend the right of people not to be compelled by government to violate the prinicples of their faith. Surely we can all agree on that, since it's in the constitution."
"Well," say the proponents, "one right can't be used to deny another. Women have a fundamental right to contraception. That's in the constitution too."
And then what do we say? We've just been told that one constitutional right cannot run roughshod over another. Well, we could point out that refusing to pay for a woman's contraception is not the same as denying her right to it. But I don't think it will work, because behind the charge is the assumption that contraceptive use is a positive good. And, I repeat, most Americans and most Catholics agree. Therefore, our right to adhere to a dictate of conscience is being misused in this case. There can be no right to protest against a violation of a religious or moral principle when the principle itself is false. If you want to believe that Jesus is the divine second person of the Holy Trinity come down from heaven, fine; no one will try to take away the crutch of your supernatural fantasies because it is not the kind of thing that can be taken away, and there is no state interest in doing so - unless you try to extend its imagined moral precepts into the state's arena where the rights of others are obstructed.
It is simply a fact that most people in the United States do not see a prohibition against contraception as a demonstrably divine command nor even as a very reasonable derivation of any system of moral law. To militate against it is to give offense to the independence and very dignity of womankind, and to all those historically and magnificently heroic efforts to raise her from a condition of servitude. The prohibition is nothing more than an invention of men, an ancient relic and the fossilized remains of a deservedly long-dead, and patriarchal, morality concocted by a gathering of sex-hating celibates.
This is the state of things, and conservatives don't like to talk about it, except for the sort who inhabit certain religious sites. Among the mainstream, they like to talk about religious liberty and the rights of conscience, but they don't like to talk about the abomination that is Griswold v. Connecticut and the miserable moral evil of artificial contraception.
How do I know? Just last night I heard Charles Krauthammer (in the course of complaining about Santorum's getting bogged down in the issue) informing us that the entitlement to contraceptives is long settled precedent of fifty years standing, with nary a wonder whether it should be thus. It just is, now. A few nights earlier I watched Karl Rove (in the course of making the case that Santorum doesn't want to take away your contraception) complaining about the same thing, finding it hard to imagine why anyone would object to a married couple using contraception within "the confines of a loving marriage," with nary a mention of the fact that Griswold's initial concern for the sanctity of the marriage bond doesn't even exist anymore, nor any worry about "loving" couples using each other's contracepted bodies for mutual masturbation. This amounted to a doctrinal claim that Santorum's beliefs are wrong, and thus ended up hurting the man he was trying to defend. And then I saw Chris Christie, New Jersey governor and Roman Catholic, on CNN bragging about holding the line on gay marriage in his state but, when pressed, conceding that he had "no problem with people using contraception." Lastly, there was the man himself, Rick Santorum, protesting to Fox News that he was being falsely charged. He proceeded to prove it by boasting that he had himself - his very own self - voted to fund "it," contraception, that is. You can watch him doing it right here about a minute in. Approximately four minutes in, you can see him boasting again that, yes indeed, he had voted to fund it through Planned Parenthood.
It's in our bloodstream. Conservatism has swallowed the pill. We accept the opposition's premises. A few are willing to make the case that the pill has caused great harm, but no one who matters. None of the candidates are willing to make that case because it's not a winning issue. How can it be when the whole world's against you? In his staunch opposition to gay marriage (unless the people of his state approve it), has Governor Christy ever bothered to ask whether we'd be debating the issue at all absent the nearly universal acceptance of sterile sex? Has Karl Rove's concern for the loving confines of marriage ever wandered outside the box to consider the fact that "less than 5 percent of births in 1960 were to unmarried mothers, compared with roughly 40 percent today"? Have any of them tried to draw a straight line between Griswold and Roe? Between ubiquitous pill use and ramped up rates of adultery and divorce? Have the Catholics Santorum and Christie bothered to point out that most all of this was predicted by Pope Paul in Humanae Vitae, including the possibility of such government coercion as is now under discussion? Of course not. Who wants to be called an extremist? As nearly universal as contraceptive use is, to at least an equal degree is Humanae Vitae universally despised; it is possibly the most reviled document since the latter half of the twentieth century, with many Catholics - theologians and priests among them - first in line to spit on it. Thus does nearly 2,000 years of Christian accord about the intrinsically evil nature of this act go up in smoke.
I see four possible ways this can end:
1. Catholic institutions will capitulate, survive, and lose even the grudging respect some now enjoy for sticking to their principles. (48% of hospitals already do direct sterilizations. Further, no sooner had Obama issued his uncompromising compromise than a nun named Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, fell to her knees before it. It is always striking to see a religious pledged to the practice of sexual virtue so eager to facilitate the lack of it in others.)
2. Catholic institutions will resist the mandate by refusing to insure, pay the fines, lose a lot of employees, and finally disappear.
3. A court, possibly even the Supremes, will find the mandate unconstitutional, letting the institutions off the hook. Back to business as usual.
4. Catholic institutions will resist the mandate and refuse to pay the fines. The officials responsible for making the decision - in some cases possibly bishops - will prove themselves willing to go to jail for their Faith. Kathleen Sebelius, traitor Catholic, will become (and already is) the persecutor of her own clergy, the men charged with shepherding her soul and from whom she receives Holy Communion. Many will wonder, and probably have already, why she has not been excommunicated. To this question I have no answer.
Thus it may be that we will soon find out what the Catholic Church in this country is made of. I suspect not much. As long as the citizens of this country, which include most Christians, believe that they have not only a constitutional but a God-given right to the orgasm of their choice in the manner and at the time of their choosing, this battle cannot be won. I invite them - no, welcome, and plead with them - to prove me wrong.
-------------------------
Addendum: I had thought to say something about the role of the American bishops in all this, but Edward Feser does a thorough job here, offering the suppport they need and the tongue-lashing some deserve:
But it would have been better if the bishops had been equally vigorously upholding Catholic teaching on contraception and subsidiarity over the last several decades, and disciplining Catholics in public life who obstinately promote policies that the Church regards as inherently gravely evil. Had they done so, it is unlikely that this outrage ever would have been perpetrated in the first place.
7 comments:
Well...but...the world is full of things that actually are innocent, that most people of most religious persuasions agree are innocent, but that no one thinks someone has to *pay for* for everyone. I mean, take meat. I think vegetarians are kooky. Meat is wonderful. But I would laugh to scorn anyone who said that because meat is wonderful, every employer in the country has to subsidize a special meat allowance for his employees. Or guns. My cold, dead hands, and all of that. But the idea that guns are an _entitlement_ is a whole different kettle of fish.
So if some Quaker employer didn't want to buy a gun for his employees, and if some power-hungry administration tried to mandate that he do so, all us members of the NRA should be on his side, right? Even though we're members of the NRA and think guns are great and an American right that actually is in the Constitution. Because it makes us look like a bunch of ridiculous welfare queens to be going after the Quaker to make him _pay for_ our guns and ammo. What ridiculousness. If the Quaker doesn't want to buy guns, leave him the heck alone. It's a free country. Pacifism is incorrect as a position, but it's something that ought to be allowed, for goodness sake. Same thing, mutatis mutandis, for a vegetarian employer and some meat-crazy power-crazy administration that tries to force him to set up a meat fund.
So actually, I don't agree that the religious liberty issue has no independent force. It seems to me that it obviously does.
I didn't say it had no force; I said I didn't think it would work. I could be wrong. I'll be glad to be wrong.
And why are you lecturing me about people paying for other people's stuff, since I obviously agree, as the post makes clear?
Thanks once again for the close reading and for refusing to tackle the substance of the thing, such as the manifest evil of turning a sacred act into a parody never designed by God, all the consequent social patholigies that have trailed in its wake, and the cowardice of politicians who either decline to call an intrinsic evil by its name or, having done so, quickly reassure us that they wish to leave the commission of it unperturbed.
It's been a pleasure.
I was responding, approximately, to these sentences: "Well, we could point out that refusing to pay for a woman's contraception is not the same as denying her right to it. But I don't think it will work, because behind the charge is the assumption that contraceptive use is a positive good. And, I repeat, most Americans and most Catholics agree. Therefore, our right to adhere to a dictate of conscience is being misused in this case. There can be no right to protest against a violation of a religious or moral principle when the principle itself is false."
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted them, but I think they can be understandably be read to mean the following:
--If one thinks some X is a positive good, then the freedom of conscience of some person A is "being misused" if A refuses to pay for X for someone else on conscientious grounds. Now, that's not accurate. The Quaker isn't "misusing" his freedom of conscience by refusing to buy guns for his employees. Heck, even if he had no conscientious objections, he should be able to tell the government to stuff it over buying guns for his employees.
--I can just requote this one: "There can be no right to protest against a violation of a religious or moral principle when the principle itself is false." I just flatly disagree with that statement, which I took you to be affirming. It is extra-tyrannical for the government to come in like a big bully and force the Quaker to pay for the guns, even though pacifism is false. Of course there is a right to protest against the violation of his conscience despite the falsity of his principle. I would do it in a heartbeat.
A government has to have some strong overriding reason to violate conscience. Such as, for example, if someone has such a misformed conscience that he thinks he has to block a highway every day by praying. Obviously even more extreme examples can be imagined, but that one came to mind. Then it's legitimate to stop him. But only a kind of fanaticism that is pretty much beyond my comprehension (not to mention total economic stupidity) could make this contraception mandate such an overriding important thing.
The thing is, Bill, you seem here not simply to be criticizing the _strategy_ but also the _logic_ of Catholics and others who are pressing on the religious liberty issue. I'm sorry if I misunderstand you there, but it's how the post comes across. But people of good sense should be opposing this mandate all over the place, regardless of their position on contraception. It's an insane mandate and wrong for so many different reasons. I think it's understandable that Catholics and others are trying to get people to be reasonable and saying, "Come on, this isn't an entitlement. Why bully the Catholic institutions?" And to tell you the truth, if cultural Marxism and the power of the press to turn everybody into little droids had not grown as much as they have, I think it might be successful. Even twenty years ago, when contraception was just as accepted as it is now, I think such a mandate would have fallen flat and that you would have had a lot more non-Christians and non-Catholics saying, "Now, come on, this is just silly and creepily tyrannical" totally for reasons having nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of contraception.
On strategy, let me add too: I think the tack being taken by the Catholic apologists who are emphasizing the religious liberty aspect of this is the smartest one. Whether it works or not, it's the only thing that has any chance of working. Portraying the Obama admin (rightly) as power-hungry and willing to shut down a large portion of the charitable infrastructure of the country in its drive to crush the opposition of religious organizations to its ideology is their best shot.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted them, but I think they can be understandably be read to mean the following:
Yes, you misinterpreted them and no they can't. In both paragraphs you quote I am characterizing the way I think the other side thinks.
you seem here not simply to be criticizing the _strategy_ but also the _logic_ of Catholics and others who are pressing on the religious liberty issue.
No, I'm criticizing those conservatives and Catholics who resort to the strategy while being united with their opponents in the belief that contraception is permissible and good. Catholics like Christie who want their church to retain its liberty even as they throw their Church's teaching under the bus. Catholics like Santorum, who actually has the guts to call contraception evil, but then brags about funding it through the Planned Parenthood baby-killing apparatus. People notice these things. Actions speak louder than principles, and we live in a time when people think that if your principles are stupid and wrong, they're willing to sacrifice a liberty here or there. The strategy is perfectly logical; I'm just doubtful that it will work.
if cultural Marxism and the power of the press to turn everybody into little droids had not grown as much as they have, I think it might be successful.
There you go, the very doubt I'm expressing. And as we continue to droid-out at an unprecedented rate, it's ever less likely to be successful.
Even twenty years ago, when contraception was just as accepted as it is now, I think such a mandate would have fallen flat and that you would have had a lot more non-Christians and non-Catholics saying, "Now, come on, this is just silly and creepily tyrannical..."
Didn't last long, did it? Yes, the rapidity of the deterioration is stunning. Droiding again.
...totally for reasons having nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of contraception.
Not anymore. The farther away we move that from that moment in history when many Christians might still have had a troubled conscience about overthrowing their moral inheritance, the less sympathy that inheritance will garner in the modern, rights-obsessed political arena.
I think the tack being taken by the Catholic apologists who are emphasizing the religious liberty aspect of this is the smartest one. Whether it works or not, it's the only thing that has any chance of working.
Notice how weak, almost desperate this sounds. It certainly is the only thing that has any chance of working if it's the only thing we're willing to try. Of course, a colleague at school tells me I'm arguing from the catacombs. I told him I might have some company there pretty soon. But I'm doubtful about that, too.
"It certainly is the only thing that has any chance of working if it's the only thing we're willing to try."
Well, there I just disagree. I think it's a smart strategy. Not desperate, because it is indeed an appeal to common sense. If people lack common sense, there's not much you can do, but telling them, "Contraception is immoral, and _that's_ why you should oppose the mandate" when they totally reject that premise certainly isn't going to help. The Obama-ites would just love to portray this as, "They're coming to take away your contraception." If it's strategy we're talking about, it would obviously be a poor one to play into that attempted bogey-man image.
Now, you may say, "Damn the torpedos, I think we _should_ be coming to take away their contraception. That's the only principled stance to take." And if that's what you think, then I guess that's what you have to say. But it's terrible strategy.
I'm addressing strategy right now because you are emphasizing that that is what _you_ are talking about.
If we're going to go back to talking about logic, then I'm going to go back to saying that the religious liberty argument makes a heck of a lot of sense, too.
Well, there I just disagree.
Yeah, I sort of got that impression. You have a knack for repeating it, though I'll give you credit for varying the phraseology.
I think it's a smart strategy.
Of course, you take no note of the fact that I didn't say it was stupid, just that I doubted its sufficiency. I've even said I'd support it, but you take no note of that either. I can only conclude that you have a visceral disdain for my belief that, while pursuing that strategy, we shouldn't shy away from the substance of the moral case against contraception.
The Obama-ites would just love to portray this as, "They're coming to take away your contraception."
In case you hadn't noticed, they already are. And they will keep doing it no matter what strategy you pursue. Making a passionate case against the evil of contraception might convince at least a few that coverage of it has nothing to do with healthcare. Or maybe not. It may be that reason is of no avail in this fight, in which case no strategy will work. But failure to make the case is to me just another way of being ashamed of Christ's teaching.
Now, you are done haranguing me. If you have nothing to say about the hypocrisy of conservatives, the vast majority of whom support contraceptive use themselves while pretending that the only thing at stake here is a religious liberty principle; if you have nothing to say about the awfulness of Griswold; if you are not willing to take a stand yourself as to whether or not artificial contraceptive use for the purpose of sterilizing sex is intrinsically evil, then we have nothing more to talk about. Translation: don't comment unless you are so willing.
Post a Comment