Bishops' Lawsuit

I have very ambivalent feelings about the bishops' suit against Obamacare. On one hand I see medical care for all as good and desirable. On the other I see that current interpretations of the law could destroy the religious freedom enshrined in the constitution.

To force Muslims to eat pork obviously violates their religious convictions. To force them to provide pork for others to eat is less obvious.  However if we frame the question in terms of "Should we pay to provide guns to Al_Quaida or Mexican drug dealers?" the answer iis simpler: NO! Our country has a history of recognizing consciencious objections to  killing. even murderers. These are grounds for excluding someone from jury duty in capital cases.

 On the other hand the explanation that paying for others' contraceptives violates my religious convictions seems very flimsy. Jesus never mentioned contraception. It is generally accepted that up to 80% of Catholics do not see contraception as morally wrong. Vatican Council II never dealt with the topic (Pope Paul VI removed the topic from its consideration). A panel appointed by Pope Paul VI studied the topic and made a report, generally recommending that contraception be accepted as a method of family planning. However, the pope never published the report but issued a personal ban on contraception. This was not a doctrinal decision, infallibility was not involved and all the subsequent statements and controversies on the topic have changed nothing.

We are not dealing with essential Church doctrine when we talk about contraception. I am not promoting or recommending contraception as the .most desirable or effective method of family planning.  In  the judgement of  the pope and of many  committed Catholics  it is morally wrong, but that is an opinion and it is not the doctrine of the Church.

However, there is more to the current controversy than contraception. There is the issue of abortion and the obligation the law imposes to pay for it. If as a mobster I pay a goon to murder a rival gangster, I am guilty of murder. If I pay to procure an abortion, I likewise share the guilt. The state says that Churches will not have to pay for the abortion, the insurance company will. "Out of the goodness of its heart", I'm sure! The Church will pay through higher premiums.

Another issue seems to be a redefinition of "religion" and "church", limiting them to what occurs in the church sanctuary. Services the church provides, such as education, health and social services are excluded from this new definition.

So I'm ambivalent. I have problems with the Church's involvement in partisan politics. It diminishes the Church's prestige and the credibility of the bishops. We don't trust politicians, even when they trumpet their faith. This is an area where lay organizations like the Knights of Columbus and others should be carrying the ball, not the bishops. They should be the coaches, enunciating the moral principles, not the linemen in the trenches.

(P,S. I note that the CHA (Catholic Health Association) has taken such action in an objection filed today, 6/15/2012)