February 13, 2012
To: The Editor
President Obama has extended his religious compromise in order to accommodate those in the Catholic church who feel, much as do fellow Republicans, that, because of their principles, they cannot compromise with Democrats. These leaders of the Catholic faith feel, similarly, that they should not compromise with the President because of their consciences. And I agree with sticking with one principles and the dictates of one's conscience.
But when principles of people who must work together clash, what's to be done? You compromise. One principle cannot be consider superior to another: Neither church nor state trumps the other.
The fact that the Catholic faith believes that contraction is wrong does not give it the right to impede those benefits to those who might not believe that. If those who are using contraceptive means are committing sinful acts and choose to do so, that's between them and God. The fact that the Catholic church opposes the use of contraceptions does not justify obstructing contraceptive use by employees who either don't share that belief, or who, while sharing that belief, encounter circumstances which dictate that they act contrary to those beliefs.
When Catholic institutions, like many other employers, pay for their employees insurance, they pay for insurance in lieu of paying employees higher wages which would enable employees to buy their own insurance. Catholic institutions, therefore, have no more right to restrict the insurance coverages of contraceptive services when they pay insurance premiums than they would have it they paid employees enough to buy their own insurance.
The Catholic institutions owe President Obama and all of the policy holders of the insurance who must have their premiums increased to pay for contraceptive services that the Catholic church institutions refuse to cover. The Church in effect passes over to other policy holders the responsibilities of paying for services which the church believes to be sinful.
Which, therefore, should give in when the expectations of the Catholic church conflicts with what its members rights are determined to be under the Constitution? It is my opinion that the Catholic church has no authority over how the government will operate, except for the right of its members to determine at the ballot boxes who and what will constitute that government. Only the Constitution and laws passed by the Congress should control the government--not politicians of the Catholic faith.
The government, on the other hand, does have authority to impose laws that impact what the Catholic church and its members can and cannot do related to matters outside of the authority and teachings of the church. The church can teach what it believes to be the will of God. But it cannot control the behavior of individuals, be they Catholics or non-Catholics, just because what those individuals do conflicts with the consciences of church leaders or some of its members in politics.
If there is a conflict between the teachings of the church and rights of its members under the federal law, the people rights under the law take precedence--on earth. Teachers of religious doctrine will have fulfilled their calling when they teach what the behaviors of the followers should be.
One of the church bishops says that the President's policy change is "a good first step." I say it was one step too far because if a Catholic institution has the right to deny employees insurance coverage for contraceptive services, they can fire employees who have the services performed regardless of what insurance pays for it.
The President has said in the past something to the effect that it is better to do "the right thing" than be reelected by not doing it. Of course, its easier to say that when election time is not imminent. The "right thing" was what he decided before he changed his mind. If that's not satisfactory to Catholic voters and Catholic leaders, and they believe a bette American rest with Republican, let them vote Republican.
If President Obama's latest concession to the Catholic church was "a good first step," The "right thing" would be for Catholic institutions is to take the second good step of increasing wages of employees by an amount that enables them to buy their own insurance. The church need not even know which insurance they bought.
Certainly the Catholic church and its institutions would not want other policy holders to pay the cost of insuring their employees.
And further exploring this matter of the President's changing his mind and doing the "right thing" with respect to Catholic institutions and contraceptions, he should change his mind about establishing super PACs for receiving hidden campaign contributions from corporations and do the "right thing" by giving the people a chance to vote against there being too much money in politics, especially secret corporate money.
While it is understandable that the President would want to "play on a level playing field by the rules of the game and be temped to "fight fire with fire," this may be one of those times when "how you play the game" again is allowed to matter, and fire will be fought--with water.
If November's elections will indeed be battles for the "soul of America," Americans with genuine religious faith already know which side they're on.
Ronald
Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net
Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com
Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner
No comments:
Post a Comment