Bishops' Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom and Contraception.

A headline at the National Catholic Reporter, to an article on thecurrent contraception controversy, states unambiguously,  "Catholics unite in opposition to contraception mandate". This is patently untrue. The bishops may have united, and may have the backing of several Catholic agencies and health providers - but the evidence once again, is that ordinary Catholics disagree. The findings of two separate surveys this week show clearly that Catholics back Obama's proposals, and are more likely (not less) to vote for him as a result.

I have no intention of getting into the details of US health care, but the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience are important to us all, so I do want to share two pertinent observations by others, both Americans. The first is a short snippet, placed as a comment to a later NCR editorial on the subject:

Here in the San Antonio Archdiocese, insurance to cover contraceptives is available for an additional fee. This allows those who are not Catholic or for whatever reason need to obtain those services, to pay the additional coverage on their own. It is not denied, but neither is it supplied.

To me, the matter is simple: if in conscience you are opposed to contraception - don't use it. But that does not give you the right to impose your will on others whose conscience differs from yours. This archdiocese clearly recognizes that, making provision for such persons to obtain contraception coverage - for a fee. How does that differ, in moral terms, from providing coverage directly, for those who are not bound by the bishops' sense of conscience? What provision do bishops and Catholic health authorities make for the "religious freedom" of those in their employ? What, in particular, of those who believe that they are duty - bound to practice contraception for the sake of the planet? On what grounds can the bishops deny them the right to practice their own freedom of conscience?

More extensive is am analysis, also posted in response to the editorial  at NCR, which points to the repeated hypocrisy of Catholic bishops in their arguments from "religious freedom".

Now, the main analysis, posted by Richard C. Placone, which he has already sent to Archbishop Timothy Dolan, as head of the USCCB, and to his own bishop. It deserves to be widely disseminated:

"The Sexual Person"

I have just completed a first reading of "The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology (Moral Traditions)
", by the Catholic theologians Todd A. Salzmann and Michael G. Lawler.  I stress here, "a first reading", as I have no doubt that this will be for me one of those foundational texts that I return to again and again.  After just an introductory acquaintance, I have no intention of attempting here any kind of formal assessment or review, but I do want to share some preliminary thoughts, some of which I propose to expand into full posts a little later.

The constantly evolving, ever-changing  Catholic tradition.

Whatever it is that Vatican spokesmen mean when they refer to the Church's "constant and unchanging tradition", it cannot be what the plain English words appear to mean. Across the full range  of sexual ethics, Catholic tradition has changed constantly. This is not only an historical fact, it is also inevitable and in fact demanded by the Magisterium itself. I particularly like the words of a certain Joseph Ratzinger, which highlight the importance of identifying and correcting the "distorting tradition" in the Church:

"Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tradition.... There is a distorting tradition as well as a legitimate tradition, ....[and] ...consequently tradition must not be considered only affirmatively but also critically."