Additional commentary from Fr. Barron on the HHS mandate

[CFinNaples]

I'm also very suspicious that we Catholics are again being manipulated so that a loophole the size of a semi-truck will be opened to let capitalists renege on their duties to their workers. There is no Catholic political party; rather, there are devout Catholics in both so we have more influence in the public sphere than we would have otherwise. I am very grateful that, given the inevitability of a court case, that it will be my Church suing the state rather than employees suing Her.

[CFinNaples]

Perhaps more meditation upon whether the Annunciation was a question or a statement would be fruitful. Was Mary's 'yes' completely irrelevant?

[oldworldartist]

Lets just state what an IUD contraceptive does! It is specifically designed to prevent a newly conceived child from implanting in the womb, by the time of implantation the child is already 5-9 days old, I think it is a way of slipping abortion in and have it payed for by the American Public. Young girls need to know! They may not be seeking it, but they may be aborting their children in ignorance, someone just please tell it like it is! Thankyou for helping all of us to see the truth!

[strugglingtobecathol]

Please Father Barron do a piece on the great great evil of contraception! We lose so many little babies because Catholics----imagine that!---use contraception. Only you can do this presentation justice. The great Republican candidate for president could use your help in condemning all forms of contraception. Thank you so very, very much Father!!!

[jontv]

Honestly, I don't think the government should force Catholic hospitals' hands, but I have trouble understanding why the Catholic Church would insist on forcing its employees to pay full price for basic health services (to most people). That seems petty and unfair.

I guess the employees, who can still choose to pay for these things if they wish, are just economic casualties in the glorious battle between the HRCC and the evil forces of secular totalitarianism (speaking of myth-maintenance...).

[beutner]

Fr. Barron ought to have emphasized that one's conscience must also be PROPERLY FORMED. I head repeatedly how something, "violates my conscience", yet is still demonstrably incorrect.

[CoryTheRaven]

It seems to me that Americans, particularly, have a consistent notion that laws which proscribe an activity are good but laws that prescribe an activity are bad. That is, it's okay for the law to compell you to not do something (like murder) but not okay for the law to compell you to do something (like provide health coverage). The former is no less an external government mandate on morality than the latter, but a positive prescription is somehow seen as a greater offense to freedom.

[DetectiveThursday]

@CoryTheRaven well in this particular case what is prescribe is an activity which goes against Catholic moral teaching and directed at catholic institutions in a way which goes AGAINST a founding principle which told the government something it CANNOT do, namely, prohibit the free excercise of one's religion. We should be rightfully upset that the government unjustly neglects the laws which govern it.

[CoryTheRaven]

@DetectiveThursday You mean like how the government prohibits polygamy amongst Mormons and the application of Sharia Law amongst Muslims? Or is it just when the government proscribes/prescribes certain things for YOUR religion that it upsets you?

States have regulations for businesses, regardless of their religious affiliation. It is up to individual members of those religions to use or not use the services that these regulations provide for.

[socalledsophist]

@CoryTheRaven (1) These are not businesses. They are Church affiliated not-for-profits, such as Catholic hospitals, which by the way provide far more health care services to the disadvantaged than anybody else. (2) This is the government ordering a religious institution what they MUST purchase on some market. This is an egregiously tyrannical and anti-liberty mandate whose only precedents are the persecutions which caused people to migrate to America in the first place.

[CoryTheRaven]

@socalledsophist 1) Not-for-profits with employees still qualify under the same sorts of regulations. A church does not get to disregard work safety requirements, for example, just because it's a church.

2) This is a histrionic comment that only weakens your position by making you look rabidly hysterical. And by the way, I know it doesn't fit with the American Creation Myth, but the Puritans were Protestant theocrats, not great fighters for religious liberty.

[RainBirdLori]

@CoryTheRaven Sharia Law Violates Articles 3 and 10 of the Declaration of Human Rights (for starters). Polygamy violates Article 16(1) of said Declaration. Abortion Violates Article 3 of said Declaration in regards to each child denied the right to life. The HHS mandate violates every Catholic's rights as stated in Article 18. Being Pro-Life (against Abortion/contraception) doesn't violate any articles of the Declaration. Thus the HHS is unfairly leveraged against Catholic/Christian belief.

[CoryTheRaven]

@RainBirdLori Interesting, but not really germane to the discussion. All you've said is that there may be compelling legal reasons for the United States government to prohibit the free practice of a religion. You're actually advocating for the government legislating morality with this odd philosophical idea of "universal human rights".

[RainBirdLori]

@CoryTheRaven Why is it not germane to the question? You are trying to equate the Catholic belief that all human life has value to the Muslim and Mormon practices of Sharia Law and Polygamy. I am simply bringing in a solid voice that speaks not from a religious standpoint, but from a universal human standpoint as we can see that Religious standpoints often end in arguements that go nowhere. If the US is for human rights, then the HHS is against that standpoint.

[CoryTheRaven]

@RainBirdLori THat would relevant if the problem was posed in terms of defending the universal human right to life, but it wasn't. It was presented in terms of the Catholic Church being oppressed by the US government forcing it to adhere to the laws which it forces every other business to adhere to.

[RainBirdLori]

@CoryTheRaven Well, the operation of Business often coincides with Human Rights Legislation. I present this portion of the HR Declaration Preamble as evidence:

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Thus, forcing the Catholic Church as a business to adhere to HHS violates this clause and Catholics' right to freedom of religion.

[CoryTheRaven]

@RainBirdLori Okay, by INTRODUCING this point you may be on to something. Two questions I would having coming out of that: does the Declaration recognize a fetus as a child, and does the Catholic Church actually adhere to the Declaration? The former is a particular legal question and the latter is a moral and a tactical one.

[RainBirdLori]

@CoryTheRaven The HR Declaration makes no indication of at what point a fetus is considered a human person, however the definition of an embryo (staying within our context) is that it is a "HUMAN in the stage of prenatal development from 0 to 8 weeks" therefore, to my knowledge, a human with all the rights thereof. As to your second question, having gone through the HR Declaration, I would argue no. However, since you ask - why don't you tell me?

[CoryTheRaven]

@RainBirdLori I think I would need to see the legal definition of a fetus relative to the Declaration before being able to say where it weighs in on the subject of fetal rights. As for the Catholic Church, I don't know. That's why I asked. If the Catholic Church does not adhere to the Declaration, which you say, then it might not be the best tool to use in defending the Catholic Church.

[RainBirdLori]

@CoryTheRaven What I meant by "no" was a misnomer. I meant that "No, the Catholic Church does not violate the HR Declaration in my estimation." Apologies, I mis-responded there. As for the relation of "human" to "human rights" I would assume the largest possible definition based on the idea that if you constrain the definition then there is greater justification in killing and slavery. Once upon a time black persons, disabled persons and First Nations were considered non-persons.

[CoryTheRaven]

@RainBirdLori I'm less concerned with what you would argue as I am with what the Declaration means. Most people's personal definitions are fuzzy things that always have exceptions (i.e.: abortion by doctor is evil but abortion by soldier is heroic), and either way, don't really matter when it comes to the legal definition.

[RainBirdLori]

@CoryTheRaven I stand by the argument that human life begins at conception, which is why I used the definition I used earlier. As for abortion by whom... Well, I would argue that abortion by anyone is wrong. Consider: If a baby born 4 months premature (considered human) dies, it is considered tragic but the same baby (called a fetus) aborted in the womb at the same age isn't considered a human being by some? Some would argue that the woman made the choice to keep the child.

[RainBirdLori]

@RainBirdLori I think the choice should be made PRIOR to conception. If you want the choice to not have a child, don't make a choice to have sex. And here's where the arguement about rape comes in. If my father was a murderer, should I be killed? By the same token, if a baby is conceived during a rape, should the baby be held accountable?

[cellomon09]

@CoryTheRaven "...The former is no less an external government mandate on morality than the latter, but a positive prescription is somehow seen as a greater offense to freedom."

Care to support this claim with reasons? I suspect just about every non-consequentialist ethical theory taking issue with this understanding of freedom, but I'm open to hearing a new idea.

[CoryTheRaven]

@cellomon09 It's just an observation. Americans seem to feel that the government telling them not to do something is okay, like not killing or not stealing. But those same people get offended and cry tyranny if the government tells them to do something, like insurance. Both of those are government-mandated morality, but it's only the latter that offends. I suspect it has less to do with any solid ethical argument than it does with the pecularities of American individualist dogma.

[cellomon09]

@CoryTheRaven Perhaps I should clarify: I'm asking you to defend your claim that a proscriptive law is ethically identical to a prescriptive law.

[cellomon09]

@CoryTheRaven Are two laws also ethically identical if one holds a $100 dollar fine and the other a life sentence, given that they both mandate a behavior?

Consider this: Laws are often described as an enforced limitation on one's freedom. A murder law limits one's freedom to murder people, while a health care law limit's one's freedom not to provide healthcare. Now, both laws aim towards people not dying, but they are significantly different in one regard...

[cellomon09]

@cellomon09 and that is the degree to which freedom is limited.

For any act M, there are abundantly more not-M acts than M acts. Likewise for H.

A law prohibiting murder prohibits an M act while in itself allowing for the freedom of non-M acts.

A law mandating healthcare, however, mandates an H act, thus prohibiting just about every non-H act. From this example, one can clearly see why one is a greater limit on freedom than the other, and thus ethically different from the other.

[CoryTheRaven]

@cellomon09 Not really, because you're ignoring the fact that quite often prescriptive laws actually engender greater freedom. Up here in Canada, universal health care is valued exactly because it gives us the freedom from not dying from treatable illnesses because of our economic class. Even how you choose to interpret what a prescriptive law is demonstrates an American cultural anxiety.

[CoryTheRaven]

@CoryTheRaven *gives us freedom from dying from treatable illnesses because of our economic class.

[cellomon09]

@CoryTheRaven The freedom provided by murder laws is protection against another person's violent acts. The freedom engendered by universal health care is a little more time not being dead. Is the latter really a greater freedom, so great as to legitimize the limitation on freedom?

[CoryTheRaven]

@cellomon09 "The freedom engendered by universal health care is a little more time not being dead."

This is such a carelessly insensitive remark that I'm astonished how any self-respecting human being could make it. People suffering needlessly with illness and debilitation is not a subject of snarky remarks. The people left behind because of a loved one's unnecessary death do not deserve your sarcasm. This is above and beyond the bizarre selective reasoning of it. You should know better.

[CoryTheRaven]

@cellomon09 "Is the latter really a greater freedom, so great as to legitimize the limitation on freedom?"

But to answer your question (since I suspect you'd be the kind of person to harp on me "avoiding" it), yes, it is worth it. I realize that all I was planning on doing with my affordable national health care plan was to keep living for a while, but yes it is worth it. It utterly boggles my mind that you somehow think it wouldn't.

[cellomon09]

@CoryTheRaven I would agree that people who have lost loved one's do not deserve my sarcasm. This is precisely why I attack the notion of the freedoms given by prescriptive law, not the individuals affected by it. I apologize if the remark seems snarky, but certainly you can appreciate the difference between attacking politics and attacking persons.

I'm sorry you find my statement to be mind-boggling. Would it help knowing that I don't consider life in itself the highest good?

[cellomon09]

@cellomon09 The point to all of this is that Americans have good reason to be suspect of prescriptive laws, precisely because of the sweeping effects they impose on society. That some sort of good comes about from a law is irrelevant if the law itself is unjust. Never mind the intrinsically disordered nature of contraception (though perhaps that is of greater issue); laws such as the HHS mandate must be shown to act justly in order to bring about justice.

[CoryTheRaven]

@cellomon09 "laws such as the HHS mandate must be shown to act justly in order to bring about justice."

Your guys' objection is that it IS just and the reason for why it is just doesn't happen to mesh with Catholic teachings. You're asking for special exemptions from the same rules that apply to any other business on the grounds that it happens to be against some obscure point of your religious doctrine that your own people don't obey anyways.

[CoryTheRaven]

@cellomon09 It is a very enculturated attitude that you consider universal healthcare to be a "political" issue, which was my point concerning prescriptive law getting Americans' hackles up. In different societies without those sorts of cultural hangups, such things are considered human issues... human persons... that transcend politics. Allowing someone to die from a treatable illness because of politics is just as bad as killing them yourself.

[CoryTheRaven]

@cellomon09 "Would it help knowing that I don't consider life in itself the highest good?"

That would be fine if you were volunteering yourself to die. To say that you don't consider life to be the highest good as a justification for the political expedience (or enculturated social dysfunction) of allowing the poor to die is just plain immoral, whichever way it's sliced.