The Bishops Are Wrong: Their Logic Fails.

Posted on June 9, 2012 by Dave

By now everyone knows that the United States Bishops are claiming that the law which requires employers to provide health insurance that covers drugs and contraceptives is a violation of religious liberty. Never mind the fact that the contraceptive requirement has been in place since 2000 (the only recent change is that the law now applies to employers with fewer than 15 employees and all employers have to include drug coverage; before they could insure without drugs) and it looks suspicious that the Bishops chose an election year to finally complain about it; never mind the fact that very few if any Catholics can make any sense out of the hierarchy’s prohibition on contraception; never mind that the Bishops are unwilling to also extend their argument to religious groups like Jehovas Witnesses, who prohibit organ donation.

Never mind all of that. I am going to show, by using the blazing power of syllogistic logic, why the Bishops are simply wrong.

Let’s look at the syllogism the Bishops would probably put forward:

1. A law which requires a person to buy something which is opposed to his religion violates his religious freedom.
2. The law requires some employers to purchase contraceptives, which are opposed to some employers’ religious beliefs.
Therefore: The law violates some employers religious beliefs.

Assuming (and its a reasonable assumption) that some employers (specifically, perhaps, the bishops themselves) are opposed on religious principle to contraception, this syllogism is valid.

But it is not sound.

Why?

Because the second premise is false. Employers don’t buy contraceptives: Employees do by their own choice.

Put another way: By definition, employers pay for one thing and one thing only: Labor and services. They pay for this in two forms: Wages (monetary compensation) and benefits (such as health insurance). An employee can pay for anything he wants (provided it is legal) with his wages and benefits. In this country, we have minimum compensation laws (supported by the Bishops and Catholic tradition) that includes both a minimum wage and, in some cases, minimum health insurance packages. The employee decides how to spend both at his or her own discretion. The employee buys many things, from food to health services, by means of his or her labor and services.

Think of it this way: When you get a paycheck and buy a television, do you say “my employer bought this television?” No, of course not. You earned your paycheck by working. You also earned your health insurance by working. It is your choice how to spend both money and benefits. Your employer may not like how you spend money or benefits, but nevertheless you earned both the money and the benefits. An employer can no more say “I will pay you this amount of money only on condition that you not use it to purchase contraception” any more than he can say “I will provide health insurance provided you do not use it to purchase contraception.” The employer can’t do that because the only thing an employer pays for is your labor and services.

So the Bishops are wrong: The law is not a violation of religious liberty for the simple reason that no one is required to buy anything he or she does not want. No one is required to buy contraceptives.

But it is an election year, and we all remember the past two presidential cycles when some bishops tried to declare it a mortal sin to vote for certain candidates. Since that was too controversial, perhaps they just see this is an alternative way to make their own prejudices known.

Mardi Gras 2012 and Contraception

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Jeff

Time to party!

Time to get down and boogy, break out the beads and throw off the shirts!

And take your contraceptive.

Oh, wait…. Contraceptive use is a sin for Catholics. But why?

Instead of focusing on the politics of health care and the mandate for insurance companies which President Obama has now compromised on — though not sufficiently for many religious leaders — the Church should use this incident as a teaching moment. Many people know that the Catholic Church opposes contraception, but how many know why? Thinking about this question at Mardi Gras is quite relevant, because Mardi Gras tells us to let our freak flags fly!

Let’s forget, for a moment, about the Church. Let’s just think about sex. Well, I don’t me for you to imagine what you want to do. Rather, I want to think about what sex is. It’s an act that is central to the human person — to being human. But why is it central to being human? What does sex have to do with the meaning of human life?

Sex is an act in which two people come together to share themselves. Blah, blah, blah, right? Sex is just fun and the more you do it with the more people, the better, right? Look, the biggest problem with the discussion of the morality of sex is the seemingly denial of the real fun, the real pleasure, that attends any sex act. Yes, a Thomist, like myself, admits that sex is pleasurable — probably more pleasure than any one has a right to. But that’s just it: that pleasure means something. Sex is pleasurable so that people will come together and bear fruit. Mardi Gras is a celebration of all things pleasurable — a fat Tuesday before the beginning of Lent. But just like Mardi Gras, sex has a place in human life that cannot be reduced to pleasure.

And that is why the Church objects — rightly or wrongly — to the use of contraception, because it believes that contraceptives reduce sex to a mere act of pleasure rather than an element of a full and meaningful human life. And that is something all people of good will should pay attention to — where does sex fit into a meaningful, fulfilling life? We would do well to focus on that question.

Enjoy your Mardi Gras

Contraception, Law, and Prudence

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Jeff

Praise Jesus! This article on contraception and religious institutions is awesome. It is not awesome because of its liberal leanings. Nor is it awesome because it supports health care coverage of birth control. The article proves awesome because it shows a truly Catholic and Thomistic response to the recent controversy over Obama requiring health insurance programs to provide coverage for contraceptives even if the programs are for Catholic institutions of a non-religious mission.

In his Treatise on Law Q. 96, art 2, Thomas writes that we cannot make illegal all moral wrongs. Laws must be framed for the person and for the custom of the particular country. Marquette’s policy recognizes that the prescription for a contraceptive may have nothing to do with birth control. Further, Brent King of the Madison diocese notes that the diocese counsels people on avoiding contraceptives but the diocese has no plans to police it. Yes, the diocese shows to its employees that contraceptives per se are wrong, but recognizes that policing the use of contraceptives would violate justice itself.

Thomas also says in Q. 91, art. 4, that human law cannot make every vice illegal.

Because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5,6), human law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds: since while aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things, and would hinder the advance of the common good, which is necessary for human intercourse.

This point of Augustine AND Thomas speak directly to the issue of health care coverage. To do away with health care coverage because it requires the coverage of contraceptives — which are often prescribed for reasons outside of contraception (acne medication, regulation of hormones, prevention of cancer) — would to harm the common good. Augustine and Thomas would oppose any such harm to the common good and, thus, would oppose the elimination of health care services.

The news media and politicians want us to believe that these issues are black and white. But they are not. Law — moral and human — must be more fluid to account for prudential judgment under an informed conscience.

Contraception, Obama, and Backlash

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Jeff

Michael Winters writes at National Catholic Reporter about what progressive Catholics should think and do about Obama’s recent decision to require Catholic insurance providers to supply contraception to their employees.

If you are not familiar with the issue, here’s a recap as I understand it. Back in the Fall, Obama promised Bishop-elect Dolan that he would not require Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives to their employees with the new health care law. He recently changed his decision, probably, as Winters suggests, under pressure from lobbyist who support contraceptives for all. Now, a Catholic institution, like a hospital or school, must, like any institution, provide health insurance to their employees, but it must be a health insurance that will cover contraceptives. Importantly, it must also cover “the pill” which in a small variety of cases acts as an abortifacient.

A number of issues propose can be discussed here: are most Catholics opposed to using contraceptives, religious freedom, abortion and the right to life, and the right to health care (yes – a right defended in a number of social encyclicals).

Winters is right that Catholics must put pressure on Obama now to rescind his decision before the elections.

But what if he doesn’t? What do Catholics do then?

Unfortunately, what I have heard over and over is that Catholics will have to vote for the republican candidate. But, hold-up! That is not what Catholics have to do.

I’ve stated on this blog before, Catholics who uphold the principles of Catholic social justice must opt-out of this electoral facade. What would send a message to both parties would be for 35% of the people who voted last time to show up and write in this time. What should they write in? I’m not sure it matters, but why not Bobby Kennedy, or Timothy Dolan? The point is to send a message – we are Catholics and we are no longer going to compromise and be forced to choose between bad and badder.

Bishop Cancels Employee Health Insurance For Politics

Posted on December 1, 2011 by Dave

BY: Dave K.

It is being reported that Bishop Lynch of the St. Petersburg diocese is prepared to cancel the health insurance plans of 2300 Church employees.

His reasoning? He does not like the new health care laws which require health insurance plans to cover access to contraception.

This is not the first time that a Red Mass has been used to deliver a controversial political message, but it is the first time that I have seen a member of the Catholic Clergy use the homily to declare his intention to take the health of Church employees hostage for a political leverage.

Legally, an employer can cancel everyone’s health insurance and provide them a cash allowance to purchase their own insurance. Of course, as we all know, trying to purchase insurance as an individual, as opposed to as part of a group or in an employment situation, is much more expensive, especially if you are high risk or have pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, children and spouse’s might not be able to gain coverage.

So we can be sure that, with over 2000 employees, at least some of those affected by Bishop Lynch’s decision will suffer as a result.

But apparently the alleviation of suffering isn’t part of the Bishop’s job.

If it is part of his job, apparently it takes back seat to the all important mission of making sure no one who works for him is using any contraceptives. Of course, of his employees who have not taken a vow of celibacy, it is statistically probable that the majority of them who are under 40 use some form of contraception in their marriage anyway, so it isn’t exactly clear what the Bishop really wants to accomplish.

Ironically, he claims he is doing this on behalf of religious freedom. Now we might be able to make the case that an employer should not have to provide contraceptives to his employees; but here what is at stake is a loss of freedom: In order to make sure you don’t even have the freedom to decide whether or not to practice birth control, your freedom to have easy access to health care in any form is also jeopardized.

The Bishops should be praised for their commitment to just laws that support true, universal health care, and they have been bold in suggesting that even undocumented immigrants should have access to health care in this country. However, I am concerned about the possibility that other dioceses will follow this example and begin terminating health insurance policies for employees on the basis of a minor political dispute about the sex lives of Church employees (who may or may not be Catholic in some cases). Instead of taking hostage the health of these employees, we should begin the process of asking what a truly just society will look like, and begin to consider justice in terms of individuals and their own specific needs.

And we should pray for those affected by this decision in Florida.

By: Dave K.

NB: the views expressed in any particular post do not necessarily reflect the views of all members of Subversive Thomism.

Subversive Thomism

Living Justly and Loving Kindness in a World on the Brink of Collapse

Tag Archives: Contraception