The Obama Administration wants all employer supplied health insurance

[hedgehog]

to cover birth control. The Catholic bishops are objecting; they don't want to pay for policies covering birth control (and presumably abortion?)

Is this a Church/State issue or not?

[CBHagman]

1. This has actually soured me further on the Catholic Church.

During the health care reform battle, Pelosi went through quite a lot of negotiations with antiabortion lawmakers to get a workable compromise on coverage (Quite a few DUers bitch incessantly about the single-payer system and the public option not passing, but what they don't acknowledge is that votes were not there, as Barney Frank recently observed, and that it was only with a lot of heavy lifting that anything got passed at all).

Some of the Catholic hospital groups, nuns et al came out in favor of the health care legislation that passed, but I noticed my diocese only was concerned about the abortion issue. In fact, the only time I get a notice in my bulletin about taking action on some legislative issue, it concerns either abortion or gay marriage. There's been a deafening silence on things such as bankrupting patients and families, or charging women extra, or blocking people with pre-existing conditions from coverage.

The fact is that most sexually active Catholic women use some form of contraception. If the church wants to live in a fantasy world where everyone uses NFP and is a virgin at the wedding, they're welcome to do so, but they're not in touch with what their parishioners are actually doing.

And I'm ashamed of their selling us down the river on health care coverage. Catholic Charities here in Washington, D.C., actually stopped providing spousal health insurance coverage because they didn't want to offer it to same-sex couples.

So they're shopping cart Catholics too, the bishops.

On edit: It occurs to me I just let out a torrent of grievances and didn't really answer your question. I'd say in my heart of hearts I do understand that the bishops are adhering to a principle -- i.e., they must not condone or indeed assist people in behavior contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

However, I think the lines are blurry enough here that it seems they are trying to impose church teaching ahead of of things that are legally allowed in this country, and moreover I would say it is not within their power to control all behavior, even of people within their employ.

Moreover, there have been times when the church has failed to take action for good (e.g., allowing a gay man or lesbian to enroll for health insurance coverage) in favor of displaying their disapproval (in this instance, of gay marriage).

But the contraceptive/abortion issue is a rough one. I don't much care for the fact that the church is framing it as religious freedom, implying theirs is a victim status. At least that's how it feels from over here in the pew.

[hedgehog]

2. Are the bishops adhering to principle, or are they hiding behind principle

to justify a right wing stand on health care?

[CBHagman]

3. Well, Catholic social justice teaching...

...is that health care is a right, not a privilege. So the church is technically to the left of many, many people in the United States.

But then Catholic Charities, at least in D.C., chose to eliminate coverage for couples so they wouldn't have to cover same-sex partners. So that tells me that a greater good (i.e., health care coverage) is trumped by showing disapproval of gay marriage, though the latter is entirely legal.

In the main, I think they've just picked their battles and are only carrying part of the church along with them. I have no idea where we go from here. Or maybe I shouldn't say "we."