Many Reasons to Reject Notion That "The Poor Are Responsible for Their Poverty"

For thirty years now, various departments and institutes at Houston's Rice University have been doing an annual survey that "has measured this region's remarkable economic and demographic transformations and recorded the way area residents are responding to them."

For most of those years the project has been headed by Sociology Professor Stephen Klineberg and known as the Houston Area Survey. 

As the result of a $15 million gift by Houston philanthropists Rich and Nancy Kinder, the survey is now the responsibility of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research, with Professor Klineberg as co-director, and called the Kinder Houston Area Survey.  The institute has also branched out to do similar surveys in other major metropolitan areas.

On April 24th a letter writer to the Houston Chronicle bemoaned the fact that in response to one question on the 2011 survey a surprising 59% of respondents  said that governments should act to reduce income differences between rich and poor in the United States.

This prompted the following excellent response from Donald M. Hayes (Montgomery, TX) posted yesterday and published in today's print edition:

Regarding "Responsibility," (Page B11, Tuesday), the letter writer is appalled that 59 percent of the respondents to the Houston Area Survey said the government should take action to reduce income differences between rich and poor in America.

He proceeds to assert that the real reasons have to do with alleged faults of the poor. He asserts that correcting income inequality is not a responsibility of government.

These prejudices are as wrong as they are widespread. An enormous body of research provides the foundation for this conclusion. Some of the best of this research has been done by the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Among the best of the best of this research is that done by the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Over generations a representative sample of families has been interviewed annually with respect to their finances. The research firmly rejects the notion that the poor are responsible for their poverty.

The major determinants, or predictors, of economic status in adulthood - poor, middle class or wealthy - are the circumstances of birth. The major determinants are social class at birth, race, and gender. The rule is that people live and die in or very near the class into which they were born, and within each class people of color do not fare as well as whites, and women do not fare as well as men.

Take the one variable of social class at birth: It determines the neighborhood in which one lives, which determines the quality of elementary and secondary education that one receives. Does government have a responsibility for inequalities in educational opportunity?

Does government have a responsibility to ameliorate the income consequences of educational inequality?

The social class at birth determines the quality of diet and health care of a child, which in turn has consequences for the child's income as an adult. Does government have a responsibility for class inequality in diet and health care? Does government have a responsibility to ameliorate the income consequences of these inequalities?

Many more examples could be provided: The poor are not responsible for economic recessions which impact them more adversely than those who have a larger economic cushion; they are not responsible for wars that kill and maim more of them than those who come from classes that can find employment without volunteering for military service; they are not responsible for regressive sales taxes and Social Security taxes; they are not responsible for a criminal justice system that sends more of them to prison; they are not responsible for a system of higher education that prices them out.

A little thought will cause more than 59 percent of Houstonians to agree with the sentiment that appalls the letter writer.

Donald M. Hayes, Montgomery

Two Cardinals Lauded for Pastoral Outreach to ... Of All People ... Gay Couples!

Yesterday the April 12-26th print edition of the National Catholic Reporter arrived by snail mail--and, lo and behold, with it an editorial I had missed, even though it apparently has been posted online since April 9, 2012.  The editorial praises two high-ranking cardinals, one an Austrian and the other an Italian, for positive pastoral outreach to, of all people, gay couples!

The Austrian is Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, who has a strong reputation for dealing calmly and practically with controversies.  The Italian is Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, S.J., now 85, who was Archbishop of Milan from 1980 to 2004 and for quite a while considered a contender for the papacy until the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Benedict XVI.

What distinguishes the stands of both these church officials is how pointedly they diverge from the Catholic hierarchy's almost universally totalitarian campaign against civil recognition of gay couples.  Instead, Schönborn is working to change diocesan rules that prevent partnered gay people from serving on parish councils--even when they have been elected to serve by substantial majorities.  And Montini is suggesting that it is much better for states to favor homosexual partnerships than to promote gay hook-ups as a way of life.

I wholeheartedly recommend the NCR editorial, which follows:

Perhaps it is just a sign of the times that Catholics would be jolted reading that a cardinal, facing a difficult pastoral situation, would publicly acknowledge having asked himself: “How would Jesus act?”

That’s the question that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, asked when considering whether he should let stand a pastor’s decision to prohibit a gay man in a registered domestic partnership to serve on a parish council.

In March, Florian Stangl, 26, was overwhelmingly elected to the position by gaining 96 of 142 votes cast by members of the parish. The pastor, Fr. Gerhard Swierzek, head of the small parish, intervened and, upholding church law against homosexual partnerships, asked him to renounce the position and also, according to reports, asked Stangl not to receive the Eucharist.

The archdiocese at first upheld the rule. Then Schönborn asked himself that question. And Stangl asked to speak to the cardinal.

Schönborn apparently decided that one thing Jesus would do is invite Stangl and his partner to lunch.

What he discovered over lunch, he said later, was that he was “deeply impressed by [Stangl’s] faithful disposition, his humility, and the way in which he lives his commitment to service. I can therefore understand,” said the cardinal, “why the inhabitants of Stützenhofen voted so decidedly for his participation in the parish council.” And then Schönborn suggested that the archdiocese would look into reworking the rules for pastoral elections, which currently require that candidates sign a declaration that they support all church teachings.

In a statement explaining his decision, Schönborn said, “There are many parish councilors whose lifestyle does not fully conform to the ideals of the church. In view of the life witness that each of them gives taken as a whole, and their commitment to the attempt to live a life of faith, the church rejoices in their efforts.”

It is interesting that in the same week, news has circulated widely on the Internet and elsewhere of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini’s view, expressed in the book Believing and Knowing, that while society should defend and support family life, “it is not bad for two people to have some stability instead of occasional homosexual relationships, and in this regard the state could also favor them.”

Is it too much to suggest that Martini and Schönborn could be a leading edge of a shift in hierarchical thinking? After all, this is the first generation of prelates who have had to confront the reality that gays and lesbians will no longer remain a hidden “problem.” They are openly part of our lives, our cultures, our faith communities, and will continue to be. They are no longer an abstraction to be spoken about, without challenge, as some theological or ethical curiosity.

The other thing Schönborn did was talk publicly about his wrestling with this issue, discussing it during an hourlong interview on Austrian television Palm Sunday night. These questions are part of the public discourse, and he demonstrated that the church can be part of that discourse.

Schönborn revisited this issue in a homily directed to the priests of the archdiocese during the Chrism Mass on Tuesday of Holy Week and placed it into the larger question of pastoral care for Catholics whose lifestyles do “not fully conform to the ideals of the church.” Rather than railing against people in gay partnerships, cohabitating heterosexuals, and divorced and remarried Catholics, Schönborn has said the church needs to embrace them in their faith journey.

Schönborn’s approach has attracted a great deal of notice, of course, because it is so strikingly different from so much of the confrontational policing of borders that goes on in the church these days. It doesn’t burden the laity with a requirement that the hierarchy, we know, would miserably fail as a class -- that all be perfect in every detail.

What if, for instance, the U.S. bishops had decided to invite theologian St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth Johnson for lunch -- even dinner -- to discuss her work before condemning it out of hand? What if Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Mass., had invited Victoria Kennedy to lunch to talk over whatever objection he may have to her as commencement speaker at Anna Maria College? What if these U.S. leaders would have taken into consideration these women’s “life witness” as a whole? Both episodes might have had more civil, not to mention rational, endings.

Spending time with someone, especially breaking bread with someone, tends to soften the hard edges. It doesn’t negate principle, but it may make one hesitate, or even rethink, before publicly condemning someone.

The culture warriors among us might balk at such a strategy. At a distance, the lines always look sharper and more defined. It’s tough to keep warring against someone you’ve come to know a bit and whom you perceive as reasonable and well-intended.

Maybe seminaries should consider placing a great deal more emphasis on developing the “invitation to lunch” as an integral part of pastoral theology programs.

Retired Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson Calls Catholics to a Better Sexual Ethic

I am especially grateful to the National Catholic Reporter for reporting in mid-March that Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, who served as Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney, Australia from 1984 to 2004, is calling for a thoroughgoing reformation of official Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.

I appreciate learning about Robinson's proposal, because it is significant in several way.

First, he is no stranger to the church's rules on marriage or to canon law in general:  prior to being named bishop, he was Chief Justice of the Archdiocesan Marriage Tribunal and President of the Canon Law Society of Australia and New Zealand.  This is no theological neophyte or lightweight speaking up.

Second, Robinson headed the Australian bishops' investigation into the causes of clerical sexual abuse in his country--which, he says, convinced him that sex is always a serious matter and that abuse crisis showed that the church's official sexual teachings dangerously misplace what should be taken seriously about sex:  (a) they allowed the perpetrators and their bishops to treat the damage done to victims as not very serious at all, enabling the offenders to be handled clandestinely, by just making a good confession and getting reassigned; and (b) they encouraged the bishops to give higher priority to protecting the institutional church from public scandal--and criminal and civil damages--than to just treatment of the victims and effective discipline of the perpetrators.  Robinson concluded that an official teaching on sexual ethics that could yield such outcomes was seriously deficient.

Third, when his fellow bishops took umbrage at his findings, Robinson decided he could no longer serve as a bishop.  Officially he resigned in 2004 for reasons of health.  But he says the health problems were brought on largely by the antagonism of his peers.  His integrity in parting company with them and taking his views global indicate that his proposal is based on faithfulness to the damning facts he gathered about the sexual abuse crisis and to his conscientious convictions about the new directions those stubborn facts require.

Robinson's proposal, which NCR has endorsed editorially, is straight-forward:  the official Catholic position on sex since Humanae vitae (issued on July 26, 1968)--that, to be moral, every sexual act by any human being must be open to unitive and procreative purposes within heterosexual marriage--is badly flawed, and that fixing the flaws will result in a better valuation of heterosexual and homosexual relationships, not to mention marriage and contraception.

NCR reports on Robinson's proposal as it was delivered to the Seventh National Symposium on Catholicism and Homosexuality, sponsored March 15-17, 2012, by New Ways Ministry in Baltimore, MD.  But NCR notes that Robinson's analysis is more detailed and developed than can be summarized in an article and refers readers to Bishop Robinson's website for the complete text of his thesis.  It is found at a link entitled Christian Basis for Teaching on Sex.

In terms of its content, there is little in Robinson's proposal that could be called radically new.  Virtually all of the content reflects the ideas of several prominent Catholic moral theologians in the second half of the 20th century.  But what is truly novel is that a Catholic bishop has grasped their arguments, made them his own, and spelled out where those arguments must lead the church in its teachings on sexual ethics.

One of Robinson's key insights is that the church's teaching on homosexual acts is flawed because its teaching on heterosexual acts is flawed.  This was my thinking as well in my doctoral dissertation in 1982.  In Chapter 2 of Part II, Examples of Creativity in Christian Doctrine, I positioned two doctrines back to back--the teaching on contraception and the teaching on homosexuality--because I believed changes in one would result in changes in the other.  It is clear that Robinson grasps this linkage.

Robinson argues, first of all, that Christians must question church officials when "It is claimed that God inserted into nature itself the demand that every human sexual act be both unitive and procreative."  If the claim is true, Robinson says, it appears to stand out as the only instance of God giving such a specific divine purpose to a created thing.  It also suggests a God who takes undue, disproportionate offense at matters which seem not to have much impact on the unfolding of his universe.

Robinson also questions whether unitive and procreative aspects are essentials of each and every marriage, not to mention each and every act of sexual intercourse.  He also echoes several Catholic moral theologians who have said that the Catholic tradition on sexual ethics focuses much too exclusively on the physical structure of sexual acts, "rather than on how such acts affect persons and relationships."

Against the tradition's emphasis on a supposed natural law that only conservative Catholics seem capable of discerning and on openness to producing offspring as the sine qua non for ethical sex, Robinson proposes that what should be taken seriously is what Jesus told us to take seriously:  "all the evidence tells us that God cares greatly about human beings and takes a very serious view of any harm done to them, through sexual desire or any other cause... I suggest, therefore, that we should look at sexual morality in terms of the good or harm done to persons and the relationships between them rather than in terms of a direct offense against God."

Robinson notes that this direction would still pit the church against a modern society that "has become more and more accepting of casual sexual activity that is not related to love or relationship."  Thus, says Robinson, "I do not simply conclude that all sex is good as long as it does not harm anyone... Jesus invariably said 'Love your neighbour,' and this implies more than the negative fact of not harming... The essential difference between the two is than an attitude of 'do no harm' can put oneself first, while 'Love your neighbour' must put the neighbour first."

Drawing directly on his analysis of the sexual abuse crisis, Robinson is insistent about this contrast:  "we must take the harm that can be caused by sexual desire very seriously indeed, and look carefully at the circumstances that can make morally bad the seeking of sexual pleasure because they involve harm to others, to oneself or to the community.  Some of these factors are:  violence, physical or psychological, deceit and self-deceit, harming a third person (e.g. a spouse), using another person for one's own gratification, treating people as sexual objects rather than as persons, separating sex from love to the extent that sex loses its ability to express the depths of love, trivializing sex so that it loses its seriousness, allowing the desire for present satisfaction to restrict the ability to respond to the deeper longings of the human heart, harming the possibility of permanent commitment, failing to respect the connection that exists between sex and new life, failing to respect the need to build a relationship patiently and carefully, failing to respect the common good of the whole community."

For me, the list is a bit too comprehensive.  I understand, especially after the priestly sexual abuse crisis, why Robinson insists on taking sex seriously.  But is there a point at which the focus on relationships is being taken too seriously?  The approach as Robinson presents it seems to devalue and exclude all instances of, to sanitize commentator Bill Maher, pleasure sex.  Is it possible that "sexual activity not related to love or relationship" between truly consenting adults can be appropriate for some individuals at some points in their lives?  The church could never preach that it would be good for anyone to become permanently stuck in that lifestyle.  But do such experiences never have value?

Yet to take love and relationships as the aspects of sexual pleasure that should be taken most seriously would be a tremendous advance over focusing exclusively on procreative purpose.  Indeed, the analysis of the teaching on contraception in my doctoral dissertation showed several attempts to nuance procreative purpose with a greater emphasis on the unitive aspects of sex, especially in the period from Thomas Aquinas through the 19th century.  It was only when the Anglican Communion decided that contraceptive practices could be moral that Roman Catholicism responded with encyclicals like Casti canubii--which Humane vitae declared sacrosanct.

Robinson would propose evaluating homosexual acts by the same standards as heterosexual acts.  So "anything goes" would be ruled out, but homosexual acts which embodied love of neighbor and care for sexual relationships would be applauded:  "Positively, it would follow that sexual acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not, in and of themselves alone, offensive to God.  It would mean that sexual acts are pleasing to God when they help build persons and relationships, displeasing to God when they harm persons and relationships."

What I find most encouraging about Bishop Robinson's appropriation of this sexual morality is that it exhibits the pattern of creativity in church teaching that I highlighted in my dissertation.  Christians reach a point in time when a received teaching is no longer functioning as it should:  rather than promoting growth and harmony among Christians and humans in general, the teaching starts yielding unintended consequences.  Honest followers of Jesus pay attention to those outcomes, re-examine the teaching, and discover novel evaluations that place the old teaching within new limits.  In this case, giving priority to love of neighbor and loving relationships recontextualizes procreative purpose and anything we once might have said about the physical structure of sexual acts.

It is a process that has gone on numerous times in the history of Christianity.  It is how the church achieved the teachings we still value today, how the church achieves new teachings that address the signs of the times, and how the those teachings will be placed in an even newer context tomorrow.  It is how, in the context of all the proposals ever made about Jesus and ever to be made, "the many become one, and are increased by one."

No Scientific Evidence Any FDA-Approved Contraceptive Can Destroy An Embryo

Reading the March 2nd print edition of the National Catholic Reporter, I became aware that Jamie Manson has made another significant contribution toward bringing clarity and sanity to the controversy over contraception coverage by health insurers.

In a new analysis posted on the NCR website on February 20th, Manson shows that the U.S. bishops' claim that the mandate requires coverage of chemicals which can induce abortions is yet another lie they have told in the debate. Why is it a lie?  Because, says Mason:  "so far, there is no scientific evidence that any FDA-approved contraception is capable of destroying an embryo."

Manson makes this case comprehensively, arguing from (1) the processes of fertilization and implantation that go on in the course of attempting conception and (2) how the contraceptives act chemically and what physical changes they induce in a woman's uterus.

The first argument has been made by others and cited here before.  Manson's version is cogent and compelling:

Now, just because an egg is fertilized doesn't necessarily mean that it will develop into an embryo. For that to happen, the fertilized egg must be implanted into the endometrium that lines the uterus. Implantation happens seven days after fertilization, if it happens at all. Scientists estimate that, at a minimum, two-thirds of fertilized eggs fail to implant. Some scientists estimate that the number may even be as high as 80 percent, according to Discover Magazine.

For this reason, according to the medical definition, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo successfully implants the lining of the uterus.

Some church officials argue that a woman is pregnant at the moment of fertilization. If that is the case, then it follows that 60 to 80 percent of the time, this natural process results in a massive loss of life.

In short, it makes much more sense to say that conception of a new human being has not been achieved until the fertilized egg is implanted, than to claim -- as the bishops do -- that human lives begin at the moment of fertilization, even though 60 to 80 percent of fertilized ova end in sudden death.

The following paragraphs make Manson's second argument:

The HHS mandate allows women free access to all FDA-approved forms of contraception. This includes the IUDs (intrauterine devices), the drug Plan B (levonorgestrel) and a new drug called Ella (ulipristal acetate), which came on the market in 2010. Church officials and others have argued that because these three contraceptives are abortifacients, the government is forcing them to participate in the distribution of devices and drugs that cause abortion.

The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives. Since Ella is new to the market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either.

There is only one drug approved to induce abortion.  It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception.  It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan.

When church officials argue that the IUD could be an abortifacient, they are relying on research from the 1970s that indicated that the IUD could affect an embryo's ability to implant. Decades of research since has demonstrated that the IUD actually works much earlier in the reproductive process than once thought. It does not destroy an implanted embryo. Approximately one in 100 women using the IUD get pregnant.

Rather, the IUD, which is a T-shaped device inserted into the uterus by a medical professional, works by affecting the way in which sperm move. Some IUDs release a synthetic version of the hormone progesterone called progestin, which thickens cervical mucus making more difficult for sperm to enter the uterus. Few sperm are able to reach the fallopian tubes, and those that do reach the site of fertilization are usually incapable of fertilizing an egg.

The drug Plan B is also artificial progestin and therefore impedes the sperm from entering the uterus in the same way as the IUD. But the drug can also stop the ovaries from releasing an egg. If an egg has already been released, Plan B can slow down the movement of the egg. By slowing down both the egg and the sperm, it prevents fertilization.

The effectiveness of Plan B drops considerably if given more than two days after intercourse. But even at its peak of effectiveness, it is only works 50 percent to 80 percent of the time. Some have argued that Plan B acts after fertilization by changing the uterine lining is such a way that implantation is impossible.

But according to Dr. Sandra Reznik, who also wrote for the January-February 2010 edition of CHA's Health Progress, if Plan B "involved a change in the endometrium, then one would expect a higher rate of success [in preventing pregnancy]. ... Taken together, there are biological, clinical and epidemiological data clearly indicating that Plan B's mechanism of action involves only pre-fertilization events."

For five years, staff at CHA collected, reviewed and summarized the great majority of articles on Plan B's mechanism of action, Ron Hamel explains in his article: "Virtually all of the evidence in the scientific literature indicates Plan B has little or no post-fertilization effect ... on the endometrium that would make it inhospitable to implantation."

The drug Ella is perhaps the most controversial because its chemical structure is similar to that of RU-486. Unlike Plan B, Ella can be taken up to five days after intercourse, therefore working for the entire life span of the sperm. Like Plan B, however, women who take Ella can still get pregnant, which suggests that this pill, too, is not an abortifacient.

In several studies, 2 percent of women taking Ella up to five days after intercourse became pregnant. Researchers estimate that at least 5 percent of women not taking the pill would have become pregnant. Ella prevents fertilization through a progesterone blocker that delays or inhibits ovulation.

Some have argued that because Ella is similar in composition to RU-486, it functions in the same way. RU-486 works by decreasing the lining of the uterus to the point that an implanted embryo will dislodge. Scientists argue that there is no evidence that Ella has this type of effect on the endometrium and therefore, there is no evidence that the drug can interrupt an existing pregnancy or prevent implantation. Experts point to the drug's 2 percent failure rate as proof.

According to one study published in The Lancet, when the drug is given in a massive dose, it could alter the lining of the uterus and theoretically impair an embryo's implantation. But no woman could have access to that amount of Ella.

The most important point that emerges from all of this research is that, so far, there is no scientific evidence that any FDA-approved contraception is capable of destroying an embryo. To say that any of these drugs are abortifacient is not only misleading, it does a profound disservice to women who find themselves in a situation where they might have to use one of these drugs or devices.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, an average of 207,754 sexual assaults is reported in this country every year. And according to a study at Princeton, more than 25,000 women become pregnant every year after being sexually assaulted.

The CHA did a fine job of arguing why emergency contraception should be available to all victims of sexual assault, regardless of the hospital's Catholic affiliation. But ultimately, women other than those who have been raped could also find themselves in need of this contraception as well. Condoms break and slip, women miss doses of birth control pills, and some women face all types of sexual coercion by men.

Regardless of the situation, it is for a woman to decide what is best for her health and well-being.

As we saw last week in the all-male panel testifying before Congress about contraception and in the statements of the Rick Santorum and his financial backers, the culture of shaming women for taking control of their sexuality is still a powerful force in this country. And the desire by men to take control of women's bodies seems equally powerful.

In the face of these assaults on women's health and women's sexual autonomy, it is the responsibility of analysts and commentators to be honest about the science of contraception and to be cautious when asserting what an abortifacient is and what it isn't.

Bishops Can't Be Satisfied on Religious Exceptions, NCR Columnist Says

Jamie Manson, a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, reminded us in a posting yesterday why she recently earned the Catholic Press Association's first prize for Best Column/Regular Commentary. 

In an excellent analysis of the contraception-mandate controversy, she explains why the U.S. bishops can never be satisfied with President Obama's compromise--because a contraception exception for church-related institutions is only one slice of what they actually crave:  what the bishops really want is to overturn a half-century of Equal Employment Opportunity law and allow religious people who have employees to discriminate on the basis of religion against any employee who does not share their beliefs.

Such an approach is not freedom of religion but in fact a very fascist form of theocracy. But instead of a 'single-payer' theocracy, the employees get a theocracy of individual religious employers.

It's unfortunate that NCR's editors did not listen to Ms. Manson before they decided to jettison fifty years of editorial policy on contraception and freedom of conscience.  The text of her analysis follows.

When Archbishop Timothy Dolan's initial reaction to President Barack Obama's compromise on the contraception mandate was "It's a step in the right direction," I knew it was too good to be true.

I knew this because, the night before the compromise was announced, I had listened carefully to Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the USCCB, imply that the bishops were seeking conscience exemptions for far more entities than Catholic institutions. As he said on PBS's "Newshour," the exemptions should cover "both religious employers and employers with religious people running them or other people of conviction who are running them."

I also listened carefully to Luke Goodrich, general counsel for the highly conservative Becket Fund, who spoke to CNN immediately after Obama announced his compromise. Goodrich shared Picarello's concern, saying, "A lot of religious individuals who own small business are not covered by this supposed compromise and they are going to be forced to violate their religious beliefs, too."

Although the bishops did not mention their desire to cover the rights of secular employers and small business owners in their formal statement, an internal, bishops-only briefing memo obtained by Whispers in the Loggia's Rocco Palmo, confirms this as one of their goals:

"It seems clear there is no exemption for Catholic and other individuals who work for secular employers; for such individuals who own or operate a business; or for employers who have a moral (not religious) objection ... This presents a grave moral problem that must be addressed."

These statements demonstrate how disingenuous the bishops have been in their cries about Obama's attack on the Catholic church and in their claims of concern over the fate of Catholic hospitals, universities and charities.

Their goals go far beyond Catholic entities. What they really seek is to enable secular employers to impose their religious ideologies on the lives of their employees.

We have heard the bishops talk a lot about the First Amendment over the last week. The First Amendment text about religion reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

How does this amendment defend the right of secular employers to use their religious beliefs to burden the civil rights of their employees? To allow secular employees or small business owners this kind of conscience exemption from U.S. law would be a gross violation of the separation of church and state.

All U.S. citizens are forced to pay for practices that violate their consciences: wars, executions, a broken prison system, the mistreatment of immigrants, the salaries of elected officials who do not represent our ideas and convictions. We may not like it, but this is the price of living and working in a democracy.

But the bishops do not seem interested living in a democratic nation founded principally to protect its citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They seem more interested developing a bizarre form of theocracy in which personal religious ideology can trump civil law.

The Obama compromise showed that some members of his administration were wise to the fact that the bishops had a much broader agenda behind the contraception battle. Why members of liberal Catholic groups and the liberal Catholic media couldn't see this remains a mystery. It isn't hard to figure out their agenda if one reads Archbishop Dolan's announcement of the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, dated Sept. 29, 2011.

In this letter, Dolan lays out examples of "grave" challenges to religious freedom. He appointed the ad hoc committee to look at these six issues in particular:

• The HHS-mandated coverage of contraception and sterilizations
• The HHS requirement that the USCCB's office of Migration and Refugee Services offer reproductive services to victims of sex trafficking
• USAID's increasing requirement to provide HIV prevention services (including condoms) in certain international relief and development programs
• The Department of Justice's refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and its criticism of DOMA as an act of bigotry
• The Department of Justice's argument against expanding the "ministerial exception," which allows religious groups to be exempt from employment laws, including claims to sexual harassment and unlawful termination
• The narrow religious exemption in New York state's same-sex marriage bill, which, in particular, doesn't protect the rights of county clerks to refuse to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples for moral reasons

Here is the full agenda of the bishops' fight for religious freedom. Looking over this list, it becomes clear that if Obama had given the bishops an inch, eventually they would have taken six miles.

Dolan's announcement also clarifies why so many evangelical groups, who otherwise support the use of contraception within marriage, came to the bishops' defense. They knew full well that if the bishops got this exemption, it would create a small opening that other religious groups could continue to widen in their own fight against recognizing same-sex marriages.

The evangelicals may not share the bishops' moral objections to contraception, but they have formed a united front with the Catholic hierarchy in the war on same-sex civil unions and marriage. They declared the war in a joint statement titled "Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods that Stand or Fall Together."

The letter was released Jan. 12, just weeks before the contraception controversy dominated the headlines. In it, Catholic bishops and leaders of right-wing Christian organizations warned that if employers are forced to recognize civil unions and marriages between people of the same sex, they will also be forced to obey the same laws that apply to heterosexual couples.

And like the contraception coverage, these religious leaders want secular employers protected, too. The letter states, "The most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations -- throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies -- to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct."

The religious leaders lament that both religious institutions and individuals who object to same-sex marriage will be forced to comply with laws governing "employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation."

The bishops' defense of secular individuals is not without precedent. When the same-sex marriage bill passed in Connecticut in 2009, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, who now serves as chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, attempted to extend religious liberty protections to florists who might object to same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.

Mr. Obama's compromise is shrewd in that it shines a light on the true motivations behind the bishops' crusade. The bishops' complaint was that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities would have to pay for services that are not consistent with Catholic doctrine. Mr. Obama arranged it so they would not have to pay for those services. The hierarchy, therefore, should be as pleased as Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Larry Synder.

The fact that the bishops aren't satisfied suggests they and their right-wing religious and political brethren had a broader agenda at work all along. Members of the Obama administration should be applauded for seeing through the bogus holy war they ignited.

In their objection to Obama's compromise, the bishops argue that it "continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions."

This criticism is ironic, since the bishops are insisting that employers have the right to force their personal morality on their employees. They are demanding that employers to be allowed to coerce employees -- through the denial of benefits -- into accepting their personal or religious convictions.

If such a scenario had been allowed, it would have created a hostile work environment for women and gay and lesbian employees not only in Catholic institutions, but in the secular work force as well. It would have legitimized, if not codified, our society's disrespect for the rights of women, gays and lesbians.

Most of all, it would have fostered the anti-feminist, anti-gay culture that so many right-wing religious and political groups dream of.

Mr. Obama's compromise averts what could have been the beginning of a disaster for human and civil rights. If given this pass, the bishops would no doubt have continued to achieve the goals set out by the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty.

And if that had been allowed to happen, eventually this could have happened, too: Poor- and working-class women would be denied adequate health care, trafficked women who are systematically raped would be denied reproductive care, those threatened by the global HIV epidemic would be denied life-saving prophylactics, and gays and lesbians would be denied the rights to which they are entitled as working, tax-paying citizens.

By refusing to cave in to the demands a religious and political right-wing agenda, Mr. Obama actually upheld the Constitution: He ensured that most individuals in this nation will be guaranteed equal protection under the laws.

Obama Contraception Mandate Supported by 23 Christian, Jewish and Muslim Leaders

Yesterday The Huffington Post published a letter from 23 national religious leaders -- including Christians, Jews and at least one Muslim -- supporting the Obama administration's insistence that church-related institutions must follow the access-to-contraceptives requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Following is the text of the letter and the list of signers:


We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals' moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions. We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform -- as we value our nation's commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals' conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.

‪‬‬‬
Signed,

Catholics for Choice, Jon O'Brien, President
Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Jonathan Stein, President
Concerned Clergy for Choice, Rabbi Dennis Ross, Director
Disciples Justice Action Network, Rev. Dr. Ken Brooker Langston, Director
Episcopal Divinity School, The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President
Episcopal Women's Caucus, Rev. Dr Elizabeth Kaeton, Convener
Hadassah, Marcie Natan, National President
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Robert Barkin, Interim Executive Vice President
Jewish Women International, Lori Weinstein, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action, Jill Warren, Executive Director
Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonneveld, President
National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Kaufman, CEO
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board, Rev. Jane Emma Newall, Chair
Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Executive Vice President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Rev. Steve Clapp, Chair
Religious Institute, Rev. Dr. Debra W. Haffner, Executive Director
Society for Humanistic Judaism, M. Bonnie Cousens, Executive Director
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Steven Wernick, CEO
Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President
Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Peter Morales, President
United Church of Christ, Rev. Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President
Women's League for Conservative Judaism, Rita L. Wertlieb, President; Sarrae G. Crane, Executive Director

Bishops, GOP Wrong on Contraception, Houston Chronicle Letter-Writers Say

Three letters to the editor posted yesterday on the website of The Houston Chronicle (and published in today's print edition) explain why the Obama administration is right -- and the U.S. Catholic bishops and their conservative cronies are wrong -- on the subject of requiring church-related colleges, charities and other institutions to provide their employees access to contraceptives.

The first two letters are the most cogent.  The first argues that for decades Catholic women and Catholic married couples have gotten the morality of birth control much more accurately than church leaders:  the real sinners are those who promote unbridled, unsustainable global population growth.  The second says that the bishops are trying to get the U.S. government to force Catholic employees to accept contraception teachings that violate their consciences.

(The third letter, arguing that institutions that take government money should follow government rules, is not as helpful -- in that the Obama administration is correct whether the institutions in question are getting government money or not:  the public funding is not the primary issue, but rather the right of every employee to follow his or her conscience on family planning.)

Here is the text of the first two letters:

Outdated notion

Regarding "Battle lines form over reproductive rights" (Page B12, Sunday), Kathleen Parker is quite correct that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church opposes providing birth control in Catholic hospitals. What she is overlooking is the fact that the hierarchy and the parishioners are in completely different places.

For years the Catholic leaders have said that the use of contraception is unnatural and a sin for those who use it, and for years women all over the world have wisely ignored those teachings. One recent study found that over a lifetime at least 90 percent of women have used contraceptive devices of various types.

All of these women have sinned against God according to the church. Yet, despite this the church leaders continue to stubbornly cling to outdated notions about what is and is not natural.

The human population of this Earth is about 7 billion and growing steadily. Because of the growth in some areas, people have trouble obtaining clean water, adequate food, sanitary facilities, basic medical care and other necessities. That's sinful.

Instead of resisting new health regulations, I invite the leaders of the Catholic Church to think about what is really moral.

We need to get this planet's human population under control. People are entitled to a decent existence, and if we are tied to worn out thinking by our church leaders and the silly notion that it is a sin to use contraceptives, we are just not going to get there.

Robert L. Fischer, Houston

Archaic ideas

Kathleen Parker charges the Obama administration with "utter disregard for religious liberty" because the new health care law will require Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage in their insurance packages. Actually, Obama is protecting the Catholic laity and non-Catholic employees of Catholic institutions from the Catholic hierarchy's archaic ideas.

What the Catholic Church wants is for the federal government to enforce a policy on its members that it is unable to enforce itself on 90 percent of them.

If you look at the percentage of Catholics using birth control or even the pill, it hardly differs from the American average.

It wasn't that long ago that the Catholic Church was arrogant enough to use the government to force its birth control doctrine on everyone in the state of Connecticut, including married couples in the privacy of their own homes. It blew up in their face, and the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) helped to establish the right of privacy that figured heavily in Roe v. Wade.

Personally, I would be more comfortable if Catholic institutions were allowed to offer their employees two insurance options, with or without birth control coverage, were it not for the risk of retaliation against Catholic employees who opted for coverage of contraception.

Walter D. Kamphoefner, Bryan