Challenge: Is Care For The Poor, Sick, And Elderly An Intrinsic Evil?

Earlier today I saw online a Catholic arguing that our Christian obligation to support those that cannot support themselves (the poor, sick, and elderly) is more important than the issue of abortion.  Although I do not know the person, I chose to reply because of the nature of the audience that would see his position.  What follows is my response to his opinion that care for those that cannot support themselves is more important than ending abortion.

Taking care of the poor and sick is certainly a good thing for us to do. However, supporting anyone that stands behind allowing the killing of innocent people is intrinsically evil (for those not familiar with the term intrinsically evil, please see this blog post; it means "evil no matter what the circumstances.") You could argue that one candidate allowing for an exception in limited cases is intrinsically evil in order to not support him, but if you do that you would have to not support the other candidate that supports abortion with no exception for the same reasons. In which case you would have to find another candidate to support. Support for abortion is morally wrong. As the bishop said,"One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils," and that is our first obligation as faithful Catholics.

If a President and Congress make changes that cut back drastically on support of the poor and sick, we can still provide for them through our own work. So long as there are laws that allow abortion (with no exceptions), we are allowing an intrinsic evil to occur. If laws were to come that would make it illegal for us to provide for the poor and sick, we might have an interesting discussion on whether caring for them or allowing abortion were the greater intrinsic evil, but they are both intrinsically evil and we could not support a candidate with either belief. The one intrinsic evil in play here is abortion. We might disagree on how to provide for the poor and sick, but how that is performed is not a moral issue, in which case we are called to support that candidate that does not support abortion (with no exceptions).

There are other moral issues as well, like support for gay marriage, that go against the teaching of the Catholic Church. One might argue that we have no right to force our morality onto others, but this is something that will have an impact on any religion that believes in marriage being between one man and one woman. Laws are being pushed to force churches to perform "same sex marriages." If this is not an issue of religious freedom, then I don't know how far the government would have to push to make people of faith realize that the government is intruding in religion. Secondly, there is a good amount of imagery in our faith that is rooted in marriage like the creation accounts and the marriage of Jesus to the Church. These images lose their meaning as "same sex marriages" become legal. Do you want the teachings of the Church to become watered down because of changes in the law?

"Same sex marriage" is a moral issue as are abortion and care for the poor and sick. The intrinsic evils are abortion and "same sex marriage," which means "evil no matter what the circumstances." I hope you understand how abortion and "same sex marriage" are "evil no matter what the circumstances." Go back and reflect on whether how one party plans to care for the poor and sick is "evil no matter what the circumstances." If you still feel that supporting a candidate that supports abortion and "same sex marriage" is acceptable, please explain your rational. The rationale should explain:
1) How one candidate's plans for caring for the poor and sick is an intrinsic evil.
2) Why abortion and "same sex marriage" are not intrinsic evils OR why it is acceptable to support a candidate that supports one intrinsic evil over a candidate that supports another intrinsic evil.

I challenge any Catholic to provide such rationale.

The Golden Rule - Treading In Dangerous Water

Yesterday President Obama spoke about same-sex marriage and his change of mind about this.  The linked article shows a brief history of Obama's view of this.  "In 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position."  So he either marked the questionnaire incorrectly or he did not want others to know his position.  Then "in 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, he cited his own religion in framing his views: 'I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.'"  Yes, it is good to see that his religious beliefs bring him to this conclusion.  Those who cry for separation of church and state will not like this, but they should be up in arms about the dangerous water President Obama is treading with his comments about his recent change of mind.  It is my opinion that the main reason why religion is included in information about candidates is so that people will know what morals the candidate has and will be using to form their decisions.  Then "As president in 2010, Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were 'constantly evolving. I struggle with this.' A year later, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, 'I’m still working on it.'"  So we have a religious man stating that he is struggling with his beliefs while running the country and hardly anyone is questioning his wavering beliefs.


Then we get to his comments yesterday on his support for gay marriage:

'This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.'

There are two points to be made here about the bold part of the quote above.  First, and the alarming most important to the country, we have a President who is preaching.   Second, is the misinterpretation of the Golden Rule in the Bible.


With a preaching President comes many issues.  First and foremost is the separation of church and state. Many people that remind us of this necessity often use it to keep religion out of the public sector.  The text of the First Amendment in regards to this reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and does not preclude religion from the public sector.  The opposite is true in that government has no place in religion or keeping a person from practicing their religion.  President Obama's preaching does not enact a law nor is he in Congress.  However, he has stepped into dangerous water when he admitted that "obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others" and citing a specific passage of the Bible for justifying his belief.


President Obama obviously knows that his position on gay marriage is at odds with other Christians and is becoming argumentative in stating his beliefs.  If he wants to argue these points, then he should engage in such a debate with a qualified defender of the faith rather than letting his position as President allow him to preach.  There are many people who may be lead astray if these comments go unchecked, especially with lack of media coverage on rebuttals of the President's comments.


Also, in regards to the issue of a preaching President, is that non-Christians are alienated.  Not only is he at arms with Christians of other beliefs, but with atheists, Jews, Muslims, and other religions.  Is the word of the President to be the Word of God?  Atheists would certainly have an issue with this as they do not believe in God.  Accepting the change of mind of the President is the easy way out of this discussion simply because it conveniently goes along with the majority viewpoint of atheists.  If the President is going to preach on why he supports gay marriage, atheists should be afraid of whatever else he might do based on his changing interpretation of the Bible.  People of other Christian beliefs will find themselves defending their beliefs against the public megaphone given to the President.  People of other religions will be alienated along with atheists because his preaching comes from books that are not part of their sacred scripture.


The second issue is the misinterpretation of the Golden Rule.  Elsewhere President Obama is cited as quoting the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.  Mt 7:12 is one place where we find the Golden Rule "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you."  We also see this in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49).  Specifically, Lk 6:31 reads "Do to others as you would have them do to you."  The passages of Lk 6:27-36 and Mt 5:43-48 have to do with the love of enemies.  All Christians should abhor things that go against the teaching of God.  As such, they would not want to have someone commit a sin against them.  So if one does not want to have sin done against them, they should not sin against anyone either and that is the point of the Golden Rule.  President Obama is mislead on the purpose of the Golden Rule in forming his conscience about gay marriage.  This is about not sinning as opposed to being a basis for letting people do whatever they please.  While there are some questionable interpretations of scripture that could lead someone into thinking that homosexual relations are not condemned by God, the Golden Rule is not one of them.


These are difficult times for people of faith as our President seeks to remove religion from the public sector while using his office as a means to preach religion.  President Obama is trading in dangerous water.  We must not be afraid.  Just like the disciples in the boat were struggling,"the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it" (Mt 14:24), we must remember that Jesus is with us and we should not lose faith.


"When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. 'It is a ghost,' they said, and they cried out in fear.    At once [Jesus] spoke to them, 'Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.'   Peter said to him in reply, 'Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.'   He said, 'Come.' Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.   But when he saw how [strong] the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'  Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, 'O you of little faith, why did you doubt?'  After they got into the boat, the wind died down."  (Mt 14:26-32)

Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown and My Response (2/17/2012)

This is my first post in this blog.  The name "Les Expos" comes from my long time love of the Montreal Expos.  Most of my posts will have little to do with the Expos and I do not intend to claim that my views are those of the former team or their fans.  It is a name I have used elsewhere and rather than coming up with a catchy name that may eventually lose its meaning, I went with a name that likely has no meaning to the content I post.

Anyway, I recently sent an email to our Senator, Sherrod Brown, regarding the mandate imposed on religious employers through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding health insurance.  What follows is his form letter email response and the questions I sent to him in reply in red.

Dear Mr. Gissel:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding health insurance and contraception coverage.  Like most Ohioans, I believe we must respect both religious institutions and the interests of women in receiving affordable health care.

Through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), young adults under 26 can remain on their parents’ insurance plan while in college or looking for their first job.  Seniors who reach the Medicare “donut hole” receive discounts on their prescription medication and have improved access to preventive care screenings.  In Ohio, that meant that 185,000 seniors saved $95 million in prescription drug costs last year.  And in 2014, small businesses and individuals will be able to purchase affordable insurance on the new health insurance exchanges.

Another goal of the act was to eliminate insurance coverage discrimination against women.  Prior to the passage of the ACA, it was legal in nine states for insurance companies to deny coverage to women who were victims of domestic violence because it was considered a pre-existing condition.  For the 14 million women who purchased health insurance in the individual market, pregnancy could have been considered a pre-existing condition, thus excluding maternity coverage.   And in most states, women were charged higher premiums — sometimes 150 percent more than men — especially during their reproductive years.  

In light of the discrimination women face in the health insurance market, the ACA requires all health plans to cover comprehensive women’s preventive care [This comment is being added for the blog.  From what are the women being prevented with this care?  Women's preventive care keeps them from being women] and screenings at no additional cost to women.  The preventive care covered by the ACA is based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a panel of 15 medical experts, and includes domestic violence screening and counseling, gestational diabetes screening for at-risk women, postpartum counseling, lactation counseling, HIV- and sexually-transmitted infection testing and counseling, contraception coverage, and an annual well-women visit.

In keeping with the IOM’s recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation requiring most employers to provide these services in their health insurance plans.  Under the department’s initial criteria, a church or other house of worship that is opposed to contraception on religious grounds would not have been required to provide contraception coverage under its insurance policy.   Because they educate students, treat patients, and hire individuals regardless of their religious beliefs, universities and hospitals affiliated with a religious order would need to provide this coverage.

However, after hearing from interested stakeholders, President Obama announced an expansion of the religious exemption.  Under the new rule, religiously affiliated institutions — such as universities, charities, and hospitals — will not be required to cover contraception services in their health plans. [Did the law actually change?  If so how?  Secondly, what about businesses that are not religious, but who are morally against providing such coverage?  What about employees of non-religious companies being forced to pay for a coverage to which they are morally opposed?] Instead, women working for these institutions will be able to access contraception coverage directly from their insurance companies.  The insurance company, not the employer or employee, will be responsible for the costs associated with this coverage.  Insurance companies should not need to raise premiums due to this new rule.  For example, insurance premiums did not increase after contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit system.

[Were any insurance companies contacted for input on this?  How do they feel about providing coverage for free?  If the cost of providing contraception coverage is that minimal, why not have the manufacturers of contraception provide this for free?

Secondly, insurance is regulated by the states.  Is the Federal Government going to step into the regulatory process and insist that the State Departments of Insurance allow companies to provide a coverage for free?]

The Catholic Health Association supports the revised policy [Are you aware that the Catholic Health Association does not speak for the Catholic Church?  The bishops of the Catholic Church speak for the Catholic Church and every one of the bishops of the United States has spoken out against the mandate from the HHS and the so-called compromise.  Why have they been excluded from conversations?] — stating that a “resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.”  By requiring insurance companies, rather than religiously affiliated employers, to provide contraception coverage, the exemption protects both the interests of religiously affiliated employers and the right to access to health care of employees.  More than half of women between ages 18-34 struggle to afford contraception, which they often need for medical purposes not related to contraception.  As such, all women — regardless of their place of employment — should enjoy full access to preventive health care.

Some Ohioans have told me that the IOM’s recommendations require that abortion services must be included in insurance policies and that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions.  This is incorrect.  The IOM recommendations do not require any health insurance plan to cover abortion services.  Additionally, the IOM recommendations regarding contraception coverage only apply to insurance plans; they do not require hospitals or health care professionals to provide such services.

I appreciate your taking the time to voice your thoughts on this important matter.  Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

                         Sincerely,

              

                         Sherrod Brown

                         United States Senator