on the abuse of labels in the recent contraception blowup

[marta_bee]

Whatever else the recent blowup over the ACA contraception mandate might have shown, it's that Americans need a better epistemology. The news story has interested me on many levels and will probably pop up in blog posts from time to time. But one philosophical idea kept seeming to float to the forefront, at least in my mind as I read the different

Comments

[tree_and_leaf]

by those people charged with interpreting and guarding Catholic tradition. The bishops and the rest of the Catholic hierarchy.

Up to a point. In theory, the opinion of the faithful is supposed to have a role in the formulation of the church's position in council, but the issue of contraception was specifically banned from consideration at Vatican II. Someone who's following Newman's take on the question of infallibility/ dogma/ the teaching of the church would argue, I think reasonably, that this means that the church can't be said to have properly made up its mind on the subject, because it hasn't been given the chance to make up it's mind as a whole. (There are, of course, Catholics who would disagree strongly with this analysis of the situation, but it's not cut and dried and liberal Catholics have a stronger position than one might think).

[marta_bee]

That's an interesting approach. I would have thought that in a church with a strong hierarchy (as opposed to, say, the Southern Baptists, where the individual congregations and even members are supposed to make up their minds on dogma, at least in theory), once the hierarchy pronounces a certain judgment that has to be what the church as an institution believes is true. Which may be very different from what individual Catholics hold to be true as individuals.

That said, I haven't read Newman at all. I'd like to know more about how he defended that position before I dismiss it out of hand. As I said, it's very interesting.

I'm sorry, but no.

[dwimordene_2011]

Just to say: I find it offensive that this entire controversy has been accepted as an issue of religious freedom because Issa and the reactionary right wing say that it is.

I see it as a case of playing two political minority groups - the Roman Catholic church hierarchy + reactionary Catholic perspectives and women outside of the "pro-life" (or rather, pro-birth) stance - to undermine workable health care for all of us. Both pro-choice and pro-religious liberty groups use the same atomizing libertarian ideology to talk about access to health care - which should be a universally guaranteed right - in terms of individual right to practice religion or individual right to control one's own individual (but no one else's) body. This kind of foundation is, in my assessment, incapable of framing health concerns in a workable, social and public fashion. It functions instead to keep us focused on issues of personal choice and freedom, is Christianizing illegtimately (where are the rabbis, pray tell? How about the right of Jews or other

Re: I'm sorry, but no.

[marta_bee]

I think you misunderstood me. I agree with you, this issue isn't about religious liberty. And I would also agree with you that the bishops don't represent the sum total of the Catholic tradition. (Which didn't come through clearly in the blog post; I'm sorry about that

Re: I'm sorry, but no.

[dwimordene_2011]

Hi Marta -

The RCC, like all religious institutions represents its tradition, not the current view of all its members; and the members get to vote by agreeing to be a part of it or not.This is the sentence that basically pushes me to respond as I do. I'm not seeing an unclear expression, I'm seeing one that's pretty clear. It's just that I cannot see a way of interpreting that other than by saying that if I want to be RCC, I can only do that by accepting that tradition as it is currently formulated by the religious institution - specifically, by the bishops who "represent" us. The tie you made here between the bishops and the tradition was simply too strong, and the position assigned to the laity is simply too congruent with the bishopric's self- understanding of its institutional position in relation to lay Catholics

I wish the mandate was for "well care" not "preventative care"

[julifolo]

Just because pregnancy is "normal" doesn't mean it's without medical repercussions. Which is where "don't call pregnancy an illness" goes towards

Re: I wish the mandate was for "well care" not "preventative care"

[marta_bee]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. There is misogyny and classism hiding behind the way a lot of people use religious dogma in fights like this. But the way to handle that issue is to, you know, address the issue. The whole question of what proportion of Catholic women accepted this doctrine in their lives was a distraction, and a dangerous one. And the claim that a woman testifying before the committee on an issue unrelated to the central point, are there religious freedom problems with the law, is also a dangerous distraction. It seems to say that is that witness had been allowed to testify, that the issues of sexism in religion would have been addressed

The question of validity, approached obliquily

[julifolo]

Since this is politics, not religion or philosophy ... the woman who was not allowed to testify *absolutely* had testimony related to the central point

[celandineb]

I'm with Dwim in saying that I think it's problematic to accept the claim of the Catholic hierarchy to speak for "the Church"; the hierarchy is male, celibate (theoretically), and a tiny minority numbers-wise. They may speak for the rules of the church, but that doesn't mean they speak for the members as a group. Ordinary Catholics need to be given their voice as well.

Reproduction is not an illness... but having a child can kill you. This is why is is extremely important to have women who understand this point, and why therefore contraception is so important, to be allowed to speak to that point. No, women are not a monolithic group, but to deny the varied perspectives - to only allow women who are anti-contraception coverage - to speak is wrong too.

[marta_bee]

I think it's problematic to accept the claim of the Catholic hierarchy to speak for "the Church"; the hierarchy is male, celibate (theoretically), and a tiny minority numbers-wise. They may speak for the rules of the church, but that doesn't mean they speak for the members as a group.

This right here is precisely why it's so important to get our concepts straight. Is the church supposed to be representing the opinions of everyone who calls themselves a Catholic? If you're prepared to accept that logic, then you should also be prepared to say that if all the churches in the DC rally decided to attend the upcoming Reason Rally, that the Reason Rally would be a Christian event because the majority of the people in attendance would be Christians. There seems something deeply wrong with that line of thought to me. Institutions and organizations have their own kind of structure, and people then have the choice which of those institutions to affiliate with

[celandineb]

No, "the Church" does NOT have to represent the opinions of all Catholics - and for precisely that reason, its official statements should be IGNORED COMPLETELY when it comes to public policy. It simply DOES NOT MATTER what a religious institution says about a secular, governmental decision. Separation of church and state, all the way.

[celandineb]

Oh, and I do not see how all these attempts to control women's reproduction *from the outside*, i.e. to have others make their decisions - EVEN IF SOME OF THOSE OTHERS ARE ALSO WOMEN - can be construed as anything other than a "war on women", an attempt to return women to second-class status. EVERY woman must speak for herself and make her own choices. Palin and Bachmann's ideas are not mine, but the difference is not just the outcome, it is the respect we have or lack for other women. I respect their right to their own beliefs and decisions, but they do not respect mine or that of any other woman who is pro-choice.

[vulgarweed]

Palin and Bachmann and their ilk are fighting in a war against OTHER women. Of course whatever they do is OK. See also: Mrs. Santorum and her "stillbirth," which would be called an "abortion" if a Democrat had the exact same kind of emergency procedure that she did.

[celandineb]

Too true. Or a poor woman, or a woman of color...