"The bishops do not seem to have (much) of a problem with Catholics conforming their consciences to President Obama’s when it comes to matters of war and peace, why should it be any different with matters of health and disease?"
http://womenintheology.org/2012/03/30/if-catholics-should-give-up-hospitals-for-lent-should-we-also-give-up-the-military/
If Catholics Should Give Up Hospitals For Lent, Should We Also Give Up The Military?
March 30, 2012 by Katie Grimes
Several Catholic bishops have threatened that, if made to comply with the HHS ruling requiring Catholic hospitals to indirectly pay for their employees’ birth control, the Catholic church will have no choice but to “give up its health care institutions for Lent.”
As Cardinal George argues:
If this is true, then should we not also get out of the U.S. military business?
This statement probably seems like a huge non sequitur so let me explain.
As the bishops remind us in their 1983 document The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, when it comes to matters of war and peace, a Catholic has only two options: either pacifism or adherence to just war theory.
The meaning of pacifism is straightforward enough: it is the belief that all wars, of any kind and for any reason, are always wrong. But just war theory, precisely because it is not a form of moral absolutism, is much more easily misrepresented. It is not, as some seem to think, an excuse for war. Just war theory begins from the presumption that war is almost always wrong. This is why, in the Summa, Thomas Aquinas conducts his treatment of war by asking “whether it is always sinful to wage war?” For Thomas, war is the exception; not the rule. The benefit of the doubt is always given to peace.
In sum, a Catholic must either think that all wars are wrong or that most wars are wrong.
But the United States military does not allow for this. Currently, the military recognizes the rights only of conscientious objectors, those who think that all wars are immoral; it does not recognize the rights of selective conscientious objectors, those who think that one war in particular is immoral. If you are a Catholic in the U.S. military and you wish to follow Catholic teaching on war, you are not allowed to do so. While the military can be said to respect the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of pacifist Catholics, it cannot be said to respect the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of those Catholics who wish to adhere to just war theory.
With its refusal to recognize the rights of selective conscientious objectors, does not the U.S. military exhibit a hostility to the religious freedom of Catholics that is at least as egregious as that allegedly displayed in the HHS mandate?
It is not therefore true, as Cardinal George insists, that, prior to the HHS ruling, “the government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and institutional integrity of the many religious groups that shape society.” If Catholics in the military have long been deprived of the right to refuse to fight in wars that their conscience and church tells them are wrong, then what Cardinal George says here is clearly not true. Rather than being an unprecedented attack on religious freedom, the HHS mandate would seem to be business as usual.
And this is not merely a theoretical debate about hypothetical scenarios. Unlike the claim that birth control causes abortions, which is based on unverifiable speculation, we know for a fact that the U.S. military has waged unjust wars. Some, if not most, of the wars the U.S. military has waged have failed to fulfill the criteria set forth by Catholic just war theory. Very recently, Pope John Paul II categorized the Iraq War as an unjust war. How many Catholic soldiers were made to fight in this war? How many Catholic members of the military were made to violate their own church’s teaching and contribute, however indirectly, to the prosecution of this war?
And this is not just about Catholic individuals. The Catholic church’s involvement in the military is just as institutional as its involvement in the healthcare industry. The Catholic church has a military chaplaincy and it even has an archdiocese devoted exclusively to the U.S. military.
If being made to pay, even indirectly, for birth control is reason enough for the Catholic church to get out of the healthcare business, shouldn’t being made to participate, even indirectly, in the execution of unjust wars be reason enough for the the Catholic church to get out of the military business? When it comes to church teaching on women’s sexuality, there is no good good enough to justify even the slightest deviation from church teaching. With respect to church teaching on war, one must ask, is there any evil evil enough to compel the church to take its own teachings seriously and reconsider its institutional affiliation with the U.S. military?
The bishops do not seem to have (much) of a problem with Catholics conforming their consciences to President Obama’s when it comes to matters of war and peace, why should it be any different with matters of health and disease?
As Cardinal George argues:
What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.In other words, the Catholic church would rather get out of the healthcare business altogether, even though it would mean sacrificing all the good that Catholic hospitals do, than be made to do something that it considers to be immoral. The moral philosophy guiding this conclusion would seem to be the following: it would be better to not do good in order to avoid doing evil than to do evil in order to keep doing good.
If this is true, then should we not also get out of the U.S. military business?
This statement probably seems like a huge non sequitur so let me explain.
As the bishops remind us in their 1983 document The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, when it comes to matters of war and peace, a Catholic has only two options: either pacifism or adherence to just war theory.
The meaning of pacifism is straightforward enough: it is the belief that all wars, of any kind and for any reason, are always wrong. But just war theory, precisely because it is not a form of moral absolutism, is much more easily misrepresented. It is not, as some seem to think, an excuse for war. Just war theory begins from the presumption that war is almost always wrong. This is why, in the Summa, Thomas Aquinas conducts his treatment of war by asking “whether it is always sinful to wage war?” For Thomas, war is the exception; not the rule. The benefit of the doubt is always given to peace.
In sum, a Catholic must either think that all wars are wrong or that most wars are wrong.
But the United States military does not allow for this. Currently, the military recognizes the rights only of conscientious objectors, those who think that all wars are immoral; it does not recognize the rights of selective conscientious objectors, those who think that one war in particular is immoral. If you are a Catholic in the U.S. military and you wish to follow Catholic teaching on war, you are not allowed to do so. While the military can be said to respect the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of pacifist Catholics, it cannot be said to respect the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of those Catholics who wish to adhere to just war theory.
With its refusal to recognize the rights of selective conscientious objectors, does not the U.S. military exhibit a hostility to the religious freedom of Catholics that is at least as egregious as that allegedly displayed in the HHS mandate?
It is not therefore true, as Cardinal George insists, that, prior to the HHS ruling, “the government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and institutional integrity of the many religious groups that shape society.” If Catholics in the military have long been deprived of the right to refuse to fight in wars that their conscience and church tells them are wrong, then what Cardinal George says here is clearly not true. Rather than being an unprecedented attack on religious freedom, the HHS mandate would seem to be business as usual.
And this is not merely a theoretical debate about hypothetical scenarios. Unlike the claim that birth control causes abortions, which is based on unverifiable speculation, we know for a fact that the U.S. military has waged unjust wars. Some, if not most, of the wars the U.S. military has waged have failed to fulfill the criteria set forth by Catholic just war theory. Very recently, Pope John Paul II categorized the Iraq War as an unjust war. How many Catholic soldiers were made to fight in this war? How many Catholic members of the military were made to violate their own church’s teaching and contribute, however indirectly, to the prosecution of this war?
And this is not just about Catholic individuals. The Catholic church’s involvement in the military is just as institutional as its involvement in the healthcare industry. The Catholic church has a military chaplaincy and it even has an archdiocese devoted exclusively to the U.S. military.
If being made to pay, even indirectly, for birth control is reason enough for the Catholic church to get out of the healthcare business, shouldn’t being made to participate, even indirectly, in the execution of unjust wars be reason enough for the the Catholic church to get out of the military business? When it comes to church teaching on women’s sexuality, there is no good good enough to justify even the slightest deviation from church teaching. With respect to church teaching on war, one must ask, is there any evil evil enough to compel the church to take its own teachings seriously and reconsider its institutional affiliation with the U.S. military?
The bishops do not seem to have (much) of a problem with Catholics conforming their consciences to President Obama’s when it comes to matters of war and peace, why should it be any different with matters of health and disease?
No comments:
Post a Comment