On Religion In America

I know it's not generally within my ken to comment on political matters, but I have been known to do so in the past, particularly when the issue is not simply politics, but anthropology. As of Monday, 43 Catholic entities, including several dioceses, a number of universities (including, shocker! Notre Dame University in South Bend), and other institutions have filed 17 separate lawsuits against the federal government concerning the HHS Mandate. The Franciscan University of Steubenville has announced that they will no longer provide health insurance for their students, nor will they require that students actually have insurance (see badcatholic's as usual high-quality post on it here - in fact, I kind of want to stop this post right now since badcatholic has already done it, and I'll never be as cool as that guy - but nay, I press on!). I was talking about this with my mom yesterday and we came to rather disheartening conclusion: either something big is going to happen, or the whole thing will just get swept under the rug.

There, that's better. Now all I have to do is never move this rug.

Here's what concerns me: we're in America. In many ways, this is an excellent thing. In some ways, it's even the best thing. But in a lot of other ways, it is not a good thing at all. For example, after the announcement of the HHS Mandate, there was immediate pushback from a number of bishops. In response, Nancy Pelosi made a statement that she would  "stand with her fellow Catholics" - and support the president's policy.

I am Nancy Pelosi! I am a credible authority on all things Catholic, especially where people disagree with the teaching authority of the Church on fundamental matters of faith and morals! Thank you! Goodnight!

I realize this is something of an old statement to be commenting on, but it's what's at root that really concerns me. What's implied is that the Church may be easily divided: those who support the mandate de facto, and those who do not merit comment. In another statement, Congresswoman Pelosi said that as a devout Catholic, she "supports the bishops when they are my pastor," but not when they are functioning as "lobbyists" in Washington.

Now of course there are a number of things I could say about such a thought. The real problem, though, is that she may be right. Not in a "truth is the mind conforming to reality" kind of way, but in a simply practical way.

While I have yet to see any sort of data showing that Catholics in general support the administration's policy in this area, I also have yet to see much to the effect of Catholics protesting en masse. Sure, the bishops are raising their voices (and thank God!), but let's take a sober look at the situation.

President Obama has moved to make a policy decision which ought to be found morally abhorrent by more than a fifth of his constituents (that's just counting Catholics), even as he ramps up for re-election. There is no conceivable reason he and the Democratic party would risk alienating that much of their electorate unless they truly believed that it did not matter. That is, that regardless of what the bishops may say with regard to the morality of the mandate, the average Catholic voter would take no notice.

The wrench in Obama's plan is the fact that it is very likely unconstitutional. I commend the bishops for taking that tack and challenging the mandate on legal grounds as that's the only practical way of stopping it. At the same time, part of me laments that the issue has been so reduced. 

Yes, it needs to be answered in the courts, but what seems to be happening now is a much, much wider issue. The administration is attempting to frame the debate as an issue of women's health, whereby those who disagree are excoriated as desiring to oppress women. At the root of this debate are several fundamental questions: what is freedom, yes, how can freedom of conscience be applied, yes, but even more important is the question of what it means to be a human being. Is contraception a "reproductive right"? Is refusing to pay for it somehow an attack on women? Are women the only type of people who are affected by intercourse? Is pregnancy itself an attack on women? Is sex without the risk of reproduction the only possible way for a woman to have dignity, or does this idea itself imply a gross undervaluation of her person? Is the physical act of sexual intercourse a "right"? Is human happiness truly reducible to the ready availability of recreational intercourse?
(On the more immediate level, there are other questions I'd also like to see answered, especially concerning the reasoning and motivations behind the government's definition of contraception as a fundamental issue of healthcare. Is pregnancy to be considered an undesirable or unhealthy state?)
Regardless, if we allow the issue to be merely one of legality ("lobbying" vs. "pastoring," as Pelosi would have it), we have missed a great opportunity. Just like with abortion, the legal issue is important, but what is even more important is converting the hearts and minds of those who do not see the issue in terms of human dignity. This is not an issue of "right vs. wrong" or any of the other accusatory or divisive labels that have been applied already and will be applied in the future (presuming that President Obama is wrong and the issue garners any sort of attention). The issue is, like all matters of import, a question of salvation. But the first question is whether we, the faithful, will see it as such. Are we on a plain between the two horizons of life and death? Or are we merely Americans, whose faith has been subtly but successfully divorced from policy?

I have to admit that these questions leave me with a pretty bleak picture. While the legal approach is necessary, what is really needed is conversion. Which leaves me with only one conclusion: we must be saints. Not for ourselves, not even for the good of our Church, but for the good of the world. For the love of God and for the love of our brothers and sisters. Sanctity, the living of God's own life in our world, is the only way to bring about conversion. It is only God who can move hardened hearts, and so sanctity is all the more necessary, if only to allow the opportunity for the encounter with God.
Believe me when I say that I speak as a sinner and not as a saint, but as a sinner who longs to live united to Christ's life, love, and will. This question of healthcare and contraception should be huge. It should be the occasion of massive public attention because of its constitutional nature. It is also a grace-filled opportunity to speak about human dignity, and it would be a shame to let that pass. But most of all, it is a deep and generous invitation and call for sanctity. Let us then be saints, and let the trees and rivers clap their hands.

St. Thomas More, patron of politicians, pray for us, that merrily we may meet in Heaven!