Oh no! Someone forgot to tell the Commonweal editors that the President isn't the Pope.
What is going on here? Is the question of contraception coverage—something most American Catholics already have, and which the bishops have said almost nothing about before now—really where the hierarchy wants to issue a non-negotiable edict? Why were they not this vocal in their opposition to the Bush administration’s use of torture? Has the USCCB thought through how these demands are likely to undermine the church’s much more important effort to change hearts and minds about abortion? Or how they will further divide Catholics?They said "torture", so now any counter-arguments are invalid. It's a corollary of Anderson's Law.
It's okay, though, because Commonweal explains the new mandate for us in simple language.
Ideally, the administration would have simply broadened the original religious exemption. Nevertheless, the new plan, which requires insurance companies, rather than Catholic institutions, to cover the cost of contraceptives, is a welcome development. The details of how this will work are not entirely clear.The first comment on the post explains the problem with the bishops that got us into this whole political mess:
Maybe part of the bishops' attitude is caused by the selection process for bishop. No priest who has not shown himself unquestionably loyal to Humanae Vitae need apply. And so, even though the majority of Catholics have not received Humanae Vitae, the almost unanimous majority of bishops have received it because only devotees of the encyclical get the job. This policy began under John Paul II, another example of how that brilliant pope who never knew a doubt has left the Church much more divided than he found it.Oh, okay.