As you have probably read, President Obama has tried to find a compromise on the subject of healthcare paying for birth control. By now you know that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the compromise saying that they still have moral objections. Now, some of you are probably wondering if it would not be easier for President Obama to simply give in. Some others of you are convinced that the reason that President Obama wants to ensure that coverage is because he is pushing abortions. But, it is not as simple as that. You need to have some additional information on hand to see what makes this a knotty issue.
A recent Pew survey on this subject will give you some ideas on the matter. The Pew surveys are almost always connected with religion and religious observance. In that survey, 50 some percent of those surveyed were in favor of birth control being part of healthcare coverage, even at a religious institution. But, if abortion is the main question, then the percentages change. In other words, the surveys reflect a couple of different and almost contradictory trends. On the one hand, surveys (like the Guttmacher) have shown that 98% of sexually active Roman Catholic women have used a non-Catholic Church approved birth control method (no, no, not abortion), just like their non-Catholic counterparts who have no such limitations. But, on the other hand there is strong support in this country for keeping the State out of anything run by any church.
This means that there is technically strong support for healthcare covering birth control for individuals while at the same time there is also strong rejection of the State forcing any church to go against its beliefs. So, this is why there is an attempt to split hairs and cover individuals while not forcing any church.
Father Ernesto,
Up until now I never wondered about the Orthodox view on “birth control” (not abortion) but I guess more on the line of contraception. Historically has the church held any views, espoused any position or make any statements?
I would appreciate learning something on this topic.
Thanks,
The answer is that there is not one united position on birth control. We are all thoroughly united in being anti-abortion. Then, there are certainly a couple of Orthodox websites that would espouse a position equivalent to the Roman Catholic position. However, a couple of articles on the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese allow for a careful use of contraception, as long as the long-term goal is not to prevent having any children at all.
We would all agree that using contraception to prevent pregnancy while not married is morally wrong, as the correct answer is to obey the moral call of Scripture and Tradition with regard to sexuality. And, I think we would all agree that married couples should not use contraception as a means to prevent having any child.
Finally when contraceptive pills are used for means other than contraception, then that would not be a moral problem. For instance, the same formulation that is used in birth control pills to prevent conception is also one that is useful to regulate the cycles of women who have certain medical dysfunctions in their cycle. They are not prescribed the formulation for any contraceptive reason. It is prescribed for medical relief.
Fr. Ernesto, that is good information and seems to incorporate God given “common sense” into the equation. It would seem that a lot of Catholic couples are practicing some sort of contraception/birth control be it timing/rhythm or medication (what’s the difference if you’re trying to prevent conception) as you don’t see many families with 10-15 kids. I can’t get past the notion of the morality involved by bringing a child into the world that you know you can’t feed, house or provide care for but that’s off the point. I was mainly interested in the Orthodox thinking be it loosely defined or undefined as I had never heard it mentioned anywhere.
Thanks again.
Let’s go one more step and ask why is the government mandating to private industry let alone to faith organizations. How about mandating something more important like dental care. Should not the industries have a say about what they will pay for or not? If the government wants to do something useful provide catastrophic health care coverage for all people.
Fr. Ernesto helps us understand Obama’s confusion on the subject but what explains his wanting to mandate to anyone what coverage is provided. Yes the medical system is in a state of confusion and change but having the government manage it would not seem to be wise when we see how partisan and bloody things get at that level.
There is never an easy answer as to what to mandate and when to mandate. The decisions to incorporate seat belts, first as lap belts then as lap and shoulder belts then including air bags, was a decision that had to do with the incredible toll that driving without those devices was taking. It was not only a human toll, but also an economic toll. Notice that though bikers have been able to hold out in several states, seat belt laws have never been seriously considered for repeal.
The drive for mandatory flouridation means that I have all my original teeth, except for wisdom teeth, though a few of them are crowned. The drive for mandatory immunizations has most certainly lowered both the human and economic costs of epidemic diseases. Iron lungs are no longer commonly seen in every hospital in the USA.
I could go on. I have no doubt that had the government not “interfered” and “forced” the issue, that there would have been many people who would have refused to vaccinate their children. In fact that is happening today because of the increasing, and quite baseless, idea that government should never interfere and parents know best. Sadly, the laboratory proof of that mistaken belief is in the dead and damaged children from preventable diseases that are beginning to creep back in the USA.
Yes, I realize that government does step over the edge on a periodic basis. Yes, I realize that there is a danger of heading toward a nanny state. But, the other extreme, of a nation purely libertarian, to the point that epidemics range through it, causing damage to the societal fabric and the economy, to the point that we return to the high accident death and morbidity rates before mandatory seat belts, to the point that if you are poor your children can either die of hunger of have impaired brain development (like in Somalia) is an extreme which good people, like Samuel Wilbeforce and Charles Dickens ardently rejected.