Friday, February 10, 2012
Rep. Lesch puts the Church in its place
I've come to expect to hear weak arguments about how the Church should stop concerning itself with issues outside the sanctuary, but when they're made by a member of my state's legislature and given prominent placement on my local paper's op-ed page, it still raises my blood pressure before I've even finished my breakfast. Consider this gem from Rep. John Lesch in today's Star-Tribune:
No one begrudges a bishop's role in squaring away his own flock. But when he runs a large hospital upon which a city relies for jobs and health care services, he need not be wagging his finger as you walk in the emergency-room door.
If I want to hear moralizing, I'll go to church. If I want to access legal health care, I'll go to my health care provider. And I think my conscience is adequate to understand the difference between the two.
And then, of course, a history lesson:
The pilgrims fled England because they prized individual conscience over the Church of England's mandates. The founding fathers recognized this and ensured that the First Amendment afforded individual freedom from religion.
Catholic or non-Catholic, our hard-won freedoms cannot afford another election-year intrusion.
Limiting the mandate to "large hospitals" would certainly be a step in the right direction (though still problematic, in my view). I repeatedly see pro-mandate arguments ignoring the vast array of Catholic institutions that will be affected. The broader point that pervades the piece, though -- that church is the building where worship services are held -- is troubling, especially coming from the "progressive" left (as Tom Berg eloquently argued in the Christian Century recently). And the suggestion that "conscience" is what guides us in knowing that the Church oversteps its bounds when it enters into the realm of social services? Ugh.
On a positive note, however, it appears increasingly likely that the Obama administration will be revising the rule, perhaps even later today. Unfortunately, the reasoning employed by our pro-mandate elected officials is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/02/rep-lesch-puts-the-church-in-its-place.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I think the feeling behind a lot of this kind of talk is the impression liberals get that religious individuals insert themselves (and their religious influence over others) into politics, and then cry "oppression" when they're subject to ordinary political losses. Oftentimes it seems that such people see the two acceptable outcome as "I get to do what I want, or everyone has to do what I want," which fits -- at best -- awkwardly into a democratic society.
I don't mean to imply that that attitude is universal, or that it's directly applicable to this case. But I do think it's an underlying current when people like Rep. Lesch get upset about religious institutions using political and economic power to "moralize."
I'm also a little confused by this line: "And the suggestion that "conscience" is what guides us in knowing that the Church oversteps its bounds when it enters into the realm of social services? Ugh." Is your suggestion that his position is so misguided that it can't possibly be the product of conscience? Or am I misunderstanding you?