Amazon.com Widgets

 

Katie van Schaijik

Moral confusion run amok

Jan. 27 at 9:16am

It's always jarring to hear moral indignation and moral terminology being deployed in the defense of moral evil. Here is National Organization for Women President, Terry O'Neill, answering a reporter's question about whether the President has a right to dictate that faithful Catholics pay for emplyees' contraception and sterilizations through their health care plans. In fact, she asserts righteously, President Obama has "an obligation" to force them.

One can't listen without feeling,

1) that this is a wretchedly unhappy woman.

2) that she supposes she has just delivered a crushingly dispositive argument instead of a steaming mass of moral confusion.

But, the state of culture and education being what it is, many may be thrown for a loop by her rant.  For their sake, we should be prepared to answer it thoughtfully.  To that end, a few points:

1) It's true, strictly speaking, that institutions don't have consciences.  But they embody and cherish particular principles and values, and they are composed of individuals who do have consciences.  The prime moral value of Catholic institutions is the irreducible and involiable dignity of human life.  For the President to use the force of law to coerce Catholic institutions to act in violation of their most basic moral commitments is a grotesque abuse of power.

2) She conflates absurdly the liberty of an individual to use birth control with a right to have birth control provided for her, free of charge, by others.

3) With equal absurdity, she equates non-provision with "restriction to access".  Am I, by declining to pay for someone else's birth control, in any way, shape or form, "restricting her access" to birth control? 

4) Not having her birth control paid for by others is a violation of her "freedom of religion"?  Her "equal protection" under the law?  Her right to privacy?  Her right not to be discriminated against?  

Why, it's as if the Revolutionary and Civil Wars were faught for just this noble, timeless principle: My right to have others pay for whatever I want!  

There's a reciple of enduring social cohesion!  That's what it means to be "one nation, under God"!

Rush Limbaugh's assessment of NOW is vindicated once again.  "Femininism is their religion and abortion is its sacrament."  

Everything else must be sacrificed to that Absolute.


 

Laurence

It's such a shame. A perfectly lethal combination of entitlement and irrationality that has many women so earnestly convinced that their happiness and existence is being denied if they are not provided with a means to harm their bodies. It's so hateful.

#1 - Jan. 27 at 12:42pm | quote

 

Samantha

This is a very common and unfortunate stance against the decision of the Catholic leaders.

If she would branch out and pick up in her hands Love and Responsibility and read some its contents with an open mind and heart, I doubt she would so quickly accuse these "old men" of ignorance regarding sexual morals. 

#2 - Jan. 28 at 7:40pm | quote

 

To comment, please sign in or register first. (It's free and easy, and helps us prevent spam.)

 

Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: Factions
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter

Latest active posts

Reading circles

Lectures