This morning on "Up" Father Bill Dailey, a Roman Catholic priest and Visiting Associate Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School, discussed the Obama administration's birth control coverage requirements, calling them "gravely immoral and unjust".
-Brett Brownell (@brettbrownell) is video and web producer for Up w/ Chris Hayes which airs Saturday and Sunday mornings on MSNBC.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Over the past decade, Americans watched in bafflement and rage as one institution after another – from Wall Street to Congress, the Catholic Church to corporate America, even Major League Baseball – imploded under the weight of corruption and incompetence. In the wake of the Fail Decade, Americans have historically low levels of trust in their institutions; the social contract between ordinary citizens and elites lies in tatters.
How did we get here? With "Twilight of the Elites," Christopher Hayes offers a radically novel answer. Since the 1960s, as the meritocracy elevated a more diverse group of men and women into power, they learned to embrace the accelerating inequality that had placed them near the very top. Their ascension heightened social distance and spawned a new American elite--one more prone to failure and corruption than any that came before it.
Leave a Comment:
Last Sunday in the second hour, Hayes pointed out to Melissa Harris Perry that it was unfair to dismiss without consideration the position of the church as an expression of subjugation of women because the Church has an objection of conscience. This week Hayes asked Father Bill Dailey to explain this conscience objection. Presumably we want to understand the rationale of people making an objection. Otherwise, how do we reach reconciliation?
Hayes and Dailey both messed up. What Hayes basically said was, the Church has an opaque rationale for its refusal to buy a product that it regards as morally tainted. Secondly he said that in addition to objections the Church has regarding its own dealings with Insurance companies, they don’t want any Insurance company to provide birth control. Although I think the Church’s position is dead wrong, Dailey should have nailed Hayes on both misunderstandings.
Misunderstanding on the “broader question”: Yes it is true the church thinks other companies should not pay for insurance that results in people acquiring contraceptives, however satisfying that goal is irrelevant to reconciliation of the present conflict. The Church is not morally complicit with what those other companies are doing. It is the Church’s own moral complicity with what they see as an evil that is the only thing driving this conflict with the administration.
Misunderstanding of the Church’s position of Conscience (represented as opaque and esoteric): Daley should have explained the Churches moral complicity in terms a progressive audience could understand. Daley erred in reinforcing the idea that this is an esoteric accounting issue. Sebelius is saying look- the Church is not responsible for the contraceptive sales because the Insurance company would do it anyway. It is in their financial interest to do so. It is the most efficient way to run their business. Since giving out contraceptives is revenue neutral, the insurance company is not simply passing the cost of the contraceptives onto the Church. The Church’s point is that the accounting and efficiency responses are irrelevant. Only if the Church purchased insurance with the company are their workers entitled to free contraceptives. This is not some arcane moral argument-the Church is morally complicit. There is a formal analysis where the logic is spelled out. There is still a double effect (explanation here) for the Church purchasing the insurance because there is a dependency between the Church buying the insurance and the worker’s ability to acquire contraceptives for free.
This is a principled position that has a logical rationale. It is not intransigent or insoluble. If the contraceptive access is completely decoupled from the Church’s purchase of insurance, the Church would not be complicit. For example, if government agencies dispensed contraceptives for free regardless if the Church purchased health insurance for them or not.
That is not an opaque rationale involving arbitrary religious rulings or obscure practices.
Hayes was wrong to dismiss this as a angels on the head of a pin rationale that anyone outside esoteric theological circles could relate to. I don’t think Hayes intended to be insulting, but his muddled representation of the Church’s point of view could easily be taken that way.
For his part, Father Daley did a poor job explaining the church position. He avoided walking Hayes through the cooperation with evil rationale. There is a principled chain of logic. Given the premise that a zygote is equivalent to a person, then it follows that causing the death of a zygote is equivalent to causing the death of any other person. That is hardly an angels-on-a-pin opaque bit of conceptual contortionism. Nor is it difficult to follow the logical mechanics of the Bishop’s perception that by regulatory ruling, the administration is requiring the Church to be complicit in murder when it buys health insurance.
I don’t think progressives can have a problem with the moral logic or the tactics the Church is using- they too would be morally bound to do the same on some other question of conscience. The Church’s position is wrong due to its premise- most liberals do not believe the zygote is a person.
Understanding what I believe to be the logic of the position of the Church does not mean I have sympathy with their position. If the Church applied their principles to their actions more uniformly, it would be more difficult for liberals to believe, (as I do) that these rationales are simply a smokescreen for something else. Rebecca Traister remarked on this something else as did Melissa Harris Perry in compact form on last Sunday’s Up (link). This is not to say that liberals are not aware of, and have honored the moral stands the Church has taken on many other issues, from its positions on rights of Palestinians to its rejection of the Iraq war.
And yet the Church has no problem providing health care with obstetric benefits to single women and to women living in adulterous relationships (married after a divorce.)
The same principle would apply to pacifists paying taxes to support the military, to Christian Scientists proving health insurance at all, to a whole host of things offensive to Sharia, etc.
A very long-settled point of American Constitutional law is that the precepts of my religion do not exempt me from laws of general application. No matter what my own church may think of mixed-race couples, for instance, I cannot operate a hotel refusing them lodging.
If the Church wants to be totally free of taint from its employees using contraceptives, it can hire only single men or Catholics who won't use the benefits regardless. That should do the trick, right?
So when priest rape lil boys that doesn't bother their conscience? Why?
It is as fair to ask why many self righteous liberals continue to buy IPads even though they know buying them makes them complicit in evil?
We notice it and do nothing. The evil is easy to rationalize and better yet, no one accuses anyone else.
What the right is trying to say is that liberals have no moral rudder, and really they don't care about what evil their actions indirectly cause. The intuition that their is a lot of moral turpitude involved in what is wrong in society is what the Right's "Culture War" was leveraging. Richard Kim is right that using the term can participate in the charade of provided dignified clothes for raw bigotry. Denying two people who love each other their rights is not cultural. It is criminal. Simply because many "moral" issues are such criminal charades does not mean there is not moral complicity in evil in the world. Those IPad and IPhone sales appear to be completely undeterred by knowledge of how they are made.
There are matters of Conscience to be discussed honestly and openly. I am very troubled by Hayes' remarks that it is tricky to deal with questions of conscience in a secular public policy debate. I am with him if all he meant was trying to discuss an unprovable religious ruling like whether a zygote is a person or not. What he also throws in the bin as undiscussable is understanding the logical argument that flows from it. Sure. I admit I buy Harris-Perry's analysis of the fundamentals of what is going on here. But that does not mean that I am not obligated to understand the logic of what the Church is saying and looking for a path of reconciliation that successfully answers their logic.
The compromise announced Friday does not answer the objection the Bishops have, but there are solutions that still wind up with women working at Catholic institutions getting free contraceptives.
There are technocratic solutions, but making the insurance company pay does not answer it. The principle of the objection is simple. The act of getting contraceptives is still only possible if the Church buys the insurance. If there is no dependency between the two acts, then the Church is not complicit. Are there practical policy answers? Yes and I gave one though it is undoubtedly not the only one. If the government was the entity giving out the contraceptives at clinics (either through its own agencies or contracted by the government), then there is no such double effect due to the Church's purchase of health insurance.
Yes the Church is involved in some monumental hypocrisies. They also have some principled positions that we do agree with, and most of them are reasoned. But they do have moral failures and irrational behavior just like everyone else. My point is not to offer excuses for any of the pedophiles in the Church. To be honest what I find more troubling than the individuals involved is the inability of the Church leadership to deal decisively on a clear moral position for which they have complete power. Yes, the Church deserves all the scorn they are getting on that matter.
But we can't demonize them. If someone points out that we are morally complicit in some evil and they are right, it doesn't matter if the person is a murderer. And far from being murderers, many members of the Church deserve to be held in high regard regardless what your religious views are.
Hayes is right. Liberals are entitled to redefine and embrace what the Culture Wars means. Because issues like those discussed at Zuccotti Park are fundamentally moral questions, and we ought to have a broad and honest airing of views.
What I am saying is that in doing so, we cannot accept the usual tactics of War- of demonizing the opponent- because that shuts down the discussion and peaceful means of reconciliation. It turns it into a raw exercise of power, and seizing control of the financial and political apparatuses necessary to achieve coercive solutions. That is essentially what the Church is accusing the Obama administration of doing.
Bill Dailey spoke artfully and articulately, is certainly gifted relative to self-expression-- but did not convince me, raised catholic, one iota. Such subjugation of women. Such big government advocacy by celibate men. Would that they have used this energy to deal with many priests' serial, predatory child sex offending behaviors instead of moving the culpable from parish to parish--we catholics knew of that at a young age. Would that these men had spoke out against Bush's illegal and immoral wars and his policy of torture. Of the bombing of Falluja. Of Republicans endlessly trying to destroy social programs for women and children. Now we see selective outrage about the rights and reproductive freedom of women. Hard to believe. I am sure this has been written before, but I wanted to post it to feel I had done my part.
And you said it very well. Thank you!
While waiting for the whole show to come available, I can't help but wonder what Mr. Dailey thinks of maintaining the same privileges for Muslim hospitals which refuse to hire women and, rather than have male staff treat female patient, refuse to care for them.
PLEASE continue to post the links to the entire show.
Here it is 6:50 on Sunday morning, and the Saturday show is still missing.
I have a feeling that they are no longer going to have the full hours available.
This will be an awful turn of affairs. I have no TV, and will miss my viewing greatly. Thanx a lot!!!
The father makes a false argument -- insurance is not the "provider" of these allegedly heinous medical services -- having insurance coverage only provides financial relief for women who are going to make their choice regardless of cost -- failing to provide insurance coverage will thus not prevent abortion at all, it will only add a financial burden to those women who have already undergone a personal trauma -- and making contraception less available only increases the number of abortions.
Father Dailey calls birth control gravely immoral and unjust, gee what would he call a crime? I'll refer to an old saying about the Catholic church "If you don't play the game, don't make the rules". Santorum is just plain nuts under the guise of piety.
This new rule would appear to create a federal tax on non-Catholics to he benefit of a single religion. Essentially it creates a state-preferred religion.
I'm all for women's healthcare.
But, when Catholic businesses do not have to pay for the costs of some of the healthcare services of their employees, those costs must be borne by other businesses.
This sets up one costs for Catholics and Evangelical businesses and another cost for non-Catholic and religion-based businesses. It creates a religion based tax on non-Catholics the new, preferred state religion.
This is an outrageous, unconscionable and unconstitutional religion-based tax on non-Catholics.
Where is the entire show? Where are the links?
If you are just going to show clips, I'm done with UP.
I'm with usedtowander. I'm not interested in the religious' self-imposed philosophical dilemmas. They are free to explore those amongst themselves and the curious.
This church is highly political and should therefore be taxed, or remove themselves from the law-making. Their businesses should always comply with all regular tax, health, labor, civil rights, and commerce laws.
Healthcare for ALL.
Amen!
Thanks for the link to the show on your twitter feed, Chris!
What links? If they exist, how about sharing them!!
Question, how does the church justify the fact that Depaul University provides insurance that covers birth control?
Better yet, how do they ignore ALL of those pedophiles calling themselves priests?
I too am waiting for the links to the entire show. i don't want to watch a series of small clips.
Based on Father Dailey's explanation, the solution is simple. The church can allow its female employees access to the same benefits that others enjoy, despite its belief that those benefits are immoral, then confess and be forgiven, just as Catholics who use contraception or commit other sins are. Easy! And surely the fact that this particular sin has the happy consequence of preventing abortions must be some consolation.
But the most practical solution for the country as a whole, although it would also probably be the most disruptive to the system, is removing employers from the health care financing picture altogether. Our stubborn insistence that employers must remain in the middle produces only unnecessary inconsistency, complexity and a competitive disadvantage as compared to countries with more rational health care systems. This brouhaha is just one more illustration of the foolishness of hanging on to a poorly organized system that is not working.
Pedophiles for Priests does not bother them but birth control does. What kind of godless conscience do they have?
Funny, how the Priests don't have a DAMN problem with PEDOPHILES and neither do Chris Hayes. He's YET to mention this!!
1. Another vote for, please continue to post links to the entire show.
2. I can see why the camera on Father Dailey was framed just the way it was. Beneath the camera line he must've been sitting on his balls. They've gotta be as huge as those yoga exercise things for him to say with a straight face that the Church is concerned with the pathologizing of women's health.
3. Snark aside, please do not continue to have guests like this guy and Maggie Gallagher. It's not that I disagree with their opinions, it's that I don't learn anything interesting from their appearances. I know what they're going to say, I know every talking point and bit of Frankfurtian bull@!$%# that I'm about to hear. I know the responses I would make to point out the speciousness of their arguments, and it just annoys me when the panel doesn't make them.
What I enjoy about your show is the conversation between your panelists. I don't always agree with them, but until today you have limited yourself to giving a platform to people who share a certain level of intellectual honesty and respect for their audience. If that changes this will cease to be a show I care about watching.
Excellent discussion, but frustrating because everyone is missing the point here...
1. Freedom of religion resides with the individual NOT the corporation. Therefore, each employee/citizen has the right to NOT have their employer cram their religion down his/her throat.
2. Imagine if a Catholic works for the Christian Science Monitor, and is told that his/her insurance does not cover blood transfusions or surgery because his/her employer has a moral objection to surgery...
I have SO waited to hear someone say this. Chris almost got there but used the interracial marriage analogy instead. Someone needed to show application of the Church's argument to a well-known and clearly-established religious belief (no blood transfusions) which is also a tiny minority point of view (especially medically speaking) in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the Church's postion.
ps If there is a direct comment link to Chris's show I cannot find it.
Bingo - I totally agree.
Many of us only watch MSNBC on Laptops or Smartphones.
Please continue to post each of the full hours like Meet the Press.
If you need to imbed more than 1 commercial at the begining do so.
Very sad not to be able to see the flow of the show this Saturday February 11th.
Several times Dailey brought up or agreed with the idea that women should have equal rights. Then why are women priests not permitted?
because he's a liar like most pedophiles.
calling every priest a pedophile is completely asinine and childish. He's been asked on the show to talk about the Catholic beliefs on birth control. One of the best parts of this show is the respect for people with different beliefs. Perhaps you could carry that over into your comments.
Our Republic is under ATTACK by: RELIGIOUS FIAT’ INTERVENTION and IMPOSITION in Personal HEALTH decisions.
This is about RELIGIOUS INTERVENTION and IMPOSITION in Personal HEALTH decisions. And if this is not stopped, what’s to stop Religion from intervening into any other areas of our lives, imposing a particular theology.
There has to be a separation from imposed theology, you can’t have “Freedom of Religion”, whiteout a “Freedom from Religion”, there has to be limits and areas, I as a citizen, can make the deciding decision, to own my Health and body, not my employers, imposed faith theology.
Where is my, our FREEDOM FROM RELIGION? The First Amendment is suppose to guaranty my Right to be free of Religion, so why is Religion in my Hospital? I don’t go to the Catholic Church for my Health Care, the front door of the Hospital is not a entrance to the Catholic CHURCH, or a Catholic Sanctuary, I don’t ascribe to there Doctrinal teachings, so why are the Catholic Churches, Theological Teaching being forced on me in a Hospital, to get Health Care.
If Catholic Churches are going to serve, they have to be fair and equal to all, especially if they take FEDERAL DOLLARS, they cannot, be allowed selectively “DISCRIMINATE”.
The Bishop’s want to impose their Doctrine, because they own the Hospital, well they shouldn’t be allowed to own the Hospital, or don’t take Federal Dollars and State they are hospitals, only for Catholics, full disclosure for employment, let each person decide, if they want to be limited to Catholic Doctrine, in their employment and choice of Health Care.
I say the Catholic Church, should get out of OWNING HOSPITALS business. Problem solved, but the Bishops, want to impose by Church Doctrinal LAW (Dogma), what they cannot get through doctrinal obedience, to their 98% of their own Congregants.
Those capitalized and bolded words totally convinced me.
If the Catholic Church gets out of the hospital business, there will be fewer hospitals. As someone whose life was saved at Saint Francis Hospital, I see that as an undesirable outcome.
It's 7:30, and STILL no Saturday show in its hourly format.
I have a question. Is there no one monitoring these comments?
If someone is, have you not noticed the fact that many of us out here are very vexed by the fact that we can not watch Saturdays show in its entirety? Do you people not even feel the need to explain what is going on? For all these weeks we have had this option, but now it is not the case. Why even give the option, (at the top of the page), to select the date of a program we would want to watch, and then not proffer it. Please explain what is happening!!!!!! We want our "UP"!!!!!!
I spent half of the Super Bowl party extolling the virtues of this show I had discovered on MSNBC's website. Because cogent arguments, pro and con, were displayed with geniality and respect; I got my friends to promise view this show so that we could discuss it when next we met. Now to my chagrin, the format of the webpage has changed so that I may no longer easily discern which day, date, or discussion to click upon. Please revert to your former Web design or something similar soon. I have also bragged about this to my friends.
P.S.: I obviously love the show.
I also am very confused as to the way the show is posted from Sat 2/11. I don't know the proper sequence of the show. I vote for the full show and don't mind commercials either if that's what it takes to see the full show in proper sequence. This is the only way I can watch. Thanks
Actually, I am so frustrated with the way you have started posting the show for this weekend that I'm not wanting to even watch it. It's confusing this way. Sorry you have made this choice. I have loved this show from the beginning and now I'm turning it off because it's so hard to figure out any proper sequence. Goodbye
There is a broader medical issue involved in this discussion. Oral contraceptives are not always used to prevent pregnancy!!!! Yes, it can be prescribed to treat irregular menstrual periods, painful menstrual periods and other non-fertility related medical problems. Therefore, to deny a medicine to all women because you think it is morally wrong seems to be intruding on one's 1st amendent rights by the church and one's right to privacy in regards to their medical care. As an insurance provider they are required to cover medically necessary treatments and that would include norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol tablets or similar medications --also known as oral contraceptives. Women have the right to have their medical care directed by their doctor and not the male Catholic Bishops. These are the same people who have tolerated homosexual assaults on children for decades, which in my opinion precludes them from passing moral judgement on private medical treatments decisions of their employees or anyone else .