Why THIS Battle?

Marc and I were having a discussion last night about the HHS rule and the bishops’ reaction to it. We both thought it interesting that the bishops, as well as a great many priests, did respond so vociferously—in some cases even stridently--to the rule.

Don’t get me wrong; the response is a welcome one, at least to those who actually profess and seek to follow the Catholic faith. My only regret is that we’ve had to wait for so long to see this kind of strong stance from the leaders of the Church in America, and my only fear is that they’ll fold if things go south.

My question, however, is why the bishops have chosen this as a battleground. For nearly half a century, America’s clergy, by and large, have been uninterested in preaching on and attempting to “enforce,” if you will, the Church’s ancient teaching on the evils of contraception. They’ve let their parishioners have their own way in this, in flagrant disregard of Humanae Vitae and two thousand years of unbroken condemnation of contraception as perverting the whole meaning of sex. Now, suddenly, they’ve seized on it—an issue that they themselves have done all they can to make a lost cause—as the rallying point against the rising tide of the world. The $64,000 question is: Why? Why this issue, and why now?

Marc believes that the key is the abortion angle—the fact that the insurance plans in question will cover abortifacients and contraceptives with an abortifacient effect. (Actually, the IUD, the minipill, implants, and one mechanism of the combination pill are better described as contragestives, in that they don’t prevent conception but implantation/gestation. Since life begins at conception, and these methods then terminate that life, their moral status is the same as abortion.) Specifically, Marc states that since the bishops have continued to have at least some visible concern about abortion, at least when compared for their utter lack of concern about birth control, it’s the abortifacient aspect of the HHS rule that has drawn their attention here, and the birth control issue is merely incidental.

I’m not entirely sure of that, especially when I remember the canonization—excuse me, the funeral—of TedKennedy. I’ve long maintained that the two groups that are most responsible for the current availability of abortion in America, to the tune of 3000 or 4000 per day, are the Republican Party and the Catholic bishops.

My cynical thought is to follow the money, but it doesn’t seem to be leading me anywhere. In other words, if churches would see a decline in what goes into the collection plates as a result of preaching on a particular issue, then bishops and priests tend to steer clear of that issue. The problem here is that I think that the bishops risk alienating Catholics with this sudden reversion to preaching about the evils of birth control—that it’s their opposition, here, not their continued silence, that risks reducing church revenues. Which brings us back to the original question: why have they chosen now to agitate, when they’ve been content to let Catholics contracept to their hearts’ content for a half-century?

     Anyone?

     (Here's hoping Marc has got the comment function fixed--I really want some perspective on this one.)