It seems that it’s necessary that I continue to note that among the many functions of the Church is ministry to the sick. From last night’s quarrels on Twitter:
There are plenty of people, including some who work for the Church, who believe that its functions must end at the parking lot. But Christ did heal the sick and maimed rather spectacularly, and has enjoined us to do the same, saying that when we minister so we also minister to Him. This is not some convoluted argument that Catholics or other religious (including Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and Jews) have trumped up to declare a war on the government. The first infirmaries and later hospitals in the Occident after those maintained for soldiers in Ancient Rome were established by Christians as part of their mission to comfort the afflicted, and this mission was imposed on them by Christ.
Other institutions were based on such glamorous obligations as to care for lepers, orphans, “fallen women,” widows, to establish schools, to succor paupers and the like. All of these the Church felt were essential to its mission.
Let’s take a look at the very first clauses in that pesky First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
People who have a very impoverished view of what the Church’s mission is will not understand that all of these ulterior functions, as they understand them, are central to the exercise of the religion. And as laity, who are we? Well, we might be involved directly in any of these ministries, or we might be involved in the same way as the Good Samaritan who brings a beaten man to a home where he can get care, and leaves money for his caretaker to oversee his convalescence.
I, for one, am very tired of having to explain all of this to people who are accusing me of creating a wedge issue out of this. Many who agree with Obama’s unconstitutional imposition argue that until such time as the Supreme Court shall rule that this law, created by the HHS rather than the Congress of our little Republic, is unconstitutional, we must set aside our consciences and abide by the letter. On the contrary, this law is quite obviously in conflict with the First Amendment, and as citizens of the United States of America, as much as Catholics or Baptists, Adventists or Jews, it is both our moral and patriotic duty to see that these illegal provisions are never brought into effect, and in doing so to leave such a lasting impression on their perpetrators that the next petty tyrant who attains the office of President will be well advised not to attempt something of this nature.
It’s really very simple. The Church has always treated these functions and the institutions that have grown up around them as central to the exercise of its religion; it is people like Sarah who are now pretending otherwise.
UPDATE: Revised mandate a “distinction without a difference.”
enoch_root on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 pm said:
AMEN. AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES.
Roxeanne de Luca on February 10, 2012 at 5:42 pm said:
To be entirely cynical, I don’t think that the liberals want to discuss core functions of the Church. The longer they can talk about old celibate white guys who want to dictate women’s reproductive lives to them, the more centrists they can win over. Talking about Catholicism and ministering to the sick, poor, and imprisoned is a losing argument for the Left, both because it undermines the idea of the government as the only compassionate solution to suffering, as well as not making religious people look bad.
Sorry for the cynicism… sort of.
Dan Collins on February 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm said:
Well, Roxeanne . . . there’s always room for the truth.
Joy McCann on February 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm said:
This is not complicated. Why is the red cross (red star, red crescent) a symbol for medical vehicles (helicoptors, etc.) that should be considered noncombatants in a war?
Because comforting/healing the afflicted is a sacred function of many religions.
I’m not offended by the birth control aspect as much as I am the abortifacients, and I’m nearly unique in being offended by the patronizing sexism wherein we aren’t supposed to even be charged a co-pay for a pelvic exam if it’s primarily considered to be for birth-control purposes (even though cancer screening is a big part of most pelvic exams, and men are charged co-pays for their cancer screenings).
It’s as if women are children who cannot scrounge up $10-$30 for a routine doctor’s visit, when most working people certainly can.
Roxeanne de Luca on February 12, 2012 at 8:55 pm said:
You’re not entirely alone in being enraged by the sexism – or the “soft bigotry of low expectations” – inherent in making all woman-related things “free”. It implies that we aren’t capable of buying something that costs about as much, per month, as shampoo and Advil, nor can we ask our bed-mates to help with the cost.
I’ve often snarked that modern “feminism” got mad at the idea that women are fragile creatures need their husbands, families, and fathers to take care of them. Rather than putting up the model of a strong, independent woman, or women who depend on sisters, mothers, and girl friends, those “feminists” said that we are delicate, fragile creatures who need to depend on the government. Seems like the fragile, delicate creatures part hasn’t changed much, just the source of our well-being. My eyes can’t roll enough to express my contempt at this idea.
(Obviously, there are some women who do need help, but the federal government doesn’t have any business telling us that all women are little weaklings who need to hide behind Nanny State’s skirts.)