Thank you for this reasoned and principled stand in support of the adjustment that the Obama admin has made to acknowledge the concerns of religious institutions.

I am still troubled by extending the exemption to those institutions which are \"self-funded\", usually Colleges and Universities. First, employees pay into those programs with premiums, copays, etc. and many of them are not Catholic or have any problem with contraception. Second, those benefits are part of the wage/benefit package that these institutions provide and therefore should be the decision of the employee just like wages are not the purview of the institution to control individual decisions. Finally, these institutions receive many federal grants and funds that make them subject to many laws and regs that churches are exempt from.

There is another way, I'm sure, than exempting these institutions which are not churches/dioceses but are institutions serving a wider public of many faiths and beliefs.

Simply put I think that all churches should be taxed at the same rate as all other for profit people and institutions. That tax money should then be used for spreading Peace and to help the poor. In my mind and eyes the churches in America are used as cover to spread brutality worldwide in the name of some god or other.

When churches come out in full force to stop wars and brutality I will then take what they say as more meaningful. Until then I see churches as only places to breed more christian soldiers to spread this brutality to non-christian peoples.

I am a progressive Catholic and realize that some \\\"catholics\\\" oppose Birth control, but who are these among us? Most are older Catholics out of child bearing years who have sons and daughters using many forms of birth control. I have friends who have been surgically fixed so as to have any more children. Pope John Paul II and Benedict both opposed the Iraq war and never was there this outrage from our Bishops. We have serious issues like immigration, right to health insurance, right to unionized work, capital punishment. These topics get a quick blowover by our Bishops. I have not seen continous coverage on the bishops view on these issues as we have now for birth control. A man made law from our heirarchy should not demand so much outrage. I think we need to use the ten commandments as a quide but switch our spirtual focus to the beatitudes. If we do that as a church, our relevance will matter. But concetrating on an issue that 98% of Catholics use in their daily lives diminishes the churches relevance and turns our spirtual focus away from Jesus' teachings.

When will the old men of our church who have not been women, mothers, or fathers get out of the bedroom. There are plenty of other problems they need to address. I have lived through the time before birth control, the women's movement, and now this controversy which is totally absurd. We good women know what is best for our lives and for our families. Old men - back off!

Stop the nonsense. If you take federal money you follow the rules established for the good of society as a whole. You don't take federal money, e.g. a parish church, you make your own rules (which the mandate respects by excluding the mandate from parish church insurance plans). This is another example of the Bishops usurping the consciences of Catholic and non-Catholics of our doing what we feel is correct and what we want protection for. For this non-infallible teaching, which Pope John Paul refused to declare infallible in his encyclical letter speaking about contraception, he refused to make it an infallible teaching, in spite of strong recommendation by his advisors. Could the Holy Spirit have told him that such a teaching is not correct? Did the Holy Spirit protect the Church by not permiting the pope to speak infallibly? Why is the canonical rule of \"Reception\" not being applied by the Bishops? Think about it. Paul Russo

Dear Jesus, I taught in your schools for 30 years refusing jobs at higher pay because I could not weave You into every lesson there. What have we done to Your Word? God is Love. Love your neighbor as yourself. That's it. That's all. All these man made laws are so polarizing and in some cases directly oppose spirituality....ahh there's the rub.....The Holy Spirit is not given His due. \"The communion of saints\"--we are connected spiritually to all.

I was taught to NOT read the Bible when I was a student attending Catholic school. Is that another subject for discussion or does it reflect what is happening still today--I know something you don't know--Do they? I think I know something they don't know--We love You and You love us. All of the time spent on arguing takes attention away from Love and how can we spread Your Love. I love You dear Jesus, this day is for You. I offer You all I think, say and do. (even when some of us take birth control or make love to someone of the same sex) You and You alone know what Love is.

The current brouhaha has significantly less to do with the Bishops' stance on birth control, than it does on their duty to be shepherds of God's flock. Too long have they ignored womens' pleas to manage their families size; some moms are suited to large families, others are not. It's a stubborn fact. Huffing and puffing and making political noises isn't what bishops should do, instead listen to your daughters, sisters and your mothers and work at being better shepherds to them. And most of all, dear bishops, don't let yourselves be manipulated by rightist politicians who are looking for any stick they can find to beat up Obama. Obama's voice of tolerance makes him a better friend of the Church than any two-bit Republican wannabe.

I strongly disagree with my Bishops over whether our hospitals and universities should provide health insurance to their employees that includes contraception services. I see it as a women's health and justice issue rather than as a religious freedom issue. More than half of these employees are not Catholic and should be offered the same insurance as if they worked for a secular institution. Why should a \\\"religious\\\" institution be exempted from general employment rules, e.g., the right to organize unions, equal opportunity, payroll taxes? A \\\"reductio ad absurdum\\\" argument is that all religious institutions should be exempted from all health and safety rules. And the converse, because they are \\\"religious\\\" institutions, they should not be allowed to participate in any publicly financed programs, e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, etc. Or do we Catholics claim a privileged status of being able to pick and choose which laws we will comply with and impose that choice on others?

You didn't mention the main issue involved in this healthcare debate. The main point that the Obama administration was addressing is the rights of women in our paternalistic society. Of course, the 150-year-old argument is about the role of government in protecting civil rights. I thought that progressives believe that government has a major role; for example, the Civil Rights Act. So what happens when any institution blocks a woman's right to the health insurance of her choice?

This is just a big old can of worms. What will the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Catholic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" institutions do when one of their employees has a baby out of wedlock?

Barrier methods, like condoms, are available over-the-counter -- a private citizen purchase -- yet barrier methods for women are prescription only.

This is disgraceful. The whole issue should be resolved by telling the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Catholic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" institutions that they can invade the legislative process at the cost of any tax-exempt status.

Men are simply not part of this chaos, and that is telling, indeed.

I understand the position of the Catholic church but this issue moved into the realm of separation of church and state.

The bishops congratulated the president on the compromise he offered and then did a 180 degree turn and came out parroting the position of the right wing.

On January 20, 2009, Inauguration Day, Rush Limbaugh told his followers that he was going to do everything in his power to ensure that the president failed. The Republican House has refused to pass any legislation the president has offered. It isn't the proposed legislation that is baqd. It is that they are holding to their commitment to undermine the executive branch even if so doing is not in the best interests of the country.

As a Catholic, I cannot comprehend how the Church justifies supporting the right when their policies do direct harm to the poorest of our citizens. On what grounds can the leaders of the church justify their tacit if not explicit support of the Ryan budget? How can they justify supporting the likely Republican nominee when he says the poor have a safety net and need no further assistance while he panders to the wealthiest group by promising that they can continue to enjoy a tax rate lower than the one paid by janitors and teachers in Catholic schools?

President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises. The Republicans have nothing on which they can attack him and they do not have a viable candidate for 2012so they created a specious argument on which to divide the country. I am pro-life and I have children. On what grounds am I supposed to believe abortion and birth control are synonymous?

This tempest isn't about reproduction. It is about the church telling Catholics how to vote. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973. 5 Republicans have been elected president for a total of 24 years. Not one has authored legislation on abortion. Not one has authored legislation that would encourage women to carry to term by offering food, housing, and fuel assistance. Women were not guaranteed pre-natal care until the recent health legislation written by President Obama, the legislation every Republican candidate promises to eradicate immediately after taking the oath. All promise to reverse Roe V Wade as well.

They seem to have forgotten that a bill would have to make its way through Congress to reverse Obamacare. It is particularly curious that none acknowledge that Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision and can only be declared unconstitutional if a case makes it through the lower courts, is chosen to be heard by a majority of justices, and theb=n is found to have been based on misinterpretation of the law.

The Right to Life has to extend beyond the delivery room door and that life has to be supported by society. Until that happens, the bishops will remain pawns to the Republicans political agenda.

The Church \"believes\" contraception is wrong. However, many good God-fearing people \"believe\" it is OK. For the Church to forbid them their beliefs - when it essentially costs the institutions nothing in premiums - is wrong. There is no question of human life here.

No one seems interested in that part of the government mandate regarding abortive medicine, which should be denied.

This column is exceedingly helpful in articulating the victory. As a NETWORK Board Member I em encouraged by the broad Catholic engagement on this issue in a thoughtful and respectful civic process.

I disagree with the author about the issue of birth control being made available to women. Insurers, and perhaps even Catholic institutions already provide birth control FREE for men by way of vasectomies.

It is a known fact that Catholic women already practice or have practice birth control. Those who prefer not to do so, don't have to.

The Jehovah Witnesses practice bloodless surgery. Christian Scientists don't believe in the use of any medicine at all. Yet, members of these organizations have not spoken out that their practices and beliefs have been violated because we have health insurance and blood transfusions. Neither have they asked that we all abide by their beliefs.

The Catholic Church and its elderly clergy is spending far too much time on this issue. The same clergy was known for its silence when its pedophile priests engaged in sexual activity with minors. Neither has there been a national outcry by the bishops condemning clergy for their sexual relationships that have produced what this same clergy would, if the individuals involved were lay persons, as bastards. This includes the now two teen aged children fathered by the now disgraced auxillary bishop of Los Angeles.

Dr. Schneck's essay is very helpful to our deciding future next steps. His comparison with taxes being used for executions and unjust wars is the clincher. the USCC would do well to reconsider their direction. Their current course will result in a further erosion of their moral leadership.

This was just great (if somewhat slimy) politics by President Obama.

I believe his intention all along was to pass the compromised mandate.

By getting the bishops up in arms with the original mandate before compromising, he backs the bishops into a political corner. They are forced either to support him on an issue relating to life (which would provide him political cover among Catholics in 2012), or take what will seem like a hard-line public stance against legalized contraception. That will invigorate a small minority of socially conservative voters, but it will also put the Catholic bishops out of the main stream so that they won't have much ground to stand on when they criticize the President in 2012.

The initial mandate was a clear violation of the wall of separation that Dr. Schneck so beautifully describes. But the compromised version is just common sense. I believe this whole thing was just the president trying to make religious conservatives less of a factor in 2012.

I am a practicing progressive Catholic. I totally disagree with Dr. Schneck that progressive Catholics stand \"shoulder to shoulder\" with conservative Catholics in supporting the bishops contention that this is an issue of religious liberty. Rather, I strongly feel it is an issue of women's health. I also agree with Nancy Pelosi that \"it's not just about women. It's about their children and the health of their families as they make serious decisions and use contraception to determine the size and timeing of their families.\" Catholics have the moral requirement to make these serious decisions with an \"informed conscience\" which means they should not be in lock-step conformity with Catholic doctrine. I find the bishops' behavior patronizing as they try to usurp this decision from parents. They are also being disingenuous since there is an established Church policy (referred to as \"indirect or remote cooperation\") which allows Catholics to indirectly provide support to activities that diverge from the Catholic social teaching--such as paying taxes that fund wars or the death penalty--as long as we are not directly contributing. Instead of contributing to the conservative culture wars, the bishops should address the serious problems families are facing such as the fact that nearly 50% are one crisis away from poverty. I strongly suggest that the Common Good Forum publish an alternative viewpoint such as the article by Marjorie Clifton, \"Birth Control and Why the Catholic Church Needs to Inform Its Own Conscience.\"

Rosaleen Mazur

You do realize that a significant amount of employees at these catholic business places aren't catholic. And that almost every catholic I've known since my catholic childhood has used some form of birth control. I won't even go into how archaic these thoughts go back. Maybe if you had some actually feminine consultants this could work to be a better place. I wish all the catholics that are making such a fuss alls draw such public attention to more important issues of the day. Our children going hungry, slavery, rehabilitate prisoners, taking care of the planet and its life that God has loaned to us. Oops maybe this is why so many catholics are leaving church.

What of the health care needs of non-Catholic workers (women)or Catholics using contraceptives (98%)? Look at the pain and suffering that large families in poor countries experience. Maybe it's time for religious organizations (churches) to pay taxes when they deiver their secular messages from the pulpit? Amen.

I disagree. What the bishops want is to use the powers of government to prevent every and any women--no matter what her religious beliefs--from using contraception. In effect, imposing the views of one denomination on every person in the country. If you like, they want to impose RC laws in the same way Sharia law is the law of Saudi Arabia.

That would also be similar to the current situation in Israel, where Muslims and Christians cannot purchase cheese and sausage pizza, because of Talmudic rules. It is not for sale (well, maybe one or two places in the tourist section of Tel Aviv may have it) because proprietors do not want to be attacked by the ultra-orthodox.

But Israel was born as The Jewish State. the USA was not born as The Roman Catholic State. In fact, the US consistitution forbids any establishment of one religion as the state religion.

Perpetrator of the Mammoth Cheese project was the Baptist Elder John Leland, consultant to Jefferson and Madison on religious liberty in Virginia. He later retired to Cheshire, Massachusetts to serve as local pastor and political activist. The Danbury Baptists invited him as their convention's keynote speaker, where he urged them to ask for Jefferson's backing in their struggle for religious freedom in Connecticut. When Leland delivered the cheese, he urged his friend Jefferson to reply immediately to the Danbury Baptists.

I sincerely appreciate this well-written and well-considered post. I love the story of the 13 foot cheese!

The contraception controversy has been very difficult for me. I am a progressive Catholic who became re-involved with the Church as a college student after years of doing my own thing. I rejoined for many reasons, but I've been at odds with the church over birth control (and a few other issues) from the beginning.

When I read about the \"Tyranny\" quote on the side of the cheese, the first thing that came to my mind was the tyranny over women's bodies that has been historically practiced by not just the Catholic Church but by many other religions and governments. Historically, in many ways, women have been repeatedly denied the power to make decisions about our part - our role as co-creators - in the reproductive process.

I practiced contraception for many years as a young woman for a few reasons, one of which was health-related. The other reason was my responsibility as a mother to not bring a child into the world that I am not prepared to raise to the best of my abilities.

I do not believe any other person - regardless of who they are, priest, father, legislator, husband - has the right to get between me and that decision. The only other \"person\" who is included is God and that relationship is between me and God, period. I am an adult who considers my choices. I will answer for my choice.

Catholic universities and hospitals employ people of all faiths. To demand that they adhere to Catholic beliefs regarding contraception interferes with their freedom of religion and rights. I believe these people should have the right to make their own choice and that the Church has no business making these decisions for them.

I do not agree with the current push by the Bishops to work towards ending contraception for all. If the Bishops want to put an end to the \"laissez faire\" attitude towards life in general, they have much foundational work that needs to be done in helping their flocks--especially the more conservative ones--become more compassionate. I suggest getting them actively involved in social justice issues that might include providing REAL support for single moms raising children, just as an example.

Thank you for letting me vent.

In reference to Jefferson's response to the Baptists, one might pause to wonder - here in 2012 - about the distinction between \\\"actions\\\" and \\\"opinions.\\\"

There has surely been a firestorm of complaint that a healthcare \\\"action\\\" (the practice of contraception), which by virtually all accounts enjoys a 95+% participation rate by Catholic women in the US) remains a subject of \\\"opinion\\\" amongst the Catholic Faithful.

By what measure, other than the shrill misogyny of the male, celibate hierarchy and their back-bracers in Rome, is the conclusion of Dr. Schneck to be accepted as progressive?

For the government to have intruded contrary to Jefferson's warning it would seem reasonable that those in arms cite the action of some persecution such as the Baptists were experiencing - under the neglect of proper government accountability to the Constitution - as the basis for these high-pitched claims of religious freedom violated.

If there is problem to be pondered here I suggest the contrast between these two statements is a better place to start:

1) \\\"Having insurance companies pay for contraception, indeed, distances Catholic institutions from the coverage even more than the situation with taxes.\\\" (Opinion-like?)

2) \\\"Whatever we may think about contraception, American Catholics have been paying for it for many decades.\\\" (Action-like?)

So long as the hierarchy, while exercising no direct responsibility, continues to impose its unnatural \\\"opinion\\\" (regarding contraception) on \\\"actions\\\" of personal conscience by women and families observing their general Duty of Care, the US Government will be sitting on the sidelines of an internal debate against the progress of knowledge on every practical (i.e. ethical) front.

I'm rather amazed that given the clear and present danger of \\\"Catholic\\\" presidential candidates pandering in overt racism (something I doubt 95% of the people in the pews approve of) that we really can talk ourselves into drawing this particular line in the sand.

\"Catholic political progressives like me stood shoulder to shoulder with Catholic conservatives and with every American Catholic bishop demanding a fix.\"

Not this Catholic progressive. In my view this was never about religious liberty but simply a wedge to permit Catholic Bishops to try to push their anti-contraception agenda. And, after the Obama Administrations accomodation, the Bishop's actions support that view. By joining with the Bishops on the original rule you have emboldened them to pursue their radical agenda. Good work.

The Bishops demonstrated they can change Washington when they want. Unfortunately they did not use thier power to stop the Iraq War that killed thousand of our young soldiers and tens of thousand of innocent Iraqis. Where are they when the States commend individuals to death. Now that the Bishops have flexed their muscle on this issue, will they now excommunicate all Catholics that use or used birth control? At minimum, the Bishops should announce that the Church will no longer accept financial support from anyone that is using or used birth control.

Gerald

I am grateful to President Obama for offering his creative solution to the contraception problem.

Those recipients of this healthcare coverage

will I am sure be grateful for the solution. Those within the Catholic Church who wish to remove any provision for contraception

from the coverage and not provide contraception to anyone will undoubtedly continue to vocally oppose this brilliant solution. They want to impose their moral views on all citizens and this violates everyone's civil rights.

Just think about the fact that there are over

700 billion people on earth at the moment....

I just can't connect with their point of view.

Jefferson may have concerned himself with \"Church and State\" not \"employer and state\" but the right to the free exercise of religion is not guaranteed by Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Are we to believe that the first amendment protects the free exercise rights of \"churhes\" alone, or are individual citizens afforded the same? If the current political environment precludes an understanding of religious liberty beyond the \"freedom of worship\" or the rights of institutions, then our \"political environment\" is untenable.

It may seem at first glance that Obama's shift of the responsibility from churches to insurance companies is a victory, but the cost that the insurance companies incur will eventually be passed on to the churches in the form of higher premiums.

I just read an article on Alternet that states insurance companies save costs in the long run by providing free birth control. The benefits include that births are better spaced so that the chance of preemies being born are reduced. Also, a woman who has a surprise pregnency tends to defer going to see a doctor and as a results has more complications. So the insurance company are glad to provide birth control and save money. Maybe the church should take this into account.

I am a progressive Catholic and I support President Obama's first proposal. When I was a young woman with three children I consulted my Catholic Obstetrician on how to best avoid further pregnancy while fulfilling my obligation as a Catholic. He prescribed for me birth control pills to be taken on specified days only and to abstain from sex on the days I did not take the pill. The purpose was to keep my cycle so regular that I knew exactly when I could have sex and when not to. It worked, no more pregnancies, but I did need to purchase those pills. I thank God for Kaiser! I'm sure the Bishops have never taken my method into consideration because they want to exact the control over women that the Church leaders have been doing for centuries. Why do they continue to poke their noses into people's bedrooms when there are so many other important issues screaming out for moral leadership, but, no, they want to tell our President what to do and narrow the divide between Church and State.

This commentary was very helpful to me, particularly as I discuss this issue in the larger community.

The bishops' response reminds me of an earlier time, when I first worked for a Catholic hospital in the early 1960s. Working for \"the sisters\" in that era, one knew one's salary would be lower than at other institutions, that one's colleagues would be predominantly Catholic, and at this Arizona institution, that one would care for many poor Mexican nationals sent forward for complex care by the Border Patrol. Indeed a different era, and a model of faith in action.

Now our Catholic instituions are funded largely by federal dollars, are as successful if not more so than other non-profits, and hire diverse staffs. Catholic institutional claims of freedom of religion inherently block the freedom of religion of their female employees of varied or no faith traditions.

\"Catholic political progressives like me stood shoulder to shoulder with Catholic conservatives and with every American Catholic bishop demanding a fix.\" I have to think this was a small cross section of progressives. As I have seen and read here in the forum, it does not seem like too many progressives were standing up with the Bishops against the original mandate. These institutions are not churches and should not be treated as such. Jefferson clearly states \"religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship\" this does not say between 'the institution & his God.' I think most would find that the Bishops are trampling on Catholic's personal relationship with God and their conscious choice. Bishops shouldn't be attempting to control their flocks through government mandates. They should encourage and inspire and leave it at that.

I agree entirely with your analysis (but disagree with a great number of the comments here, which display a remarkable degree of ignorance of the very points you've made). I would add one point, which I think complements what you've said: As you said, the reason why the initial narrow exception was an affront to religious liberty was that it purported to define what religious activity was. It is precisely because catering to non-Catholics is part of the \"free exercise\" of the Catholic, that excluding such activity from the exception infringed on religious liberty. In contrast, serving tacos (or essentially any other for-profit activity) is not an \"exercise\" of religion and there should be no accommodation for it.