By Joseph Koss
Must a Catholic politician refrain from supporting the health care coverage of contraception? Not in the way that the HHS Mandate requires, but in general? In other words if a Catholic is elected, must their stance be: that no federal funding can go to contraceptive services, especially “The Pill” (due to its abortive nature)?
Mark Shea makes this argument… and while I agree with him, there is something vexing about the whole issue.
Listen to the discussion at the “9:05 mark”:
Does this stance essentially disqualify Catholics from holding national political office? What I mean is, that due to the small number of people that believe contraception is morally wrong, can a Catholic have hold this view and still be elected? I wonder if it doesn’t just do that – effectively eliminate them as candidates in most races. I mean, if people ask why they don’t support medical health care coverage of “The Pill” the argument then goes into the philosophy and theology of that statement. Does it create such an appearance of “extremism” that few candidates could overcome it?
I wonder if Shea makes a distinction between non-medical contraception (condoms et al) and “The Pill”? I wonder if he would argue that all contraception is off-limits to a Catholic’s vote, I personally think this is an all or nothing proposition.
I have thoughts and ideas on this, I just want to throw it out there and get some reactions. What do you think about these questions: