...or is the War on Religion being fought with very large egos and very small, round pills?

Meanwhile, down the street from the Unitarians...

The Catholics were girding for war. The gauntlet having been thrown down by Barack Obama and the Department of Health and Human Services, Catholics are being told that their very survival is at stake. America's Catholic Bishops are in conclave (conclave is like a meeting but everyone wears a dress.) deciding whether the fig leaf solution to the contraception problem offered by the Godless dictators in Washington can be accepted.

Really, this contraception squabble works for the Catholics on several levels. First, it diverts attention from the 500lb scandal that has plagued the RCC for the last fifteen years. "Pay no attention to all those pedophile priests and our institutional attempts to cover them up. The real issue is birth control pills". Second, it bestows on the Church the sacred cloak of victimization. Catholics who haven't seen the inside of a church since Aunt Clara passed are rallying around the old rugged cross. "Our blessed church is under attack. Man the barricades. ..right after we check Google Earth to see where the Church is." Nothing unifies the mob like a common enemy. For the moment we can forget that 98% of Catholic families have ignored the Church's teaching on birth control.

This controversy isn't likely to refill the pews at Our Lady of Infinite Indifference but it will at least afford the RCC the opportunity to make the papers for something other than sexual abuse. Priests can actually appear in public without their attorneys. Having been handed this marvelous public relations gift do not expect the bishops to let it rest. The debate among the prelates will be less about insurance coverage than about spin. This will require some delicacy...never an RCC long suit. Too much dogma and you risk alienating all those Catholic women who not only use birth control but have it paid for by their employers. Not enough pressure and the "evil oppressors" in Washington might seem less evil.

A tactical hint might be the statement by New York's newly minted cardinal, Timothy Dolan, who opined that the compromise suggested by the administration was a " step in the right direction". The wrong tone was offered by Cardinal George of Chicago who wrote that "liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of Worship was available in the Communist Soviet Union." Suggesting that government mandated contraception coverage is tantamount to state suppression of religion is a sure way to remind your audience why they left in the first place. The idea is to look principled but reasonable. No matter how much damage you inflict on Barack Obama you won't get Rick Santorum elected.

Actually, Catholics and Republicans have the same problem but for exactly opposite reasons. The Catholics are victims of a hierarchy whose reactionary policies have made them irrelevant. Catholics can make up their own minds about what constitutes a Catholic whether or not that view comports with Rome. Thus we have "cafeteria" Catholics. The GOP on the other hand is being dragged to the extreme right by its congregation. In this case its the leadership is resisting. Of course the Catholic bishops aren't running for anything (except for Cardinal Dolan running for Pope). The Church doesn't need consensus, although it would help fill a church or two.

The bishops will, no doubt, drag this debate beyond Easter and on into the summer. Catholic Americans, being Americans first, will lose interest and focus on the start of baseball season and the NBA playoffs. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum will take their War on Religion on the lecture circuit where this red meat issue will stand in stark contrast to the chicken dinner they've just eaten. Catholicism will survive but in a diminished role. Mostly, American Catholics will come to believe that their obligation to their church is satisfied if they lustily root for Notre Dame football on Saturdays. Go Irish!

...or does the Republican race look like four men in a tug of war with everyone holding the same side of the rope?

It was a quiet Thursday night. As I perused my well-worn copy of Blaise Pascal's "Lettres Provincieles" (my Camus was being rebound) I discovered a delicious quote. In 1658 Pascal wrote, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." It seems unlikely that Pascal was contemplating the 2012 GOP Presidential contest but old Blaise was right on the mark.

Just as good economic news was sucking all the air out of the conservative argument for American regime change, along comes the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS determined that part of the new healthcare laws to take effect in 2014 compels all employers of a certain size who currently provide healthcare to include coverage for birth control, including so-called morning after meds. Exceptions were made for churches whose doctrine forbids contraception but not for commercial enterprises, such as hospitals and universities run by those religious groups. HHS might have expected some pushback from a church here and there but since laws like this were already on the books in several states it probably wouldn't amount to much. (Note: Massachusetts has this provision as part of its comprehensive healthcare law, signed by Governor Mitt Romney. Governor Mike Huckabee, aka Rev. Mike Huckabee, signed a similar law in Arkansas. Arizona's law makes no exception for churches of any kind.)

However, this is the election year of 2012 and no good deed goes unnoticed or unpunished. The circular firing squad that is the GOP presidential contest descended on this as though the Obama administration had decreed a tax on church collections. "War on Religion" screamed Romney clearly forgetting what his pen hath wrought. "War on the Catholic Church" howled Gingrich who himself is a relative newcomer to Catholicism. (Newt either overlooked the CC's prohibition on divorce or he plans to be more faithful to this Church than he ever was to his first two wives.)

Rick Santorum, who plans to run for Pope if his Presidential bid collapses, used the opportunity to condemn birth control, abortion, sex and dancing too close. Santorum plans to propose legislation forbidding men to ride behind women on escalators. (Considering Rick's negative views on sex one wonders where the eight little Santorums sprang from. Maybe he prayed for them.)

As always, when the adults got involved, the problem was resolved. That process took about 20 seconds. The administration commanded the insurance companies to cover the cost of birth control...much to the chagrin of the insurance companies and the Republican candidates. Once the Catholic Church expressed satisfaction with the change, the candidates were SOL. Deprived of this red meat issue almost as soon as it arose, the law firm of Santorum, Romney, Gingirch and Paul were forced to return to rail against an improving economy. Romney was so lost he attacked the bailout that saved the state he is trying to win. That's like trying to become president of Germany by attacking the Marshall Plan.

In any event the Republicans will nominate Romney in August and he will get trounced by the current President. When reflecting on these events it is helpful to remember the words of Confucius who said "When competing in a race, your chances of success increase dramatically when you don't shoot yourself in the foot with the starter's gun." Confucius should have signed on as a consultant with the RNC.

...or is the issue of abortion like the zombie that won't die?

Every time I write about this subject I feel the need to begin with a disclaimer. Why should today be any different? To wit:

No one applauds abortion. No one thinks abortions are good. Most of us would prefer it if abortions were never performed. It's a sad decision that combines terror, remorse and in some cases permanent guilt. I'm sure that somewhere, someone had an abortion because having a child would have been inconvenient or because they feared stretch marks, but those cases are so rare as to be inconsequential. For most women the decision is difficult and traumatic. It is also personal.

There should be no authority-state, federal or local that has any right to decide for a woman how she should treat her own body. No one but the person involved can dictate what her course of treatment should be. The Supreme Court ruled correctly in 1973. The state should never be allowed to interfere in a woman's medical decisions.

But just as the Religious Right has difficulty understanding the concept of personal rights, they also missed the class on settled law. Every time the Republican Party gains a majority in a state house they interpret the election as a mandate to rewrite Roe v Wade. Courts have consistently trashed these statutes but that hasn't kept the holy of holies from trying. Hey, why not? If you come from a red district, they'll love you for it.

Recently the legislators of the Commonwealth of Virginia passed a law that sinks to an all-time low in this never-ending conflict. According to this legislative horror, before a woman can obtain an abortion she is required to have an ultrasound image taken and be offered the opportunity to see the image. The medical professionals involved will be required to record whether the patient saw the ultrasound. It should be noted that only seven of the Senate's 40 members are women but I'm sure that played no part in the decision. State Senator Janet Howell attached an amendment to the ultrasound bill requiring men to receive a rectal exam and a stress test before receiving a prescription for erectile dysfunction meds. She only lost it by two votes.

Florynce Kennedy, founder of the Feminist Party in the 70's is famous for suggesting that "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament". Can anyone argue otherwise? Intellectually dishonest legislators from George W. Bush to Newt Gingrich have ridden this nag in elections all over America. (Actually GWB was so dishonest he never even stated his opposition to abortion for the record. He opted for individual state legislatures to decide.) The fastest way for a Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann to corral a few loose Teabaggers is to stand four-square for a Constitutional ban on abortion. It's a safe stance because it will never go anywhere...sort of like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.

And , of course, the subjects of abortion and birth control bring us to the dust-up between the Susan B. Komen For the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood. The attempted defunding of PP by the Komen board was politically motivated, ill-conceived (sorry!) and should have been reversed. Komen was in trouble the minute they hired Karen Handel as head of Public Policy. Handel, a failed candidate for Governor of Georgia and queen of the Teabaggers was instrumental in persuading the Komen board to deny grants to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that they are under investigation. The fact that the "investigation" is a witch hunt originated by an anti-abortion conservative was apparently never considered. Thankfully, the decision has been reversed and Ms. Handel is unemployed.

The real tragedy here is the damage to the Susan B. Komen organization. Having raised more than two billion dollars and, maybe more importantly, the awareness to the dangers of breast cancer among women, the Komen charity is one of the most important voices in the country. They are certainly entitled to a mulligan here but, it can also be a teaching moment. Beware of high-profile candidates who want to use your organization for political ends or to further their own agenda. Your profile is high enough. You don't need celebrity board members.

And finally, what conversation about birth control and abortion would be complete without a mention of the latest case making its way through the court of public opinion; namely Obama vs. the Catholic Church. Frankly, it's a tangle.

The administration's new healthcare plan requires that businesses, including Catholic hospitals and universities, provide healthcare insurance that includes coverage for birth control, IUD's and morning after pills. These forms of birth control along with all other forms of birth control are forbidden by the Church. The Catholic Church therefore objected to a requirement to participate in the distribution of devices and medications that violate its laws. The Department of Health and Human Services countered that the institutions in question are primarily businesses and therefore must provide the same medical coverage as any other business including, birth control. Therein lies the conflict.

Surprisingly, although almost all American Catholics practice some form of birth control, it seems their sentiments are in support of the Church. The argument appears to be taking shape around the idea of religious freedom. That confuses me. Jehovah's Witnesses prohibit blood transfusions but cover the procedure for their employees. No one is asking the Catholic Church to hand out condoms or put Planned Parenthood on the parish speed-dial. They are merely being required to provide insurance coverage for medical practices with which they take issue. The HHS isn't forcing anyone to use the services.

Naturally, when you want to discover where the source of all the trouble lies, all roads lead to Rome. In 1968 Pope Paul VI had a wonderful opportunity to separate birth control pills, which were becoming very popular, from other forms of contraception. (Actually it would have been a grand time to package the entire outmoded prohibition on all forms of birth control and drown it in holy water. He demurred.) The Pope empaneled not one but two commissions to determine if the Church teaching needed updating. Paul VI was advised that perhaps a change was warranted. For whatever reason, the Pope said nope. Catholics must continue to have all the children God will give them. Clearly no one in Rome was willing to take into account the cost of gym shoes or a college education. (Note: the final encyclical, called Humanae Vitae, was heavily influenced by the writings of one Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, later to become that bastion of progressive thought, Pope John Paul II.)

This being an election year, the President can hardly antagonize a group as large as Catholicus Americana. (Wow! Latin does carry gravitas.) Some compromise will surface which will allow both sides to save face. Maybe the name "birth control pills" could be changed to "menstrual cycle regulators". Condoms could be sold to hunters at Eddie Bauer to keep the rain out of their rifle muzzle. Anyway, when the smoke clears we can all go back to wondering why Catholics in America would side with the Church about birth control which they use, and side with the President on abortion which they oppose. Thus, my children, is the role of sex in politics.