Is This What St. Patrick Had in Mind?

Nancy and I were blessed to be in Chicago this past weekend. It was a fun weekend as the celebration of St. Patrick happened while we were there.

My grandfather, Thomas J. Cazeault (1902-1995) was born of Irish parents and that gives me claim to 25% Irish heritage, even though he was orphaned and raised by a French family.

I’ve always knows that Chicago was a city that knows how to party, but this was beyond all expectations. I’m sure this will be known as the best St. Pat’s celebration in a long time because it was on a Saturday (allowing for all day partying that can go deep into the night). It was also amazingly warm, in the mid 80s F. We started seeing the streets filling with drunk people in green about early afternoon; a few hours after that the sidewalks were so crowded it was hard to manage. Our hotel was only 2 blocks from the Chicago River (that is dyed green for the day) and by evening the hotel needed security to make sure only registered guests came into the hotel. There is an Irish bar next door and I’m assuming their restrooms were overwhelmed. They actually had portable toilets (called, interestingly enough, “LepriCANS”).

The Latest Catholic Assault on Its Faithful

Last month Loetta Johnson died and her funeral was scheduled for February 25th at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland. She had been a lifelong faithful Catholic and her funeral mass went as expected until her daughter Barbara went to receive Communion. The priest, Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, put his hand over the communion plate and told her (and everyone else) that he was denying her Communion because she is a lesbian and the Catholic Church does not support her lifestyle.

Like many Catholics this story enraged me and I’m completely supportive of the decision of the Archdiocese of Washington to remove Fr. Guarnizo from his post.

Here are the facts of the case (most of the information here is from the Washington Post article this morning): Before the mass, Fr. Guarnizo met with Ms. Johnson and her partner. He asked Ms. Johnson who the other woman was, and Ms. Johnson identified her as her partner (in Fr. Guarnizo’s account Ms. Johnson made unsolicited announcement that the other woman was her partner, or lover, depending on the account). When Ms. Johnson came for Communion, Fr. Guarnizo refused. He also did not preside at the graveside service; Fr. Guarnizo claims he was suffering from a migrane.

In fairness, after being refused Communion, another Eucharistic Minister (who is not a priest) gave her Communion, and another priest stepped forward and presided at the graveside service. I’m grateful for that.

Longterm readers of this blog know that I was a seminarian with the Stigmatine Fathers and Brothers from 1980 to 1985, a seminarian with the Paulist Fathers from 1989 to 1994 and a Paulist Priest from 1994 to 1997. All Eucharistic Ministers (priests, deacons, and laypersons) know that there may be a point where you have to make a split second choice. The person in front of you may be married outside the church, a thief, scoundrel, pedophile, or (God forbid) a non Catholic. In that situation most of us choose to not make a public spectacle and hope that God will sort it out.

That’s what happened to me. I was ordained at St. Paul’s in New York on May 14, 1994. Minutes after I was ordained I was giving Communion and I was presented with the mother of my sister’s husband. I knew she wasn’t Catholic and technically shouldn’t be able to receive Communion. I decided to be generous with the Sacrament and let God sweat the details.

Fr. Guanizo should have done the same. I don’t know if Barbara Johnson thinks of herself as Catholic or was in church only for her mother’s funeral. But then again, I don’t know that she and her partner are sexually active (and are therefore living a lifestyle Fr. Guarnizo finds offensive). I don’t know where she is in her faith journey. I’m grateful that she has found someone to share her life with (and I pray she is as happy in her relationship as I am in my marriage).

I also know that whatever the circumstances, if Fr. Guanzino had given her Communion, it would have given her a generous view of the Catholic Church. I always believed that weddings and funerals were opportunities to present ourselves to people of other faiths, or people who had left us, in our best light. He presented us in our worst light.

I also believe that someday I may need to account to God for my actions. On that day I would rather explain that I was too generous with Communion than too stingy.

Ms. Johnson, please do not let this one priest give you your only face of the Catholic Church. We have many other faces.

It's Time to be Done with Rush Limbaugh

For the few people out there who haven’t been paying attention, Rush Limbaugh verbally assaulted Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.

Ms. Fluke was testifying before Congress last week in support of President Obama’s call for universal coverage for birth control. You can see her testimony on You Tube. Here is the transcript:

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any
longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the
removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age– increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we
resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Please note that nowhere here does she state that she wants birth control for herself: this was an articulate and well reasoned explanation of how this is about womens’ health, not unrestricted sexual activity.

Here is how Rush responded on March 1st: (from his website) “‘What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.” And later: “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

Responses to this were predictable. Most people were outraged and the Republican response was tepid at best. Mitt Romney said it’s “not the language I would have used.” Perhaps Mitt would have called her a call girl or a harlot. Rick Santorum said this to CBS: “He’s being absurd, but that’s you know, an entertainer can be absurd.” Newt Gingrich refused to criticize Rush but did say that the President was being “opportunistic” in calling Ms. Fluke. Ron Paul was perhaps the hero in the group when he called the remarks “over the top.”

Rush responded only when his show’s sponsors weighed in. Quicken Loans, Sleep Train, and Sleep Number all announced they would no longer advertise on his show. Then, and only then, did Rush “apologize:”

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Frankly, I’m still amazed. He did use the word apologize, but how did he not “mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke?” What part of slut or prostitute isn’t a personal attack?

It’s time. It’s time for Republicans and conservatives to say that they’ve had enough and it’s time to stop listening to him. This apology isn’t enough, and no apology could be. He has inflamed the world of politics long enough and it’s time for him to go. I hope those sponsors don’t come back and that his other sponsors leave too. I hope radio stations refuse to carry his show. I hope people stop listening to him.

By the way, Georgetown University wrote an excellent essay on civility in public discourse.