Poll Shows Church's Attacks Over Birth Control Have Not Damaged Obama's Approval Ratings with Catholics

I discussed this with someone who thought the move was political suicide for Obama. My contention is that it would be suicide only if Catholics think the bishops' views are relevant--and I think that is true for very few American Catholics, especially on the issue of birth control. Sounds like that might be the case...

Catholic women, in very large numbers, use birth control. President Obama has not alienated them. OTOH, the Catholic bishops have added fuel to how their alienated women see them. It doesn't help that the bishops give a wink and a nod to Catholic men who use viagra and cialis.

Reminds me of the old joke about the response of the married Italian woman when told of the pope's disapproval of birth control; "He no playa da game, he no maka da rules!"

Seems pedophile priests scandal's diminished bishop's moral authority.

I think the moral authority was declining before the pedophile scandal, but that certainly sealed it for many.

I still surprised they want to have a campaign fight over contraception in the year 2012. I hope they don't come to their senses any time soon:).

But this whole thing did get the conservatives to really show their colors to women on the issue of contraception. The damned thing backfired on the GOP... more sauce for the goose come November.

Mitt will be the nominee...Santorum is the last great hope for the conservative/fundamentalist religious right, and he will be back in obscurity by April independent of a primary win in Michigan or not.

I don't put much FAITH in polls, but if these Churches don't get out of American Politics, and stay out, their tax exemption will ABSOLUTELY have to go.

First of all, there's just to many Sects and denominations, big and small, for them to try and force their beliefs on the rest of the population. If they minutely, adhered to their own teachings, whereas we are all GODS creatures,Catholic or not: then it stands to reason, that all god's creatures should have sway in the governance of their lives. No single one should dominate, other than to it's own denomination, on 'public' policy and CITIZEN RIGHTS...

#1.1:I discussed this with someone who thought the move was political suicide for Obama. My contention is that it would be suicide only if Catholics think the bishops' views are relevant--and I think that is true for very few American Catholics, especially on the issue of birth control. Sounds like that might be the case...

I think it is a concerted effort of the bishops to make negative news regarding President Obama. These arseholes wish to make a dent in the President's positive ratings and hope that the President does not do as well as has been predicted. It won't work.

I think that these "outspoken" bishops are by and large republicans who are opponents of the President -for whatever reason (s)- and since there are no issues that the President is losing on, these folk thought they would invent some. It won't work.

Thankfully, these bishops only get one vote each just like everybody else. And whether they believe it or not, people are not following their advice as they did long ago.

As a matter of fact, some catholics are as sick of these bishops as I am. And that's "a-plenty"!

I'm sure this news is very disappointing to our local Bishop Olmstead. He's the one who excommunicated a nun for her decisioin to save a woman's life by ending a pregnancy that would have resulted in a still birth.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html

Olmstead has been a very devisive figure in the diocese by bringing his very conservative political views to the pulpit. It's just further evidence of the negative effects of conservative extremism.

Best start planning for '16, Pubs, cuz Barry is gonna obliterate you this year.

Obama 2012

Catholic women, in very large numbers, use birth control.

I've heard that 98% of Catholic women use some form of birth control at some time in their lives. I'd bet the number is similar for Catholic men. When given a choice of wearing a rubber and having sex or not wearing one and not having sex Catholic men will act just like any other men.

A Jon Stewart moment on the topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/jon-stewart-birth-control-mandate-fox-news-christians-war-video_n_1275835.html

#1.8:But this whole thing did get the conservatives to really show their colors to women on the issue of contraception. The damned thing backfired on the GOP... more sauce for the goose come November.Mitt will be the nominee...Santorum is the last great hope for the conservative/fundamentalist religious right, and he will be back in obscurity by April independent of a primary win in Michigan or not.

I agree with you friend. As we old timers say, "it is just a flash in the pan" when we consider santorum's rise in the recent popularity poll. Everybody gets a turn (in the bottom of the barrel, sort of speak) but santorum can't hold the lead.

First of all, he is too much of an extremist to win anything except a contest that is rigged and voted on by a group of narrow minded imbeciles that like his controlling, racist, malevolent and chauvinistic speeches and/or campaign banter.

This is why he lost his seat in government before and he is of the same mentality now. He won't last.

Churches that preach politics from the pulpit are in violation of tax codes and should lose their tax exempt status. Our pastor never does that-- and that's how it should be. If they want to be political organizations, they should be corporations -- not that they would be taxed much anyway. They may urge their own congregations to eschew birth control all they want -- but they don't have any right to make decisions for others.

Also -- the Catholic Hierarchy is so out of touch with the Catholic people, it's a shame They are ripe for another reformation the scale of Luther's -- or face extinction. The Catholic Hierarchy needs a course correction, and should recognize the voice of the Spirit coming from within their own churches.

To be fair, subjugation is the only way the Catholic church can regain any significant amount of the control it previously had over people, and control, specifically control of women, is their clear objective.

#1.17:To be fair, subjugation is the only way the Catholic church can regain any significant amount of the control it previously had over people, and control, specifically control of women, is their clear objective.

You said it perfectly!

These catholic "boogey-men" are becoming obsolete, just like their old, male, chauvinistic, republican counterparts.

Mother Nature and Father Time will, fortunately, do its job and rotate them out of the equation- soon.

It is unfortunate for them, but fortunate for us, that no one rules forever! It is called progress!

derrr gop and their precious guns have backfired...yet again. LMFAO.

Try any ammo you like,you're nucking futs and most people know it. We won't tell you though, because the secret is part of the hilarity. And BTW *pssst* it's not really a secret. LMFAO.

The bottom line is, regardless how they may posture, as long as 98% of Catholics continue to use some form of contraception, they aren't going to give a crap. In fact, they're far more likely to vote for Obama than any of the GOP candidates... especially if it's Santorum!

Thank you for hitting the nail one its head Happy Blue in Ohio @ 1.1!

Most of the Catholic church doesn't obey Vatican rules as handed down by the clergy.

This is a modern day Galileo issue, the Church is wrong and the laity knows it.

It does strike me as particularly odd that any institution would advocate a 'no birth control measure' in an age where rabid overpopulation isn't just threatening our existence, it's at hand NOW.

Tens of thousands of members of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany have left the flock for good in the wake of that nation's own sweeping pedophilia/child abuse scandals and the abject failure of the Vatican in officially addressing those monstrous crimes: nearly 200,000 German Catholics in 2010 alone, for example, officially tendered their resignations from Catholic congregations as an open expression of their sense of moral outrage, and many of those now have no church affiliation at all. While media coverage of the mass exodus of disaffected American Catholics has not been as rigorous or as accurately documented, it has been clearly reflected in an unprecedented number of nationwide closures of parochial school systems—due in no small measure to the fact that sources of revenue, badly needed in order to absorb the Church's soaring costs of litigation and overhead, are drying up.

The Roman Catholic Church could play its shell game with pedophile priests for decades, shuffling them around from parish to parish with impunity, but it cannot play a shell game with funds it is incapable of generating and which it can no longer access now that its catastrophic duplicity has been irrevocably exposed: the Vatican's feudal system of intellectual domination and subjugation by dogma has begun to collapse—in short because millions upon millions of Roman Catholics are simply no longer buying what Pope Benedict XVI and his minions have to sell.

This is where candidates like Rick Santorum and other one-trick-pony right-wing Catholic and fundamentalist, dominionist and evangelical Christian public figures can't see the forest for the trees. Why would clear-headed, right-thinking conservative members of the American electorate—now there's an oxymoron for you—especially those who take particular pride in their utter rejection of government intrusion in their affairs (no pun intended) suddenly turn around and choose to embrace a candidate who will make it his or her business to control every personal decision they make within their own families, including every act they perform in their bedrooms?

God knows that the German people, through bitter and tragic experience, have come to more fully recognize the inherent danger of hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy in their leadership; one can only hope that the American people are starting to wise up after having been slapped in the face for so many years.

What we have been seeing for months in the polls with regard to the GOP candidates is a crystal-clear indication of the schizophrenia that currently grips the conservative psyche: right-wing American voters are like drowning sailors, flailing about desperately for a lifeline. Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, up and down, over and out, with the insufferably resolute Sarah Palin pontificating airily from on high. It's just one waking nightmare after another.

Give this a few months at the outside. Once Rick Santorum himself has been fully exposed as the fraud he is, the surge of his candidacy in the polls will ultimately turn out to be as fruitful as a nocturnal emission.

Catholics and all of society have been DUPED for years when Bishops quietly transferred errant priests to another parish.

The Bishops mobilized in force MONTHS ago when they first heard of the insurance responsibilty...

.....yet it will take centuries for them to acknowledge that the archaic contraception ruling was made during a time of high birth mortality.

OK let's not get too excited. I think the Church is wrong on contraception, but to say the Church is attacking Obama is pretty silly. They are complaining about a regulation imposed on them by Washington. It's a reaction, not an attack. Or are we saying now that anytime we don't like a new regulation we are "attacking the president?" Is he that frail? Does he need protecting that badly?

MartyMoose

OK let's not get too excited. I think the Church is wrong on contraception, but to say the Church is attacking Obama is pretty silly

So the US Catholic Bishops drafting a letter to be read to all parishioners during Mass shouldn't be considered an "attack"?

So the US Catholic Bishops drafting a letter to be read to all parishioners during Mass shouldn't be considered an "attack"?

It should be considered a ban on the separation of church and state and when that takes place, the RCC should lose its tax-exempt status.

the thing is martymoose, IT IS NOT A NEW REGULATION at all

since 2000 any employer who has more than 15 employees and provides any sort of preventative healthcare insurance to their employees is required to supply birth control or it is considered sexual discrimination.

this is all just silly of the church anyway, nobody is telling them how to conduct their religion, but when the church branched out and started running hospitals, then they are required to follow the same rules as any other hospital....... tempest in a teapot as far as I can tell

they need to stop whining about... well, about absolutely nothing about this has anything to do with what they're whining about, so I dunno what they're whining about???

(the only purpose I can vaguely estimate is that they don't like the prez and are actively trying to piss off the congregation--which ain't workin, cuz catholics LIKE birth control)

The Catholic Church has a credibility issue in Ireland and other countries due to its history of pedophilia of boys in their schools and orphanages. The Vatican response for decades was denial and cover up. This has led recently to Ireland eliminating its diplomatic relations with the Vatican. So there ya have priests buggerin' boys and the boys "flogging molly." Both are allegedly sins. How much credibility does that leave on the issue of birth control? I don't know how you would ever get an honest Irish Catholic poll about the use of condoms, but my bet is they use them as freely as their non Catholic neighbors.

When you lose credibility you lose credibility. Church attendance is down and recruitment of Catholic clergy is way down.

And what does the Bible and Christ say directly about abortion or condoms? There is no reference in the Bible. A group of elderly Vatican want to somehow interpret the Bible in that direction.

"I used to be Irish Catholic. Now I’m an American — you know, you grow." George Carlin

I think even if Obama had not compromised at all, it still wouldn't have hurt his aproval ratings much (with Catholics or Overall). This was one of those situations where the majority opinion that was consistently shown through poll after poll simply wasn't matching the ramped up rhetoric on TV. The Bishops and Congressional Republicans were singing a very vitriolic tune - the general public seemed to embrace the "what's the big deal?" mentality. This "Controversial" law was being applied since 2000...... I don't think it was nearly as big a deal as the Church and some members of the GOP were trying to make it.

Not only that their position is a bit ridiculous.

Conscience vs. health care?

Getting past the obvious dig concerning Bishops and conscience, it is a Catholic creed that created this crisis of conscience. Resolving conscience problems isn't the business of the government. Health care is.

If you don't like abortions or birth control, that doesn't mean you get to foist those dislikes off on the rest of us. Mind the business of your church and its members. Your morality doesn't control anyone but you. It's why we set this whole country up...

If you don't like the health care offered, why not ask the Pople to provide you a better option. He's got all god's money after all. A good Catholic health care plan might bring in new members. You have the private schools after all. You even have private hospitals...

Ah but it's not the individual choices the bishops are trying to control. It's the country's choices...

That's why Obama was able to slap em down. His area.

Pople was a typo, not disrespect.

Again: religion never improved anything that could not have been improved without religion.

Now, how about taxing them like any other for-profit entity?

austinrick,

I've heard this type of challenge before, but I can't think of the author's name. Liberal thinker, just passed away.

He challenged the audience during a debate to think of any situation wherein something was done with religion that could not have be done without.

I tend to agree with the sentiment; however, the inescapeable reality is that as it happened, civilization happened with religion. We can only speculate whether it could happen without.

But as a more concentrated answer. Religion isn't really a set of beliefs, it's a particular worldview that has many subsytems of belief, as such it creates an immense amount of ideological content that is specific to it and it alone. Much of this content is of a particular emotional nature and simply can not be recreated in any alternate form with any meaning. It is that particular emotional state and the beliefs that inform it which can not be reproduced with anything other than the code it arises from.

Moreover, this content is meaningful in our lives, through the language we use and the images we create. It is constantly evocative.

And as such improves our lives - if haphazardly.

As a direct example think of Christmas eve candlelight services. The anticipation of Christmas morning, all the spiritual festivities, "It's a Wonderful Life" , Rudolph. :)

It's different for everyone, but you likely take my point.

It was Christopher Hitchens, just remembered over Ramen. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

So the US Catholic Bishops drafting a letter to be read to all parishioners during Mass shouldn't be considered an "attack"?

What does the letter say? Is it something along the lines of "fight this regulation?" To me, that's a defense, not an attack.

It should be considered a ban on the separation of church and state and when that takes place, the RCC should lose its tax-exempt status.

The 1st amendment regulates government - not the churches.

They accuse Obama of an 'attack' and drawing 'line in the sand' -- and of doing something 'unconscionable.' They have attacked him.

That's fine. Then I guess we can say the United States "attacked" Japan in 1942. But I think there is an important characterization that is intentionally implied when you phrase it the way it is phrased here. The intention is to inspire an opinion that Obama was innocently minding his own business when the Church - for no good reason - decided to go after him. Again, I think the Church should come in to the 21st century on contraception, but this "attack" characterization is dishonest.

it is a Catholic creed that created this crisis of conscience

This is a critical point. The responsibility for addressing a "crisis of conscience" rests on the person who has it, by modifying their own personal behaviors, and by applying their conscience to how they choose to relate to society, not by seeking to place limitations or restrictions on society to assuage individual "crises of conscience".

I invented a Widget. It does something in a certain way. Someone else invented a Gnixl. It does the same thing in a different way. It benefits me to have society only allow that something be done the way my Widget does it. That does not justify trying to get society to ban the use of Gnixls.

One thing for sure, this article isn't acknowledging the fact that many other religions like non denominational churches are loaded with pro lifers that have a stronger opinion than the "cafeteria Catholics" have regarding this issue. The silent religious majority will be heard, the question is, how many are there and will they vote? They will now thanks to Obama's government take over approach to governing.

One thing for sure, this article isn't acknowledging the fact that . . .

One thing for sure, your comment isn't acknowledging the fact that many non-Catholics also agree with the 98% of the folks you labeled "cafeteria Catholics".

The silent religious majority

Doesn't exist. That was a myth Jerry Falwell made up, and I guess you fell for it.

There is no single religious majority. Rather, there is a majority of people who disagree with each other about God's will.

WaltDIS

One thing for sure, your comment isn't acknowledging the fact that many non-Catholics also agree with the 98% of the folks you labeled "cafeteria Catholics".

Making up statistics doesn't make them true. It just makes you appear "disconnected".

The statistics were not "made up":

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

98% of sexually experienced Catholic women have indeed used contraception. It's a fact. It's true.

Get "connected" with the facts, Dude.

98% of sexually experienced Catholic women have indeed used contraception

But aren't all Catholic girls Virgins? I have to listen to my Frank Zappa albums again

WaltDis

Your command of the language shouldn't be wasted with hateful remarks to other Viners, just because you can. I respectfully suggest you refrain from the mocking style you've used in your #1.42 response to "Dude". You're better than that, I suspect.

Moving on: The Arizona Republic columnist, E.J. Montini, has an opinion on this that lays the issue out wonderfully:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/

Thank you for your kind words. However, you've missed an important point. The comment you're referring to was an exercise in mirroring, i.e., applying the previous poster's line of reasoning to prove the opposite of what the poster was asserting. It's actually a very valid and viable means of debating an issue, effectively discrediting an assertion with its own logical foundation.

WaltDis,

"Late Lament"

Breathe deep the gathering gloom,
Watch lights fade from every room.
Bedsitter people look back and lament,
Another day's useless energy spent.
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one,
Lonely man cries for love and has none.
New mother picks up and suckles her son,
Senior citizens wish they were young.
Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white.
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?

-Moody Blues

It's all good.

Don't let your heart out all at once... Everyone is struggling against the illusion.

:)

You make excellent points.

WaltDis

Thank you for your kind words. However, you've missed an important point.

Perhaps, but I suspect most times, mirroring to you is mocking to others.

A very experienced attorney I know once told me "When you shoot arrows at people, they just shoot em' back."

You're not here to simply shoot arrows, are you? "Like begets like."

Perhaps, but I suspect most times, mirroring to you is mocking to others.

Some people are going to consider any repudiation of what they've written as "mocking".

A very experienced attorney I know once told me "When you shoot arrows at people, they just shoot em' back."

And I'm sure that that attorney would also tell you that standing up as a target with a bull's eye in the middle is just as likely to prompt people to shoot arrows as you. The common thread is that they want to shoot arrows at you (because they disagree with you).

You're not here to simply shoot arrows, are you?

You're not here to simply engage in discussions about the discussion, are you?

:)

"Mirroring" again Walt?

Naww...you wouldn't do that.

Good luck.

WaltDIS

The statistics were not "made up":

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

98% of sexually experienced Catholic women have indeed used contraception. It's a fact. It's true.

Get "connected" with the facts, Dude.

There is a big difference between Catholics that "use" contraceptives and Catholics, or anybody else, that are required to pay for them through having insurance. I know, Obama promised that the insurance companies will pay for them but the insurance industry would simply add the cost to the premiums we pay for insurance. Remember, the discussion isn't about "who" uses contraceptives. It is about our government requiring the private sector to provide them "free". I'm very much connected, it is you that doesn't understand the difference. LOL

There is a big difference between Catholics that "use" contraceptives and Catholics, or anybody else, that are required to pay for them through having insurance.

You missed the point. The objection to inclusion of birth control in mandated health insurance is that Catholics object to birth control on religious grounds. The 98% statistic overwhelmingly disproves the premise of the objection. 98% is an awesome number; even 70% would effectively repudiate the objection.

Remember, the discussion isn't about "who" uses contraceptives. It is about our government requiring the private sector to provide them "free".

Wrong. The discussion is about people having to pay for medical coverage for treatments they object to on religious grounds.

I'm very much connected, it is you that doesn't understand the difference. LOL

Clearly, you're the one having trouble understanding the issue.

It strikes me odd that anyone has as a definition of "religious liberty" being the right to be ruled over by a cabal of celibate perverts, taking orders from another cabal of celibate perverts in Rome.

During the build up to Obamacare being passed, conservatives loved to say that they didn't want some bureaucrat getting between them and their doctor. Why is it any better to have some priest getting between you and your doctor?

Or for that matter, any employer getting between you and your doctor?

One of the side effects of this kerfuffle is that people now understand what Obamacare actually does do for them: it sets minimum, and in many cases, improved, standards for health insurance plans and it protects your health insurance from being too far degraded by youremployer.

The Catholic church really blew it on this one. And it goes to show, that being a constitutional law professor can come in handy when plotting political strategy in a dysfunctional democracy.

It strikes me odd that anyone has as a definition of "religious liberty" the right to be ruled over by a cabal of celibate perverts taking orders from another cabal of celibate perverts in Rome.

This insight is priceless.

This insight is priceless.

I take no pleasure in bashing the Catholic church. I was raised Catholic.

I would hasten to add that my Catholic upbringing and experiences in Catholic school were mostly very good. Catholic run nursing homes/rehabilitation centers were available for more than one family member when the need arose. So we should give credit where credit is due.

But the problems with the Church are huge.

I would greatly prefer to be able to laud the Catholic church for doing the right thing, for its consistent and transparent oversight of its clergy, who regardless behave beyond reproach. I would truly love to be able to recognize and praise that.

The objection to inclusion of birth control in mandated health insurance is that Catholics object to birth control on religious grounds. The 98% statistic overwhelmingly disproves the premise of the objection.

Technically, it only disproves that most parishioners don't object themselves. The official position of the church is still clear, even if archaic.

None of that really matters, though, next to the fact that many Catholic institutions like Georgetown University have already been paying for this kind of health care for years. Even if you ignore that the Catholic Church disagrees with its own body members, the church itself, as an entity, has given the go-ahead for several of its businesses to do this. It can't very well claim moral conscience at this point.

Technically, it only disproves that most parishioners don't object themselves. The official position of the church is still clear, even if archaic.

So what you're saying is that there is a difference between "Catholics" (which is the term that was used, and incidentally the people who actually have religious freedom) and "the Catholic Church" (which as an entity doesn't have religious freedom on its own, in the absence of its parishioners).

None of that really matters, though, next to the fact that many Catholic institutions like Georgetown University have already been paying for this kind of health care for years. Even if you ignore that the Catholic Church disagrees with its own body members, the church itself, as an entity, has given the go-ahead for several of its businesses to do this. It can't very well claim moral conscience at this point.

True indeed.

So what you're saying is that there is a difference between "Catholics" (which is the term that was used, and incidentally the people who actually have religious freedom) and "the Catholic Church" (which as an entity doesn't have religious freedom on its own, in the absence of its parishioners).

Righto.

The "Catholic Church" as an entity is a bit slow to accept things that its members have a long time ago. Birth control, the earth revolving around the sun, its moral failing to stand up to Hitler, The Beatles being a good band, etc.

The title seems to be different between this seed and the original article, which reads:

Poll: Catholics approval of Obama mostly unchanged amid birth control battle

In fact, the article cites a Gallup poll which shows a drop in his popularity, which could be considered "damaging his approval rating with Catholics":

A survey released Tuesday by Gallup found that 46 percent of Catholics approved of Obama last week. A week prior to that his approval was at 49 percent, a change within the margin of error.

Rasmussen shows lower approval numbers:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely Catholic voters nationwide at least somewhat disapprove of the president’s job performance, while 40% at least somewhat approve. But the passion’s on the side of those who don’t like the job he’s doing: 44% Strongly Disapprove versus 19% who Strongly Approve.

Any gains he may have made are likely from favorable economic numbers:

[...] while the president’s overall job approval ratings have gone up slightly in recent weeks as perceptions of the economy have begun to improve, there’s been little or no change in attitude among religious groups. In that earlier survey, 60% of likely Catholic voters disapproved of the president’s performance, including 45% who Strongly Disapproved. Similarly, 68% of Evangelical Christians and 56% of other Protestants disapproved of how the president is doing his job [...]

The article is also inaccurate in claiming the approval of Catholic groups.

Notre Dame says:

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Catholic Charities? Not really:

In response to a great number of mischaracterizations in the media, Catholic Charities USA wants to make two things very clear:

1. We have not endorsed the accommodation to the HHS mandate that was announced by the Administration last Friday.

2. We unequivocally share the goal of the US Catholic bishops to uphold religious liberty and will continue to work with the USCCB towards that goal.

Any representation to the contrary is false.

Regardless of the author's, seeder's, and commenters' opinions on the issue, the glaring inaccuracies of the article don't help discussion of the issue, and it comes across as "Baghdad Bob"-style propaganda.

The article is also inaccurate in claiming the approval of Catholic groups.

Notre Dame says:

Not to pick nits, but your link is to a letter that happens to be on Notre Dame letterhead. That doesn't make it the official position of the college, it just means that a professor of law who works at the college drafted a letter. Most of his fellow signatories aren't from Notre Dame at all, and none of them represent the leadership of the institution.

The official position of Notre Dame seems to be cautious optimism. That probably goes for Catholic Charities too, though I'd have to check into it in more detail.

Not to pick nits, but your link is to a letter that happens to be on Notre Dame letterhead.

Point taken. I'll agree that Father Jenkins's statement does sound diplomatic...

We applaud the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties.

“There remain a number of unclear and unresolved issues, and we look forward to joining the U.S. bishops and leaders from other religious institutions to work with the administration to resolve them.”

... though another statement from Notre Dame expresses more fire:

“Today’s ‘compromise accommodation’ is nothing of the sort,” Snead said.

“The original uproar across the ideological spectrum was in reaction to the administration’s requirement that virtually all religious employers cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization in violation of their strongly held beliefs.

“Today’s rule still requires religious institutions (on pain of ruinous treasury fines) to purchase insurance that covers these same objectionable services. It is irrelevant that the rule requires the insurance company (rather than the religious institution) to explain to employees that the policy purchased for them by their employer includes the five-day after pill. For institutions that self-insure, the situation is even worse; they will be forced to contact their employees and pay for such services themselves.

Catholic Charities USA put their notice directly on their front page, which suggests that they really don't like media claiming that they're on-board with the "accommodation".

This has been one of the more fascinating exchanges I've read in quite some time. I'd just like to add one observation, as a comment from one of our contributors stirred something in me earlier. So, for what it's worth ...

jmorris @ #1.46:

But aren't all Catholic girls Virgins? I have to listen to my Frank Zappa albums again.

One thing that came immediately to mind as I read that post is a line from the lyrics of the Mothers of Invention song Concentration Moon: "Hair growing out every hole in me."

There, I believe, is the "dilemma" in a nutshell. Despite the fact that so many among us might be loath to admit it, at the feral, innermost core of our collective paleomammalian existence, in our warm and gushing heart of hearts, we're all animals, baby—and no amount of dark and repressive religious extremism, no elementary-level fundamentalist indoctrination, no nightmarish system of thought control à la Brave New World or THX 1138—no matter how insidious, how well-organized or how far-reaching, no matter how diabolical, horrifying or depraved, no matter how brilliantly conceived or thoroughly structured, no matter how mercilessly or ruthlessly enforced—will ever, ever change that.

They can suppress and repress us, shave and enslave us, jail us, impale us, shame us and blame us, program us, damn us, slay us and flay us—but life will always find a way, and flippy-floppy, my brothers and sisters, is here to stay.