I’m sorry, but I am going to take this opinion story apart, piece by piece. I will quote the areas where the writer, a professed Catholic, simply does not understand how her own Church works.
It is not about government controls, and it is not about infringement of our religious beliefs. It is about a church that has lost touch with reality. The leadership of the Catholic Church either is ignoring or is unaware of the disconnect between Catholic teaching and Catholic reality.
Since the Church has not changed its teaching on contraception or abortion, ever (having reaffirmed teachings that date back to Old Testament Scripture), the writer falls into the fallacy that the Church is a political body that should change to the current norms of a society. We do not. We teach what God taught us, and such truths do not change.
First, there is an important yet often overlooked reality about Catholic moral teaching: it mandates that Catholics make decisions with an “informed conscience.” This means that we must educate ourselves about the issues so that we understand Catholic social teaching and make decisions based on reflection, prayer, and counsel. Moreover, under Catholic teaching, our decisions about issues like birth control are ultimately our own and should be considered with humanae vitae in mind.
The Church does teach of the “primacy of conscience” (CCC 1790) but cautions the faithful that an informed conscience requires practice, study and prayer. In the bolded text, the writer rationalizes the use of an informed conscience against a strict teaching that birth control may not be used for avoiding pregnancy. With proper guidance, such medications may be proscribed in medical issues where the woman’s health is in jeapardy, with the unintended consequence of blocking pregnancy. The writer is not illustrating that case here, but of unintended pregnancy, which begs the question of how an informed conscience can justify sex outside of the marital act with CCC 2353.
Second, there is a practical reality. Just because an option is there, does not mean we have to take it. If an informed Catholic woman does not believe that she should be taking birth control, she shouldn’t and doesn’t have to. But that does not mean the option should be unavailable to others. To further illustrate the point, the Catholic Church has established policy (referred to as “indirect or remote cooperation”) to address precisely this sort of issue. This allows Catholics to indirectly provide support to activities that diverge from Catholic social teaching – such as paying taxes that fund wars or the death penalty. If we are not directly contributing, it is acceptable under Catholic doctrine. And in this instance, it’s the insurance companies who pay for the contraceptives, not the universities or the hospitals.
The writer again confuses Catholic teaching as policy. She doesn’t equate the magnitude of sin and our cooperation with it with the effect it can bring to others or, in the case of the point of her article, ourselves. This past Sunday, I bought Girl Scout Cookies, which I should normally not do since the national organization supports matters such as Planned Parenthood. But I chose to buy from the chapter of a parish I attend, knowing that I reduce the damage by supporting a chapter that I know does not support or teach the national teachings. Same is true for drinking Pepsi, of which a company contracted with the soft drink maker has reportedly used fetal cells in improving sweeteners. I can opt to drink something else if possible but can’t take full responsibility for that company’s misdirection should I drink their product.
In the case of the pregnant cousin, assuming she was fully aware of Catholic teaching, she knew that sex outside of marriage was not allowed and could not be reconciled through an informed conscience because an informed conscience knows that sex is not a part of the vital necessities of life (such as food, clothing, shelter) coming in conflict with the political or governmental red-tape that highly restricts some people in desperate need. Sex is a a voluntary act. The woman knew she was in conflict and showed this by reporting this to the administration. She apparently accepted the ramifications of her act and continues to support Catholic teaching as a teacher herself. For the school to allow the writer’s cousin to stay in student housing would affect the others there and their studies. The school wasn’t obligated to reward the woman for her pregnancy, so the student had to accept the actions of our conscience, informed or no.
That said, the writer believes that the Church and the Catholic organizations who employ many should provide abortions, birth control and other anti-life resources because individuals must make their own choices.
The writer does not understand that the Church cannot take acts that put people in the occasion of objective sin. Abortions and the Pill are grave matter in itself. An informed conscience knows this and will never use them, as the writer’s cousin did not (apparently). An informed conscience
accepts the ramifications of their actions (as the writer’s cousin did).
The only person at fault here is the writer herself, for using the “informed consciousness” principle as a basis for rationalizing poor judgement, objectively sinful actions and behavior, and trying to justify the monetary support to that person. But the writer’s cousin isn’t the one complaining here. It’s just the writer.
A good resource to use when examining the flaws of the OP’s article is by Jim and Susan Vogt can be found
here.
The responses should have been “Well done her” and “shame on the university”. No wonder some of the students have abortions if this is the reaction they get from their peers for keeping the child!
So I did not know that the research behind the article may have been flawed.