Last week, George Weigel suggested here that the Catholic Church in the United States seriously consider whether it should “withdraw from the civil marriage business” by prohibiting her priests and deacons from officiating at marriages for purposes of state law. Such a voluntary refusal to participate in the civil government’s marriage law would, according to Weigel, anticipate government attempts to compel the Church to accept gay marriage. A certain witness value would be lost if she were to wait until State action made it impossible for faithful Catholic clergy to perform marriages recognized by civil law. By acting first, the Church would make a prophetic statement about the growing divide between ecclesial and civil authorities over the definition of marriage.

“Don’t even think about it.” Perhaps those of you who are parents have said this to your children on occasion. Well, now the State of California is sending that same message to you, your children, and any of your children’s doctors or therapists.

To what am I referring? Earlier this month, California Governor Jerry Brown, a Catholic, signed into law SB 1172, a bill designed to prohibit individuals under the age of eighteen from receiving treatment for unwanted homosexual attractions.

Remember Rocky? Not the cartoon companion of Bullwinkle the Moose, but the streetwise South Philadelphia tough guy turned heavyweight boxing champ—the Rocky of the Hollywood movie set who, in film after film, overcomes insurmountable odds to triumph over a towering opponent in the ring. Though Rocky appears to be finished at some point in almost every fight, and even loses his first match against Clubber Lang (you might remember him as “Mr. T”), in the end the Italian Stallion always emerges the victor. (Yes, of course, Rocky is denied the decision in his first match against Apollo, but everyone knows that he was robbed by the judges.) Despite his setbacks, he never gives up.

While a week has passed since the Supreme Court issued its decision in NFIB v. Sebelius (the case upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as Obamacare), the news continues to buzz with comment and analysis about the ruling and the next phase in the debate concerning the overall merits of the legislation. Rather than add to the chatter circulating throughout the blogosphere about the quality of the opinion or the future of the health-care act, I thought that I would offer a few words concerning the relationship between the NFIB case and the challenges to the contraceptive mandate.

“I die the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” History records these as the last words of St. Thomas More. The former Lord Chancellor under Henry VIII, St. Thomas More lost his head to the axe of the public headsman on the banks of the Thames River in 1535 for refusing to deny his Catholic faith and acknowledge the king as the supreme leader of the Church in England. Tomorrow we celebrate his feast, along with that of another Englishman who preceded him in martyrdom, St. John Fisher.

St. Thomas More was a man of priorities. A lawyer by training, the “Man for All Seasons” was also steeped in knowledge of literature, language, and rhetoric. While he was gifted with a tremendous talent for secular affairs, St. Thomas More never sought success and advancement at the cost of spiritual growth. For St. Thomas More, his relationship with God was first. All other matters were to follow behind.

Our country’s founding document reflects something of this English saint’s ordering of priorities. The Constitution ranks religious liberty as the first freedom found in the First Amendment. It is fitting then, that the bishops of the United States have chosen the vigil of tomorrow’s feast to mark the beginning of the national observance of a ‘Fortnight for Freedom.’

I remember hearing the story of a priest who, when asked for advice on how to avoid future sin, encouraged his listeners to dig a ditch and lie in it for a few hours while contemplating eternity. Whenever I tell this little tale, the response it provokes is more often a fit of laughter than a trip to the tool shed in search of a shovel. And rightfully so, the story is meant as a joke. (Although, I understand that at least one man was given the ditch-digging exercise as a penance). That aside, while lying in a ditch may seem impractical and excessive, it does at least point to a valuable lesson: Keeping eternity in view can be a helpful aid to maintaining a proper perspective toward life on earth.

The expression “voodoo economics” has fallen out of vogue in contemporary public discourse. It was George H. Bush who first coined the phrase while running for the Republican nomination in 1980, but President Obama’s press conference last Friday is what brought it to mind. Announcing a new “compromise” on the contraceptive mandate, the President declared that health insurers will now provide contraception and sterilization services for all women free of charge. This prompts one to ask, “If insurers can provide contraception and sterilization services for free, why was the federal government trying to force folks to pay for it in the first place?” Before we take up this question, let’s briefly review the history of the controversy to date.

Nearly two years have passed since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the centerpiece of what is sometimes referred to as “Obamacare”—ushered in the promise of universal healthcare coverage. While legislators, regulators, and the President himself have acknowledged that the legislation is less than perfect, the law’s proponents continue to argue that, by ensuring the sort of basic care necessary for sustaining general health, the bill represents a step in the right direction.

Under the provisions of the Act, much of the task of defining what constitutes “health care” was left to governmental regulators. For example, the law looks to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to determine which drugs and services will qualify as “preventive” care.

Last Friday, HHS took a significant, if unfortunate, step in this process when it announced that, in its final set of rules, “preventive services for women” will include contraceptives, female sterilization procedures, and related “patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” When this provision takes effect next year, all but a very narrow class of organizations and individuals will be compelled to purchase prescription coverage for contraception and female sterilization.