Here’s the essence of the US Bishops’ argument, from their own letter dated 14 March:
…we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.
So what is it about?
An unwarranted government definition of religion.
The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those oftheir own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none. Cf. Deus Caritas Est, Nos. 20-33. We are commanded both to love and to serve the Lord; laws that protect our freedom to comply with one of these commands but not the other are nothing to celebrate. Indeed, they must be rejected, for they create a “second class” of citizenship within our religious community. And if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally-recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.
A mandate to act against our teachings.
The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. For decades, the Bishopshave led the fight against such government incursions on conscience, particularly in the area of health care. Far from making us waver in this longstanding commitment, the unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat has only strengthened our resolve to maintain that consistent view.
A violation of personal civil rights.
The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing “services” contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption. This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.
I’m interested to note that they say that it is the first issue, the Government’s narrow definition of religion, that has precipitated the struggle. In the commentaries I’d read, this was always a side note, with the second point taking the lead. But the bishops seem to me to be saying that their top concern is that they’re being told that religion is limited to providing religious services, and that other ministries are not part of religion. This ties in with an earlier kerfuffle, when Obama was quoted as talking about “freedom of worship”, rather than “freedom of religion”.
To my mind, our faith is seen at its best precisely in the work that the Catholic charities do. When I think of the great Catholics of the 19th and 20th centuries, I think of those who took Christ’s love to those in need: the Fr Damians, the Mother Irenes, the Mary MacKillops, the Dorothy Days. Religion is worship? Indeed – but the best worship we can offer, as God himself has told us, is to serve to Christ’s body in the poor, the needy, and the distressed.
Here’s the HHS definition:
“a religious employer is one that:
(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and
(4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. ”
My bolding – the ‘and’ means that all four conditions must be met.
My understanding is that this definition is nothing new. It’s the standard one that has been used for some time to distinguish between what a religion does that is distinctly religious and what it does that could (and often is) be done by non religious employees.
It’s the distinction between the parish pastor and the janitor in the Catholic school.
God Bless
On what is your understanding based, Chris? The commentary I’ve seen all says that it is new.
The distinction you offer relates to whether or not a person is a religious employee – but that is not at all the same as whether or not the organisation is a religious employer.
Just because an organization is a religious employer, they do not have the right to impose their religious views on their employees.
The state is obliged to protect workers from their employers attempts to impose their own views on them.
God Bless
So do you agree, then, with the proposition in the last post – that if the state requires coverage of something that is morally abhorent, the employer has no choice but to comply? Or do you only think that the US Bishops are wrong to protest because you disagree with what they’re protesting about.
It depends on whether the matter really is morally abhorent, to what degree, how the Common Good is impacted by it, and whether the moral calculus requires one not to comply.
In this case, none of those criteria are met.
We all know that almost all clergy and the laity do not consider contraception morally abhorent. The Bishops mostly do (because they only get appointed Bishops if they sign on to opposing contraception), with lots of nuance and qualification, but if they can’t convince their own members, what right have they to impose their views on their employes who are not even members of their religion ?
And if they can’t convince their own members then can the state really consider their objection to be an important matter of their faith ?
It would be completely different if the matter was a serious matter like abortion.
God Bless
So in principle (which is what the previous post was about), you think that employers would be right to refuse to comply with legislation that required them to make payments for something morally abhorent? You just don’t think that this is one of those cases?
I’m not sure I even accept that in principle.
Take taxes used to fund torture or war or WMDs or abortion.
Would a person have the right to refuse to pay ? I think so.
Would a person be obliged not to pay. I think not. Remote material Cooperation.
God Bless
Yes, that’s a good distinction.
This whole statement is full of errors and contradictions. To pick just a few…
This is not about access to contraception
Except that this is about contraception.
which is ubiquitous and inexpensive
Maybe inexpensive to a bishop in his palace, but not inexpensive to poor workers struggling to feed their families and unable to cope with any more mouths to feed.
If the Bishops had their way, I expect that contraception would not be ubiquitous but illegal. Oh yes, when they did have their way, it was.
So in their opening sentence, the Bishops have managed to alienate and loose just about everyone.
And this is just comical:
Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.
The “American issue” is interesting as most of those against don’t actually present a coherent theological argument against, they merely insist it is unamerican and unconstitutional. Which isn’t a religious argument at all.
This isn’t actually a religious issue at all. The Catholic argument against
contraception is not a religious argument, it’s a natural law argument.
And the statement also errs in saying that compliance is against Catholic teaching as it clearly is not, both on grounds of remote material cooperation and on grounds that not all contraception is against Catholic teaching.
God Bless
Given that many of those that say this is about religious freedom are not against contraception (http://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=19663), your single-minded determination to insist that it is about contraception seems a little obsessive, Chris.
Yes, we know that the Republican Party and the Tea Party are not against contraception.
If it wasn’t about contraception and sterilisation, the Bishops would not be opposed.
It strikes me as rather precious to claim that it isn’t about contraception.
That is only said because the Bishops know they cannot win a debate about contraception.
God Bless
That seems a bizarre (to borrow your word) claim to me, Chris. It ignores all the people (including some of the bishops) who are against the healthcare proposals, but not against contraception.
What on earth can their motivation be, in your worldview?
Politics in an election year.
And some people simply seem to be confused about what the HHS mandate actually entails (eg the Lutheran and Ribbi who testified in your link).
God Bless
One of the flaws in what the bishops have been saying, AFAICS, is that they have over-extended the application of the notion of co-operation. There is a serious problem here, that of what C. S. Lewis called “Connivance” (the title he gave an essay). To be consistent,they should apply that to their own actions & neglects; but they don’t. On what principle do they apply one standard to others, and one to themselves ?
“Indeed, they must be rejected, for they create a “second class” of citizenship within our religious community.”
## That would be more convincing if there were not already second-class citizens in the Church.
Doesn’t the compromise move by Obama on Feb 12 effect the argument? From the Whitehouse website:
President Obama announced that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Under the new policy, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services – no matter where she works. And as previously announced, churches and houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to refer or provide coverage for contraception. But if a woman’s employer is a charity, hospital or other religious organization that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, her insurance company – and not the hospital or charity – will be required to reach out and offer her contraceptive care free of charge.
A very reasonable compromise in my view, and also in the view of the Catholic Health Association and other Catholic agencies running educational and charitable institutions and of at least 3 major US religious publications (America, Commonweal, and the National Catholic Reporter).
It indicates that the Obama administration is commendably open to criticism, discussion, and modification of its proposals.
If only the U.S. Bishops could learn from that good example, rather than intransigently dig themselves into a battle they should not fight and cannot win and which will only discredit the Church and alienate even more of the faithful.
God Bless
Maybe this would be so, if the compromise had actually been included in the plan.
Kathleen Sebelius says that they propose to issue a rule ‘in the near future’. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73372.html
“In the near future” is good as is shows Sebelius is still open to discussion and compromise.
God Bless
As far as I can see, the White House announced that compromise, but the HHS later published the finalised rule, and the compromise is not included. The organisation has to provide the mandated health plan. Story ends.
their top concern is that they’re being told that religion is limited to providing religious services, and that other ministries are not part of religion.
No, that is not what they are being told.
They are being told that their jurisdiction is over their religious followers, not over every employee, who may well be of another religion, or none at all, who happen to be employees by some religious hospital or school or charity.
Religions may do X, Y, and Z but that does not mean that X, Y, or Z are intrinsically religious areas and only religious areas.
God Bless
They are being told that their jurisdiction is over their religious followers, not over every employee
No, that doesn’t work, Chris, since under the definition they would be able to refuse to pay a premium for contraceptives and sterilisation for the administration secretary in a parish centre, but not for the chaplain in a hospital or the head of religious studies in a school.
My understanding is is that the defn would cover chaplains and DRE’s.
That seems to be the plain reading of the defn you quoted.
God Bless
The key word is ‘and’. The organisation must be for the inculcation of religious values. So chaplains and DREs working for hospitals and schools are specifically excluded. That’s the plain legal reading of the definition.
Huh ?
Schools exist for the inculcation of religious values so DRE’s are covered.
Chaplins work for the diocese as appointed by the Bishop. They are not hospital employees.
God Bless
Schools exist for the inculcation of religious values…
Not according to the HHS. Catholic schools, social services, hospitals and universities do not meet the definition.
Chaplains work for the diocese…
Not necessarily in the US context. For example: http://psmh.jobscience.com/JsrApp/index.cfm?cmd=showPositionDetail&cobrandId=9000&masterId=Provena0001&positionId=540494&prodApp=cc153c84-af0b-4f17-a32a-75aec3b65159&bID=1702
My understanding is that in the US, parish schools meet the definition, because religious instruction is a compulsory part of the curriculum for everyone. They are genuine religious schools. It would seem appropriate only to apply that to tagged positions, not janitors or teachers as a whole.
Catholic universities, on the other hand, do not have compulsory RE for everyone so they do not meet the definition. They are just universities being run by Catholics. It would seem appropriate to apply the defn to their chaplins, priests, and possibly theology department teachers who are Catholic.
There is possibly room from some debate on where to draw the line on these matters but I think that the distinction the state is trying to make is a valid one.
God Bless
Yes, I think you’re right about point 1 including elementary schools. But schools are, anyway, excluded under point 4, apparently:
“Even if an organization meets all these criteria, it is still not considered a “religious employer” unless it is one of the few nonprofits that are excused under the tax law from filing an IRS Form 990. This stipulation limits the exemption to churches, their integrated auxiliaries and religious orders.”
Perhaps there is a way around this by making what I will call “tagged positions” for want of a better name, to be diocesan employees under the bishop, who are funded by the hospital/school/charity.
It is amazing what the Church can often achieve with good will and a willingness to negotiate. Inflexible positions where we ought not be inflexible, OTOH, will probably come back to bite us.
I certainly think there is a time and a place to draw the line in the sand, dig in, and hold the line. Abortion would be such a line in the sand. Contraception isn’t.
God Bless
The US Bishops are now arguing that any employer, Taco Bill for example, ought to have the right to impose his moral views on his workers.
They are thereby effectively conceded that this argument is not actually a religious argument at all.
It’s a power grab by employers for the right to control their employees health care.
And a departure from the Catholic doctrine on the right of individuals to express their own freedom of conscience.
¡No pasarán!
God Bless
Oops, would be
It’s a power grab by employers for the right to control their employees health care.
Chris should just stick to “bosses” and “workers”.
God Bless
Fixed
The Bishops stmt speaks of
the unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat
That is in marked contrast to the Bishops recent lack of action on threats obviously greater than this little storm in a teacup, such as the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the use of torture by the US military, US government approval of assassinations, and deepening domestic hardship and poverty.
To speak of this as an attack of “unprecedented magnitude” illustrates how far from reality the Bishops have been led by their Republican Party advisors (just check the political affiliations of those appointed to the Bishops committee on religious freedom).
I’d love to see the US Bishops get similarly agitated about a REAL issue of religious freedom as occurs in so many countries around the world today where people are getting attacked, persecuted and killed.
God Bless
Yes, it would be nice to see such a united front on other issues. Though there has been a pretty strong united front on the issues you mention, come to think of it. The difference is that they all involve things handled completely outside the doors of the organisations the Church owns. Had the government demanded the use of a church building for torture or assassination! But they didn’t.
Regarding deepening domestic hardship and poverty, there has been some reputable economic analysis that suggests the HHS healthcare plan will deepen the economic crisis and create further poverty.
http://www.towerswatson.com/press/958
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/willis-survey-health-care-reform-180000264.html
And: http://quipster.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/health-care-reform-bill-will-increase-costs-and-decrease-providers/
I think the Church needs to be careful how she is perceived in her political opposition or support for certain political moves.
If we kick up a huge hue and a cry about gay marriage and contraception then the public perception is that Catholicism is all about opposing gays and contraception.
If we kick up a huge hue and a cry about poverty, immigrants rights and against war and the death penalty and abortion then the public perception is that Catholicism is all about helping the poor, the marginalized and for life.
We need to keep in mind how our political activity impacts on the new evangelisation.
I don’t think this one is helping us.
God Bless
The Church has to build from its core beliefs about what a truly human life consists of. Sacramental marriage open to life and families built on this foundation, and of course chaste singledom, and the various religious orders constitute this.
The American Bishops believe they are protecting this foundation and would probably argue that all the important and worthy things you mention can only truly flourish if it is solid.
Maybe the hierarchy – which is the group from which most of the opposition has come, AFAICS – could help itself by being less defensive.
That was a reply to Chris, BTW. If only there were an edit/delete function…
Funny how some people think that employees need to be protected from employers “with religious convictions” but the same people do not wonder who will protect people from the GOVERNMENT.
It kind of brings to mind the Jews who kept order in the Ghettos for the Nazis, convinced that they meant well right up until the time they entered the gas chambers
It kind of brings to mind the Jews who kept order in the Ghettos for the Nazis, convinced that they meant well right up until the time they entered the gas chambers
Only if you’re miserably ignorant of the history of that dark period. Otherwise no, it doesn’t bring that to mind at all.
Godwins again
No Jerry – if I don’t like my employers health insurance package I am free to find another employer
But when, for example, the Government rules my children have to be taught the virtues of condoms amongst other perversities there is little I can do to stop them.
My goodness Jerry Governments are malevolent, a necessary evil but never to be trusted.
That certainly isn’t Catholic doctrine. Governments are capable of evil – the Church is capable of evil. There is no difference at all there. But neither is inherently or neccsarily malign. The State *can* be a foretaste of the kingdom of Satan – and so can the Church. Both have committed many crimes, both need salvation, both are subject to the judgement of Christ, both are God-given, neither should be dismissed for the other to be exalted at its expence. Both are means by which God does His Will in the world and brings about His Kingdom. If they are evil, that is often the fault of the Christians in them – if people want Christians to govern them, they must encourage Christian people to stand for office, and must pray for them, & must seek their good. It’s hard to see how governments are automatically any more damaging to societies than Churches have been. It really is time that Catholic theology redressed its one-sided emphasis on the Church, and revived its theology of the civil power. A revived theology of the laity would balance the one-sided emphasis on tthe clergy – the Church would look pretty ridiculous, if the laity were to vanish from it.
Even the Pope has recognised a legitimate use for condoms – a very limited one admittedly, but the principle has in effect been conceded: that the use of condoms is not always or in all circumstances illegitimate.
Part of the difficulty is that the CC is apt to have a black-or-white view of reality – it is not always good at recognising at times there is a choice only between evils, & that sometimes one’s choices are between, not black and white, but shades of grey.