For a brief moment, Catholics on all sides were united in defense of the freedom of the Catholic Church to define for itself what it means to be Catholic in the United States. They came together to defend the church’s institutions from morally objectionable, potentially crippling burdens imposed by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. Catholic journalists, like E. J. Dionne and Mark Shields, and politicians, like Tim Kaine and Robert P. Casey Jr., joined the U.S. bishops in demanding that the administration grant a broad exemption for religiously affiliated institutions from paying health care premiums for contraceptive services. Then, on Feb. 10, President Obama announced a compromise solution by which religious institutions would be exempt from paying the objectionable premiums but women would not be denied contraceptive coverage. A confrontation that should never have happened was over. But not for long.
After a nod to the White House’s retreat as “a first step in the right direction,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the president’s “accommodation” as insufficient. Their statement presented a bill of indictments on the fine points of public policy: It opposed any mandate for contraceptive coverage, expanded the list of claimants for exemption to include self-insured employers and for-profit business owners and contested the administration’s assertion that under the new exemption religious employers would not pay for contraception. Some of these points, particularly the needs of self-insured institutions like universities, have merit and should find some remedy. Others, with wonkish precision, seem to press the religious liberty campaign too far.
The bishops have been most effective in influencing public policy when they have acted as pastors, trying to build consensus in church and society, as they did in their pastorals on nuclear war and the economy. The American public is uncomfortable with an overt exercise of political muscle by the hierarchy. Catholics, too, have proved more responsive to pastoral approaches. They expect church leaders to appeal to Gospel values, conscience and right reason. They hope bishops will accept honorable accommodations and, even when provoked, not stir up hostility. In the continuing dialogue with government, a conciliatory style that keeps Catholics united and cools the national distemper would benefit the whole church.
The religious liberty campaign seems to have abandoned a moral distinction that undergirded the conference’s public advocacy in past decades: the contrast between authoritative teaching on matters of principle and debatable applications of principle to public policy. The natural law tradition assigned application to the prudent judgment of public officials. Writing of policy differences in 1983, the bishops wrote, “The Church expects a certain diversity of views even though all hold the same universal moral principles.” Contemporary Catholic social teaching has spoken of policy in terms of “a legitimate variety of possible options” for the faithful and the wider public; it has urged that differences over policy be tempered by charity and civility.
The campaign also risks ignoring two fundamental principles of Catholic political theology. Official Catholic rights theory proposes that people should be willing to adjust their rights claims to one another. It also assigns to government the responsibility to coordinate contending rights and interests for the sake of the common good. The campaign fails to acknowledge that in the present instance, claims of religious liberty may collide with the right to health care, or that the religious rights of other denominations are in tension with those of Catholics. But as Pope Benedict XVI wrote in “Deus Caritas Est,” the church does not seek to “impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to the faith.” Furthermore, the campaign fails to admit that the administration’s Feb. 10 solution, though it can be improved, fundamentally did what Catholic social teaching expects government to do—coordinate contending rights for the good of all.
By stretching the religious liberty strategy to cover the fine points of health care coverage, the campaign devalues the coinage of religious liberty. The fight the bishop’s conference won against the initial mandate was indeed a fight for religious liberty and for that reason won widespread support. The latest phase of the campaign, however, seems intended to bar health care funding for contraception. Catholics legitimately oppose such a policy on moral grounds. But that opposition entails a difference over policy, not an infringement of religious liberty. It does a disservice to the victims of religious persecution everywhere to inflate policy differences into a struggle over religious freedom. Such exaggerated protests likewise show disrespect for the freedom Catholics have enjoyed in the United States, which is a model for the world—and for the church.
Jeff
I'm sorry you've decided to distance yourself from the USCCB. You've chosen an extremely thin pretext to do it on. You've got plenty of company, of course - you're covered, both in and outside the Church. But you have contributed to a rift that ought not to have been opened again. For a while, as you say - for "a brief moment" - it was closed. Then, once more, you've done your own thing, played ball with the secularists, seeing in them, evidently, a better hope for the fulfillment of your social ends than in the "official" leaders of your own Church.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-mandate-0215-20120215,0,5595785.story. take care
I will confess that even after sixteen years of Catholic education, I do not fully understand the Catholic position on material cooperation that seems to be at the heart of this dispute. Am I correct in understanding that this perspective argues that a Catholic employer may not provide health insurance that provides coverage for contraception, even if that coverage is not chosen by the employer but is required by law? And that this requirement is an unprecedented encroachment on the religious liberty of employers that evidences a government that has lost all sense of its natural limits? But if the government were to replace all private insurance with a single public insurance system, paid for by the taxes of all, including Catholic employers, and including coverage for contraception, then our issue goes away? That is then simply another public policy that is not to our liking and, like policies on immigration, war, torture, etc., is one we hope to see changed over time? Is that where we are? Does that really make sense to us? Is it any wonder that an Administration trying to respond to our concerns might be puzzled how to do it?
Last Friday, President Obama attempted to reconcile his policy objectives with the Catholic hierarchy’s concerns. I would like to see our bishops reciprocate. If the issue is indeed religious liberty and not contraception, what could the president do differently to resolve it? Focus on the employee’s contribution to health insurance as the source of funding for this coverage? Wait until the health exchanges are up and allow employees to take a voucher from their concerned employers to buy their coverage themselves? Something else? I have heard no such suggestions. It makes we wonder if religious liberty has ever been the real issue in this dispute.The limited concept of religious liberty the Bishops are fighting for makes a disservice to the legal and universal concept of religious liberty. There is nothing in the law that makes women to use contraception. They already do (98% of Catholic women included). And abortion, like everybody knows, is now the law of the land.
Once the Administration changed the payment policy on the contraceptive health service, the burden of choice or rejection is back on the individual persons, which is where it should be. The Church will not be paying for it directly. It will be part of any insurance policy, via a rider if required.
It seems that many, including the Bishops, forget that we don't live in a theocracy (thanks to God) but in pluralistic society, which is also a democracy, where not everybody hold the same values and principles.
This Administration, or the future ones, should govern serving all people through the laws of the country. (BTW: I wonder why every four years it seems that the most important problems of the country: economy, jobs, wars, poverty, hunger, international relations and trade, health services availability for everybody, etc. are set aside. And then, the abortion issue and contraception becomes "the issue" politians and Bishops argue about). Why? WHY?
I am a senior Catholic, and my only interest is real religious liberty in a democratic pluralistic society.
Let me quote Cardinal Ratzinger:
" For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the church principle. Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which is in the last resort beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle of opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will. "
Joseph Ratzinger on article 16 of Gaudem et Spes, in Volume 5 of the "Commentary on Documents of Vatican II", edited by Vorgrimler (New York/London 1969).
It speaks for the many Catholics like myself whose consciences have felt a deep revulsion with the gratuitous political posturing of the USCCB. Christ Himself never sought legislative change, even less did he seek to do so by strong-arming the opposition in the manner that the USCCB has relentlessly pursued. Rather, He sought a change of heart - and understandably so, for the desires of the heart are free from legislative control: But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)
Laws in themselves will not prevent sin. Further, Christ never won over His followers by pontificating or finger-wagging. The reason the apostles dropped whatever they were doing and followed Him was because of Who Jesus was - and they wanted that. Christ-centered leadership is set by example, not pontification. Would that the USCCB were more focused on the example they set, and the subsequent moral authority (or lack thereof) that this elicits!
1. Precisely how is this article seeking compromise in "Truth, Faith, and Morals"?
2. If you don't believe in everything I believe in, can I call you a "cafeteria catholic" too?
3. Who wrote the "truth" that you demand 100% compliance to? Who decided it was the truth?
4. What is the "birth right" you allege we are selling? What is the porridge?
5. Do you understand those "finer points of healthcare coverage" that you've deemed critical? If so, explain why they are critical?
6. Do you have any evidence at all for this "trivialization of life" that you accusing the rest of us of being lukewarm and wishy-washy about?
Finally, if I end this article with a promise to pray for you, will all be forgiven?
I'm hoping though that the Catholic press will spend some time dissecting the positions Rick Santorum has been taking. Some of the positions he's taken make this Catholic uncomfortable-and not in a good way.
It's a stretch to believe that the American public is uncomfortable with this "overt exercise of political muscle." This whole issue asks us to examine what and why we believe what we do. Then it asks us to consider how our beliefs should apply to others and the greater good. To do so honestly means to objectively seek out the details of medicine, the Constitution, the specific policy, our Catholic teachings, politics, history of insurance, our Bishop's actions, and much more. It also requires more than a single day soundbite to keep up with the developing story. I would be happy if Americans were made uncomfortable to the point that they put down the cell phones, remote controls, etc. and think beyond their own existence. I am so worried there are not enough Americans who care this deeply about our nation or their faith. Christ's life made the public "uncomfortable" to the point of his crucifixion. For me, seeking to keep the American public "comfortable" is not helpful to solving most of the pressing issues of our day.
Even this traditional Catholic is perplexed by the bishops’ indignation to Obama’s final birth control solution. It certainly allows Catholic agencies to live according to the dictates of their corporate conscience and negotiate employee health care packages without birth control, i.e., insurance packages that assume a 100% risk of pregnancy. Obviously, the insurance company will expect a much higher premium to insure a pool in which every woman represents an additional $13,000 (assuming no complications) payout risk for the year, as well as subsequent child healthcare. Nevertheless, the Catholic agency “walks the walk.”
In turn, the solution allows each woman to decide for herself the highly personal moral and medical choices she confronts. If, on contact from her carrier, she elects to add free birth control protection, the agency is not party to the transaction. It pays only for what it has already agreed to pay for; namely, a pregnancy-presumed risk pool. The carrier is all too happy to provide the additional coverage at no charge to either the woman or the agency. For less than $1300/yr. it eliminates a $13,000 risk. This explains why insurers have not felt put upon for this “freebie.”The editorial notes that our Holy Father has written that the church does not seek to “impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to the faith.” Unless the bishops do feel the need to control how their employees make their most personal family decisions, their episcopal indignation is misplaced. The agency is affected by the solution only if it chooses to negotiate discounts because the risk pool is not really as risky as it first appears. That, however, would not be walking the walk.
Diaspponted that you missed ket points of the DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY from Vatican 11 whose main drafter was a USA Jesuit! The First Amendment has two parts - to protect the individual's and by extension the faith-group's conscience rights to believe or not believe; AND to keep the Goverment's Camel's backside from butting into the tent of the believer. You have been corrected above about the most dangerous intrusion, forcing abortifacients and sterilisations. Adding conscientious objectors to this mandate was a defence of the first part of the amendment- individual employers' consciences. You seemed to have not read the actual wording, listened to your archbishop who heads the US bishops' conference. He bluntly said that the POTUS broke a promise to him when he invited him to the W-H when he went to NY- and Cdl Dolan reminded him of that on 21 January. Sneaky, announcing the decision on a weekend when the media are not as present. The Sleeping Giant is awake and lots of evangelicals and Jewish leaders and some Islamic Imams also. One can wonder if the US bishops who violated the rights of hundreds of clergy in civil and canon law realise the hypocrisy of that action vrersus this outcry.
This editorial was posted over a week ago in blog “All Things”. That blog post has long since been superseded by other posts, but since the editorial has continued to be highlighted on America’s website and generate comments I am simply re-posting here my earlier comment addressed to the editors.
(More importantly, below my comment is an excerpt from, and a link to, a highly relevant recent article by James V. Schall, S.J. )Your editorial is stunning in its confusion, self-contradiction, and myopia in regard to issue of the impact of the HHS contraception mandate on the constitutional right to freedom of religion. On one hand, you correctly note the obvious - that there is a difference between “authoritative teaching on matters of principle and debatable applications to public policy”. Yet, having noted the distinction, you then proceed to ignore it in this instance by the subterfuge of ascribing to the HHS mandate - and implicitly the ACA which gives rise to it - the status of an authoritative, not-to-be-challenged implementation of the “right to health care”, as opposed to what it is – a mere public policy of debatable (and in reality, dubious) legitimacy and benefit.
By your reasoning, the indisputable infringement resulting from the HHS mandate upon the constitutional right to religious freedom is of relatively minimal importance compared with a tendentiously defined “right to health care” – that is, a “right” not defined as merely the right of citizens under our laws to obtain products and services they deem necessary to their health care including abortifacients and sterilization, but as a service that some citizens have the “right” to demand be provided to them by other citizens, however objectionable on moral grounds the “health care” service in question is to those others.Therefore, even though you purport to acknowledge the distinction between the authoritative principles and debatable applications of principles to public policy, the “right to health care” - including the forced provision of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations in all health insurance plans except those for narrowly defined religious organizations - is, in your view the legitimate authoritative principle that must be adhered to. And the true authoritative principle – the necessity of respect for the right to religious freedom traditionally understood (and not as a mere “right to worship”) - simply becomes in your view a debatable public policy issue of far lesser importance.
Also see "Under the control of the State" by James V. Schall, S.J., (Catholic World Report, February 17, 2012).http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1126/under_the_control_of_the_state.aspx
P.S. I believe it was Jesus Christ who said, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's." HE has the last word. Jesus never got involved with the politics of the state, only the politics of the synagogue. I suspect the poor Sister got quite a tongue-lashing from the Bishops. Shame on them! No one is forcing contraceptives on anyone and Jesus Christ is the final Word after all.
The attitude that "they should have thought of that when they took a job with the church's institution" (hospital, university, whatever!) is an invitation to a loss of good staff. You're right, they don't have to work there and perhaps it would benefit them to leave and go elsewhere. Whether or not the churches could fill the vacancies would be their problem n'cest pas?Most Catholic laity find the entire health care bill offensive. Popes have spoken out against statist rule and this bill passes the test for being statist. Furthermore are you familiar with the bill's provision for health care decisions based on "quality adjusted life years"? What do you suppose a statist government secular progressive liberal health care decision maker will do with that as criteria for providing health care?
It’s nice to make yourself feel good by supporting health care for all but this bill is over the top. Sometime it appears that having achieved a level of faith approaching mysticism your sentimentality is fogging your reason. You have the luxury of the vow of poverty and no tax bill. You have the luxury of the vow of chastity and no children or grandchildren to worry about. The deficit is 15 trillion this bill is scored by the CBO to increase the deficit.We are all in favor of “care for the poor.” But let’s get some honesty in the “how to” debate. Let’s look at the facts and not just what would make us feel good. And by the way, who is currently not receiving medical attention in this country. Don’t we have a ‘Good Samaritan’ law?
It is very sad to see a once great Jesuit magazine weigh so lightly the right to religious freedom. This mandate is a very new thing in American life, for it sets a precedent whereby the power of the government can be used (and surely will be used again if this stands), at the sole discretion of the executive branch, to force individuals and institutions to cooperate with what is evil in their sight.
The Obama administration chose this fight (not the Bishops), introducing this mandate without any conscience clause, selecting an unpopular teaching (contraception, the earliest chemical abortions, sterilization), to seduce its more docile supporters to adopt a principle that used to be anathema to their sensibilities. After a minor objection and a feint at compromise, those who hold their political persuasions higher than their religious beliefs, are now rallying to his defense.Note that despite the President's "accommodation" speech, the law as written did not change one iota when it was published later that day - so we just have the President's word (recall promises re closing Guantanamo, not taking super PAC money, using military tribunals & ending renditions).
If this stands, we are at the mercy of this or a future President to add to the mandate all types of abortions, surgical (all the way down to partial-birth abortion) and eugenic (abortions for babies with birth defects like Down’s, sex selection, etc.), or maybe later euthanasia for the unfit or unwanted.Please wake up and see what you are relinquishing. Let's unite with the Bishops to get this fixed in the legislature, for the sake of all faiths and human rights.
For the Catholic Bishops of this nation are taking great risks, speaking boldly with clarity and unequivocation. Correct me please if I am mistaken but I never thought Ignatius of Loyola an apologist for Jesus Christ but rather a most devoted disciple. Nor do I believe that he would be wooed by the state into conceding the truth for the sake of what? "Civility"?
Really?! Civility? For the sake of what - one's universities, one's hopsitals, one's investments, one's material goods, one's place among the intellectual power brokers? For what's really at stake here beyond all of these is your immortal souls.
What I wonder are you not willing to concede for universal health care? And how much trust are you willing to invest in a state that considers human life disposable?
I have steadfastly prayed over many decades that the Society of Jesus would flourish because of its many good and courageous works. But I begin to fear that at some levels this noble community has been infected with a moral relativism that is the antithesis of what is holy and what is true to Jesus Christ. If this is the case and this is what your institutions of learning are espousing, then I must pray with all my heart that you fail.
It's hard to know what to make of the Bishops' stance (as well as that of many of the commenters here). You have responded with reason and compassion.
I appreciate our editors for presenting both essays for their readers.
How ironic that a magazine entitled "America," that lays a simultaneous claim to Catholic faith, not only continues to undermine the Catholic faith, but now simultaneously attacks the 1st Right of Americans - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...."
You'll need to change your name.The Editors seem to be in a rush to calm the political waters so that a failed administration does not face another obstacle as a consecuence of its radical positions, in the nearing federal election. The EXTREMIST voting records of President Obama and Secretary Sebelius on life issues, demonstrate that the Church in the United States is not dealing with an honest and balanced Executive power.
It is not serious to call a "compromise" a simple modification of strategy (actually, just of tactics) implemented by the Obama administration, followed by an immediate proclamation of final status, when no consultations where EVER made to the objecting party. Finally, why should individuals lack the legal protection of free conscience given to Catholic institutions? These issues are too important to be ignored and Catholics cannot allowed to be Stupacked again.
This gets us nowhere!
But it will go on between friends of theh ierachy and friends of the laity I fear.
Whatever one's political stripe, surely all Christians of good will can agree on the importance of religious freedom (worship and exercise) and conscientious objection? I am just shocked that the editors of America would come down on the side of raw executive power (that's what this mandate is). There was some heartening news from the state of Washington a couple of days ago, where a judge has ruled that the state government cannot force pharmacists to dispense Plan B if they have a conscientious objection based on religious grounds. See link at http://www.CatholicLiberty.com .
It is sad that the editorial board of America is less protective of religious freedom than the US Courts. I hope that the judicial and legislative branches protect the nation from this raw imposition of executive power.St. Ignatius, pray for us.
This editorial is clearly on point.
In an election year the bishop's avoiding an honorable compromise can be interpreted as an unwarranted intrusion into partisan politics.