Conservative Catholics complain that too many liberal Catholics instinctively greet every statement from the Vatican with suspicion, skepticism, or derision. It’s a fair point. The motives and judgment of those who appear unthinkingly hostile to all hierarchical authority should be questioned. Patient attention to the legitimate concerns of others and the presumption of goodwill on the part of those we disagree with are essential virtues.
Unfortunately, patience and the presumption of goodwill were not much in evidence in the response of the U.S. bishops and many conservative Catholics to President Barack Obama’s compromise on the question of mandated contraceptive coverage for employees of religious-affiliated institutions. Even before all the details of the president’s proposal were known, the bishops rejected it and then upped the ante by insisting that the only possible solution was to repeal the mandate altogether. In other words, the bishops are now demanding that no employer be required to offer free contraception coverage to its employees. To justify their response, they offered only the most tendentious reading of the possible flaws in Obama’s proposal. Now the USCCB is threatening a concerted political and public-relations campaign—during an election year—that casts the president as a determined enemy of religious freedom.
What is going on here? Is the question of contraception coverage—something most American Catholics already have, and which the bishops have said almost nothing about before now—really where the hierarchy wants to issue a non-negotiable edict? Why were they not this vocal in their opposition to the Bush administration’s use of torture? Has the USCCB thought through how these demands are likely to undermine the church’s much more important effort to change hearts and minds about abortion? Or how they will further divide Catholics?
Advertisement
The Catholic community was largely united in its rejection of Obama’s initial failure to exempt religious-affiliated institutions from the contraception mandate (see “An Illiberal Mandate” and "Bad Decision"). Many of the Catholic leaders who led that protest, such as Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, and the presidents of various Catholic colleges and universities, are guardedly optimistic about the new mandate. Ideally, the administration would have simply broadened the original religious exemption. Nevertheless, the new plan, which requires insurance companies, rather than Catholic institutions, to cover the cost of contraceptives, is a welcome development. The details of how this will work are not entirely clear. One particular difficulty has to do with Catholic institutions that self-fund their health plans. Administration officials have expressed confidence that some workaround will be found that will prevent these institutions from directly paying for contraception coverage. This is a complicated legal and administrative matter, and a degree of caution, even skepticism, is warranted. What is not warranted is the USCCB’s demand that the contraceptive mandate be done away with entirely. This is a novel interpretation of the First Amendment, and one that will almost certainly be rejected by the courts. It is also a political gift to abortion-rights groups, who will use it to make the case that the church’s opposition to abortion is motivated by a larger disregard for the health of women. Republicans have already seized on the controversy, hoping to use it as a wedge issue in the presidential race. None of these developments will be good for the church or the nation.
The fact that many Catholic institutions already comply with state laws requiring contraception coverage makes the USCCB’s extreme demands all the more curious. For Catholic institutions to participate in insurance plans where individuals may decide to use contraception is at most remote cooperation with what the church considers evil. It is implausible for the bishops to insist that the revised mandate compels them to cooperate directly in a sinful activity when even the original mandate did nothing of the kind.
So, why are the bishops reacting in this way? Are all the bishops comfortable with the USCCB’s rhetoric? Will any bishop publicly express reservations or skepticism about this strategy? Are the bishops not worried that this initiative will be seen as transparently partisan by much of the public?
In their 2010 book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert Putnam and David Campbell showed what the likely consequences of this fight will be. By the 1990s, after decades of the culture wars waged by Protestant and Catholic groups, many younger people came to think of “religion” as politically divisive and overly judgmental, especially on questions of sexual morality. As a result, the number of Americans who have abandoned institutional religion has risen dramatically. One-third of adult Catholics have already left the church. Isn’t that sobering fact more deserving of a national campaign than this self-defeating battle over contraception coverage?
For more coverage of this issue at dotCommonweal, click here.
In a couple of weeks, this furor will be politely ignored. It only invites horrific comments from either side. Somone should remember that 28 states already have this requirement. A challenge in California was overruled by a vote of 6-1 by its supreme court. If the church wishes, it certainly could identify the permitted contraceptives that are considered abortifacents.
Here in MA, the Cardinal and board of directors sold the Caritas Health System to a private company, Steward, which kept the Catholic names and now covers contraceptives for its employees. If contraception is such a big deal, why didn't he make not covering it a condition of the sale? In addition, employers (including Catholic institutions and CHURCHES) match their employees' 1.45% Medicare tax. Medicare covers contraception for the eligible disabled who wish to use it. Why no brouhaha about that?
I believe the Bishops' response is indicative of a primitive survival mechanism being triggered when there is a perceived threat to one's life or in this case one's integrity. In this case the challenge to the integrity of their position was on public display as opposed when it was not so apparent before the federal mandate. When I look at the poverty, violence and human suffering all around us and observe the Bishops' response to these real threats to others' health and lives, it is apparent to me where their priorities lie. This seems to me to be about an unconscious desire to appear to have significance in taking a public stand against "evil" since it has been so publicly displayed that they have been secretive and passive in their response to the real evil against children in the faith. Is it an unconscious desperate response to their personal shame in their failure to protect the innocent children under their care?
The difference about the controversy today is that the federal government is now mandating the coverage in all health insurance programs, even those offered by religious institutions that object on moral grounds to some of the mandates, in what seems to be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Tragically for many women around the world, contraception is up to the woman - as is protecting herself from a host of diseases. An institution such as the Roman Catholic Church, with its historic antagonism toward lay people in general and women in particular (except as a secondary labor supply), cannot be expected to suddenly understand issues of global impact when the issue revolves around the W word. The good news is that Catholics do not vote as a bloc and do not understand church authority as a bloc. American Catholics understand the authority of God and the requirements for a sound, personal conscience. The US bishops had an opportunity to guide in this instance and chose grandstanding and hysteria instead - they simply cannot be rational (or even informed) about women-centered concerns. No wonder Catholics are leaving the Church in droves even in the midst of a "Catholics Come Home" initiative. Catholics ARE home - in their faith, in their decision-making and in their appreciation of global realities.
The amount of misinformation and disinformation in this editorial is beyond belief. Where to start?
First of all, Commonweal seems intent on pitching the administration's bullet points by continuing to speak of the HHS mandate as being about contraception and contraception alone, refusing to mention the sterilization and abortion angles in the mandate. Also, why is there no discussion from Commonweal on the question of whether the government ought to be mandating that private companies provide products to customers for free, and by presidential fiat?
The bishops did not rush to judgment. They first said that the "compromise" was a step in the right direction, though they were left out of the loop in discussions on the compromise. After taking a closer look, however, they and many others realized that the compromise on the HHS mandate was nothing more than a "shell game" or "cheap accounting trick" as some have called it. How long should it take to see the obvious? How long did it take for Sr. Carol Keehan and E. J. Dionne to give their blessing to this compromise? To describe Sr. Keehan's response to the compromise as "guardedly optimistic" is laughable! She declared the controversy solved, giving her nihil obstat to Obama's compromise almost before Obama's mic had been turned off from the press conference announcing it. Also, the bishops did not "up the ante," as you claim. They had been opposed to the mandate from the beginning. It is the mandate itself, that trespasses on the liberties of Americans, not simply the inadequate exemption to it, which Obama did not change at all.
Do many Catholic institutions already comply with state laws requiring contraception coverage? Yes, but many do so under duress, having fought the provision and lost in the courts. Others continue to fight the laws. You make it sound as if all of these Catholic institutions have no problem with these laws.
You forget that it was the Obama adminstration that chose this fight. Should Catholics win this fight, no woman is going to be denied the contraception coverage she already has. Since the mandate is not yet in force, defeating the mandate before it is will not change the current situation at all. Contraceptive will still be widely and easily accessible.
While your last paragraph describing the results of the culture war is not entirely created from whole cloth, certainly it takes no reminders from me that the situation for those religious communities that are quick to compromise their doctrines is abysmal, especially when compared to those religious communities that hold strong to their doctrines in the face of cultural or civil pressure to change. In any case, recommending that the bishops make decisions on whether or not to bend to the demands of a government that would impress itself on faith and morals because of a numbers game is a sure way to reduce the Church to a play thing of politicians.
Indeed "patience and the presumption of goodwill were not much in evidence in the response of the U.S. bishops and many conservative Catholics to President Barack Obama's" so-called compromise on the question of mandated contraceptive coverage. This is a situation that was so blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-First Amendment as to require immediate objection! Of course the bishops "upped the ante." Why wouldn't they? Mr. Obama is not stupid - he knows he's attacking our church, and he doesn't care. This mandate has Kathleen Sebelius' anti-Catholic stance written all over it! We should be patient? Presume goodwill?
"Why were they not this vocal in ttheir opposition to the Bush administration's use of torture?" Don't the editors read newspapers? Pope John Paul II, himself, sent his emisary to Washington to object to the planned invasion of Iraq. The Vatican often and loudly objects to torture of any kind in any circumstances!
"Administration officials have expressed confidence that some workaround will be found that will prevent these institutions from DIRECTLY paying for contraception coverage!!! Catholics rightly refuse to pay for such coverage directly or indirectly! It's not a "complicated legal and administrative matter." It's a matter of faith; it's a matter of morality; it's a matter of it being none of the the governments business whether Americans do or do not use artificial contraceptives and certainly not the responsibility of citizens to pay for them! This is not a "novel interpretation of the First Amendment! "Why are the bishops reacting in this way??" Because that's what Jesus did! That's what John the Baptist did! John didn't mind making Herod's wife uncomfortable. Jesus didn't pamper false neaders. Neither will the Catholic bishops.
Right about now I'm regretting that I paid more than one cent for a subscription to Commonweal. It's doubtful I'll renew.
The First Amendment has seemed a veritable plaything for the bishops to finesse as they choose. No apparent degree of remoteness is evidently enough to satisfy their avoidance of material cooperation, even if the details are beyond any reasonable interpretation. Unending comments on recent threads do indeed cite numbing intricacies that glaze the mind.
I am most familiar with the bishops' shameless claims that no one can interfere with their right to assign priests, even though child protection statutes are neutral laws of general applicability. No, bishops claim the right in effect to be as negligent as they want in assigning predators, even if it criminally endangers children. Thank God more courts are no longer buying their distortions.
Bishops can have their self-aggrandizing maneuvers to reassert an absolute authority that all must bow before to inane lengths --- just because --- but it won't work anymore.
The bishops are reacting the way Jesus did? He got angry twice. At the barren fig tree and at the money changers in the temple. In reading the Bible, you have to work very hard to avoid "the love of money is the root of all evil." And the Holy Father has amplified and updated this message by coming out clearly and strongly against our greed-is-good culture. The bishops seem to be disregarding not only the Biblical message but also what their spiritual leader has written and spoken. As I mentioned above, they are siding more and more with the greed-is-good party.
----------------
Wayne Sheridan SUBSCRIBER
02/17/2012 - 2:29pm
The difference about the controversy today is that the federal government is now mandating the coverage in all health insurance programs, even those offered by religious institutions that object on moral grounds to some of the mandates, in what seems to be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
----------------
This seems to stem from the decision of a panel or group created by the ACA to, effectively, ration health care - to push some treatments and suppress others, in the service of controlling government expenditures. This mandating of contraception, therefore, will be followed by other similar mandates. Any non-governmental organization's concerns about morality will be - as they have been here - disregarded.
A problem with appealing to Constitutional protection in this, I think, is that the Constitution establishes only general principles. Courts must be depended on for understanding of Constitutional language in conflict with the understanding of the other two branches. Even if a court today may be sympathetic to a non-governmental appeal, it likely will not be in the future. Judges, like most other people, absorb the philosophical understanding of the societies in which they live. In the absence of a constitutional protection for non-governmental organizations that take an active part in society (as opposed to organizations whose members are content to keep their beliefs strictly in their hearts), the government will have its way, forbidding actions it sees as contrary to the common good.