The bishops and the contraception battle
In a piece at Religion News Service today, I explore the internal challenges the American bishops face in their fight with the Obama administration over the HHS contraception mandate. Looking beyond the USCCB news releases, there are a number of difficulties the hierarchy must address in order to prevail — including figuring out what exactly they want, how to achieve that goal, and getting the bishops on the same page in order to get there. The bishops are often looked at as a single — and single-minded — organism with a unified focus and approach, and that’s not often the case, and not always a bad thing. But it can be a handicap in political struggles that require fast response times and a clear message.
You can read, and critique, my take here.
One development I did not include was the possibility, raised by Robert Bowen in this Washington Examiner piece, that the Catholic bishops could be losing their Republican allies as well:
Despite vowing to continue the fight, Senators Blunt and Rubio have changed their mind and are not going to bring the issue up in the Senate again this year.
Meanwhile back in the Tea Plantation, Speaker Boehner is now evasive about if and when the House will vote on its version of the anti-contraception coverage bill. No vote is scheduled, and the issue has been removed from the front page of the Speaker’s website where it had prominence for a couple weeks.
So, when times were good, Republicans had the Catholic Bishops’ back. When the times got tough, it seems they are about to cut and run. With friends like that, the Bishops don’t need enemies.
That would be a huge handicap, if true, and more fallout from Rush et al.
Everything seen through the prism of politics. All politics all the time.
David, I liked your article. Well-written and interesting as is all your stuff.
However: as a confirmed Catholic (a strong and perfect Christian and a soldier of Jesus Christ), isn’t it your duty to tell the whole truth, even if that means burning your sources? You can’t serve God and Mammon. Shouldn’t you NAME the bishops, and let the chips fall where they may?
Name the “derisive” bishops and the “hard-liner” who is not quite hard enough to allow his name to be mentioned. The sheep have a right to know which of their shepherd are chickens.
bender ‘Everything seen through the prism of politics’ you must see BC as moral theology, and you are thowing the ‘religious liberty’ issue under the bus? please give us your ‘intrinsic evil’ take on the pill.
Bender – It is true that folks who think “all politics all the time” are bores and tedious, but they think that way because they apparently, honestly believe politics is the solution.
It depends on whether you put faith in Man or in God.
Thanks for this. I was struck by the closing:
“‘In his struggles with the Obama administration, Dolan isn’t looking for a war, but he is looking for a win,’ Catholic columnist Michael Sean Winters wrote in The Daily Beast.
A victory may be hard to come by, however, and the bishops may not have the firepower for a war.”
One basic rule of organizing is to avoid issues that divide one’s base. If Cardinal Dolan and the USCCB had accepted President Obama’s compromise (or something like it), then they would have a badly needed “win”, and they would have a unified base behind them (at least for the moment).
Now, for all the reasons laid out in the article, it’s hard to see how the bishops can salvage a “win” from the current situation. (Particularly with “allies” like Mr. Limbaugh.)
Is Bender (putatively) apolitical?
Nice piece by david -but twould be interesting to be a fly on the wall when the 40 member administrative committee meets.
I think this is related to this blog stream: This morning’s print edition of the NY Times out here in CA had a full page open letter from the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” urging “liberal” and “nominal” Catholics to a “moment of truth.”
The banner across the top suggests “It’s Time to Consider Quitting the Catholic Church” and ends with the emphatic plea, “Please, Exit En Mass.” [only somewhat clever, really a bad pun]
I didn’t recognize any of the underwriters of the ad [except for a James Coors, a geneticist from Madison WI (I don't know if he is related to the beer moguls from CO)] but I presume the underwriters are FFRF members and supporters.
Whistling-past-the-graveyard thinking on the part of hierarchs and pew Catholics will not be able to resist these appeals to mostly younger Catholic women and men.
The open letter quotes that very radical intellectual of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine: “My own mind is my own church.”
It is very difficult to counter these kinds of entreaties with a population of young people who can read, and on whom Catholic families have spent fortunes educating in universities and colleges – the anti-intellectual attitudes of the hierarchs’ favorite presidential candidate and American Torquemada want-to-be, Rick Santorum, notwithstanding.
The evidence is all around us: An inexorable evolution toward a PEOPLES’ church is underway – and not just among young Catholics, but in the whole culture.
As the recent political kerfuffle over access to contraceptives and women’s health care demonstrated, the hierarchs are not up to this kind of pastoral challenge.
It’s up to us: LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!
Politics, Ken (12:23), is a power solution. It’s the way bullies interact. It gets so much attention here because people love to watch fights. It’s not a way to arrive at thoughtful, intelligent resolutions.
The biggest hurdle would be the “Falling Flat In The Pews”. Advocates/lobbyists need to either bring money or votes to capture legislators’ attention. I’m assuming votes are what bishops might bring: they need to convince politicians there will be a substantial net gain of votes for them. I agree with the article. Does anyone truly think it’s likely that our politicians would lose a significant number of votes they would otherwise have if they don’t support the bishops’ platform on contraception? Or, would anyone here who currently has no plans to vote for Obama, change their mind and vote for him if he adopts “the Taco Bell rule”?
“Taco Bell rule” is a terrible name, since those kind of places don’t even provide insurance for their non-corporate employees. Maybe we could put together a new Taco Bell rule: All Taco Bells must offer comprehensive coverage to all workers, and if they do that, they can be exempt from paying for contraceptives. I could get behind that.
JJ at 12:40: Saw the ad this morning. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is charging $40 for joining up. Don’t they realize that leaving the Catholic Church is free!
The First Amendment doesn’t do a lot for the majority. What it does when it works is to protect unpopular minorities. The Supreme Court decision that keeps coming up in this discussion, Employment Division vs. Smith, overturned an Oregon supreme court ruling that gave a Native American church the right to use peyote in its services. At the time the ACLU viewed it as a loss, and I remember thinking it a surprisingly bad decision.
Until I read the decision, and the dissenting opinion issued by Justices Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall, I thought the compromise arrangement was acceptable. I’ve always admired Thurgood Marshall, so I read the dissenting opinion carefully and found it convincing.
You can read it for yourself at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html
Blunt/Rubio and Boehner have announced a give up on BC stuff this year, because they see the House going Dem along with the WH. They just saw themselves losing the suburban women and young women vote big time. Will some bishops not care about losing Catholic women on a pseudo religious liberty argument? Will the Welcome Home campaign money fall flat?
Irene..Mandates????Taco Bell corp. wouldn’t provide medical coverage for counter people if Obama sent in the Seals with fixed bayonets..And the bishops have already lost the Taco Bell counter people. say hello to the Bridge to Nowhere
.
Politics at its best as art and science (often not observed these days) is a principal language in the public square and nowhere more than in DC. The bishops and non-politician supporters give no indication of knowing how to function effectively in such an environment, much less exemplify politics at its best on their side. They act as if their strengths are sermons to inert audiences, trickle-down infallibility, and proof by assertion, none of which help their cause.
Cdl. Dolan in Hicksville certainly alienated one male and female part of the base that he needs with his call for women who look good and speak well to replace pseudo-Irish bishops in the square. He dismissed pugnaciousness in commenting on Limbaugh and called last week for a “freedom of religion battle” with update on the “fight” on his blog He foretold in his 9/20/11 letter to Pres. Obama “a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions” if the Administration did not do as he wanted. http://usccb.org/news/2011/11-179.cfm
What is his political strategy to achieve whatever his goal imight be? Then, same question to the USCCB array. David Gibson’s 3/8 article at RNS and the Examiner article on Republicans’ fading interest imply the answer to date after weeks of aimless commotion.
Congressional hearings can matter inasmuch, if nothing else, they establish a record and the media watch. Therefore, they call for careful preparation of skilled witnesses. At one, in response to an obvious question, Bp. Lori distinguished interracial and same-sex marriages by declaring that they are different. He spent most of his recent key leadoff testimony to a largely Christian audience on a tale of mandatory pork and Jewish rules. Pres. Garvey, CUA was confronted by a public list of Catholic universities known to do what he had just testified that they wouldn’t. Basic training in prevailing in politics in the public square is needed if the USCCB is get anywhere past its present state.
Jack, politics at its best is community at its worst. If the bishops were good at it, they’d be bad bishops.
I have followed the contraception battle closely, and have read the articles by Mr. Gibson, as well as others. What has become increasingly clear is that this has more to do with partisan politics than it does with morality. The bishops have become a sub group of the republican party and as such their objective is to defeat President Obama. Feigning outrage at a “violation of religious liberty’ is a straw horse. Catholic affiliated institutions have been offering their employees insurance with a full array of reproductive services for years with little opposition. This is one of the reasons why the bishops have lost moral authority. I pay no more attention to what they have to say then I do to any other republican interest group.
The bishops would benefit from a thorough examination of institutional conscience.
Ann Y, that case (Employmen Division v. Smith) was decided in 1990. Subsequently, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restorartion Act (RFRA) which established a higher standard of scrutiny for actions by the federal government (but not the states). RFRA is the basis for the Becket Fund’s cases in the current contraception coverage issue.
As David Gibson said in his RNS article “the courts are a roll of the dice.” It’s interesting that Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Smith and quoted (approvingly) Justice Frankfurter as saying
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
and quoted (again approvingly) Reynolds v. United States as saying:
“Laws,” we said, “are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
and Gillette v United States (also approvingly) as
Our cases do not at their farthest reach support the proposition that a stance of conscientious opposition relieves an objector from any colliding duty fixed by a democratic government.
IN that same (Smith) case, Justice Scalia also gives the court’s view of what “the free exercise of religion” means:
The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Thus, the First Amendment obviously excludes all “governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.”. The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, punish the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false, impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status, or lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma.
But the “exercise of religion” often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation. It would be true, we think (though no case of ours has involved the point), that a state would be “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” if it sought to ban such acts or abstentions only when they are engaged in for religious reasons, or only because of the religious belief that they display. It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of “statues that are to be used for worship purposes,” or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.
Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as “abridging the freedom . . . of the press” of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.
To make taht easier to read, I have edited out all pof the citations of other cases. You can see those citations in the original text, here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html
Bender, Smith and Ken while political as anyone may own irrationality more than most here. When they differ from the bishops they may deserve a hearing.
I don’t think it is fair to demand David identify his sources. If he did we would not even have this valuable info.
Bender said: “Everything seen through the prism of politics. All politics all the time.”
Well, we ARE dealing with Catholic bishops, you know. How do you think they got to be where they are to begin with — being good pastoral, spiritual leaders?
Righty-o.
The pope made a political statement today about gay marriage:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=pope+benedict&oq=pope&aq=1&aqi=d1g9d1&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=3009l3782l0l9055l4l4l0l0l0l0l204l768l0.3.1l4l0
David Smith said: “Politics, Ken (12:23), is a power solution. It’s the way bullies interact.”
It comes with the ontological change, you know.
” The pope made a political statement today about gay marriage: ”
Snorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre.
You expected, maybe, a statement IN FAVOR of gay marriage? Now THAT would be news.
Thanks to John Hayes – excellent legal quotes and precedents. Makes one wonder if Bishops Lori or Dolan or even the USCCB legal team had read these legal cases prior to some of the over reach they are currently involved in.
What’s interesting to me is the end game. The bishops can’t roll up Notre Dame and give it to Ave Maria, even if they wanted to- it’s separately incorporated. Even Catholic Charities, my guess is separately incorporated. To the extent there are grants and charitable gifts, they are under a fiduciary obligation to use the money inaccordance with the purposes specified. They can spin them off– and say that they aren’t Catholic- but has that move hurt Catholic Healthcare West?
‘For the hierarchy, it’s been an invigorating change after years of playing defense during the clergy sexual abuse crisis.”
It has been clear for a long time that the bishop’s have been seeking an issue to distract from their own considerable deficiencies. Like people who think Latin will solve all the problems the bishops think their glory reigning like the Middle Ages is capturable. They are unwilling to deal with an age where few things can be hidden or veiled. Then again I did suspect that they were getting advice from the NYPD: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/nyregion/officer-sues-claiming-police-retaliation-for-truth-telling.html?ref=todayspaper
This isn’t about contraception, but the White House is coordinating non-profit groups to hold a prayer vigil and other activities in front of the Supreme Court during the three days this month when the arguments are made on the contitutionality of teh Health Care Act.
On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26….
At the White House meeting on Wednesday, a wide range of advocates representing consumers and people with diseases and disabilities — as well as doctors and nurses, labor unions and religious organizations — discussed plans to bolster the landmark law, which is being challenged by 26 states as unconstitutional.
Supporters of the law plan to hold events outside the court on each day of oral argument. The events include speeches by people with medical problems who have benefited or could benefit from the law. In addition, supporters will arrange for radio hosts to interview health care advocates at a “radio row,” at the United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill….
“The White House was very encouraging and supportive of our activities,” said Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, one of more than 60 organizations that sent representatives to the meeting.
Mr. Pollack said the theme of events at the Supreme Court would be, “Protect our health care, protect the law.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/us/politics/white-house-works-to-shape-debate-over-health-law.html?_r=2&ref=politics
Fr. Z is urging the USCCB to organize their own prayer vigils. I hope that we don’t see competing groups in front of the court.
In the fact of the Obama Administration obdurate will to force violations of conscience through their HHS mandate I call on the USCCB to organize prayer vigils for the awakening of the reason and conscience of the American people, and rousing of their awareness about the cliff to which we are being driven.
Once of these days we will see a shift from blatant Kulturkampf to Kirchenkampf, the battle of the American Patriotic Catholic Association under its leader against the Holy Catholic Church.
Parish priests: If you hear about some prayer rally organized by enemies of the Church and the 1st Amendment, please think about organizing your own “rally”, perhaps in the form of Exposition with a sermon and confessions.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/the-obama-administration-is-organizing-what/
News Alert – - This just in!!!
THOMAS JEFFERSON resolutely condemns the compromise.
Despite the many calls from the faint-hearted for compromise with domineering bureaucrats in the distant central government Jefferson remains firmly in opposition. He claims that the government’s pretended accomodation “only changes the form of oppression, without lightening its burden” and forcefully rejects the mandate (the mandate, that is, of The Lord North administration and good King George III in 1775).
Pauline Maier, in her account of the Declaration of Independence, American Scripture, provides the context. Under Lord North’s proposal in early 1775, she explains, “Parliament would desist from taxing any colony that granted sufficient, permanent funds for defense and the support of civil government. The colonists saw the proposal as an attempt to divide the colonies without conceding that Parliament had no right to tax Americans. Virginians refused to take the bait.”
Many in the colonies, perhaps most, argued for reconciliation, pleading for more time to allow the well-intentioned King George to devise a suitable compromise. But not the more clear-sighted Burgesses of Virginia. Jefferson began their response:
“Next to the possession of liberty, my Lord, we should consider such a reconcilliation as the greatest of all human blessings. With these dispositions we entered into the consideration of that Resolution; we examined it minutely; we viewed it in every point of light in which we were able to place it; and, with pain and disappointment, we must ultimately declare it only changes the form of oppression, without lightening its burden. We cannot, my Lord, close with the terms of that Resolution, for these reasons . . .”
Any resemblance to contemporary disputes is purely coincidental. As we all know, Jefferson chose confrontation, not cooperation. He rejected the wise counsel of the most astute politicians in the colonies. If it were not for his hotheadedness, or was it clearheadedness, we would yet enjoy the benevolent oversight of the glorious British Empire. Oddly enough, he thought important principles were involved.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=755&chapter=86039&layout=html&Itemid=27
Has Jon Stewart been alerted to the battle of the prayer vigils?
Fr. Z – if your quotes are real:
his first sentence is inaccurate – the accomodation does not force any violation of conscience unless you equate hospitals, social agencies (that don’t already comply with this mandate) as if they are “persons with consciences”
the cliff to which we are being driven – more of the fundamentalist extremism masquerading as catholicism (always amuses me that one person’s belief that the HHS accomodation is a slippery slope but the reverse is never a “potential” slippery slope)
enemies of the church & First Amendment – yes, just what we need is more Father Coghlins in the world. Reasoned debate, negotiation, and persuasion never entered the Fr. Z blogsite as he misrepresents both the tradition of the church and the US in terms of what the First Amendment means or what the church itself has said about the proper sphere for government decision concerning the common good. Yes, make sure there are prayer vigils with both Exposition and confession.
Fr. Z – best described by John Allen today: “Evangelical Catholicism, meaning a powerful thrust to recover an unapologetic and uncompromising form of Catholic identity, rooted in traditional markers of Catholic thought, speech and practice. The effort to foster a “thick” Catholic identity is the clear idée fixe of the church’s leadership class today”
Or to repeat something on the other posts by Fr. K quoting Richard Hofstadter “….there is a style of mind that is far from new, and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style, simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.”
Patrick Molloy. Talk about mixing apples and oranges.
David G, nice article.
Re: the Washington Examiner piece: I think it illustrates the split within the GOP. Republican elected officials are understandably reluctant to embrace an unpopular cause in an election year, but in this they are out of step with their base. Santorum’s rise and Romney’s difficulties in sealing the nomination track with this issue. With the exception of Florida, Romney has yet to win a Southern or Bible Belt state. Pretty clearly, this issue has helped Santorum with Evangelicals, who just may be his base now.
Jack Barry, ths may be a job for Stephen Colbert
John H. — I was thinking non-partisan. Not much room for ecumenism here. As one recent witness before the House Judiciary Committee pointed out, there are “absurd and surreal consequences” of the mandate and the “accommodation”.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200821.htm
Gerelyn,
There was also an article on the Vatican website about a speech the Vatican representative made at the United Nations objecting to a Human Rights Commission proposal that states should “ensure that unmarried same-sex couples are treated in the same way and entitled to the same benefits as unmarried opposite–sex couples.”
Despite the fact that the proposal deals only with unmarried couples, the Vatican observer saw it as a threat to traditional marriage.
. In paragraph #68 of her Report, the High Commissioner rightly asserts that “the Human Rights Committee has held that States are not required, under international law, to allow same-sex couples to marry.” She immediately proposes, however, that States have an obligation to “ensure that unmarried same-sex couples are treated in the same way and entitled to the same benefits as unmarried opposite–sex couples.” In this regard, the Holy See expresses grave concern that, under the guise of “protecting” people from discrimination and violence on the basis of perceived sexual differences, this Council may be running the risk of demeaning the sacred and time-honoured legal institution of marriage between man and woman…[continues at length]
http://www.news.va/en/news/holy-see-addresses-un-human-rights-council-on-gend
I think it’s a kind of automatic reaction to any proposal related to couples.
Thanks for this article. I just wish it could have gone even deeper into what’s happening with the bishops. Maybe next time, after the USCCB meets? There’s something wrong here. The bishops haven’t always been this extreme, much less hostile toward the government. Do they honestly believe Obama’s the Enemy simply because he thinks like a mainline Protestant instead of an Evangelical? Have they got so used to Evangelicals agreeing with them on abortion (and even some on contraception) — not to mention Presidents of the US who are Evangelicals agreeing with them on abortion and stem cell research — that anything less, anything that merely represents how the majority of Americans think about such things, is perceived as a betrayal?
It’s been disturbing to watch how the subject of the bishops’ complaints against Obama have shifted, and sometimes turned on a dime. It makes you wonder if what they really want isn’t simply to oppose the President for the sake of opposing him. As you say, initially they were arguing for a broader exemption for religious organizations. But almost the minute that was granted, they began demanding the government abandon the mandate entirely…and, as if it would matter in that case, simultaneously complaining that the compromise amounted to nothing more than “an accounting gimmick.” So which is it? Do they want a better exemption for religious organizations, or is compromise impossible because there should be no mandate at all?
John Hayes, thanks for the good intervention and the very pertinent legal references.
Grant, might Commonweal do an article or the blog do a thread exploring the implications of the material John Hayes references? It really deserves wider distribution.
Cathy, You are right about keeping an eye on the end game. It is amazing that the Bishops don’t appear to see where their game plan must take them. I saw a Press Conference on Cable with the Bishops’ lawyer and an array of lawyers from the Becket Fund. Anyone know who these people are, and the kind of advice they might be giving? The whole meeeting had an EWTN aura to it.
I greatly appreciate this YouTube defense of the true Faith and religious liberty against the HHS abortifacient-contraceptive mandate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvoBPVsjdog&feature=share
A relatively minor caveat: Gloria Purvis, the speaker–who clearly understands that to be a Catholic is to know that Christ speaks to us through the Magisterium (CCC 87)–meant to say (at 4:15) that Christ is a divine person with a human nature (not a human person). I’d love to see Ms. Purvis interviewed by Rachel Maddow.
Note to David Gibson: I’m the guy who took the liberty of referring you after your February 28 talk at Fordham to Pacem in terris (sections 157-160). I was grateful for your passing reference to the possibility of a U.S. Catholic political party. Despite our disagreements, please be assured that your work as a journalist is in my prayers.
Here’s a bit from Justice Blackmun’s dissent in Employment Division vs. Smith, edited a bit to follow John Hayes’s example. In that case, it was the three liberal justices who dissented.
“This Court over the years painstakingly has developed a consistent and exacting standard to test the constitutionality of a state statute that burdens the free exercise of religion. Such a statute may stand only if the law in general, and the State’s refusal to allow a religious exemption in particular, are justified by a compelling interest that cannot be served by less restrictive means.
Until today, I thought this was a settled and inviolate principle of this Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. The majority, however, perfunctorily dismisses it as a “constitutional anomaly.” … As carefully detailed in Justice O’CONNOR’s concurring opinion, ante, the majority is able to arrive at this view only by mischaracterizing this Court’s precedents. ”
“In short, it effectuates a wholesale overturning of settled law concerning the Religion Clauses of our Constitution. ”
“This distorted view of our precedents leads the majority to conclude that strict scrutiny of a state law burdening the free exercise of religion is a “luxury” that a well-ordered society cannot afford, and that the repression of minority religions is an ‘unavoidable consequence of democratic government.’ I do not believe the Founders thought their dearly bought freedom from religious persecution a ‘luxury,’ but an essential element of liberty — and they could not have thought religious intolerance ‘unavoidable,’ for they drafted the Religion Clauses precisely in order to avoid that intolerance.”
For myself, I still hope that a compromise acceptable to the USCCB can be found, and that we can move on to working on providing health care to people who now have no insurance at all.
Thanks, John. (How sick the obsession is.)
Ann Y, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act put things back to the standard that Justice Blackmun described in his dissent (strict scrutiny). However, it applies only to actions by the federal government, not the states.
The peyote case was by that time moot, since the Oregon legislature in 1991 passed a law allowing the sacramental use of peyote.
One thing that is interesting is how far the political ground has shifted rightward in the last twenty years. The Supreme Court is much more conservative than it was in 1990, but I think all its members belong to one religious minority or another. We’ll see what happens.
Beverley B. –
Perceptive comments. You say,
“initially they were arguing for a broader exemption for religious organizations. But almost the minute that was granted, they began demanding the government abandon the mandate entirely…and, as if it would matter in that case, simultaneously complaining that the compromise amounted to nothing more than “an accounting gimmick.” So which is it? Do they want a better exemption for religious organizations, or is compromise impossible because there should be no mandate at all?”
My question is: did they start with these steps pre-planned? That doesn’t seem likely because C. Dolan seemed genuinely surprised at the first mandate. So, then came the anger, or fury is more like it. But why this apparently unplanned sequence of nasty criticisms and insults? What’s the psychology propelling all this noisy floundering? They’ve lost their cool. Not like them.
While waiting for any Supreme Court decision, everyone should recall that this is the SC that gave us the Citizens United which dumped a load of excrement on the GOP primary and is loading up the bag again for the general election. I say bring on another BP oil spill ..at least it evaporates and the smell is nicer than Citizens United. .
Ann wrote: “I still hope that a compromise acceptable to the USCCB can be found, and that we can move on to working on providing health care to people who now have no insurance at all.”
Clearly, Republicans want to stop that from happening at all costs, certainly as it involves advancing the Affordable Care Act.
Sometimes I fear that may be what’s driving the bishops as well. Sure, historically, they’ve always supported universal health care, but they almost killed the Affordable Care Act with the same sort of circular (or circuitous) reasoning they’ve used to kill the mandate compromise…and with the same hostility toward the President thrown in.
Interesting Letter tp the Ediror in the Santa Fe New Mexican today. The writer, who identifies himself with the Santa Fe Right To Life Committee, warns that if you want to work for a Catholic institution, don’t expect contraceptive coverage.
In 2-1 Democratic, liberal and usually ecumenocal Santa Fe, it will be interesting to see how that message is recived.
I also dee George Weigel, distiguished fellow of the right, sounding off again on this ands “failed’ liberal catholocism.
The division goes on. And on. And on.
It makes me think of Tom Beaudoin’s new thread at america on FRF and asking how is this possible today and why is”deconversion” happening.
He begs posters not to vilify the ad but to look at the phenomenon of how this could even occur.
Of course the usual suspects vilify.
The division goes on and on.
IMO the Church continues to diminish even if many hang on to Eucharist and community, bu tless and less of what the smaller purer says we must assent to.
Ann Y –
Thanks for the defense of the First Amendment. Not too many here seem to think it’s all that important.
50% of workers kick in on the employer health care now. If an Obama further accommodation got the HHS to have a $3 BC co-pay for the remaining 50% of workers, USCCB would stagger off stage with their religious liberty flag held at a steep droop.
Ann Y, in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that, because the RFRA had been enacted by Congress in the meantime, the federal Government could not prevent a religious group from importing and using a hallucinogenic drug in its communion service – because he government had not demonstrated that doing that furthered “a compelling government interest”
Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) in response to Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, where, in upholding a generally applicable law that burdened the sacramental use of peyote, this Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not require judges to engage in a case-by-case assessment of the religious burdens imposed by facially constitutional laws, id., at 883–890. Among other things, RFRA prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” 42 U.S.C. §2000bb–1(a), except when the Government can “demonstrat[e] that application of the burden to the person (1) [furthers] a compelling government interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest,” §2000bb–1(b).
Members of respondent church (UDV) receive communion by drinking hoasca, a tea brewed from plants unique to the Amazon Rainforest that contains DMT, a hallucinogen regulated under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, see 21 U. S. C. §812(c), Schedule I(c). After U. S. Customs inspectors seized a hoasca shipment to the American UDV and threatened prosecution, the UDV filed this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that applying the Controlled Substances Act to the UDV’s sacramental hoasca use violates RFRA. At a hearing on the UDV’s preliminary injunction motion, the Government conceded that the challenged application would substantially burden a sincere exercise of religion, but argued that this burden did not violate RFRA because applying the Controlled Substances Act was the least restrictive means of advancing three compelling governmental interests: protecting UDV members’ health and safety, preventing the diversion of hoasca from the church to recreational users, and complying with the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The District Court granted relief, concluding that, because the parties’ evidence on health risks and diversion was equally balanced, the Government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest justifying the substantial burden on the UDV. The court also held that the 1971 Convention does not apply to hoasca. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The courts below did not err in determining that the Government failed to demonstrate, at the preliminary injunction stage, a compelling interest in barring the UDV’s sacramental use of hoasca.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
The RFRA applies only to actions by the federal government, so individual states can still ban the use of peoyte and other drugs as Oregon did at the time of the Smith case.
” The Supreme Court is much more conservative than it was in 1990, but I think all its members belong to one religious minority or another. We’ll see what happens. ”
But at least 5 of them have one one religious strain in common: neopuritanism.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. H. L. Mencken
Another view on the situation by James Capretta.
As articulated by the administration, the government would force insurers to cover the products and services that the employer objects to even though the insurance contract between the insurer and the employer excludes these products and services. Thus, from the perspective of the employer, if it chooses to offer health insurance to its workers, it will know in advance that the coverage will, by definition (because of the government’s rules), be coverage that pays for the problematic products and services. Creating this artificial movement of the regulatory obligation from the employer to the insurer does not change this fundamental reality. And so this supposed accommodation really achieves nothing.
It has also been suggested by proponents of the accommodation that the cost of providing the mandated coverage could somehow come out of the insurance company’s resources and not from employer premiums. But that’s not true either. Under the supposed accommodation, when an insurer is selling a policy to an employer who objects to these products and services, the insurer will know in advance that the government will nonetheless require it to pay for these products and services when the enrollees get them from doctors and pharmacies. Consequently, the premium charged by the insurer to the employer will necessarily reflect the full cost of what the insurer is expecting in terms of benefit claims, including the explicitly covered items in the contract with the employer as well as the products and services the insurer must cover to comply with government regulations.
Finally, though the health-care law delegates great authority to the president, it doesn’t give him the authority to force privately owned insurance companies to pay for products and services that aren’t covered in the contracts that the insurers have with employers. So, even if this accommodation were worth something, which it isn’t, it almost certainly won’t work in practice because it has no basis in law.
You can read the whole article here
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292930/accommodation-isn-t-james-c-capretta
I think the wrong argument has been made. Instead of the bishops arguing that individual employers should be allowed to pick and choose what coverage meets their own moral test, they should instead be arguing that contraception should not be a required coverage at all for qualifying insurance plans under AHCA. The former argument leads to all kinds of potential unintended consequences. For example, a follower of Rev. Maltus might believe that unchecked populations growth is immoral, and therefore only a maximum of two dependents should be covered by insurance, and only two maternities. Rather, there can be rational debate about what is in and what is not in the basic coverage package. But this is not the argument the Bishops want to have, not because their moral position is weakened, in fact it is strengthened, but because their political argument would fall flat.
One development I did not include was the possibility, raised by Robert Bowen in this Washington Examiner piece, that the Catholic bishops could be losing their Republican allies as well:
The Sunday New York Times says that the Obama campaign will launch a major campaign for women’s votes next week, building on the Republican-identified opposition to the free contracepion requirement, Rush Limbaudgh’s statements about Sandra Fluke, and Rick Santorum’s statements about contraception and sexuality.
The Republican party will hav to decide how strongly it wants to be identified with the anti-contraception position.
Through the month, ending with what the campaign’s headquarters has designated a “Women’s Week of Action,” campaign field offices will organize phone banks, campus activities, house parties and media events featuring local residents helped by the law, officials say.
The campaign is trying to use the political climate to regain the traditional Democratic advantage among women, even as moderate Republican and independent women voice disenchantment with the Republican focus on social issues.
Women were 53 percent of the national vote in 2008, and given Mr. Obama’s and his party’s continuing weakness among white men, they are crucial to his re-election. Though Mr. Obama won 56 percent of their votes four years ago, women narrowly went for Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections that cost Democrats control of the House.
The campaign’s effort to rally women around the health care law had been long planned, to coincide with the second anniversary of Mr. Obama signing it on March 23, campaign officials said. But the effort has gained intensity, they added, because of recent controversies over contraception, abortion and education in Washington and in state capitals that have energized people in the campaign’s far-flung field offices who are essential to putting any national strategy into action.
“The whole [Republican] party’s image has taken a beating,” said John Feehery, a public affairs consultant in Washington and a senior aide to Congressional Republican leaders through the 1990s. Mr. Feehery called a recent essay on his Web site that offered advice to other Republicans, “Listen to Your Wife….”
.
Both parties date the current focus on reproductive issues to flaps in January over a decision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure cancer foundation, subsequently reversed, to stop contributing to Planned Parenthood, and a mandate from the Obama administration that employers, including religious-affiliated hospitals, colleges and other institutions, cover contraception in employees’ insurance policies.
Then came controversies over Rush Limbaugh’s slurs against a female advocate of the contraception policy; actions in Texas, Virginia and other state legislatures against abortion and Planned Parenthood; and statements of Republican presidential candidates seeking the votes of social conservatives, especially Rick Santorum’s remarks against contraception and prenatal testing.
Mr. Obama has had his own political balancing act over the issues. Women’s groups had opposed any exemption from the requirement under the health care law that insurance policies cover birth control, but Mr. Obama from the start exempted churches and other houses of worship. He did, however, require schools, hospitals and other organizations affiliated with religious groups to cover contraception. When that ignited a furor, Mr. Obama quickly modified it in a compromise with supportive Catholic groups.
Now nonpartisan polls suggest that Republicans are the ones who have been hurt as they have kept the issue alive.
A New York Times/CBS News poll in mid-February showed that women, who in a January poll had disapproved of Mr. Obama’s job performance by 48 percent to 46 percent, now approved of him by 53 percent to 38 percent (men disapproved by 49 percent to 45 percent, about the same as the previous month).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/obama-campaign-plans-big-effort-to-court-women.html
That is not he complete text of the NYTimes article. For the full article see the link above.
E. J. Dionne on he bishops’ meeting this week:
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops will make an important decision this week: Do they want to defend the church’s legitimate interest in religious autonomy, or do they want to wage an election-year war against President Obama?
And do the most conservative bishops want to junk the Roman Catholic Church as we have known it, with its deep commitment to both life and social justice, and turn it into the Tea Party at prayer?
These are the issues confronting the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ administrative committee when it begins a two-day meeting on Tuesday. The bishops should ponder how they transformed a moment of exceptional Catholic unity into an occasion for recrimination and anger.
Read the rest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-end-of-the-catholic-church-as-we-know-it/2012/03/09/gIQAB1jx5R_story.html
Thanks for referncing E.J.
The past two weeks have seen lettters from our bishop and then cardinal Dolan distributed at Mass.
With a word from the pastor about”defending our faith.”
Sounds like E.J. is “clubbing” our hierachy and IMO rightfully.
We seem very good at driving people awy with our single minded how right we are rhetoric.We seem to equate “truth” with defensive apologetics.
The bishops should ponder how they transformed a moment of exceptional Catholic unity into an occasion for recrimination and anger.
——-
How many women were in the “moment”, E. J.?
The misuse of John Courtney Murray
Murray was a firm believer in the natural law as the exercise of human intelligence comprehending the intelligible reality that surrounds us. What gave him concerns two generations ago was the rise of “the voluntarist idea of law as will” that could push aside the objective reason of human intelligence comprehending intelligible reality. He foresaw the day when the “noble many-storeyed mansion of democracy” would be dismantled and “levelled to the dimension of a flat majoritarianism, which is no mansion but a barn, perhaps even a tool shed in which the weapons of tyranny may be forged.”
I submit that Murray saw what was beginning to happen to the enterprise of the authentic American consensus and the vital role that religious freedom has to exercise within the forming of this consensus. He issued his warning founded on the inextricable nexus between the moral outlook and the laws that must be made by a society that calls itself democratic. Democracy for him would fail when the moral perspective was forced to embrace the morally problematic in the formation of laws and public policy. This is why the Catholic bishops today are exercising their teaching authority to remind all people of good will about the non-derogable nature of religious freedom. The debate about religious freedom today does not entail the imposition of Catholic moral teachings on the rest of society; rather, it involves the imposition of immoral and amoral views on all, even those who are protected by the right of religious freedom, a right that preceded the state which is now being manipulated to impose views antithetical to religious liberty.
In regards to the future of the American consensus, Murray stated, “it would be for others, not Catholics, to ask themselves whether they still shared the consensus which first fashioned the American people into a body politic and determined the structures of its fundamental law.” I think Murray would be of the view that the U.S. bishops are taking a course that is consistent with his notion of religious freedom.
The full article is here
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/
Regarding the latest shucking and jiving of the bishops as questioned by EJ Dionne:
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
According to E.J. Dionne: “The bishops should ponder how they transformed a moment of exceptional Catholic unity into an occasion for recrimination and anger.”
I’m with Gerelyn, when she asked: How many women were in the “moment”, E. J.?
The “exceptional Catholic unity” displayed by institutions and journals of opinion on the left and right have left this married Catholic woman greatly disturbed and saddened. I’m told this controversy is about religious freedom and not contraception. If the Church sought to use religious freedom to support a racist practice, we would certainly question the practice itself. I submit that the Church’s teaching on contraception has done great harm to married women in particular and must be re-examined. I find the silence oppressive.
“The bishops should ponder how they transformed a moment of exceptional Catholic unity into an occasion for recrimination and anger.”
Dionne misses the mark here. Whoever transformed the moment, it wasn’t the bishops. It may have been the President, or Republicans, or Rush Limbaugh, but it wasn’t the bishops. The contours of the narrative may have slipped away from the bishops for reasons beyond their control. But the “stumbling, bumbling bishops” story line doesn’t ring true in this case.
This was not one of Dionne’s better efforts. Michael Sean Winters is considerably more astute. http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/usccb-admin-cmte-meeting
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/feb/15/contraception-con-men/
Garry Wills on the pusillanimous Catholics who RUSHed to the barricades.
Thanks, Gerelyn, for the breath of fresh air from Garry Wills!
The Church is spending millions of dollars on communicating and defending its moral beliefs, that they should not be forced to cover a contraceptive healthcare benefit that they believe to be immoral. Yet, they don’t spend one penny of time to remedy the “silent pulpit” in reminding Catholics that unless they confession contraception as a sin, and receive absolution, recieving the Eucharist is a sacrilege. Check out the USCCB’s instructions on reception of the Eucharist. Frankly, who amoung us would claim that the church’s theological and pastoral teachings and actions on contraception are not contradictory?
If the Church’s behavior in this case is justified because contraception is an issue of the individual’s informed conscience (they will never admit to this), then every individual has that right and can exercise it. The issue of the Obama mandate is a complex one of public policy, religious freedom, conscience and moral and civil law. If the bishops want to stand tall and defend their moral beliefs about contraception, then they would find their authority very much strenghtened if they were consistent in thought and deed. Frankly, I think many people don’t want to address this issue. Many seem to only want to defend certain behavior and beliefs and trun a blind eye to the larger picture. In some strange way, they see two different issues, and minimize the most difficult moral dilemma.