‘The Bishops & Religious Freedom’
May 30, 2012, 9:49 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Our June 15 issue will feature a symposium on the U.S. Catholic bishops’ recent statement on religious freedom, “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.” We’re going to post one part of the package every day until Monday (when the full issue will be published online). First up is Peter Steinfels. On Thursday afternoon we’ll post Mark Silk’s piece, on Friday Douglas Laycock’s, on Saturday Cathleen Kaveny’s, on Sunday Michael Moreland’s, and on Monday William Galston’s. Bookmark this link view the updates. If you’re not following us on Facebook or Twitter, no time like the present.
Tags: contraception, HHS, USCCB
Steinfels contradicts himself, but that’s because he just follows the party line. He is right that the HHS Mandate definition of religion reflects a congregational-worship view of religion. But he is wrong when he says that the liberal view “honors freedom of individual conscience (whether religious or not).” Neither the HHS liberal view, which exaults sexual freedom over religious freedom, nor Steinfels himself (as he admits a few paragraphs later) or other liberal commenters here at Commonweal, allow for the individual conscience of even Catholic employers who object to the HHS Mandate if they are not church non-profits. Steinfels and others here deride such individual religious conscience. Thus completes the liberal Catholic abandonment of the notion of individual conscience–it serviced them when they desired to hide under that umbrella so they could dissent from Humanae Vitae, but now that their ideologues are in power and want to force participation in the sexual revolution on individuals, even fellow Catholics, these liberals here and elsewhere ridicule individual conscience in order to protect their party politicians. Ironically, Steinfels and his fellow antagonists simultaneously insist that religious freedom include “the Islamic or non-believing “others.”” It makes sense to protect the religious freedom of Muslims and of individuals. It is absurd to say we should protect Muslims while we ridicule the claims of individuals even of our own faith. There’s no principle to that contradictory distinction–it just follows the party line. Steinfels complains about the exclusion of “voices of 99.9% of the Church” from the bishops’ protection of religious freedom. That’s exactly the percent of Catholic consciences that Steinfels deprives of any right to conscience protection.
Thus completes the liberal Catholic abandonment of the notion of individual conscience–it serviced them when they desired to hide under that umbrella so they could dissent from Humanae Vitae, . . .
Anitra Williams,
I think you are mixing up two quite different concepts. One is the religious liberty we enjoy (or hope to enjoy) as citizens of a country with a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, and the other is freedom of individual conscience. Religious liberty in the United States has nothing to do with individuals making up their own minds regarding Humanae Vitae.
It makes no sense for liberal Catholics to say individuals have a conscience claim to tell the Church she must accept their religious beliefs, but have no conscience claim when the government forces them to violate their religious beliefs. It proves that conscience was never a sincere plea from dissenters–the common thread instead is whatever promotes contraception, allowing religious diversity for contraception believers, and bludgeoning contraception opposers with state fines–but be sure to protect the Muslims because otherwise religious liberty would be too narrow.
This article is germane and speaks about conscience, Catholics and America.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301342/catholic-americanism-george-weigel
It makes no sense for liberal Catholics to say individuals have a conscience claim to tell the Church she must accept their religious beliefs, but have no conscience claim when the government forces them to violate their religious beliefs.
Anitra Williams,
You are right. It makes no sense. The right of individuals to act according to their own conscience does not include telling the Church anything at all. You are still mixing up freedom of conscience (in the sense of making personal decisions about what is right and wrong) and religious liberty in American democracy, which is a constitutional principle and a matter of tradition in the United States, but by no means absolute.
Muslims, by the way, are religiously opposed to insurance, and yet the obey state rules to have car insurance and also are flexible about health insurance, although there are some specifically Muslim alternatives to car insurance and health insurance that some take advantage of. The Amish are opposed to insurance and have been exempted from Social Security. However, Amish employers who hire non-Amish employees are not exempt from paying into Social Security for the non-Amish employees. That is an interesting contrast to the current case. The Amish believe that insurance itself is immoral. The bishops at the moment object to providing insurance coverage that brings with it coverage of contraception not because they believe insurance itself is immoral—indeed, they believe it is a good thing—but because they are concerned that some of their employees might take advantage of the contraceptive coverage. So it seems to me that the Amish are required to do directly something they consider immoral, whereas Catholics providing insurance that independently covers contraception are being required to do directly nothing that they have an objection of conscience to.
“Catholics providing insurance that independently covers contraception are being required to do directly nothing that they have an objection of conscience to”
This is just you telling Catholics what their conscience means. Catholic business owners aren’t doing anything “independently” under this mandate, and Catholic non-profits are directly being required to give their employees a plan that covers items they object to causing coverage for. You say that’s remote, they say it isn’t, and you say the government can choose sides in that theological debate force everyone else to accept your conscience. It isn’t a “liberal” position by any meaning of the term. And it is nonsensical for Steinfels to say the bishops must lobby for Muslim religious freedom and must NOT lobby for the religious freedom of “99.9%” of Catholics.
Peter – perhaps the bishops’ objections to ObamaCare were indeed worst-case-scenario-ism. I think that many/most of us, when we hear that a possible outcome is the worst case, assume that the worst case scenario is an outlier; that the chances of it coming to pass are slim. (Maybe we have a bias toward a bell curve of the probabilities of possible outcomes).
But that assumption is a logical fallacy. The *probability* of a worst case (or a best case, or any other case) coming true may well be independent of the factors that make it the worst (or best) case. That’s why, in the common business practice of presenting best case / most realistic case / worst case forecasts, probabilities are also assigned to each of the cases. The probabilities of each case are essential information on which to base a prudent decision. It may well be that the worst-case scenario may also be the most likely outcome.
I’m mentioning this because, in the case of ObamaCare, one of the bishops’ worst-case scenarios has panned out. The bishops consistently listed the lack of conscience protections as one of the two or three fatal defects of Obamacare; and unfortunately, their worst case scenario has come true in the form of the HHS contraception mandate.
It turns out that the probability that the worst case would come true was pretty strong, and the bishops’ worst-case-scenarioism, far from being hysterical, was both prescient and prudent.
Anitra: That is not what Steinfels said. You have an unfortunate habit of misstating the view of those you disagree with. And now your back peddling you’re laughable claim that do disagree with the bishops’ argument entails “forcing” people to accept a conscience other than their own. Enough.
Peter Steinfels has written an article that makes me proud to be associated with Commonweal. It is thoughtful, wise and respectful. It is the kind of discourse we desperately need both in terms of its content and its modeling of a way of discussing these questions. I eagerly anticipate the other articles in the series and am grateful for all the work being given to this.
For me, the issues at play are far too profound to be reduced to a “for the bishops” or “against the bishops” stance. Religious freedom is too important to be broken down into these categories and our best response to the seriousness the bishops claim for this issue is to engage the issue as thoughtfully and carefully as we can, regardless of how it fits into ecclesial politics and categories that Catholic and mainstream culture want to cram it in to.
Peter – I second what Greg has written about your article. I meant to open my previous comment with fulsome praise :-)
Nothing I said is inaccurate which is why you didn’t try to explain otherwise, you simply level a charge of “enough” against a position you cannot refute. Steinfels criticized the “conservative” view that religious freedom should not be defended for muslims, and this very blog has repeatedly condemned religious freedom campaigners agaisnt the HHS mandate on the same grounds. Steinfels said the bishops should not defend the religious freedom of “individual” Catholic employers coerced by the HHS Mandate, and Grant as well as others on this blog have said the same. These two propositions make no sense: lambasting the bishops for taking too broad a view on religious freedom because they include the 99% of Catholics who are not operating nonprofit institutions and you say those should be excluded, and criticizing the bishops and/or other HHS opponents for allegedly taking a view that is too narrow for supposedly not including Muslims. In fact the US Bishops’ view on the HHS Mandate is that it should not be applied against the conscience of Muslims or anyone else. And it is entirely descriptive to say that you, David N, and the Obama Administration have decided that the lie of “not paying” for contraception (a lie that third party administrators just refuted in their federal comments) makes the proposed non-specific “accomodation” sufficiently MORALLY remote to not be a conscience problem–but, that is a moral theological conclusion, and to tell Catholic institutions who have sued that they will be fined despite their DIFFERENT moral conclusion, namely that they would still be forced to unacceptably cooperate by providing an employee plan that gives them a ticket for objectionable coverage–that is the penalization of more strict moral cooperation views and the acceptance of more lenient moral cooperation views. To defend that imposition because you say other groups should be morally OK with it is to force them to accept your conscience of lenient moral theology and to say government fines for following their own different conscience are just fine.
At the risk of a too simplistic take…
Most Catholics -80+% — have no objection to contraception
Presumably, most Catholics therefore would welcome such coverage.
The hierarchy says to compel “Catholic institutions” to financially support such coverage is morally objectionable as remote cooperation.
The Cathollic populace continues to use contraception and believe– along with many or most clergy presumably — that it is morally licit.
The bishops, therefore, do not represent the opinion of the faithful (no surprise there nor are they appointed to do so).
Assumption: The mandate upsets the bishops notion of “religious liberty” but not that of the rest of the Church- except those who have now been stirred up about it.
Assumption: The removal of the mandate or its continuance in some form will not change the practice or beleifs of most Catholics, but the ecclesial and political outcomes are unpredictable.
Anitra: Disagreeing with some of the bishops’ arguments and tactics does not amount to imposing one’s conscience on another.
– The hierarchy says to compel “Catholic institutions” to financially support such coverage is morally objectionable as remote cooperation. –
Catholic hospitals receive the majority of their fuding from insurance payments, research grants, individual co-payments and other sources. That’s not from the church.
Catholic universities receive the majority of their funding from endowments, tuition, government grants, private grants and other sources. That’s not from the church.
Most Catholic charities receive the majority of their funding from government and private grants, private donations and other sources. That’s not from the church.
Any donation to these organzations that is not a fee for or an exchange for service also is eligible for tax deduction consideration. That’s from the taxpaying public at large, not from the church.
The “church” is not being forced to fund anything.
Critics of Peter’s contribution, please give your response to the specific religious liberty cases he raises here: “Should Northern Arapaho Native Americans who need bald eagle feathers for religious rituals be exempt from restrictions on hunting those birds off their reservation in Wyoming? Should ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe they cannot report cases of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities without rabbinical approval be exempt from New York’s reporting laws? Should the growing number of nonbelieving troops in the U.S. military have a counterpart to religious chaplains who would attend to their ethical and familial needs in an appropriately secular or humanist manner?… For most people, being exempt on moral or religious grounds from directly taking part in some action, like bearing arms or performing an abortion or eating forbidden foods or undergoing forbidden medical procedures, is quite different from paying taxes or insurance premiums that fund a wide variety of social measures for others, including some measures one finds morally objectionable. Quakers may be exempt on religious grounds from fighting in combat; they are not exempt from paying the taxes that support the Defense Department. Jehovah’s Witnesses may be exempt from participating in the classroom Pledge of Allegiance; they are not exempt from paying school taxes. The bishops…are also pushing the claim to religious exemption from indirect support beyond that of religious organizations to that of any individual employer or employee with religious objections to contraceptive services.”
So what about the bald eagle feathers? What about Quakers paying taxes? How do you draw the line in a principled way?
What about Quakers paying taxes? How do you draw the line in a principled way?
—-
Some Quakers left their Meetings to bear arms in our country’s wars. Some were slaveholders. Some operated stops on the underground railroad. Just as in the Catholic Church, everyone has a conscience. Everyone must follow the Light within. The Quakers have no bishops.
(Will the bishops require Catholics to avoid buying prescription drugs from any company that manufactures contraceptives? What about shopping in pharmacies and grocery stores that dispense contraceptives? What about investing in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture contraceptives?)
———–
Peter Steinfels has written an article that makes me proud to be associated with Commonweal. It is thoughtful, wise and respectful. It is the kind of discourse we desperately need both in terms of its content and its modeling of a way of discussing these questions.
Peter Steinfels is a great writer. (I miss his NYT column.) Agree that the article is a great one.
(I’ve been impressed by your posts, too, Greg. Respectful. No exaggeration. No ham-handed, sarcastic put-downs of those who dare to differ. Etc.)
Grant, I am not saying that *any* disagreement with the bishops’ “tactics” amounts to imposing one’s conscience on another. I am saying that your specific argument, in favor of a rule (after the theoretical change that we are supposed to believe will happen after the election), under which rule religious organizations would suffer government fines if they do not comply with being forced to give their employees a plan that enables the employee to get objectionable coverage from the insurer the employer is paying, because compliance would in their view be immoral cooperation in objectionable practices, but those organizations will NOT get fined if they go along with the fiction of non cooperation, on the view that it is not sufficiently proximate or material cooperation because it is labelled as a compulsion on the insurer, THAT argument is a defense of a regime that explicitly penalizes consciences that do not conform to the moral view you think is conscientiously acceptable. Adopt Grant’s moral theology, get no fine. Adopt one that is stricter, get fined, and Grant says the bishops are wrong to fight it. You are imposing your conscience in this specific way. Many groups disagree with your assessment of the cooperation in the pretend “accomodation,” AND THEY WILL BE FINED UNDER IT for following their conscience instead of yours.
Anitra: “I am saying that your specific argument, in favor of a rule (after the theoretical change that we are supposed to believe will happen after the election), under which rule religious organizations would suffer government fines if they do not comply with being forced to give their employees a plan that enables the employee to get objectionable coverage from the insurer the employer is paying, because compliance would in their view be immoral cooperation in objectionable practices, but those organizations will NOT get fined if they go along with the fiction of non cooperation, on the view that it is not sufficiently proximate or material cooperation because it is labelled as a compulsion on the insurer, THAT argument is a defense of a regime that explicitly penalizes consciences that do not conform to the moral view you think is conscientiously acceptable.”
First off, that has got to be one of the longest sentences I’ve ever tried to follow. Secondly, nobody knows yet who, if anybody, will be penalized (fined or whatnot) for refusing to follow the compromise proposal or the mandate as it stands now, for that matter. The bishops themselves, the ones making the public claims and accusations, are totally exempt from the mandate, as are most of the individuals supporting them. The Obama “regime”t has made it clear since Feb. 10 that they’re willing to negotiate, i.e., to find some accomodation that is acceptable to all sides. The one they came up with that allows employees of religious institutuions to deal directly with insurers, relieving the institutions themselves of any necessity to include contraceptive coverage in their own plans, still seems the most promising idea anybody’s mentioned yet.
Instead of grandstanding over a principle (religious liberty) Catholic bishops only came to accept (in the mid-1960s) after centuries of protesting far more vehemently than the USCCB has managed to do over this insurance regulation, it would seem much wiser for them to use Obama’s proposal as a starting point to find accomodations even more in keeping with their point of view. They could start by declaring themselves the winner of Round One, which everybody else but them and a few hardheaded supporters seems to realize was the case. Sigh.
It is false that nobody knows who will be subject to fines. Under the existing mandate nongrandfathered entities not meeting the four part test are subject to fines unless they comply. That test excludes anyone not a church or religious order, for starters (it does not say, as is often reported, the group merely needs to be a nonprofit). The other three prongs can be failed too since no one including Grant has explained what they mean–what % of those hired or served counts as “primary”, what are the group’s exact tenets that must be shared, and when is “inculcation” of values “the” group’s purpose? Guess at these questions = face fines. And under the “accomodation” (which doesn’t exist and we are supposed to believe will be enacted after the election), ALL these same nonexempt groups will explicitly, unequivocally be subject to exactly the same fines if they have moral theological views on cooperation in evil that do not agree with Grant and other liberals who accept the president’s “insurance company’s fault” shell game. Abide by that lenient view–don’t get fined. Refuse to conform your conscience to that view, get fined.
[Note that presently grandfathered entities also are being injured sufficient to justify court action, because they are being held hostage in their plan terms which impose financial burdens on them to keep, whereas groups with more lenient theologies are allowed to let go of grandfathered status without facing conscience violations. It would be like saying anyone can choose between grandfathering or not, except Jews get burdened if they choose not. That is a facial injury against religious beliefs that amply justifies court action.]
David Pasinski 05/31/2012 – 3:25 pm
“At the risk of a too simplistic take…
Most Catholics -80+% — have no objection to contraception
Presumably, most Catholics therefore would welcome such coverage.”
Ken – Wow; this is too simplistic a view David. It does not matter what a majority of Catholics think about contraception. The Church is not a democracy.
David – “The Catholic populace continues to use contraception and believe– along with many or most clergy presumably — that it is morally licit.
The bishops, therefore, do not represent the opinion of the faithful (no surprise there nor are they appointed to do so).”
Ken – At the end of your sentence, in parenthesis, you finally managed to find the main point. Catholic bishops are not supposed “represent the opinion of” Catholic laity; they are to be examples, teachers; leaders of the laity. Bishops are to preach the truth – in season and out of season.
Anitra – I am glad the IBEW is exempt from Obama-Care. Many AFL-CIO unions obtained exemptions.
I think the only reasonbale way for national health care to work is the single-payer federal model. Impose a bit more on everyone’s federal income taxes and that would give everyone from New York to LA the same, basic, minimal policy. Most people would then prefer to either buy or negotiate with their employers to obtain, riders on the national plan to provide more complete coverage.
Ken
I acknowlede the bishops role, but whatever’s one ecclesiology and evaluation of the morality of contraception and this coverage issue, the fact that they are that out of shync with beleif and practice and have chosen this stand at this time is worth noting. Tell me, have you ever heard so much about contraception in the last 20 years until this? i can’t help thinking that all but the most conservative of teh hierarchy had simpy put it on the back burner and hoped not to have to talk abut it too much.
We have not heard much from bishops about contraception recently because they obviously did not want to fight about it much. As one bishop noted, they did not choose this fight, or its timing. HHS chpose to pick this fight and secretary Sebelius basically picked the timing as well.
Even before Pope Paul issued Humanae Vitae, the Catholic Church has long held that contraception and abortion are sinful acts.
However, when the US government starts forcing the Catholic Church and other employers to pay for contraception and abortifacients – with no choice whatever – that is a real problem.
Can you not see that the government forcing people to pay for something that they hold to be immoral is simply too much?
This whole issue is one more reason to move toward a single-payer federally based health system. Churches do not pay taxes and so would not be complicit in things like contraception or abortion. The federal ship of state is driven alternatively by one party and then the other.
Accordingly, when a Republican would be elected president, the government health plan would likely drop coverage of abortions, and when a Democrat gets elected president, coverage of abortion by the federal health plan would probably resume.
It would be like the Mexico City policy in that the current helth plan would be a reflection of the preference of the majority.
What is wrong with that sort of thing?
Ken –
You seem to think that a legal democratic process will even out to a morally correct solution. What gives you such confidence that the voters will vote wisely and fairly — even as they contradict each other by their votes?
” — a reflection of the preference of the majority.
What is wrong with that sort of thing?”
Many things!
Slavery. Treating African American males as 3/5 of a citizen. Only allowing landowners to be voters. Prohibition. Not allowing African Americans to vote. Not allowing women to vote. Not allowing mixed race couples to vote. WWII concentration camps for Japanes Americans. Banning Catholic worship in the (then) province of Maryland in the 1600s.
American history is replete with shameful examples of enshrining the “preference of the majority.”
s/b not allowing mixed race couples to MARRY.
Jimmy – You have described the natural evolution of a free republic. Rome was not built in a day and things like human government e.g. the American, the French, or the Mexican Revolutions, are not perfect out-of-the-box. Societies evolve, hopefully toward being more free and just, and those based on Judeo-Christian values tend to do better.