In a March 14 statement (“United for Religious Freedom”), the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly reaffirmed its opposition to the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The committee vowed to press the political, legislative, and legal battle to broaden religious exemptions to the law while also working to repeal the mandate entirely.
On March 16, the Department of Health and Human Services released a tentative proposal [.pdf] elaborating on the “accommodation” announced by President Barack Obama in February. The administration has responded to the objections of religious groups by offering to shift the cost of contraception from religious institutions to insurance companies. Among other details, HHS exempted self-insured student health plans and outlined how other self-insured institutions might comply with the law. It appears that the insurance administrators used by those institutions—or other “independent entities,” possibly including the government—will be asked to pay for and manage contraception coverage for employees of such organizations. The proposed regulations are dauntingly complex, and there will now be a ninety-day period in which HHS solicits comments on how to improve the plan.
One worry shared by many religious groups is that the administration’s narrow definition of “religious employer” opens the door to greater impingements on religious freedom in the future. In its new document, HHS states that the definition “is intended solely for purposes of the contraceptive coverage requirement,” and is not “intended to set a precedent for any other purpose.” What legal weight that declaration carries is unclear. But whatever the shortcomings of the administration’s position (see “An Illiberal Mandate,” January 13), it appears that the religious-liberty concerns of the bishops and others are being taken seriously.
Advertisement
Since the USCCB has rejected the idea of having insurance providers pay for the contraception coverage of those who work for Catholic institutions, it seems unlikely that the bishops will be satisfied with HHS’s latest initiative. Other Catholic institutions will evaluate the moral hazard involved differently. Whether this will lead to further division within the Catholic community depends on all parties eschewing loose talk of a “war on religion” or a “war on women.” There are legitimate values at stake on both sides of this conflict.
In that regard, the USCCB’s statement was a small step forward. The bishops did not accuse Obama of being anti-Catholic or of launching a campaign against religious believers. They did not threaten to stop providing health-insurance to employees or to close Catholic hospitals and universities. They even pledged to remain open to dialogue with the administration. Unfortunately, the statement repeated erroneous claims made by some bishops. For many women, contraception is not inexpensive. The mandate is not an “unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries.” Decisions are made all the time about what religious groups qualify for tax exemptions. And there have always been limits to religious freedom. Plural marriage is not possible for Mormons or Muslims, and Jehovah’s witnesses cannot deny blood transfusions to their children or insurance coverage for transfusions to their employees. Nor does the contraception mandate undermine the church’s ability to teach or catechize. Even if Catholic institutions comply with the mandate under duress, they remain free to condemn contraception. And because the decisions to accept contraception coverage and to use contraception are made by the employee, there will be no direct or formal material cooperation with evil for Catholic institutions.
The bishops’ March 14 statement insists that the conference is “strongly unified and intensely focused” in opposition to the mandate and in support of the USCCB’s confrontational strategy. It pointedly thanks “all who have stood firmly with us.” There was a remarkable degree of unity among Catholics in opposing the administration’s initial decision to limit exemptions to diocesan offices, parishes, and parish schools. Obama’s subsequent attempt to forge an accommodation was welcomed by the Catholic Health Association and a number of Catholic universities, but peremptorily rejected by the bishops. A more measured approach to the administration’s belated overture would have had a good chance of keeping the Catholic community united. That unity would have given the bishops the audience and support needed to make an effective case against more serious threats to religious liberty. Most prominent among those impending dangers is the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, and anti-discrimination suits brought by same-sex couples against religious institutions. Catholic hospitals and universities will face vigorous challenges in these areas. Unfortunately, the bishops and their transparently partisan conservative allies have so far done more to confuse than to clarify this complex issue.
Related: Bad Decision and Bad Reaction, by the Editors
Your assessment of the situation is balanced and thoughtful. I remain puzzled by the approach taken by the bishops. For hundreds of years, Jesuit practice in preparing their students for debate has included a simple and obvious principle: state clearly the strongest position of the opponent; otherwise, counterarguments will be inadequate. Why have the bishops failed to follow this sound advice? Nowhere have the bishops stated the basis of the legal requirement to which they object.
Congress specifically identified women's health care for focused attention. In accordance with statute, and based on findings of medical authorities that the health care of women will be improved if FDA approved services (which include contraception) are provided without cost-sharing, HHS promulgated the current regulations. Congress made no exception based on religious liberty, and since the statute addresses the broad issue of women's health it is far from clear that there should be such an exception.
The need for such an exception arises because the mechanism for delivery of women's health services has been employers (and insurance companies), and some employers may have religious objections to delivery of certain of these services. The obvious path to solution would be to provide avenues of delivery that do not require the participation of employers who have religious scruples, since the services are to be delivered to the woman not to the employer.
But the point not acknowledged by the bishops is the justice of the government's policy conclusion that women's health has been too long neglected and a special effort to provide a comprehensive suite of services is in order. That's what the statute says. The President (through HHS) is charged with implementing the statute, not making exceptions to it. This is why the "religious exemption" is so narrowly drawn. By failing to acknowledge these circumstances, the bishops appear to be setting up a straw man, which weakens their argument.
And that's a shame, because the bishops need to keep their powder dry for more difficult policy issues that are likely to arise in the long term. Why split the Catholic community at this juncture? This is the point you have made so well.
Your position reminds me of this statement by Edmund Burke: All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
There was a time in US history when the population would have fought vigorously against the morality of any of the supposed 'reproductive services' but society has become so inured to evil that now society believes its 'progress'.
An excellent article, and an excellent comment by Mr. Christofferson, above. I would ask Bruce if he considers contraception 'evil' in every circumstance? For myself, I take quite the opposite view. Globally, more harm is done by the absence of women's reproductive health care than by its availability. The absence of contraception raises poverty, lack of economic choice, lack of self determination, and the rate of abortion. It is much easier to argue that in the United States, universal contraceptive availablity is not economically necessary than it is to argue that contraception is inherently evil. IMO
I thought the article well balanced. jbruns' response was interesting, too, who notes that the absence of contraception raises poverty, lowers economic choice, lack of self-determination, etc." Could one also argue that the absence of hand guns will raise crime? Or that the more handguns there are in society, the less crime there will be? It seems so. After the Supreme Court's Heller decision striking down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, murder plummeted in the city to its lowest rate in half a century. Likewise in an area of Colorado! When the Colorado Supreme Court ruled this month that the University of Colorado's campus ban violated a 2003 state law that allows residents (with permits) to carry weapons on campus, observers noted that it neighboring school, Colorado State University, which never banned hand guns, had a much lower crime rate than the University of Colorado: "crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35% since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60% in the same time frame."
The message seem loud and clear: carry a hand gun and crime will lessen (similar to, carry a condom and poverty will lessen and more economic choices will abound [according to jbuns]). Is this where we're heading? Safer soceity with guns and condoms! What about some Quaker institution in Colorado? Will the sponsors of such a school be forced to provide hand guns to students, or tolerate them on campus, though their institution's ethos is against such a practice?
Personally, I am glad for the Commonwael article -- that it said what it said; but I am also glad for the bsihops' response. Sure they over-reacted, but I'm glad they are doing something then just sit it out and "observe" (until something worse comes up) as the German bishops did in the early 1930's, when National Socialists initiated all kinds of legislation for the good and health of the fatherland and German citizens. So often, religious compromise (of deeply held convictiions) is just the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another one, which the German bishops bargained for, sacrificed, hoped for. But they wound up losing both.
I am distressed by the talk of "division." Is the Catholic community divided because some of us subscribe to just war theory and some of us are pacifists? Is the Catholic community divided because some of us are absolutely opposed to capital punishment and others supportive of capital punishment is very limited circumstances? The Catholic community is "divided" over whether to criminalize all abortions, but is (or should not be) divided about the principle of innocents' immunity (which some would apply to all, others to most, abortions). The tactic of making "litmus tests" of prudential political judgments is most harmful. Currently, most bishops seem not to be doing that (thank heaven), but some bloviators are. We need to recognized that we can be diverse in judgment without being divided in principle
Mr Chichetto. Your statements about gun control are not analogous. There is actual data that demonstrates the relationship of family size, child survival rates, poverty and economic growth. For an interesting and entertaining demonstration, spend ten minutes with Hans Rosling:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html
You can argue the role of contraception in this phenomenon, but its hard to miss the implication.
I'm also distressed with the all the "division" talk. Catholic used to mean diversity within unity, acknowledging and even celebrating the many gifts of the Holy Spirit, the many parts of the body of Christ. On abortion, for example, we have those who march and picket and protest and try to effect law change and work in parish programs for troubled pregnant women. We also have those who work to sustain and increase public programs for mothers and infants. These programs not only reduce the number of procedural abortions, but also spontaneous abortions due to malnutrition and inadequate pre-natal care, as well as post-natal abortions due to inadequate nutrition and poor post-natal medical care. Private programs are insufficient. Can't we acknowledge and celebrate our diversity?
Maybe not, in large part because of the strong Republican stance against what they decry as socialism, which is doing what Christ asked us to do: care for the most vulnerable among us. Or, as in this morning's Intercessions in the Liturgy of the Hours: "May we abstain from what we do not really need, and help our brothers and sisters in distress." The most effective way to do this would be to tilt our tax structure a bit, favoring needs over wants.
As a Catholic I can't vote Republican. They deny that greed is one of the seven deadly sins and that greed (the love of money) is the root of ALL evil.
"...the role of contraception...."
Thanks, jbruns. I am aware of Rosling (and the judgments of many others in which their wishes and perspectives are concerned). But this issue is not about contraception, per se. I issue is about the government's resistance to accommodate conflicting and communal values in society. It is about the government saying that religious liberty is not an important right when it comes to the government's ideological policies.
Niebuhr says: "There are no living communities which do not have some notions of justice beyond their historic laws, by which they seek to gauge the justice of their legislative enactments." The bishops (many of whom sit on the boards [of trustees] of Catholic schools, especially Catholic University in D.C.) and presidents of Catholic universities, colleges, institutions,etc. are simply trying to abide by the teachings of the church and guage the justice of their school health care policies on these teachings. The government, however, wants them to ditch those teachings, embedded in school policies, in favor of its own agenda and policies, thus putting these institutions in the punishment of "evil" (from the church's moral and ethical perspective), besides having religious schools pay for what they don't believe in.
As noted before: if Catholics and non-Catholics want condoms, sterilizations, etc. -- "that's bewteen them and their God," as one hears over and over again; but bishops and leaders of religious orders that sponsor schools and institutions should not have to pay for these items and procedures if it puts them in antagonism with church teaching and their own consciences (as Catholic leaders).
Reading THE CHURCH OF AMERICA 1776-2005, it's not surprising to read authors Finke and Stark note the following: "They [Catholic schools] make substantial contributions to scholarship and professional training, but they are not good places for preserving the faith or for the encouragment of religious vocations." How ture! And now the governement these schools to incorporate the distribution of condoms into their health care packages. So much for preserving the faith and church teaching!! The government doesn't give a darn!
James, In that case, I guess we can just respectfully disagree. I think the Administration has attempted to find an accomodation, more so than the Bishops. There is a civic interest here as well. The religious liberty argument is, in my view, greatly overstated, with the 'evil' of contraceptive use being remote from the actions required of the Bishops.
"...with the 'evil' of contraceptive use being remore from the actions required of the Bishops."
ibruns,
But from the Bishops' point of view (and the heads of Catholic institutions, especially those self-insured), the government wants to hazard church teaching on church premises, within church institutions, dormitories on the perilous cast or throw of the dice of an alien (or anti-Catholic) government policy. Church teaching is, in part, "beyond historic laws," to quote Niebuhr; there is an indeterminate transcendence to it, to church teaching, which Bishops attempt to gauge the value of their policies, over and above national politics and/or political expediency. Consequently, I don't see how teaching or practice -- in this case, prohibiting the dispensation of condoms on church premises -- is aloof or distant-in-manner from the actions of the Bishops. What did you expect them to do? Go against their church? Even if the Bishops did make up their minds that a certain wrong policy was the "right one" (because the state or secular Administration concurred that is was right [as well as some experts], we know the more they followed their "enlightened" consciences the more helpless they would become as wrongdoers. Helpless because as overseers, as leaders, they would be doing wrong, conscientiously; going against a teaching they are bound to uphold, thoroughly. (It is different, of course, with a non-Bishop, so to speak; but Bishops [and heads of Catholic institutions] have to think corporately, of the whole church or institutional body, especially a hierarchical body. They have no choice in the matter. I don't think the current Administration understand this.