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
James says" I don't see how teaching or practice -- in this case, prohibiting the dispensation of condoms on church premises'
To say that HHS requires distribution of condoms in churches is ridiculous and you lose everybody by saying that. as do the bishops lose. The bishops' and your exaggerations are being shortened to Henny Penny status... not unlike Romney's Etcher Skecher and if you want tp play don't complain about the rules in baseball or the political rules.
"Hazard church teaching", "on the perilous cast or throw of the dice of an alien (or anti-Catholic) government policy". My goodness, how wonderful it must be to be divinely inspired in word and deed. A life without uncertainty.
The issue at hand is not any in significant way a desire to effect church teaching. Why would it be? Teaching of any sort is just that, teaching. I can teach that I am the living personification of the tooth fairy. Only if others were to believe me would such teaching have an affect outside of becoming great material for SNL.
As for either the usefulness or the truth of the utterly grandiose statement of "alien government" I really would like to know from which non-earth planet it originated. In as much as the truth is we are the government in this remarkable nation, I, understandably, would like to know my alien ancestors better.
You quite simply may not present a small portion of Niebuhr's lengthy discussion and present it a timeless, indisputable crystallization of divine truth.
To loose sight of the fact the remarkable institution one is attempting with grand and convoluted rhetoric to defend against "aliens" is based on the words and deeds of a fellow who rode a donkey into town seems to me more than a little unhelpful. It is a simple, useful and verifiable truth that the more one learns the less one knows.
BTW, that goodness of spell checking!
"...shortened to Henry Penny status...."
Ed Gleason,
No matter how one looks at it, with this mandate the shadow of two all-encompassing government arms will still fill the space of Catholic premises, dispensing condoms, providing sterilizations, etc.
In that regard, the administration wants bishops and the heads of Catholic universities to support the mandate with silence, following a few steps behind the White House and its experts. If they have problems of conscience, they should carry these wounds or criticisms elsewhere, perhaps to some dark room off campus or behinid a Catholic hospital. But come hell or high water, the government's unforeseen fingers are going to sppon feed Catholic institutions contraceptive care, whether the religious orders that sponsor Catholic schools or the bishops like it or not.
Finally, imposing condoms on Catholic institutions has no more to do with contraceptive use than bullying has to do with social usefulness between two people. Both are aggressive actions (on the part of the government and bully, respectively), taking unfair advantage of the party that is "different." And although contraceptive use is mirrored in government waters so to speak as healthy and neutral, in Catholic hierarchical waters it is wrong; it suggests that pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex is Gospel-approved or morally neutral, among many other things. And sure, people (both Catholic and non-Catholic alike) are free to make up their own minds about contraception, sterilization,etc; but pointing them in the direction of contraceptive use on Catholic premises is like carving solid blocks of moral neutrality down to the church marrow, hoping Catholic leaders will eventually and quietly take upon them themselves some of the weight of the government's unilateral, coercive decision. This definately complicates church state relations. The government is insisting that its clapper has the "right" to strike a religious bell on church premises.
"...on a fellow who rode a donkey...."
MIghtbe
Well, for Christians, that fellow "rose from the dead." On Easter, Christians see an empty tomb. The donkey and the donkey tracks are important, of course, as are the animal feeder (at Christmas) and the pail and towel (on Holy Thursdsay), but never twice the same in importance as on Easter.
But you're free to leave him on a donkey -- in praise of God's own face, remarkbly glimpsed.
James.. "with this mandate the shadow of two all-encompassing government arms will still fill the space of Catholic premises,'
As R. Reagan said ' there you go again' Please don't go with the 'it's socialism. Muslim infiltration, end of economic freedom, endless government regulation, etc. ' of Tea Party crowd.. it's unbecoming.
It's really about a small co-pay in a free country. ..and not a dime of bishops' or your money... so get over it
"Please don't go with the ...."
Ed gleason,
I point isn't about one of your "isms." That gives it dead teeth as it were. You're trying to handcuff gloves so to speak -- your own, of your own making, for straw hands.
All I'm saying is that the Administration's mandate is a non-Catholic policy to be thumbtacked on church walls. Purely and simply!! It is written in much larger letters on the walls of state agencies (that could care less about church teaching).
And the Aministration, with the mandate clenched between its teeth, also wants the heads of Catholic universities and bishops to come up with an excuse for what the government intends to do anyway. It doesn't want a hole of silence under the mandate or above it , and certainly no oppostion. It wants the lighted clock in the church to read: government policy sinks church tradition.
I, a life long cradle Catholic and child of Vatican II, am hanging on to institutional Catholicism by a very thin thread that remains of the strong rope of Faith (see Kerlin, pg. 31) instilled in me by Vatican II and its minions of good faitful priests, many of whom left the priesthood in the 70's. I do not believe that the use of "artificial" birth control is an evil or sin. I have so concluded by excercising my God given and Christ saved, freedom conscience.
As to "Compromise or Stalemate" Questions:
1) Are not the employees who, with their own freedom of conscience, chose to use the contraception benefit PAID TO THEM as part of their compensation, in fact the person/entity PAYING for the contraception?If not, why not?
2) Since highly compensated employees of RC entities can clearly use part of their pay to buy cotraceptives in order to sin, is it fair to the lower paid employees who do not get "living wages" ,as defined by the Bishops, to have to suffer economic hardship in order to buy contraceptives and therby sin? Is ther a needle and a camel around here somewhere?
3)Where is the factual basis for the statement that "There was a remarkable degree of unity among Catholics in opposing the administrations initial decision etc.,"?
"...is it fair to the lower paid employees who do not get 'living wages'... to have to suffer... to buy contraceptives...?"
Donald Toohill,
So the mandate should trump church teaching to adjust to the budgets of lower paid employees working at Catholic institutions? (I am trying to follow your logic.) But why should a government stop there? Why shouldn't it use its policies and (secular) decrees to retrench the "sins" within Catholicism (or of any religion, for that matter), especially if it believes what the church calls sin (or offensive) is really good in disguise? I am sure the Administration believes the Catholic Church is overlooking the government's "mercies" that are bound up in its secular policies.
What is hard to understand in all this is why the current Administration wants to load its cannons with the hearts and souls of people (in this case, lower paid employees who favor "contraceptive use") to attack the offical church. Won't that only create more dissention within a hierarchical community? Is that what the Administration wants -- to get Catholics and non-Catholics alike (who favor contraceptive use) to color in or "blur in" a government's uniformity of policy into Catholic institutions, irrespective of church teaching and morality. Won't the traditional values that the Catholic Church wants to preserve within its institutions be given short thrift? What about the mission statements to which employees were supposed to agree when they were first hired? (At one point, too, I thought that the Administration didn't realize that Catholic institutions cannot survive as "officially Catholic institutions" without the bishops' moral support, encouragement, and sanction. Now I am beginning to wonder.)
In some respects the Administration's resolve is similar to Bismarck's Kulturkampf policy in Germany in the 1870's/80's that deprived Catholics of their clergy, among many other things. It seems that current Administration has given the Kulturkampf a different spin: it wants to deprive Catholic institutions of their bishops, and most certainly, of their bishops' sanction and support (for incorporating government sponsored abortifacients into their healthcare plans, thus violating church teaching.)
Who would have thought the mandate would have had such a negative effect to the point of eliciting bishops and others -- who normally would have lain dormant -- to challenge it.
Maybe this it the future? Besides trumping the practice of animal sacrifice among Santeria followers and peyote practice among Native Americans, the US government has also in the past scaled Jefferson's proverbial wall to trump polygamy in the Mormon Church and the prohibition of blood transfusions in Jehovah Witness congregations. It is nothing new for the government to scale that well known wall separating church and state to nail its policy on the church side (causing a bit of plaster to fall to the ground), believing, in certain instances, that it needs to change church policy, moral doctrine, or re-formulate it according to proper government standards. Other countries do likewise all the time, especially China, which today insists Catholics, like all other Chinese citizens, have only one child per couple. Now the current US Administration wants Catholic institutions to cover contraceptive use in their healthcare plans, not believing abortifacients are immoral, according to government standards.
I am sure, down the road, this issue will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
What is being proposed by the Obama administration is simply that employees have the right to enter into private, third party contracts with insurance companies to obtain riders to their group health insurance policies to provide for contraceptive services, including counseling. It's been pointed out that the health insurance policies are earned compensation -- these policies are bought with the employees' money and not with the employers' money.
As a precondition for participating in a government-regulated program, the insurance companies are required to offer the conceptive services riders at no cost to employer or employee. Insurance companies will presumably be willing to do this in order to be able to compete for business and because the riders are expected to pay for themselves, through reduced utilization of services relating to pregnancy.
It is not at all clear that the employer should have any right whatsoever to be able to prevent an employee from entering into a private contract with an insurance company to obtain the contraceptive services rider. It seems to me that this would, in fact, violate the employee's 14th and 5th Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA