By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Last Sunday, most U.S. Catholics heard a letter read from the pulpit imploring them to oppose the Obamacare provision requiring most healthcare plans to cover contraceptive services for women. The reason given was that Catholic hospitals and universities would have to “shutter their doors” in order to avoid heresy and be true to the faith. As part of the concerted effort, the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty announced that the Obama administration’s requirement goes against “the mandate of Jesus Christ.” Even though the earthly mandate contains an exemption for purely religious organizations, the all-male U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly on the offensive in this politically charged debate about women, privacy, and the right of families to decide for themselves the number of children they can support.
Since the 1930s, most denominations have left the issue of contraception up to the conscience of the parishioners. The Catholic Church has stood virtually alone since 1951 by requiring its adherents to use only the “rhythm method” as a means to prevent pregnancy. All other forms of contraception were deemed an interference in God’s Plan and hence heretical. In the early 1960s with the reforms of Vatican II in full swing, the Pope appointed a 90 person committee to evaluate the Church’s position on contraception. 75 of the 90 recommended the Church allow contraception by means other than the rhythm method.
Disregarding the recommendation, Pope Paul VI issued his famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the
Church’s solitary position. The Pope reasoned that, “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” The Pope then waxed philosophic about the danger of government mandated contraception akin to that seen in China:
Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.
That textual cudgel has now been taken up against Obamacare. Catholic apologists like Jennifer Brinker in the St. Louis Review have argued that the Pope was right and the government is now in the business of pushing contraception for political reasons. Brinker even argues ironically that the mandate is a “dissolution of freedom.” Brinker reminds Catholics that disapproved contraception is a “sin” and that most Catholics don’t understand the reason for the ban.
What do Catholic women think about the Church’s unyielding stand on artificial birth control? In April of last year, Reuters reported that a Guttmacher Institute poll showed that 98% of sexually active U.S. Catholic women used contraception methods outside of the Church’s teachings. The numbers held up for women who regularly attended Catholic services as well as those who didn’t. In fact, the findings showed American Catholic women were just as likely to use artificial contraception as those in other denominations.
“In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” said the report’s lead author Rachel Jones. Catholics overwhelmingly rely on the most common methods of birth control. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.
What then are we to make of the schism between Church’s dogma and the reality of its followers? Are 98% of the Church’s women sinners and heretics? Can a religion be viable if one of its fundamental tenets is ignored on a daily basis by almost all of its “faithful”? Can a male dominated authority maintain credibility in the modern world when it dictates to women on issues that are overwhelmingly that gender’s concern?
These questions do not seem to be troubling Church fathers. In fact, they appear to be looking for a testosterone fueled showdown. As one recently said, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” They may do well to look over their shoulders as they climb up that political hill, theological banners flying. A cursory view of their ranks will likely find few honest Americans and almost no honest women.
Source: CNN
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/the-politics-of-obamas-contraception-decision/ Romney says that such rules don’t belong in the America that he believes in. If Romney is able to create doubt among religious voters in states like Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania, it could hurt the president.
To Mr Talking Dog:
Enough with the doggie metaphor. There’s a misogynist born every minute , something the holy pedophiles don’t seem to think is important .
About your flailing the fates for not being allowed to effect proper dog behavior : there’s so much you can muttify, prefix wise, because the words Willard or William or Will is an endless supply of , sorry, doggerel . The best doggerel poets are those who see the bigger chain of needless suffering and work it in. You only see an opponent as someone to abusively perpetuate your childish hatreds . Work out your self -hatred before you delight us again obsessively with an emotionally stupid projection.
I wonder if the Catholic bishops will take a position on what the Republicans would like to do to Medicare.
*****
Are Republicans About To Commit Medicare Suicide?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/are-republicans-about-to-commit-medicare-suicide.php?ref=fpa
RSH sez, in part, “…As long as the Catholic organizations give their employees the monetary equivalent of the foregone birth control coverage, leaving their employees complete freedom to spend the money on birth control or otherwise…”
***************************************
Sorry, it does not work that way. The treatment of all employees must be equal and they do not get off that easily. They cannot get to pick and choose what the employee services that insurance can provide, and an ‘in kind’ contribution to the employee is hypocrisy at its finest. At many Catholic hospitals, Catholics may even be in the minority of their employees.
The Pope does not run the hospital, the hospital administrator does, and those people are specially trained in business. For you see, running a public service hospital is a secular enterprise, no matter the personal beliefs of the owners.
As I said before, if they want to skirt the law then sell the hospital. And that is not gonna happen. Why you ask? Hospitals are cash cows, especially if they collect insurance money to provide services. Medicaid, Medicare and all the various private insurance companies require services bought and paid for by their clients to be given to those clients without question. Freedom of religion must stop at the church/temple/mosque door when it comes to serving the public, and not dictate what services the non-religious receive from a public business.
Ross,
“the exact opposite is the case; the Catholic church organizations are on the receiving end of an unwarranted exercise of governmental power”
The converse argument holds true too though. Not everyone who works for a Catholic run hospital is a Catholic just like every patient there isn’t a Catholic. They’d have to do a lot more than just compensate their employees for the difference in coverage, which is in some ways a silly argument as they’d still be paying for contraception. Accepting government money for services comes with strings attached like anti-discrimination legislation that can and has been applied via the 14th Amendment. They’d have to stop taking Medicare/Medicaid too. That or they’d have to close their doors to non-Catholics (not going to happen) and/or escalate the confrontation by only hiring only Catholics (and opening the door to all manner of lawsuits in the process). Hospitals are a public service. They cannot do either of those two actions and possibly hope to keep their doors open. If they don’t like having to play by the rules inherent to the industry, they should get out of the hospital business. But the issue of discrimination here is neither the slam dunk you suggest nor is it just the Catholics being persecuted based on religious grounds. Their options are limited and they were limited the day they opened a hospital as a public service and started taking government payment for services.
Not really, Ross. The RFRA has already been successfully challenged once on the basis of the 14th Amendment in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Being that the Federal government has a compelling interest in regulation of hospitals, in the providing of those services on a uniform and secular basis if they accept Medicare/Medicaid payments and protecting the Free Exercise rights of Medicare/Medicaid recipients via the 14th Amendment, it is not a given that the Catholic hospitals get a walk on this.
It’s true that I hadn’t read RFRA for a while, so I looked up the relevant Wikepedia article as a starting point for an update. It stated in part:
“The Act was amended in 2003 to only include the federal government and its entities, such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.[9] A number of states have passed so-called mini-RFRAs, applying the rule to the laws of their own state, but the Smith case remains the authority in these matters in many states.[10]
“The constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the federal government was confirmed on February 21, 2006, as the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the government in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
The Act states in part:
“(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
“(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
“(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
“. . . .
“(b) Rule of construction
Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter.”
(42 U.S.C. section 2000BB-1, 2000BB-3.)
Therefore, it seems that RFRA does give the Catholic hospitals a statutory right to a religious exemption from the law.
As long as the Catholic organizations give their employees the monetary equivalent of the foregone birth control coverage, leaving their employees complete freedom to spend the money on birth control or otherwise, then I just can’t see this as a religion attempting to usurp power or control over other people. Indeed, the exact opposite is the case; the Catholic church organizations are on the receiving end of an unwarranted exercise of governmental power We can be watchful over any unwarranted attempts at power grabs by any group of zealots, whether they be religious or irreligious, without depriving any of them of important legal rights.
Ross S. Heckmann:
If you read the law, you’d know they already have it. The problem is they want it for anything Catholic including employers. If granted that far the exemption owuld consume the whole. But in reality that’s what they want — not freedom but power. It’s a classic power grab over the secular world led by clergy, fundamentalists of all stripes, and their conservative patrons in power ever willing to use the religious zeal of the “faithful” in a cynical ploy to further their agenda. Jefferson had it right:
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
~Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.
mespo,
Well done and, in my opinion, for the right reasons.
AY,
Yes!
You are right OS!
raff,
Tonight a lot of folks have said things that we agree with…. some we disagree with, but as civilized folks,we can agree to disagree and still get along…. i think a number of good points have been made…. Don’t you agree?
“Is hiding evidence from the authorities a religious precept?”
******************************************************
raff, if you listen to the Bishops and their lawyers it certainly appears to be.
Others, not so much.
Well mespo,
If you don’t lay you don’t get the protections of the invincible….damn….and if everyone was perfect then they would not need that protection either….
OS,
The Catholic Church has a history of breaking and skirting the law. How many child predators did they hide from the police and the victims? Is hiding evidence from the authorities a religious precept?
RSH, the county hospital does not pay health insurance for patients. They pay for health insurance for employees. Health benefits are rather like retirement funds. The CEO cannot have a 401K unless the janitor has access to that same benefit. Same with health insurance.
Also, if a hospital receives Federal funds under the Hill-Burton Act, then they must follow the guidelines. No way to escape it.
RSH, the operant phrase is “religious freedom.” A hospital is not a religious house. It is a facility to serve the public. ALL the public as prescribed as legal under the law.
In a church, temple, synagogue or wherever people gather to worship their Deity of choice, they can discriminate or engage in other acts that might be illegal if they were acting as a public entity. For example, the hospital cannot ask a prospective employee their religious belief, but a church can require all employees to be of that faith. I have been on staff at a number of hospitals, including one run by a Catholic religious order. I happen to know that on that staff there were Catholics of course, but also Protestants of various flavors, ranging from Primitive Baptists and Pentecostals to Lutherans. Not to mention our Muslims, Hindus, a couple of Buddhists and more than one atheist.
If the RC church wants to run a public business, they are not acting as a church or house of worship, but as a public service, just like the bus company. If they do not want to follow the rules for running a business open to the general public, then let them sell the damn thing and open a business that serves only the members of their organization.
Ross S. Heckmann:
No person or institution has the right to disregard duly passed laws it disagrees with. They may lobby to change them; they may challenge them in court; they may find lawful ways to avoid them, but they have no right to disobey them. That’s what a “Nation of Laws” means and that is precisely what I was trying to tell my esteemed prelate. Maybe they can be accomodated, but they won’t be if they pick up their liturgical marbles and go home mumbling about how put upon they have become. They should quit being a “victim” especially given all the real victims they engendered themselves. You think they’d be ashamed.
Religious freedom is not simply a matter of legislative grace, it is a right, one recognized by the Constitution. This right was quite robust from the time of the Warren Court’s 1963 decision in Sherbert v. Verner, until Justice Antonin Scalia virtually interred it in his majority opinion in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith.
The Sherbert court held that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment required a religious exemption to a law unless the law served a compelling interest, and the law was the least burdensome means of serving that compelling interest.
Justice Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith eliminated the requirement for religious exemptions based on the First Amendment
I for one prefer the Warren Court’s broad, expansive interpretation of the First Amendment over Scalia’s narrow, crabbed interpretation.
At any rate, there remains a statutory basis for a religious exemption: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. section 2000bb et seq.) As a matter of statutory law, RFRA requires religious exemptions basically on the same conditions as the Warren Court’s Sherbert v. Verner required them (see above).
So it appears that the Catholic institutions in question are entitled to a religious exemption under RFRA.
AY:
“Are you trying to stir trouble where no may lay…..”
******************
To paraphrase a fine law professor of mine, Mr. Brabham, that’s what being on the cutting edge of social change is all about.
Ross S Heckman:
Really? Then all those laws that require persons who serve the public to also serve minority people, should have their “rights” restored and we can go back to telling African American citizens they have to ride in the back of the bus, sit only in the balcony at the movie theatre and cannot eat with white diners in restaurants. And Jews cannot join the local golf club.
Really?
If the Catholic Church wants to run a public facility like a hospital, which is a secular, not a religious operation, then they need to abide by the same rules as the local county hospital. If that does not work for them, then they ought to sell the hospital. They are not going to do that. Why? Because a well run hospital makes a ton of money, which the RC church needs, badly, in order to pay off all those lawsuits generated by pedophile priests.
Otteray Scribe: I don’t think that people with religious objections have a universal, free-floating right to disregard all laws. Whether or not a religious accommodation should be recognized depends on the specific set of facts and is almost impossible to generalize. I do not think there are any religiously based objections based on race, so that situation would not arise. I don’t think any religious have local golf clubs, but if they do, they can’t really expect a tax-exemption for them, whether or not they are discriminatory.
As far as the specific issue in question is concerned, the local county hospital is not required to pay for health insurance for its patients, so why should Catholic hospitals be required to do so?
Seems to me the religiously based objections of Catholic institutions could be accommodated by requiring them to pay an extra sum of money equivalent in value to what the employee would otherwise get if their health insurance covered birth control. Under this scenario, the employee could use that money for birth control or whatever they wanted, and the Catholic institution would not be forced to pay for something that they regard as sinful & immoral. What’s the problem?
Every religious institution is entitled to religious freedom. If a religious institution engages in misconduct, then they should be punished for that specific, proven misconduct, but their right to religious freedom should not be stripped from them.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/putting-the-growing-birth-control-firestorm-in-perspective.php?ref=fpnewsfeed Lawsuits are cropping up. Who knows what will happen if it makes it all the way to the Supreme Court with its current make-up.
mespo,
Are you trying to stir trouble where no may lay…..
BTW…. Great letter….