HHS has drawn conscience protections so narrowly that Catholic colleges, universities and hospitals — any Catholic institution that employs and serves non-Catholics — will be required to offer health coverage that includes contraception and drugs that cause abortion. In global health grants, new language is appearing that requires the integration of family planning and “reproductive health” services, effectively barring the participation of Catholic institutions. Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB, calls these policies an “assault which now appears to grow at an ever-accelerating pace in ways that most of us could never have imagined.”
The main victims of this assault are not bishops but the poor and vulnerable. USCCB-sponsored human trafficking programs, for example, provide employment assistance, legal services, child care and medical screening. But because case managers won’t refer for abortions, HHS would rather see these programs shut down in favor of less effective alternatives. This form of anti-religious extremism counts casualties.
Gerson: Obama’s ‘anti-religious extremism’
24 Responses to Gerson: Obama’s ‘anti-religious extremism’
-
Julana says:
Why doesn’t the Catholic church excommunicate these proactively pro-choice politicians?
-
Mike says:
The error on this logic is that Catholic organizations can’t exist without money from Uncle Sam. The Cathilic church is free to continue Christ’s work, just not with American taxpayer support. Why should taxpayers fund the charity coffers of the met powerful religious organization in the world. Why does the church believe it will have to stop human trafficking wrk just because the government doesn’t fund it?
-
Julana: As a person who grew up in an 80%+-Catholic community (non-Christian myself), I would speculate that such excommunications would result in Catholics cancelling their church memberships in droves. The local joke (really, irony not humor) was that the local Unitarian church was about two-thirds ex-Catholics who “excommunicated” themselves because they wanted to have second marriages. I believe that while it may not be a primary reason it remains of serious concern to Church leaders.
Rod, I believe the true point of conflict — arguable, I’m sure — is that any institution that provides secular services is going to be seen by government as a service provider first, and as a service of fill-in-blank identity group second. It grieves me to say this, because the RC in the US is truly one of if not the best at delivering such services, but maybe they need to examine their motives and do one of two things: Draw a hard and fast line at accepting any money from government, including tax-exemption, or just withdraw from any service for which government will cause them moral conflict.
-
Maria says:
Mike,
I agree. The church needs to disentangle herself from the state and just go ahead and do what she does.That said, the pew warmers will have to start ponying up a lot more money because these programs aren’t cheap.
Lots more thinking outside the box needs to commence: starting now.
-
Carlo says:
“The Catholic church is free to continue Christ’s work, just not with American taxpayer support.”
Since Catholics are tax-payers like everyone else, we would like to know why we are being discriminated by receiving government support based on matters that essentially have nothing to do with the services we provide.
(Unless you are so ideological, of course, to believe that in order to successfully combat human trafficking you must provide abortions, or that in order to find kids good adoptive parents you must subscribe to the idea that for a child having both a father or a mother is a secondary concern.)
-
Susan D. says:
I work for the insurance division of a Catholic healthcare system. This HHS directive will force us to cover services that are against Catholic moral teaching. And we’re not talking about Medicare and Medicaid; we’re talking about private insurance. It’s appalling. I don’t know how HHS can dictate this to private insurers; in theory, that’s reserved to each state.
What’s worse, my company appears to be going along with the directive without a murmur. (I hope I’m wrong about that, but I’ve seen no in-house or public statements about it.)
It’s true that Catholic healthcare organizations accept public funds–but they don’t receive public funding for procedures that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Why should this in particular be an all-or-nothing proposition?
-
Maria:
OK, then if I have an opportunity I will try, as a Catholic, to “disentangle” myself from paying taxes. Since you want to disenfranchise me from participating in the common enterprise of building a better society, why should I pay for it?
-
Public Defender says:
“But because case managers won’t refer for abortions, HHS would rather see these programs shut down in favor of less effective alternatives. This form of anti-religious extremism counts casualties.”
This goes both ways. You could also say:
“But because case managers won’t refer for abortions, THE LOCAL DIOCESE would rather see these programs shut down in favor of less effective alternatives. This form of RELIGIOUS extremism counts casualties.”
When two sides play chicken and neither backs out, both sides had a role in the crash.
-
Mont D. Law says:
[any institution that provides secular services is going to be seen by government as a service provider first,]
I would also point out that religious organizations that provide these types or services have not historically been all that successful.
Indian Schools, Magdalene Schools, Orphanages and homes for unwed mother are just a few examples of unregulated or inadequately regulated religious charities reeking havoc.
The idea that government money should go to any institution that is unwilling to abide by government standards is a prescription for disaster. In fact in certain cases, like adoption, I think it is dangerous to allow those services to exist outside a strictly regulated system. Otherwise you are asking for trouble.
-
Carlo, I have strong personal sympathy for your stated positions here, but I have an even stronger commitment to solving the problems of our nation under the aegis of the entire Constitution, not parts of it (albeit very important parts).
Federal wage taxes, being the primary source of federal revenues, are collected from each individual undifferentiated for the specific expenditures it supports. Your taxes pay for roads and bridges, training and salaries for diplomats in foreign countries, and the support staffs of our elected representatives. They also pay for the weapons, ammunition and training that go into killing people in military actions.
Case in point: A devout pacifist is as free to practice and express his beliefs as any member of any religion. Yet, his taxes can be traced to violence. If you (general and specific) insist on not paying taxes for reproductive health services that include contraception and abortion, then he has the same right to not pay taxes for our military.
I’m not arguing that the above is necessarily valid. I am challenging you to make your case to the general issue, because so long as you (general and specific) focus on narrow issues, you will usually fail when the general form of it is brought to table.
Since Catholics are tax-payers like everyone else, we would like to know why we are being discriminated by receiving government support based on matters that essentially have nothing to do with the services we provide.
My answer, with apologies for seeming glib, is that so long as you insist on approaching this as a Catholic first and a citizen second, you will not only continue to be “discriminated against”, but you will never find a resolution to it. One of the obligations of citizenship is paying taxes, and your primary method of access and control is your vote. The law does not qualify “citizen” with any identity group, religious or otherwise.
-
Franklin:
“One of the obligations of citizenship is paying taxes, and your primary method of access and control is your vote. ”
Sure, but a democracy is not a tyranny by the majority. If government support is denied based on philosophical preferences that do not impinge on the quality of the service being provided, to me that’s discrimination pure and simple.
The constitution comes in one package. The authority to raise taxes walks hand in hand with the recognition of freedom of conscience. If you deny the latter on ideological grounds, in the long run you will also undermine the former, that’s all I am saying.
-
“The idea that government money should go to any institution that is unwilling to abide by government standards is a prescription for disaster. In fact in certain cases, like adoption, I think it is dangerous to allow those services to exist outside a strictly regulated system. ”
That’s obvious. The question being discussed is whether government regulation should intrusively enforce the ideological agenda of whatever party is in power (like: imposing the availability of abortion in order to fight human trafficking).
-
Robert A. Heinlein, love him or hate him, devoted much thought to and development of what it means to be a citizen. In his novel Starship Troopers — and please, the movie was as much like the novel as my cat is like a lampshade — he offers amongst other things the concept that one need not become a citizen, and all one has to give up is the right to vote. Still pay taxes, still comply with the same laws. Just no voice.
I mention that because I imagine it’s possible to have a variation of that in the US. Only citizens must pay taxes, but only citizens get to reap the benefits of the expenditures. Non-citizens pay tolls for all roads as they use them, pay cash for sending their children to public schools, and get the lowest priority for every service provided by government short of emergencies, and they’d still have to come up with cash for every visit from a police officer and every ride in an ambulance. I suppose it would have to include voluntary payment of taxes by non-citizens, but that edges into Heinlein’s territory and I’m sure the US is not ready to consider service as the price for the franchise.
If I were more confident in my understanding of libertarian philosophy, I’d quip that my suggestion would probably qualify as a libertarian wet dream… but I won’t.
-
Sure, but a democracy is not a tyranny by the majority.
Carlo, your post is a point well taken. It’s a discussion — perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court — that really needs to take place.
I must concede your point about the party in power, having used it myself with the Republicans as the target (and agreeing that the Democrats deserve it just as much). That, to me, is a flaw in our current politcal reality that I very much want to remedy. The problem as I see it is that a solid half of the eligible voters in the country may as well not be citizens in the Heinleinian sense, because they don’t show up to vote anyway. Both parties leverage that. Both parties need a very strong, rude awakening. :
-
Jay says:
Like other commenters, I am bewildered as to how this is an assault on religious liberty. Are Catholics really saying that taxpayer support for their charitable programs is fundamental to their identity as Catholics? Really?
I understand why they would want it, but is not getting it really an assault on their religious convictions?
-
Jay:
I am bewildered by your question. If you have to act against you religious convictions in order to receive equal treatment by the government, how do you call that? Why on earth should people be forced to perform abortions in order to be eligible for government grants to help victims of human trafficking?
-
Carlo,
If the government grants are structured a certain way, everyone can still apply for them. If you don’t like them, don’t take them.
You didn’t answer my question, though. How is not wanting to take these grants because you don’t like how they work impinging on your ability to be or act as a Catholic? Is being a Catholic dependent on these grants? If not, then religious liberty isn’t being restricted. This seems like one of those “want to have your cake and eat it too” sorts of things.
-
Jay:
OK, when I am elected president I will structure government grants in such a way that only people who swear allegiance to the Roman Pontiff can have a chance to get them. Hey, everyone could still apply for them! If you don’t like them, don’t take them!
As for the second question, your understanding of religious freedom is ridiculously narrow. Religious freedom includes the freedom to act according to one’s principles without being unjustly discriminated against. In fact, it is not even religious freedom. It is called freedom of conscience.
-
I’m still with you, Carlo, but I would ask you to expand your assertions somewhat.
…the freedom to act according to one’s principles without being unjustly discriminated against.
Since we are discussing the law, and not comparative religions/philosophies/moral codes, we need a list. Two lists, actually: Those actions that must not be restrained under the discimination concept, and those actions that must be restrained as constraints on the actions of others or because they can and will cause duress or injury. Case in point: Indiana judge prohibits Wiccan parents from sharing their religion with their son. One could, perhaps arguably, assert that the judge acted from his conscience.
I don’t mean to put you on the spot, Carlo, for detailed answers on a difficult topic. I do mean to ask you to be at least a little more specific, and couch your assertions in a pluralistic fashion, because if we are going to define the law in terms of Christian conscience, there are a large number of non-Christians out there who will not respect your conscience in some very important areas. With respect, I’d be one of them.
-
Franklin:
where did I speak of Christian conscience? Freedom of conscience applies to everybody. I am not sure I understand your concern.
-
Nathan says:
Jay,
Are you familiar this quote by Anatole France?
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
I ask because you seem to want a system in which the law is majestically “equal” to all, but the consequences clearly favor your partisans, while simultaneously disfavoring conservative Catholics (and Orthodox, Evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, etc.) You apparently want conservative Catholics to play the part of the poor in society, with secular liberals playing the part of the rich. You seem to be saying, “Subsidized hospitals for me (and my co-belligerents) but none for thee.”
So, to answer your question…
“…is not getting [public grant monies] really an assault on [Catholic’s] religious convictions?”
Yes, Jay.
The Obama’s administration’s grant rules will force one of two things: Catholic hospitals having to compromise their religious beliefs, or Catholic hospitals having to close or severely downsize.
How do you NOT see this as an assault on religious freedom? I mean, of course the change in grant rules is going to be couched in terms of pluralism and neutrality—they can’t just say “No Catholic hospitals need apply,” but they might as well.
-
Carlo, I apologize if I’ve drawn in inaccurate conclusion here. This: Since Catholics are tax-payers like everyone else, we would like to know why we are being discriminated by receiving government support based on matters that essentially have nothing to do with the services we provide. …and other statements you’ve posted seem to me a pretty strong description of the identity group to which you belong and whose beliefs or doctrines you are representing here. I’ll gladly take your correction.
In my defense, I do see you defining the conflict as between Christian (perhaps Catholic) moral doctrines and beliefs and all others. Shrug.
-
Sorry, that is simply NOT an infringement on freedom of religion.
It is simple recognition that a church CAN be an employer of non-members, sometimes on a rather large scale, and those employees of the employer have the right to make their own choices about, e.g., health coverage.
The churches could be freed from the resulting pangs of conscience if:
a) Roman Catholic schools went back to running on the labor of nuns and monks,
b) Roman Catholic schools hired only Roman Catholic teachers in good standing, who would voluntarily choose to save money by not paying premiums for features they would never, never use… e.g., the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod still chooses teachers for its church schools by a formal process of call within the church…
c) medical coverage were entirely removed from employers, replaced with some sort of single payer plan that every citizen (or every permanent employed resident) was eligible for. If we did the latter, it should be single payer, multiple provider, and of course, if you want abortion and contraception coverage, it costs a bit more in premiums (wherever you are on the sliding scale) than if you don’t. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
Gerson: “USCCB-sponsored human trafficking programs”
I know, I was shocked myself, to see a former White Horse souse, especially one who spent all of five years lurking in the underbush, guilty of a verbal infelicity: Osmosis Kills.
If ever there was a time for all good Catholic abolitionists, whether of the priestly brethren or of the Marian kind among the laity, to launch a pugilistic angelistic, Brown-eyed fairy-raid against the diabolist bishoprics of invotary servitude, the man-snatching Manichean directors of Cross-town trafficking, I should think it to be within the five seconds before this comment box self-destructs like a Jim Phelps reel-to-Real Presence, impossible as such a heaven-sent mission might at the moment seem.