Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of words have been spilled over the past few weeks regarding the Obama administration's attempt to force religious organizations to provide female employees with insurance that covers the cost of contraceptives. The debate has taken a predictable form: Opponents of the administration's actions, especially those associated with the Catholic Church, have portrayed the mandate as an all-out attack on religious freedom, while supporters have applauded the administration for it's "commitment to women's health." Some supporters have even attempted to redefine religious freedom to claim that not providing contraceptive coverage to female employees who desire it is an infringement of their religious freedom. (The latter argument would have been regarded as ludicrous only 20 or 30 years ago, but today it is asking too much for people to understand that the "free exercise of religion" means the freedom to exercise one's religion as it should be exercised, not as one chooses, according to one's own whims, to exercise it.)
As I write, administration officials have leaked word to major news outlets, including the New York Times, indicating that the Obama administration will offer a "compromise" later today. As the Times reports, however, the "compromise" is not designed to "mollify the Catholic bishops who have waged war against the rule," but to "shore up support among wavering Democrats, who have also expressed doubt about the rule, along with more liberal religious organizations and charities, who oppose the rule but not as vehemently as the Catholic leadership."
When is a compromise not a compromise? When the one offering the compromise has no intention of meeting his opponent part way. (UPDATE: See my coverage of President Obama's "compromise" in "When Is a Compromise Not a Compromise?")
From the beginning, the Obama administration has seemed strangely tone-deaf on the contraception mandate. Members of the administration have acted genuinely surprised that Catholics who supported the President's healthcare reform would oppose requiring religious organizations to provide contraceptive coverage.
That, I think, is because the administration simply does not see religious freedom, as traditionally defined, as an important issue. To justify forcing the Catholic Church to engage in material cooperation with an immoral act—because that is what the Catholic Church teaches artificial contraception to be—requires the administration to say, in essence (if not out loud), that religious beliefs that run counter to the administration's ideas of public health do not enjoy the protection of religious freedom.
Defenders of the Obama administration have tried to downplay the significance of the contraceptive mandate, making entirely irrelevant arguments about the number of Catholic women who, in defiance of Church teaching, use artificial contraception. The Obama administration, however, clearly regards this as a defining moment, and all Catholics in the United States—whether they comply with Church teaching or defy it—should see it as a defining moment as well.
If all that is required to force the Catholic Church to cooperate materially in acts that she regards as objectively immoral is a concern for "public health," then the administration could, quite reasonably, require that all hosts used for Communion be made of rice (so that they will be gluten-free), and all wine be alcohol-free. That such requirements would invalidate the sacrament would be of no concern to the federal government. Alcoholics and those who cannot tolerate gluten would be better off, in the government's eyes; the fact that they would be worse off spiritually is irrelevant.
The administration could make a similar argument for forcing the Catholic Church to recognize "marriages" between homosexuals. The lifestyle of "unmarried" homosexuals is, studies show, more fraught with physical dangers than the lifestyle of homosexuals in committed monogamous relationships. The fact that the Church regards homosexual activity, no matter the context in which it takes place, as objectively immoral is once again irrelevant. The needs of "public health" would trump the traditional understanding of religious freedom.
The ordination of women and of practicing homosexuals (even "married" ones) might not be able to be justified on the grounds of public health, but it could certainly be justified on the basis of anti discrimination laws. Just as many Catholic women currently use contraception despite the Church's teaching, many Catholics regard the priesthood as merely a role, even though the Church teaches that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is restricted to men only. Is it not a violation of a women's "religious freedom" to be denied ordination?
We could multiply examples ad infinitum, but there is no need to do so. The point is clear: Any Catholic who supports the Obama administration in this attack on religious liberty is helping to open a door that can and will be used in the future to launch further attacks. That is why many Protestant communions that long ago tossed out their historic teaching on contraception, some of which even pay today for contraception and (sometimes) abortions for their employees, are standing with the Catholic Church in opposing the Obama administration.
In the end, this battle is about more than whether you approve of, or even use, contraception yourself. This battle is about who gets to decide what the Catholic Church teaches, and how the Catholic Church practices her Faith.
Any Catholic who supports the Obama administration on the contraceptive mandate is saying, in effect, "The United States government, not the successors of the apostles, is the true arbiter of Catholic teaching and practice."
This is not merely a political battle; it is a spiritual one. Anyone who does not understand that places his or her soul in grave danger.
And anyone who does understand that, and still supports the Obama administration, needs our prayers.
I like the idea of affordable health care for all and making the biggest possible “pool” to lower those costs is OK with me. I am more concerned with personal freedom as opposed to the freedom of old white guys (no matter how spiritual) to tell me what to do. We are not ignorant peasants needing to be lead on a leash by the learned priesthood in this day and time. I am fully capable of expressing my Catholicism by not purchasing contraceptive products even if my church’s insurance will provide them.
Women are not a special interest group. And the extensions you are making in this argument make it clear how little standing the Catholic Church actually has in this debate. The regulations are not about what happens in a church service, but the insurance coverage provided in all businesses regardless of religious affiliation. And if the majority of Catholic women use contraception, that means the majority of Catholic couples use contraception.
“I am fully capable of expressing my Catholicism by not purchasing contraceptive products even if my church’s insurance will provide them.”
You’re either being disingenuous or naive.
It’s not about whether you can choose not to use contraception if your church’s insurance will provide them; it’s about whether the federal government can order your church to provide them in violation of your church’s teaching.
“The regulations are not about what happens in a church service, but the insurance coverage provided in all businesses regardless of religious affiliation.”
The mandate is justified on the basis of public health. The extensions I offered in this argument can likewise be justified on the basis of public health. Remember your history, Erin: Prohibition was once justified on that very basis.
“And if the majority of Catholic women use contraception, that means the majority of Catholic couples use contraception.”
And if the majority of Catholic women lie, it does not change the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that lying is a sin. Requiring the Church to cooperate materially in actions that the Church says are objectively immoral is the gravest possible violation of religious freedom.
I hope all of the liberal “social justice” Catholics have finally had their eyes opened. The president and other secular leaders like him only want you to bow to the religion of statism. I would like to see the Church go “old school” and start to excommunicate some of these so-called Catholic politicians that support abortion like Nancy Pelosi. There are many people told they cannot partake in communion because of infractions, but people like her stroll to the front of the Church as if everything is OK. I am glad the Church is finally getting angry and doing something instead of making excuses for/and agreeing with leftist policies.
I am glad Scott is online to point things out to those who are interested. Scott I agree with everything you have said. As a Catholic growing up in the 60′s I feel the Church did not teach us enough. Catholics should have a learning program for adults that is continuous. I had 3 children but we used the rythum method, I tried birth control pill after a miscarriage upon my Catholic Doctor’s advise. Many of my Catholic friends just took the pill thinking the Pope just did not understand. It ends there. Not all people can afford to have 8 children. But once you really get into your Catholic Faith a person (I did) how beautiful and pure and loving it is. There are reasons our wonderful faith has these rules. Society is going downhill because of so many self decision makers and not listening to the Word of God and the messages of our Pope explained to us and our children.
As a practicing catholic, I agree with you 100%. I am offened at the mere suggestion that I should even purchase health care that funds immoral behavior to a woman under the guidelines that it is women’s rights. Know your faith.
I think that offering affordable insurance to all, through employers or not, is what President Obama is doing. I am 60 and cannot get good insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
Well, if employers get insurance and it happens to offer contraception, I think that any good Catholic, would NOT use this particular part of their insurance!
Scott, thank you…you are 100% accurate on all counts. I was born and raised Catholic, spent 8 years in Catholic schools, and I agree with Deb. Continuing education by QUALIFIED instructors in our faith is necessary. The Catholic church must stand firm in its convictions and fight for our beliefs.
I have read all the comments left and no one has the opinion that I am about to write. It seems to me most of the people writing are either past the child bearing age or have never practiced “natural birth” birth control. There is no control and it is certainly not natural. I speak with authority because I have been there. I am 76 years old…my husband is 77. We were both educated in Catholic schools (K-12), both college graduates. During my child-bearing years we practiced what the Church called natural birth control. With the help of a Catholic GYN..we planned two pregnancies and had five. What kind of an institution would require a couple to do what is impossible. Consider the poor countries where couples cannot even read and write. The Bishops of the Church say no artificial contraceptives and no abortions….I say if there was access to artificial birth control, there would be no need to have abortions.
Finally, do not preach to anyone unless you have walked in their shoes.
“It seems to me most of the people writing are either past the child bearing age or have never practiced ‘natural birth’ birth control.”
Patricia, I’m not sure why you would write that. I do not know the ages of any of the commenters here except myself (43) and Carol B (because she mentioned that she is 60). And I certainly do not know what types of birth control any of them may have practiced, and neither do you.
My wife and I are clearly not “past the child bearing age,” since our last child was born three weeks ago today. We have practiced Natural Family Planning our entire marriage (we will be married 20 years in July). We have had eight children; all were wanted, intended, and loved. NFP not only allowed us to space the children as we wished but allowed us to get pregnant when we wished to do so.
You can read more about our experience with NFP here:
Natural Family Planning: A Personal Perspective
And you can read about the experience of others here:
Reader Stories: Why I Decided to Use Natural Family Planning (NFP)
“What kind of an institution would require a couple to do what is impossible.”
A terrible institution. But NFP is not impossible.
“I say if there was access to artificial birth control, there would be no need to have abortions.”
Pope Paul VI predicted in Humanae vitae (1968) that the more widespread the use of artificial birth control, the more prevalent abortion would be. All one has to do is look at the numbers to see that the intervening years have proved him correct.
“Finally, do not preach to anyone unless you have walked in their shoes.”
Sound advice, Patricia. You might think of it the next time you feel compelled to tell those who are successfully practicing NFP that it is “impossible.”
Beyond all of that, Patricia, none of this touches on the Obama administration’s contraception mandate at all. The issue at hand is not, say, outlawing artificial contraception; it is whether the state has the authority to force the Catholic Church to fund activities that the Catholic Church says are objectively immoral.
If you believe that the Obama administration has that authority, then you believe, in practice, that religious freedom should be abolished in the United States. Force the Catholic Church to fund contraception, and you can force the Catholic Church to fund abortion. Is that really where you want this to go, Patricia?
Scott,
While I do appreciate your comments I must again refute your replies to my statements.
I am delighted you and your wife have been able to space your children and you can afford them. However, I will again say, so many people in poor countries do not have the luxury of resources to do so. We see, (and not only in poor countries too) children born who are not wanted and are neglected. What is the answer?
Now the Hyde Amendment (Rep. Henry Hyde) was passed 30 years ago that stated that NO PUBLIC FUNDS MAY BE USED FOR ABORTIONS. What the Obama Administration is saying is that ALL women who want birth control medication should have that option. The Catholic Institutions would not pay for the medication, but the insurance companies. We do know that 90% of Catholic women (who are of child-bearing age) do practice artificial birth control. And while the Bishops of the Church are saying this is wrong….isn’t it also true that in the final analysis one’s conscience is one’s guide?
Patricia
Patricia, your latest remarks “refute” nothing that I wrote. Are the lives of children only to be measured in economic terms? How do you think people survived before modern industrial capitalism, which was followed by a decline in birthrates in industrialized countries, not an increase? One of the greatest lies ever propagated is that children are incredibly expensive. They’re not. People spend a lot of money on them, but they do so by choice. Many people who have little or no money manage to raise children just fine, and it’s terribly uncharitable to suggest otherwise.
But again, all that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which, I repeat, is this: Does the state have the authority to tell the Catholic Church what she must do?
We’ve been told that this mandate is necessary because women with jobs cannot afford contraception. I highlight “with jobs,” because that’s important—the claim is that artificial contraception is so expensive that women who are making money cannot afford to purchase it on their own.
Yet now the administration comes along and claims that the insurance companies will provide contraception for free—and you believe it.
You’re an intelligent woman; surely you see that something does not compute. Someone has to pay for this contraception that women cannot afford, and it won’t be the insurance company. Why? I explained that all in my follow-up article:
When Is a Compromise Not a Compromise?
“And while the Bishops of the Church are saying this is wrong….isn’t it also true that in the final analysis one’s conscience is one’s guide?”
Only if you believe Jiminy Cricket, and not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The idea that one can decide that anything is moral and call it “conscience” has nothing to do with Christian morality.
The Church says that we have a duty to develop our conscience according to the moral teaching of the Church. A properly informed conscience will lead to properly informed decisions—though, of course, being sinful human beings, we may still decide to go against our properly informed conscience and act improperly.
If I decided to kill my wife and call it “conscience,” no one would accept that. Yet if my wife decided to kill our unborn baby and call it “conscience,” many people would.
Do you see a problem here? “Conscience” is not only not being used here in a Christian sense; it isn’t be used in a consistent sense. It’s being used only as cover for certain actions that are acceptable to the secular world today.
Let’s take it one more step: If I decided to tell a lie and call it “conscience,” no one would accept that. That shows that it’s not even about the magnitude of the act committed, but the political acceptability of the act.
I can see, Scott, that we will never agree on this topic. You see, I come to this from a totally different angle and time then you. It would indeed be delightful if the rosy picture you paint was true, but unfortunately it is not reality.
No one can bunch all the examples you stated and say they fit… All I am saying is I can sympathize with the millions of women caught in this situation.
And Scott, a right conscience IS the final decision for each of us! The Bishops or even the Bishop of Rome cannot make the personal decisions we must each make. They can only guide us….we do the rest.
“And Scott, a right conscience IS the final decision for each of us!”
Exactly, Patricia—a right conscience. But when people say that “I am following my conscience” as justification for doing something that the Church says is objectively immoral, then their conscience has not been properly formed—that is, it is not a “right conscience.”
You and I cannot be the judge of other people and their consciences and decisions.
As we spiritually grow and as the years pass, we tend to see morals more deeply…..Growth tends to make one change. When you are 76 you will not think as you to today….you will have grown…with the help of our Lord.
Patricia, I certainly understand that one may—indeed, should—grow in moral understanding as he grows older. When I was 20, I believed the same things about contraception as you do today. Thankfully, after studying the history of the Church’s unbroken teaching on this question, from the time of the Apostles until today, I became convinced that the Church was correct. (In other words, my conscience became properly informed.) That saved me from a great deal of grief that I’ve seen others, who only came to this realization later in their married lives, suffer through.
One thing that has not changed from age 20 to age 43, and will not change when I am age 76, however, is my firm belief that the state does not, should not, and cannot have authority to tell the Church what she must do. That is the issue at hand here—the only issue at hand here—and your consistent refusal to address it indicates to me that you understand that as well, and you have simply decided that you would rather put your trust in Barack Obama than in the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Do you despise the present Administration so that you actually believe the State is telling the Church what it must do? The separation of Church and State is alive and well.
Scott, I believed by my high school years that the teachings of the Church (all of them) were correct.
By the time I was 30 years old after again much study and most of all prayer, I was convinced that the Heirarchy of the Church in this particular subject is incorrect. So you see Scott, the two of us are totally opposite. I am a practicing, involved Catholic.
What an unChristian thing for you to write in your last statement. I am and always will be a follower of Jesus Christ. You do not know me and for you to make such a statement tells me much about you.
So I bid you farewell!
Patricia, I do not “believe the State is telling the Church what it must do” because I “despise the present Administration”; I “believe the State is telling the Church what it must do” because that is what is happening. I explained the logic in my followup article, When Is a Compromise Not a Compromise?, which you have still not addressed.
More to the point: The bishops of the United States—those who you, like I, as a “practicing, involved Catholic” must believe are the successors of the Apostles, the men appointed by Christ to guide His Church—have said that that is what is happening. Barack Obama claims that it is not.
Whom do you believe?
dear Patricia,
Questions to ponder:
1. Have you ever been homeless?
2. How often do you fast?
3. Are you willing to give all to the poor?
4. Have you ever had an abortion?
5. Are you aware of Daniel 11: it talks about someone and exactly what he is up to:Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, then he begins to have resistance, hint:Syria…
***I am not trying to change your mind, only your Higher Power, God Most High can, you are an educated women, can you take the time to read Daniel 11, it would take a lot less time than all your replies, it will open your mind: may be even your heart, “Today, if you hear His voice,do not harden your heart” I try to say this everyday to myself to keep me soft…
Respectfully, deny
This argument very nicely misses the whole point. The Catholic Church has the right to preach whatever it wants, and Catholics can decide to follow or not follow whatever teachings they choose. But the Catholic Church is more than a church, it is a major employer in this country. And as such, must follow the laws of the land. Whether that be minimum wage, insurance, pensions, safety conditions, whatever. The church cannot pick and choose what labor laws and rules it wants to follow based on its “teachings.” If the law requires insurance companies to pay for contraception, then the church must go along with it. They are operating in the secular world, and they do not have special privileges.
The Church certainly has a choice. They can choose to be a church, and sell off their businesses and holdings, and simply operate as a church. Then the problem will be solved. But since they have chosen to enter the business world, and make oodles of money, then they have to comply with state and federal labor laws.
Finding this thread came about from me searching for information about the Obama Contreception Mandate. I am at work the majority of the time and therefore out of the loop of much that is happening. Some things interest me and some things…well let’s say…I am going to let God and prayer take care of it. He is my burden bearer. This topic hit me because Janaury was National ProLife month and my Pastor spoke on contraception, abortion and life for the entire month. In seeking out just what the Obama administration was pushing I found your acticle Scott and thought it was well written. I also read the comments of others. Everyone has an opinion and even if we disagree with that opinion we should always do our best to remain civil and kind. With that said, my only thought to leave in this tread is that sin is sin in the eyes of our God. Whether it be a lie, a death, a sexual sin in whatever form, stealing, gossip, and all the other sins we know about, God will forgive us if we ask Him to and if we repent from the sin. Sometimes we have to repent seventy times seventy and guess how many time He forgives us. The Obama administration should stay out of the church just as they have told the church to stay out of state affairs. Of course, this is just my humble opinion and thoughts. Keep up the good work Scott. Your writing makes us all think about it!
dear chris, i will always remain courteous and at the same time no one will intimidate me, why are you ramming abortion on the Roman Catholic Church, shame on you!!! Go take your hate somewhere else and stop trying to destroy the Catholic Church and Mama Mary!!!
Respectfully, deny
So glad I quit the catholic church forty years ago…all over a haircut…As the oldest of 9 kids…not a thing wrong with birth control in my book. The first five of us raised the last four.
Separation of Church and State!!! Enough Said!!!
Well, not really, Frankie. Do you mean that the state should not be telling the Church what She must do, or do you mean that the state has the authority to tell the Church what She must do, and the Church just has to shut up and take it?
obama should concentrate on what keeps america together than seperates it. he should learn from the history of those who meddle in the affairs of catholic church. let obama avoid what he may regret in the future.
i dont understand why the church is against contraceptives and artificial birth control,i’m 23 and still single but if i dont get a good reason why i shouldn’t practise artificial birth control , i might do it. All i’m trying to say is that someone should please enlighten me on the church’s stand on this and its reasons for taking this stand. thanks.