Either these people have no money or they’ve already finished their Christmas shopping. (I won’t say which category applies to me.)
Yesterday, the Cardinal Newman Society’s Patrick J. Reilly published an op-ed in the Washington Times criticizing an effort by the University of Notre Dame and the Catholic Health Association to offer a substitute for the very narrow exemptions contained in the regulations proposed by the Obama Administration. Today, Rick Garnett comes to the defense of this effort, arguing that Reilly’s criticisms are unfair.
Here’s the Notre Dame letter, so you can see for yourselves. And here’s the crucial language:
Therefore, Madam Secretary, on behalf of Notre Dame and other Catholic colleges and universities that share our mission and our moral convictions, I request that the definition be rewritten using the principles behind the ”church plan” exemption found in section 414(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was developed specifically to avoid chruch-state entanglements in religious governance relative to pension, health and welfare plans offered by religious entities. This is the statute that should be used as a guide for determining the definition of a religious employer. Section 414(e) considers whether an organization or institution “shares common religious bonds and convictions with a church” when determining if the organization qualifies as a “religious employer.” This definition more adequately defines religious employers to include all organizations that work in ministries of the church.
For me, the problem with this language is that it tethers the exemption to connection with “a church.” I don’t know whether Notre Dame’s President means that language narrowly–to refer to a particular house of worship–or broadly–to refer to a denomination. In either case, it seems to exclude faith-based organizations that have a religious mission , but aren’t explicitly tied to houses of worship or denominations. Where would a non-denominational evangelical college fall under these considerations? Prison Fellowship Ministries? Focus on the Family? The proposed alternative language works reasonably well in the institutional environment of the Roman Catholic Church, less well in the more fluid and less institutionalized world of evangelicalism. I won’t speak for other faith traditions, because I know them less well.
Lest you think that I’m bright enough to have come up with this reservation all by myself (having just finished grading four sets of papers and four sets of final examinations, my brain is basically mush), I’ll point you to a letter, signed by a variety of non-Catholic religious leaders, that has been sent to the President and has been, or will shortly be, posted on the website of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance:
We reiterate our opposition to the narrow exemption. We wish to stress that we strongly object to a revised exemption that is only broadened enough to include faith-based organizations that are affiliated with a specific denomination. We understand that such a compromise has been proposed to your administration. The suggested compromise discriminates against the many religions that organize themselves in ways other than by being centered on a denomination. Some faith-based organizations have an interdenominational or ecumenical affiliation. Yet others are linked with houses of worship that are not denominational at all. And a significant number of faith-based organizations are not affiliated formally with any house of worship or denomination. Rather, they are, and are considered in Federal law to be, religious organizations because of their religious mission, their faith-shaped internal operations, and their presentation of themselves to the community as religious organizations.
UPDATE: Rick Garnett notes that the non-denominational Colorado Christian University has filed suit against the contraceptive mandate.
December 22nd, 2011 | 10:47 am
Below is an excerpt from Notre Dame president Jenkins’ letter to Kathleen Sebelius. (Emphasis mine in all that follows):
Catholic institutions are obliged to submit to the clear teaching of Scripture and to JP II’s authoritative teaching in Evangelium Vitae which is derived from it:
“Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person … Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action” …
… any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force …
Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
December 22nd, 2011 | 11:30 am
I don’t see why private companies should be exempt. I own a business. If a person or persons who believes that abortion is murder and/or that contraception is morally wrong owns a business and offers health insurance, that person or persons should not have to purchase insurance that offers abortion, sterilization, etc. for other people. Long before I returned to the Catholic Church — which is to say, when I was a young married woman who saw no problem with contraception — I worked for a private company that did not offer contraception coverage. I was shocked, but it made me see that insurance was for illness and medicine, not for just anything I happened to want. I was a young person used to thinking that everyone agreed with me (or rather, that I agreed with what “everyone else” knew to be true) but that made me face that people do, in fact, have different opinions about certain issues and that I could and SHOULD not expect everyone to agree with me. Moreover, it made me see that having (or not having) children was solely the responsibility of myself and my husband.
So I don’t think this should be confined to church-run organizations at all. Abortion and “reproductive health services” should not be considered health care at all. They should not be considered anyone’s “right” to have provided for free. There are plenty of REAL health services that people need. Paying for these purely elective things should be, as it is now, up to the insurer.
December 22nd, 2011 | 12:26 pm
As Catholics, we who are members of The Royal Priesthood, are all called to witness to The Word of God and thus we are ALL ministers of our Catholic Faith.
December 22nd, 2011 | 12:27 pm
It’s a problem when the state says that private parties have to do things that are forbidden by their religion and moral beliefs. Why is it the government’s business to order Employer X to pay for Employee Y’s morning after pills?
Why not just exempt any employer with a sincere moral objection to providing that portion of the mandate? If employees don’t like it, they can work elsewhere. Would there really be that many employers falsely claiming an objection to save a couple of bucks on whatever premiums cover these things?
December 22nd, 2011 | 1:50 pm
It’s a problem when the state says that private parties have to do things that are forbidden by their religion and moral beliefs.
Slats Grobnik,
The government is not saying employers must provide insurance that pays for contraceptives. It is saying that if an employer has a plan that is not grandfathered, then that plan must cover contraceptives. There is no government mandate to provide employees with insurance at all. (There may be a tax, though, for employers in certain cases who don’t.)
December 22nd, 2011 | 2:02 pm
Why not just exempt any employer with a sincere moral objection to providing that portion of the mandate? If employees don’t like it, they can work elsewhere.
Honest answer?
Because they can’t win their political agenda through persuasion, and must therefore use coercive force.
Because that’s what they do.
December 23rd, 2011 | 3:12 am
[...] For me, the problem with this language is that it tethers the exemption to connection with “a church.” I don’t know whether Notre Dame’s President means that language narrowly–to refer to a particular house of worship–or broadly–to refer to a denomination. In either case, it seems to exclude faith-based organizations that have a religious mission , but aren’t explicitly tied to houses of worship or denominations. Where would a non-denominational evangelical college fall under these considerations? Prison Fellowship Ministries? Focus on the Family? The proposed alternative language works reasonably well in the institutional environment of the Roman Catholic Church, less well in the more fluid and less institutionalized world of evangelicalism. I won’t speak for other faith traditions, because I know them less well. [more] [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact