By now everyone knows about the Obama administration’s decision to require all employers, including religious ones like Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities (though not houses of worship), to include in their employee health insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraception. Everyone knows too about the entirely justified outrage of the Catholic bishops and other religious leaders at this gross invasion of religious freedom.
Of course, some people have argued that the real story here is not about religious freedom but the ever-expanding role of government. Thus, Daniel Henninger argues that the Catholic Church is merely feeling the kind of intrusive government regulation that businesses, doctors, schools and others feel all the time. I think this is right too.
There is, however, another point here, intermediate between the religious-freedom point and the big-government point, and it is one that the Catholic bishops ought to care about. Thus far, the bishops have argued that, since the Church believes that abortion, sterilization, and contraception are morally wrong, it is wrong for the government to force the Church’s institutions to fund such things through its health insurance plans. By what logic, however, does the Church restrict this argument to just religious institutions? If these practices are morally wrong in the way the Church clearly says they are, how may the government force any employer who objects to them to funding them? Do the Catholic bishops believe that the government may legitimately compel people do wrong, unless such people are religious institutions? If the board of directors of an S&P 500 company, or an entrepreneur with a small business, decides that the company’s health insurance plans ought not cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraception, does the government have a right to compel that company to include such things in its health plans nonetheless? It’s hard to see how any consistent Catholic can say this. If an action is wrong, compelling someone to do that action is wrong too, no matter who the person subject to the compulsion might be.
It is no doubt politically astute for the Catholic bishops to frame this issue as one of religious freedom; they already seem to gaining traction by doing so. Moreover, an across-the-board exception for anyone objecting to the government mandate may well be politically unattainable, and if so, it may be imprudent to argue for such an exception. But that doesn’t change the moral principle at stake. By framing the issue in the way they have, the bishops have made the issue seem like one of religious freedom peculiar to religious institutions. The real issue, from a philosophical point of view, is one of freedom of conscience applicable to all persons and all institutions.
February 10th, 2012 | 11:16 am
Good point, but it does not go far enough.
Individual companies would be forced to ‘prove’ that their conscience was violated. And today’s CEO may not have the same beliefs that tomorrow’s CEO has.
The real solution is to get government completely out of regulating peoples individual behavior unless is violates another individual’s freedom.
That is what our Constitution is all about, after all.
February 10th, 2012 | 11:26 am
There is a difference between the two cases, although both are morally problematic.
I believe that paying for the insurance mandate constitutes material cooperation (as opposed to formal cooperation) that is not proximate. There is an element of duress, in that there is a state mandate with the threat that fines may seriously damage other goods. And there is a level of ignorance – no one knows for sure whether any particular person is actually accessing the thing being paid for. As such, when an individual employer pays for such insurance, it is likely the case that they are not morally culpable for the evil action of the other person. I would still object to the payment, and would support the conscience of those likewise object.
However, the analysis is different for a religious organization. All of the Church’s institutions partake in the “witnessing” role of the Church – as such, they “teach” what is the Church’s understanding of the moral law and the dignity of the human person. They have a public character to them that private individuals do not. As such, they have a greater risk that their actions will give scandal to the faithful (scandal in the Catholic theological sense of leading others to sin). If the Church pays for such contraception, then it must be acceptable, and they are not really opposed to it. To have these institutions teach what is contrary to the faith is inimical to their existence. There might be some similar considerations for private individuals, but it is less prominent in most cases.
I do think the mandate being imposed on faithful Catholic business owners is morally wrong, and that people should work for the protection of their conscience as well. But the two cases do involve distinct considerations, and I do not think it is wrong to act in acknowledgment of that distinction.
February 10th, 2012 | 11:46 am
Even this article is a bit guilty of that. It’s interesting that the debate has so far focused entirely on contraception. As David Frum points out:
“…Republicans are not proposing to allow employers and plans to refuse to cover blood transfusions if they conscientiously object to them (although there are religious groups that do). Or vaccinations (although there are individuals who conscientiously object to those as well). Or medicines derived from animal experimentation. (Ditto.)”
February 10th, 2012 | 11:47 am
Bravo! Well stated. I worry that the sheep will be abandoned by our shepards.
February 10th, 2012 | 11:55 am
By the same token, why should churches get any sort of special treatment at all?
I mean, if you’re going to go down that road, let’s go all the way and revoke the church’s tax-exempt status. Because why should the rest of us pay more in taxes in order to subsidize the church?
February 10th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Yes. I would just add that we aren’t talking about conscience rights in terms of an insignificant issue here. We are talking about the government forcing people to participate in the taking of innocent human life. The government the founders instituted didn’t claim to have the authority to sanction the killing of innocent human beings, much less the authority to require its citizens to participate in that activity. On the contrary, the founders declared that the very purpose of government was to protect the inalienable rights of humanity, the first of which is the right to life.
We need to admit to ourselves that the government instituted by the founders, one based upon theism and natural law, has been overthrown. Secondly, considering the fact that there is no basis for any such thing as the inalienable rights of humanity outside of theism and natural law, thoughtful Americans must resolve to restore government based upon the principles of the founders, or get used to being the subjects of never ending godless social engineering that views us as a herd to be managed with no more intrinsic rights than cows. The self appointed managers of the human herd are convinced they know what is best for us, even to the extent that they feel free to arrange abortions for our minor daughters without our knowledge or consent, and arrange for humanity to pay for and participate in taking each others lives.
We are beings with rational souls made in the image and likeness of God, every one of us having an inestimable worth and an eternal destiny. The godless social engineers, the self appointed managers of the human herd, are mere mortals doing a terrible job of playing God. Read once again the Declaration of Independence. It is revolutionary thinking worthy of Americans and expresses their true spirit, which is nearly extinguished, yet still burns. The existing system is still functioning well enough to have a peaceful, non-violent revolution using the democratic process. We need to do that before the flame goes out.
February 10th, 2012 | 12:25 pm
The real solution is to get government completely out of regulating peoples individual behavior unless is violates another individual’s freedom.
That is what our Constitution is all about, after all.
Obama and his friends at the New York Times do not like our Constitution.
They are hinting that we should replace it with a newer, shinier model….one that replaces that old fashioned view of “rights” with a new one: rights as what you’re entitled to receive from government, not what you’re entitled to freedom from.
February 10th, 2012 | 1:14 pm
Would these issues be solved if health insurance wasn’t tied to one’s employer?
If health insurance became an individual or group thing (like through a church or club), what kind of problems would that cause?
February 10th, 2012 | 1:14 pm
[...] by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.We’ll see. More details as they come.Robert T. Miller at First Things:Thus far, the bishops have argued that, since the Church believes that abortion, sterilization, and [...]
February 10th, 2012 | 1:16 pm
Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos has exactly this same take.
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/290742/no-lawful-compromise-hhs-contraceptive-mandate-ed-whelan
February 10th, 2012 | 1:22 pm
Mr. Miller, I’m glad to see someone finally making the argument that the problem with the mandate goes beyond whether religious institutions can be forced to violate their consciences. Private contracts for health insurance should be between the contracting parties. Government at any level has no business telling one party that it must furnish, or another that it must obtain, coverage for anything that either party might find objectionable or even just unnecessary. A sterile atheist has no more need for contraceptive coverage than does a cloistered nun. No argument has been, or rationally can be, made that contraceptive coverage, whether for prophylactics or Plan B, constitutes necessary or basic medical care.
The controversy has been worthwhile in terms of bringing this abomination the attention it deserves. But it has also been a misdirection play. The business owner, or individual, who wants to obtain health insurance but who is not a religious institution, has no choice but to materially, if unwillingly, cooperate in an evil. The only solution, assuming that Obama’s “compromise” allows for policies that do not provide this coverage, would be for everyone to become a “minister” in the Universal Life Church. A few online clicks and you are electronically ordained. Then you can be a “religious institution” of one.
As with everything else that this administration has done, the mandate is about the raw exercise and abuse of power.
February 10th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
I’ll be interested to hear an analysis of the issue of giving scandal under this new proposed arrangement by the White House.
As I understand it, the compromise is as follows. Someone is hired by a religious employer and gets health insurance that, as an initial matter, does not include contraceptives. Then, at some point, the insurance company holding the policy contacts that employee and says – Hey, if you want free contraceptives, here are the steps to take. We, your insurance company will provide them to you free of charge.
How does this mitigate the risk of scandal? The implication is that the scandal is mitigated by the fact that it’s not the employer who is providing the contraceptives, it is the insurance company. But the insurance company is chosen and paid for by the employer. And somehow it’s “the insurance company” that is paying for the free contraceptives, not the religious employer.
That strikes me as kind of bizarre. Where does the insurance company get the money to pay for the contraceptives? From other, non-objecting employers? I very much doubt that. From the insurance company’s profits? Not likely. They get the money from the employer with whom they are contracting.
Can this kind of shell-game about who is “paying” for the contraceptives mitigate the concern about scandal? I would think it would only mitigate that concern for people who are very naive or uninformed. At the end of the day, the insurance paid for as part of the employer’s compensation package is covering contraceptives.
Or am I missing something?
February 10th, 2012 | 1:55 pm
Thanks, Robert Miller. I would like to hear the bishops speaking out on behalf of the consciences of their flock at least as much as they’re speaking out on behalf of their own consciences. What’s the point of having a church institution with a clear conscience, if all the laity have violated their’s.
February 10th, 2012 | 2:57 pm
If health insurance became an individual or group thing (like through a church or club), what kind of problems would that cause?
Then Obama would just be passing a law regulating what groups can or can’t do, or what insurance policies must have.
The problem isn’t our health care; the problem is that the progressive movement is faced with the crumbling of its ideology. All the grand promises have failed. Progressivism has failed. There is no way within capitalism to do what they claimed to be able to do. They must either force us to submit to the state in the form of outright socialism, or they must give up and go home – there is no other direction left for them to go.
February 10th, 2012 | 4:18 pm
This point is fair enough, but the post answers itself. The Church has already said that these things are immoral (not just ritually prohibited) and has been ignored by a large majority of the population. So this is a fall-back measure, to be sure. I don’t know that you can fault the bishops for using an effective fall-back measure when the more general statement of the principle has already been rejected.
Good for Miller for making distinctions clear, though.
February 10th, 2012 | 7:48 pm
[...] Politics and Principle in the Contraception Mandate – Robert T. Miller, First Things [...]
February 10th, 2012 | 9:45 pm
Ray Ingles, David Frum lists issues of overwhelming and obvious public health concern. Nina Totenberg tried this line of “attack”‘ too, and failed. Medicines and transfusions save lives. vaccinations also save lives and keep diseases from spreading to others. What does Frum think happens when contraception, abortions and sterilization are not covered by some insurance programs at some organizations?
February 10th, 2012 | 9:47 pm
Ray Ingles mentions Frum, who is correct – that the GOP chose the wrong argument. To wit, see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81198666/Gospel-of-Obama-per-Dr-Krauthammer
February 10th, 2012 | 11:05 pm
A person’s last refuge is his or her conscience and Obama is trying to shove that aside. Harry, thank you for your comment. I spent a few hours at Mt. Vernon yesterday, twice watching the film that describes George Washington’s opinion of religious freedom and reading books on the Bill of Rights. If ever there was a case that demonstrated the infringement of religious exercise by an oppressive government, it is this one. We do not practice our religion at the indulgence of the government. Obama cannot take away what he did not give us. He is not God and we are not his creatures.
I do not know if I can accept the right of the government to censor the letters of the military chaplains, either, or tell Catholic priests what they can and cannot say to their congregations in the armed forces. The government says it is seditious, but I do not trust the government. That is a pernicious fall-out from Obaba’s attack on my first amendment rights. Even if we ultimately “win” this, he has weakened my bonds of allegiance to this country.
February 10th, 2012 | 11:22 pm
Amen! Amen! I have been saying this since the introduction of Obamacare. Our Bishops have grown comfortable in supporting all sorts of mandates against private business, under the advisement of the Catholic Social Industry. They were comfortable because all sorts of “conscience protections” were afforded them. Now that the abortion regime has changed the increment (not the goal), will our Bishops retreat to comfort there again?
February 11th, 2012 | 9:22 am
[...] Robert T. Miller asks: “By what logic, however, does the Church restrict this argument to just religious institutions? If these practices are morally wrong in the way the Church clearly says they are, how may the government force any employer who objects to them to funding them? Do the Catholic bishops believe that the government may legitimately compel people do wrong, unless such people are religious institutions?” ↩ Share this:FacebookTwitterStumbleUponDiggRedditLinkedInEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact