Speaking at Georgetown, Kathleen Sebelius nods to JFK:
In that talk to Protestant ministers, Kennedy talked about his vision of religion and the public square, and said he believed in an America, and I quote, “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials…”
That’s all well and good, Madam Secretary. But what if we try turning that around? Should America also be a country “where no public official seeks to impose her will directly or indirectly upon a religious body” in a way that interferes with its peaceful public witness?
As an American citizen, I lament that Sebelius has so grossly misread our Constitution and laws (like RFRA). As a Christian, a very imperfect one, I struggle to find love for an official who knowingly and unapologetically persecutes the suffering body of Christ.
In one of today’s “On the Square” features, Patrick Deneen greets the Secretary by bidding a sad farewell to Georgetown.
May 18th, 2012 | 2:17 pm
The Kennedy quote has been taken out of context and truncated! Secretary Sebelius said:
May 18th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
“She is, in effect, celebrating the process in which she is being demonized”
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.
May 18th, 2012 | 3:00 pm
@David.
I agree that “persecution” overstates the where we’re at today. However, decisions like Roe v. Wade do not give one much confidence in the Supreme Court. And please tell me why “with a majority of Catholic members” should be a reliable predictor. For example a hypothetical majority Catholic SCOTUS of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Patrick Kennedy, and Kathleen Sebelius would not be too reassuring. Thankfully we do have Catholics that we can count on like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas but I don’t think we can count on Sotomayor nor Kennedy.
May 18th, 2012 | 3:11 pm
Steve,
I don’t understand your comment. Clearly Sebelius is saying the conflict-ridden process we are going through over the contraceptive mandate is a good process. If you are implying that she doesn’t believe that personally, who is to say? But taking the speech on its own, it is a celebration of the process.
May 18th, 2012 | 3:38 pm
philfourthirteen,
I did not mean to imply that the Catholic justices would all vote in accord against the contraceptive mandate. I do think, however, that the presence of six Catholics on the court (4.5 of them conservative) indicates this is not a country that persecutes Catholics. And I do think it also is a reasonable assurance that whatever decision the court makes (if it does make one) will not be affected by anti-Catholic prejudice. Sotomayor and Kennedy might find the contraceptive mandate constitutional, but I certainly don’t believe their decisions would be motivated by anti-Catholicism. (I also don’t think Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, if they found the contraceptive mandate unconstitutional, would do so because they were Catholic.)
I think there is very little anti-Catholic prejudice in the United States. Many Catholics in public office today may not be the most faithful Catholics imaginable. But it is not usually the nature of bigotry to distinguish between, say, practicing Jews and nonobservant Jews, or “good” Catholics and “bad” Catholics.
I would note, by the way, that I just read in the New York Times that a majority of Catholics support the contraceptive mandate. This, of course, in no way should make it more palatable to the USCCB or other Catholic who object to it. But it does make it a little strange for some Catholics to be complaining that the contraceptive mandate amounts to persecution while the majority of Catholics approve of the mandate.
May 18th, 2012 | 3:42 pm
I am implying that she is happy to make nice comments in a commencement speech but her actions speak much louder than her words.
May 18th, 2012 | 3:44 pm
Is not the dilemma this: “free exercise” means that the state cannot impose any restriction on the religious beliefs of individuals, but “no establishment” excludes those beliefs from intervening in, or impacting on, the relations between private individuals or associations and public authorities.
That is the dilemma that Employment Division v Smith on the one hand and RFRA on the other were attempting to address.
May 18th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
Exactly how does permitting areligious institution to opt out of state requirement to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to employees constitute an imposition of it’s will upon the “general public” or upon the “public acts” of officials? Are we to believe that denying this small substrate of the population who are free to obtain such low cost and readily available items elsewhere or find more congenial employers amounts to the general public suffering under the religious yoke? Are we to believe a different policy outcome from a new administration or the court will be the result of the direct or indirect imposition of the will of the bishops? Her words are not intended to invite but rather stifle opposition to her policy.
May 18th, 2012 | 5:02 pm
“She is, in effect, celebrating the process in which she is being demonized”
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.
Sometimes you have to wonder if the people who defend the Obama administration really believe themselves what they are saying.
It’s beyond parody, really.
May 18th, 2012 | 6:23 pm
“The contraceptive mandate does not go into effect until August 2013. The regulation being protested hasn’t even been written.”
You are completely wrong. The regulation was printed in the Federal Register. It is a promulgated regulation. The fact that its effective date is next year is irrelevant.
“I understand the objections of many Catholics, but the process is not over.”
A Nickol classic: You’re not being persecuted if you have a chance to redeem your rights through costly and time-consuming litigation.
“But it does make it a little strange for some Catholics to be complaining that the contraceptive mandate amounts to persecution while the majority of Catholics approve of the mandate.”
Another classic–Catholics determine their doctrines by opinion polls, so if the majority of “Catholics” don’t have a problem with the mandate, then it must be the USCCB and the Catholics who go to Church more than twice a year who are wrong.
May 19th, 2012 | 12:21 am
David, I disagree on the level of anti-Catholic bigotry within this country. I arrive at that determination not from one of feeling of persecution, but one of understanding that one of the many ways we humans refuse the responsibilities and indulge in the of vices we hold to our own is accomplished through the killing of conscience through the killing of conscious and attacking of the Church. Rather than explain away these tactics, I view them as they are: desperate attempts by Catholics struggling for understanding and resulting in an invocation of the Devil for some material benefit or temporary reprieve from their torments. But at the core is a hatred or lashing out at the Catholic faith, often by Catholics themselves.
May 19th, 2012 | 8:40 am
“Clearly Sebelius is saying the conflict-ridden process we are going through over the contraceptive mandate is a good process. ”
Why is it a good process to debate a threat to religious liberty? I would prefer to live in a society where religious freedom was respected so that it would not be necessary to have such a debate.
May 19th, 2012 | 12:57 pm
I would prefer to live in a society where religious freedom was respected so that it would not be necessary to have such a debate.
Pauld,
And how would that work? Would you like to make religious liberty absolute? Should Muslims, who have religious objections to insurance, be exempt from the legal requirement to have car insurance if they own a car? Should Amish employers, who have religious objections to insurance, be exempt from paying into the Social Security system for non-Amish employees? Should those who believe in faith healing and reject modern medicine be able to let their children die of ailments that modern medicine can cure? For Muslims, dogs are unclean. Should Muslim cab drivers be able to refuse to pick up blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs? Should Jehovah’s Witness doctor or nurse in an emergency room be allowed to refuse to be involved in giving a blood transfusion to a patient who is bleeding to death, since Jehovah’s Witnesses consider blood transfusions immoral?
May 19th, 2012 | 6:12 pm
Another classic–Catholics determine their doctrines by opinion polls, so if the majority of “Catholics” don’t have a problem with the mandate, then it must be the USCCB and the Catholics who go to Church more than twice a year who are wrong.
Brian English,
You are of course distorting what I said.
First, there is no question of doctrine here. It is not Catholic doctrine that says the contraceptive mandate is wrong. Catholic doctrine says contraception is wrong, but there is no doctrine that says the contraceptive mandate is wrong. There is an argument to be made that the contraceptive mandate requires Catholic employers to materially cooperate with the evil of contraception, and that such cooperation under the proposed regulation is not remote enough to be justified. However, this is an argument I have not seen clearly made by the bishops, and of course there would be arguments against such a position as well.
Second, while I did say I don’t accept that Catholics are being persecuted, I did not say whether the Catholics objecting to the contraceptive mandate are wrong or whether the Catholics who approve of the contraceptive mandate are right. I merely pointed out that it is a strange situation when some Catholics claim a government policy is persecuting Catholics and a majority of Catholics approve of the policy.
May 20th, 2012 | 4:09 am
The Obama Administration violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment by forcing people and institutions to pay to support practices that are sinful and directly opposed to their belief as to what God requires of them. It is the same as if the government were taxing Catholics to fund a government subsidy to the Episcopalians.
May 21st, 2012 | 11:15 am
“First, there is no question of doctrine here. It is not Catholic doctrine that says the contraceptive mandate is wrong. Catholic doctrine says contraception is wrong, but there is no doctrine that says the contraceptive mandate is wrong.”
Oh brother. There is no Catholic doctrine that condemns Catholics being forced by the government to engage in actions that violate Catholic doctrine? What an incredibly sophisticated moral system you have.
“There is an argument to be made that the contraceptive mandate requires Catholic employers to materially cooperate with the evil of contraception, and that such cooperation under the proposed regulation is not remote enough to be justified.”
Please spare us the material cooperation red herring. If someone forces me at gunpoint to rob a bank, that mitigates my culpability. It doesn’t excuse the behavior of the person who focred me to rob the bank.
“I merely pointed out that it is a strange situation when some Catholics claim a government policy is persecuting Catholics and a majority of Catholics approve of the policy.”
It is a strange situation where people who reject central teachings of the Catholic Church still insist on calling themselves Catholics.
May 21st, 2012 | 11:38 am
Per:
“There is an argument to be made that the contraceptive mandate requires Catholic employers to materially cooperate with the evil of contraception, and that such cooperation under the proposed regulation is not remote enough to be justified. However, this is an argument I have not seen clearly made by the bishops,”
David Nickol, at this point in the debate to say the Bishops have not made perfectly clear arguments is nonsense. Unless of course you are a Fundamentalist and you are waiting for the Bishops to use your actual wording -
“the contraceptive mandate requires Catholic employers to materially cooperate with the evil of contraception”
If so, then you are correct, in their formal statements, the Bishops have not used your exact words. If you are not a Fundamentalist, then what we can easily conclude, by your own admission, is that you don’t accept the arguments the Bishops have made.
At this point it’s important to remind that it is not an argument that the mandate forces the Catholic Church to materially cooperate with the evil of contraception -yes I used your exact words– oh and you left out abortion and sterilization — it’s a fact that it forces them and everyone else by the power of the Federal Government to materially cooperate with the evil of contraception. It is because it is a fact and not an argument that we will soon witness the Catholic Church fighting our government at the Supreme Court should the forthcoming S.C decision uphold the Patient Affordability Act. (Obama did promise to be a historic prez and how!!) But, that case will take some time to get there so Catholic hospitals, schools and agencies may/will have to close in the interim. Or perhaps forever.
Considering the Bishops’ Apostolic role as teachers of doctrine, and your inability to accept what they teach, you may want to acquaint yourself with the writings of the one Jesuit at Georgetown who signed Prf. Deenan’s letter asking for the Sebelius invitation to be withdrawn, Father James Schall. From Embracing the Whole of Reality:
“It was Aristotle who warned us that the reason we do not accept the truth even when it is presented to us is because we do not really want to know it. Knowing it would force us to change our ways. If we do not want to change our ways, we will invent a ‘theory’ whereby we can live without the truth.”
http://www.zenit.org/article-26986?l=english
Cheers!
May 21st, 2012 | 1:39 pm
Brian,
A cogent and thoughtful argument against those intent on carrying water for the Obama administration. If Obama’s HHS Department mandated forced sterilization the usual suspects would be defending it by pointing to opinion polls and some alleged malfeasance on the part of the Bishops.
May 21st, 2012 | 2:14 pm
it’s a fact that it forces them and everyone else by the power of the Federal Government to materially cooperate with the evil of contraception
Mrs. Jackson,
I actually agree that the government is requiring (some) religious organizations who object to contraception to materially cooperate in it. The question is how remote that cooperation is. It is a Catholic principle that all of us can’t help but cooperate with evil, and that we are not prohibited from doing so as long as the cooperation is remote and there is proportionate reason for it. The argument I haven’t seen made is that the “accommodation” proposed by the Obama administration (employer secures insurance coverage for employees without contraceptive coverage, insurance company contacts each employee individually and offers “free” coverage) involves the employer so proximately in the alleged evil of contraception that the employer itself is committing an evil. Here’s a fascinating example of what a moral argument about cooperating with evil looks like. They are not simple.
May 21st, 2012 | 2:25 pm
If Obama’s HHS Department mandated forced sterilization the usual suspects would be defending it by pointing to opinion polls and some alleged malfeasance on the part of the Bishops.
publius,
Well, at least you do not mention me by name.
I am actually not convinced that the contraceptive mandate is right, although it may be. It may also be constitutional and may not violate the RFRA. To the extent that I “defend” the contraceptive mandate is to the extent that people make either weak arguments against it or no arguments at all, just sarcastic personal jabs.
The kindest word I can think of for many of the comments directed at me is “snarky.”
By the way, I started out defending Secretary Sebelius’s speech, not her policies. Anyone who has read the speech can see it is innocuous. Whether she made it sincerely is another matter entirely. But Sebelius, no matter how much many people loath her, said nothing at all objectionable at Georgetown. I do think it was a mistake on the part of Georgetown to invite her.
May 21st, 2012 | 2:37 pm
Thankfully David this cooperation with evil is very simple – the latest:
Catholic organizations across the country file suit against contraception mandate
Published May 21, 2012
Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.
Claiming their “fundamental rights hang in the balance,” a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations filing were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America. [Note the absence of Georgetown]
The groups are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.
A statement from the University of Notre Dame said the requirement would still call on religious-affiliated groups to “facilitate” coverage “for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching,” the statement said.
Rev. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, said in a message to the campus that the filing “is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.”
The contraception rule does include an exemption for religious organizations — but that exemption does not cover many religious-affiliated organizations like schools and charities. Complaints about the narrowly tailored exemption prompted a stand-off between the Obama administration and religious groups earlier this year. As a compromise, the administration said insurers — and not the religious-affiliated organizations themselves — could be required to offer contraceptive coverage directly.
But many organizations were not satisfied with the plan. John Garvey, president of Catholic University, said in a statement Monday that “such a revision would not solve our moral dilemma.” He argued that the cost of contraceptive coverage would still be “rolled into the cost” of a university insurance policy.
“In the end the university, its employees and its students will be forced to pay for the prescriptions and services we find objectionable,” he said.
University of Notre Dame Law Prof. Richard Garnett said in a statement that the mandate could affect a range of religious institutions, including “schools, health care providers and social welfare agencies.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/21/catholic-organizations-across-country-file-suit-against-contraception-mandate/print#ixzz1vWxHLVfU
May 21st, 2012 | 3:19 pm
Thankfully David this cooperation with evil is very simple
Mrs. Jackson,
I am not talking about a legal assertion. I am talking about a moral argument. As I said above, I agree that the government is requiring some religious organizations who object to contraception to materially cooperate in providing it. All they need to do to make a legal challenge is to assert that they have a religious objection to the mandate. They do not have to make a moral argument to the court. For example, the Catholic Church doesn’t have to demonstrate to the court why it considers contraception evil. The court doesn’t have to decide whether there will be cooperation with evil. The court has to decide, based on the First Amendment and all previous First Amendment jurisprudence, whether the interest of the government in promulgating the contraceptive mandate overrides the desire of religious organizations to have nothing to do with providing insurance coverage that may result in contraceptive coverage. As has been noted many times before, religious liberty is not absolute. The courts are not automatically required to side with religious groups who bring suits alleging infringement on religious liberty even when there quite obviously is infringement on religious liberty.
May 21st, 2012 | 3:54 pm
Oh brother. There is no Catholic doctrine that condemns Catholics being forced by the government to engage in actions that violate Catholic doctrine? What an incredibly sophisticated moral system you have.
Brian English,
That the use of contraception in certain circumstances (but not all circumstances) is prohibited is certainly Catholic doctrine. That forcing someone to cooperate with an evil in such a way that they are themselves committing evil would of course violate Catholic teaching. What is not at all clear is whether the contraceptive mandate, with or without the “accommodation,” is forcing individuals or organizations into something more serious than remote material cooperation (with proportionate reason). Many Catholic organizations, in response to state mandates, have made a prudential decision (or what I consider a prudential decision) to continue providing employees or students with health insurance, even though the are required in their states to provide coverage of contraception. The question is whether it is a matter of fact that to provide insurance coverage that includes coverage of contraception is to cooperate with evil to the extent that those responsible are morally culpable. If it is an actual fact, then many organizations (including at least one diocese) are doing evil. I am saying I have seen no detailed argument, based on moral principles and theories of cooperation with evil that it is indeed doing evil to provide insurance coverage that covers contraception and that those who do provide such insurance are morally culpable.
The Catholic Church has a long history of moral arguments on such matters, and the principles developed are quite complex. The issues aren’t complex because I personally am trying to muddy the waters. They are complex because it is virtually impossible not to cooperate with evil, and the Catholic Church has attempted to develop principles that help one to draw lines as to what is acceptable and what is not.
May 21st, 2012 | 4:18 pm
Oh gosh David, who thinks the Catholic Church in America or elsewhere would actually go to a court of law to make their case of contraception being immoral?
Per:
“The court has to decide, based on the First Amendment and all previous First Amendment jurisprudence, whether the interest of the government in promulgating the contraceptive mandate overrides the desire of religious organizations to have nothing to do with providing insurance coverage that may result in contraceptive coverage.”
No. The issue is much broader than that. Yes court has to decide whether the mandate is unconstitutional and violates First Amendment rights, but, maybe most importantly, it will decided if the new definition of what constitutes -according to the government- of a religious organization is constitutional. From the Bishops :
“The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment and federal law by forcing the plaintiffs, all Catholic organizations, to sacrifice their beliefs in order to be able to continue their mission of serving all people in need.
“Specifically, the suit stems from the mandate’s new definition of what constitutes a religious organization. Contrary to long-standing precedent, the law exempts from the mandate only those religious institutions that primarily serve and employ individuals of their own faith. Any other religious organizations, like Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and charities that serve all individuals regardless of their faith, do not themselves qualify as religious for purposes of the exemption.
“Consequently, the HHS mandate forces these organizations to act in direct violation of their Catholic beliefs.”
Because Catholic hospitals, charities and school help non-Catholics, they no longer qualify to our government as a religious organization. Only actual Catholic churches qualify and they are exempted.
What was interesting to note in all of the defenders of Sebelius speaking at Georgetown is that they believed Georgetown was a Catholic school.
May 21st, 2012 | 5:29 pm
“The Catholic Church has a long history of moral arguments on such matters, and the principles developed are quite complex. The issues aren’t complex because I personally am trying to muddy the waters. They are complex because it is virtually impossible not to cooperate with evil, and the Catholic Church has attempted to develop principles that help one to draw lines as to what is acceptable and what is not.”
Yes, Catholics trying to support the Obama Administration have twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to justify going along with the mandate. They wasted a lot of time because they are missing the point.
Whether Catholics strong-armed by the government into going along with activities that the Church considers immoral are morally culpable is irrelevant. What the government is doing is wrong–on both moral and constitutional grounds.
May 21st, 2012 | 6:02 pm
“Many Catholic organizations, in response to state mandates, have made a prudential decision (or what I consider a prudential decision) to continue providing employees or students with health insurance, even though the are required in their states to provide coverage of contraception.”
This is an exaggeration and has been addressed before, here by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:
” The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon). Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.”
Note the Obama administration’s continuing inattention to self-insuring by Catholic employers, even after the so-called “accommodation”. They admit it is “a problem” but they will not address it until after the election. That is either an example of egregious oversight and incompetence or cynical manipulation of citizens—both the Democratic base that needed stiffening up and the Catholic citizens whom they despise.
This was all so unnecessary. It is despicable.
May 22nd, 2012 | 7:09 am
Whether Catholics strong-armed by the government into going along with activities that the Church considers immoral are morally culpable is irrelevant.
Brian English,
It is irrelevant to the legal battle whether or not a Catholic who complies with the contraceptive mandate is morally culpable for cooperating with evil, but since you have said such people are apostates, it is relevant to our discussions. One such “apostate” is Bishop Morlino of the Diocese of Madison.
May 22nd, 2012 | 7:27 am
This is an exaggeration and has been addressed before . . .
peg,
I said “many Catholic organizations” were complying with state contraceptive mandates. How can that be an exaggeration? See this, for example.
Note the Obama administration’s continuing inattention to self-insuring by Catholic employers, even after the so-called “accommodation”.
This is simply untrue. The HHS Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is open for comments until June 19 and discusses a number of proposals that would fund contraception coverage so that the self-insured would not have to pay for it.
Go to the link and search for “self-insured” to read more.
May 22nd, 2012 | 10:46 am
“It is irrelevant to the legal battle whether or not a Catholic who complies with the contraceptive mandate is morally culpable for cooperating with evil, but since you have said such people are apostates, it is relevant to our discussions. One such “apostate” is Bishop Morlino of the Diocese of Madison.”
No, we are not having a discussion about the stauts of Bishop Morlino’s soul, so you are just introducing another irrelevancy.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact