In a recent political ad, Catholics Called to Witness (CC2W) tells Catholics to look at all of the issues facing America this November (including energy, jobs and the economy). Among these issues are gay marriage, abortion, and religious freedom/the contraceptive mandate. Near its end, the ad (which has gone viral in the nearly three months it’s been out) says votes related to these three latter issues “will affect the future–and be recorded in eternity.”
Personally, I thought the ad was right on point–abortion and the contraceptive/sterilization/abortifacient mandate are, in my opinion, two critical political issues this fall for any Catholic in good standing with the Church. However, this ad naturally drew controversy. One person who opposed the ad’s message was Frank Cocozzelli, a New York City lawyer who writes for the liberal blog Daily Kos. Unfortunately, Cocozzelli makes a couple of significant errors in his post, and is misleading at other points.
First, Cocozzelli says Catholics Called to Witness claims some issues (life, marriage and religious freedom) are “non-negotiable,” and indicates they are prioritizing the issues as an independent organization. This is technically inaccurate. While the group does say this in the ad, CC2W is merely repeating the Catholic Church’s official position on the matters. While the Church’s moral positions on issues that do not concern grave or intrinsic evils (such as those relating to immigration, health care and social justice) are to be heeded, the Church acknowledges that the complexity of the issue is such that the respective moral concerns may be addressed by a number of acceptable proposals. Thus, the Church defers to the “prudential judgment” of statesmen and policy professionals, without regard to partisanship. This deferential treatment is not accorded to gay marriage, contraceptives, or abortion.
Second, Cocozzelli disputes claims that President Obama is anti-Catholic. While I think it is debatable as to whether or not the contraceptive mandate was specifically meant to target the Church, it is not debatable that the Church will likely be compelled to shut down its hospitals (about one-sixth of all hospital beds in the nation are Catholic), schools and other religiously-affiliated organizations across the nation should the contraceptive mandate be in place come August 2013. It is also fairly clear that the Administration misled Archbishop Dolan regarding the mandate in November 2011.
Third, Cocozzelli says “…there may be more going on here than using Catholic damnation anxiety as a tool to roll back marriage equality and reproductive rights. The video may also be part of a wider effort to eradicate public education.” Eradicate public education? To back this rather sensational accusation, Cocozzelli cites associations the video’s creators have with several groups like the Home School Legal Defense Association (HLDSA). However, Jeremiah Lorrig, Director of Media Relations for HSLDA, told me the organization’s mission is to “promote parental rights so they can decide on the best educational choices for their children … public or private.” Michael Ramey, Director of Communications & Research for ParentalRights.org – another group targeted by the post–e-mailed me the following: “Millions of parents all over the country rely on public schools as the means by which they exercise their right to direct their child’s education. They will continue to do so under [our proposals]. Any charge to the contrary is ridiculous.”
Finally, Cocozzelli says the ad explicitly implies damnation to hell if one votes for a candidate (i.e., President Obama) who supports the three “non-negotiables.” However, my viewing of the ad is merely that a voter who will support candidates in opposition to the Church on these moral and faith teachings will have to own that support–as they will have to own every act in their lives–when facing Christ at the gates of heaven.
Before writing this post I managed to track down Cocozzelli’s law office in New York to ask him about his knowledge related to the Church being correct on all matters of faith and morals. He explained that he was indeed raised Catholic and felt that social justice issues were paramount, as opposed to the non-negotiables described in the ad. I left my conversation with him on cordial terms, and I think his intent in going after the ad was well-intentioned (as opposed to, say, this Daily Kos poster, who apparently believes the video’s message was organized by the Church’s hierarchy). Unfortunately, though, it seems his political viewpoints got in the way of the facts on a number of occasions, most importantly in ways that could mislead the reader as to how Catholics ought to make decisions on political decisions related to faith and morals.
Dustin Siggins is a policy and politics blogger who has been published in the Washington Examiner, Huffington Post, and other publications. He is a regular contributor to HotAir.com‘s Green Room and Race42012.com, and is the co-author of a forthcoming book on the national debt with William Beach of The Heritage Foundation.
June 1st, 2012 | 10:40 am
[...] on Daily Kos, once on Huffington Post and on Fox Nation. I think the ad is pretty effective, and defended its perspective against one Daily Kos critic at FirstThings.com. Share Tweet by Dustin [...]
June 1st, 2012 | 10:49 am
“all of the issues facing America this November (including energy, jobs and the economy)”
Those are indeed all of the issues facing America in this election.
June 1st, 2012 | 11:13 am
[...] was posted in its original form at [...]
June 1st, 2012 | 1:26 pm
. . . it is not debatable that the Church will likely be compelled to shut down its hospitals (about one-sixth of all hospital beds in the nation are Catholic), schools and other religiously-affiliated organizations across the nation should the contraceptive mandate be in place come August 2013.
The HHS and the United States government do not have any power to compel Catholics to shut down schools, hospitals, and other organizations. Many states have contraceptive mandates, and in those with narrow religious exemptions (such as New York and California), no Catholic organizations have been shut down. Probably the worst-case scenario is that Catholic organizations stop providing insurance and pay the $2000-per-employee “fine,” which would put them ahead by several thousand dollars per employee, since it costs considerably more than $2000 to provide health insurance to an employee.
Thus, the Church defers to the “prudential judgment” of statesmen and policy professionals, without regard to partisanship. This deferential treatment is not accorded to gay marriage, contraceptives, or abortion.
The Church is, of course, unequivocally opposed to abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage, but it is extremely misleading to imply that there is a Catholic position on these issues which elected leaders and other public officials must follow. Not that Santorum made it quite clear that he had always voted for programs such as Title X (which provides free contraceptive services to low-income Americans). There may occasionally be votes that a legislator is faced with which are in clear-cut violation of Catholic teaching, but I think those are probably quite rare. Legislators rarely vote on single, isolated issues that are clear-cut. And the same goes for voters. As for voters, they may not vote for a candidate because the candidate is pro-choice, but they can vote for a candidate in spite of the fact that the candidate is pro-choice. The Catholic Church does not tell Americans how to vote, and the decisions of voters, legislators, and public officials almost always fall into the “prudential decision” category.
June 1st, 2012 | 2:27 pm
Hello David,
“Many states have contraceptive mandates, and in those with narrow religious exemptions (such as New York and California), no Catholic organizations have been shut down.”
Yes, but in all those states, there has always been the option to self-insure.
Self-insuring won’t save Catholic institutions from the mandate requirement.
June 1st, 2012 | 3:00 pm
Self-insuring won’t save Catholic institutions from the mandate requirement.
Richard M,
First, we don’t know what the arrangements will be for self-insured religious organizations, because the regulation that will cover them hasn’t been written yet.
Second, self-insuring is not always feasible. We know, for example, that Bishop Morlina of the Diocese of Madison switched to self-insurance to escape the Wisconsin mandate, found it too costly, and reverted to purchasing insurance coverage. He complied with the mandate. Many Catholic organizations in New York comply with the state mandate, and the same is true of California.
So no Catholic organization (that I have heard of) has declared the couldn’t afford to self-insure, and therefore they were shutting down.
I certainly don’t blame the Church for putting up the fight that is going on (although I don’t agree with everything they are doing), but it is too late to claim all Catholic organizations are going to dig in their heels and refuse to comply. Too many Catholic organizations are already complying with state regulations. If Catholics insist that it is immoral to comply, they are in effect accusing all of the organizations that have already complied of immorality.
June 2nd, 2012 | 9:13 am
Just two points on seemingly tangential issues raised by Mr. Nickol: 1) The “worst case scenario” of paying a $2000 per person fine for not providing health insurance is what is listed NOW. What happens when the government decides that repeat, resistant violators have to be dealt with? What happens when an employee appeals to the NLRB that he (and his co-workers) are being denied a fundamental right? That takes us to #2) It is true we don’t know what the arrangements will be for self-insured religious organizations because the regulations have not been written yet. What has been written is that these regulations will be written by the same understanding, religiously sensitive people who gave (or forced) us the mandate.
June 2nd, 2012 | 5:25 pm
Just two points on seemingly tangential issues raised by Mr. Nickol: 1) The “worst case scenario” of paying a $2000 per person fine for not providing health insurance is what is listed NOW.
It really bothers me when people assume conservatives are always arguing in bad faith, but when I see arguments like the ridiculous “HHS compromise”, I start understanding a little better.
I have a hard time believing anyone could seriously believe that Obama could seriously intend at some later date to water down the HHS mandate. The law as it currently stands is so blatantly hostile to religion – and the promised “compromise” seems so highly improbable – that it’s hard to believe anyone could seriously believe Obama intends to compromise anything. Can there really be any motivation other than sheer hatred of religious people, and a desire to see them lose freedoms they hold precious?
But, of course, we don’t know why it is that people support this argument. Maybe they really do think birth control is so important that it’s worth taking freedom away for. Maybe they really are that scared of anyone who doesn’t support their sexual values. I just don’t know. I can’t even really imagine. I’m just glad I got away from the political “party of promiscuity”, because I believe that being that into such a toxic combination of cheap sex + irresponsible behavior is the ultimate in “false gods”.
June 2nd, 2012 | 5:34 pm
“Probably the worst-case scenario is that Catholic organizations stop providing insurance and pay the $2000-per-employee “fine,” which would put them ahead by several thousand dollars per employee, since it costs considerably more than $2000 to provide health insurance to an employee.”
You assume the Catholic organizations will not feel obliged to increase employee salaries by the amount needed to purchase their own insurance. I think you once gave that figure—was it $11,000 per employee?—so they would still end up with the religion fine of $2K per employee. They would not be “ahead”. I can easily see this being onerous to the point that they would be forced out of business. I do not think this good for civil society, nor for Catholics who want and deserve to fully participate in it.
June 3rd, 2012 | 12:26 pm
peg,
Don’t forget that my “worst case scenario” includes a full examination of the contraceptive mandate by the courts and a finding that it is indeed not, as the USCCB and various Catholic organizations claim, a violation of First Amendment rights and an unwarranted intrusion on religious liberty. It remains to be seen if that actually happens, but if it does, Catholic employers will either have to comply (and it is my guess that they will) or explain to employees and potential employees exactly why they aren’t providing insurance coverage. As we have seen with state mandates, Catholic organizations (including the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin) have complied with mandates rather than leave their employees uninsured.
Also remember that under PPAC, those who don’t get insurance through their employers will be eligible for government-subsidized insurance based on their income level.
June 3rd, 2012 | 6:48 pm
I can easily see this being onerous to the point that they would be forced out of business. I do not think this good for civil society, nor for Catholics who want and deserve to fully participate in it.
I think that is the intended point.
The ideology of the Enlightenment cannot coexist with rival beliefs. Period.
June 3rd, 2012 | 10:12 pm
I agree, Blake. It’s a twisted way to put rivals out of business. David Nickol claims that HHS and the US government “do not have any power to compel Catholics to shut down” their organizations. But they will do exactly that, by forcing Catholics to either violate their consciences or shut down. Then the USG can presumably claim innocence—after all, they didn’t directly order them to shut down. Catholics made a choice, and it’s their own fault if they couldn’t all just go along and pretend they were morally and religiously in the clear.
It brings to mind hostage takers who warn that if their demands are not met, the deaths of the hostages will be the victim’s responsibility. It is utter bollocks, of course.
June 3rd, 2012 | 11:35 pm
Hello David,
“First, we don’t know what the arrangements will be for self-insured religious organizations, because the regulation that will cover them hasn’t been written yet.”
You’re correct – we don’t. But as Mr. Hinshaw notes, it’s hard to have much confidence that those arrangements will be adequate, given the track record of those making the arrangements. And that said arrangements can’t come into force until after the election.
As for Bishop Morlino, I’m deeply disappointed to learn of his surrender on the state mandate.
June 3rd, 2012 | 11:46 pm
Hello again David,
A couple more points, on further reflection:
1) Notwithstanding what Bishop Morlino ultimately decided to do, the fact remains that the Wisconsin law still allowed a self-insure exemption. The HHS regulation simply does not. It is still more stringent than the Wisconsin law.
2. It seems that the Wisconsin law never actually went into effect anyway. Last year it was eliminated from the state budget and therefore no one ever had to live with it. http://doa.wi.gov/debf/docview.asp?budid=28
I’m not sure it entirely gets the good bishop off the hook that he decided to comply with a law he knew was likely to be squashed before it went into effect, even if he pressured employees not to take advantage of the impending contraceptive coverage. But it’s worth noting just the same.
June 4th, 2012 | 10:22 am
David Nickol claims that HHS and the US government “do not have any power to compel Catholics to shut down” their organizations. But they will do exactly that, by forcing Catholics to either violate their consciences or shut down.
peg,
Where in the regulations does it (or will it, in the case of those not written) say an organization must comply or shut down?
Also, how is it that many Catholic organizations (including a diocese, run by a bishop who is one of the chief opponents of the federal mandate) have complied with state mandates? Are they “violating their consciences”? Are they doing wrong? Are they cooperating with evil in such a way as to make them morally culpable? The USCCB is, in fact, not making an argument that they will be forced to do evil. They are making a First Amendment argument. It will be decided by the courts. And given the current make-up of the courts, do you honestly think it will be decided by judges biased in favor of the Obama administration? Or biased against Catholics?
I am not predicting the outcome of the various lawsuits, but if the Church loses, it will be because the issue was decided as fairly as any other issue can be decided in American democracy.
If the Catholic lawsuits do not succeed they will have the option of complying or not providing insurance to their employees (and paying a $2000-per-employee fine). If your argument is that they must comply or shut down, you must make the case that the choice not to comply (and to pay the fine) will result in Catholic organizations shutting down.
So I think you have to demonstrate two things. First, complying with the mandate violates conscience, and refusing to comply is tantamount to choosing to go out of business.
June 4th, 2012 | 2:07 pm
I agree, Blake. It’s a twisted way to put rivals out of business. David Nickol claims that HHS and the US government “do not have any power to compel Catholics to shut down” their organizations. But they will do exactly that, by forcing Catholics to either violate their consciences or shut down. Then the USG can presumably claim innocence—after all, they didn’t directly order them to shut down. Catholics made a choice, and it’s their own fault if they couldn’t all just go along and pretend they were morally and religiously in the clear.
It brings to mind hostage takers who warn that if their demands are not met, the deaths of the hostages will be the victim’s responsibility.
Exactly.
They will be forced to pay outrageous fines, and then people will dishonestly claim “We didn’t make them shut down! Where does it say they have to shut down?”
It seems that every new religion has to have its Inquisitions and St. Bartholomew Day’s Massacres before it is forced to accept that there’s no way to use force to coerce people into accepting “truth” – and that believing your “truth” is not justification for hurting those who do not believe.
Which by the way just proves to me that Christianity is right about the “fallen nature” of mankind. Once the atheists figure out that they’re doing exactly what they claimed as what “makes religion so evil”, they’ll be forced to be a bit more humble (but who knows what it will do to their belief in their own inherent goodness, when they are forced to confront their own fallen nature? Can their view of themselves as “Enlightened” survive? Maybe that’s why they choose denial and cognitive dissonance over confronting evidence that their own approach to Christianity is in direct contradiction to what they claim to believe?)
June 4th, 2012 | 3:56 pm
They will be forced to pay outrageous fines . . .
Blake,
This is simply false. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
June 4th, 2012 | 5:38 pm
The fine of $2,000 per employee is outrageous and could well be enough to put Catholic non-profit organizations out of business.
Even the threat of such a fine, let alone its existence, is outrageous. Or rather—it once was, for Americans.
June 6th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
The fine of $2,000 per employee is outrageous and could well be enough to put Catholic non-profit organizations out of business.
Even the threat of such a fine, let alone its existence, is outrageous. Or rather—it once was, for Americans.
Ahh, but it’s all good, because we have the promise that the people who put the laws on the books might grant an exemption (despite their obvious lack of good faith), and so that’s now to be treated as “fact”.
But the idea that people might actually be punished for failing to obey the law that’s actually on the book? That is not “fact”. We cannot assume the law will actually carry penalties until someone is actually slapped with fines – and even then, maybe not, because, you know, there might be some reason other than the crazy idea that the people who wrote the law meant what they wrote (as opposed to what they said they meant).
This is the danger when dealing with liars. You have to have interpreters explain to you what you’re supposed to see and hear; you can’t just trust your own lyin’ eyes and ears.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact