Obama was slammed among white Catholics — and the HHS mandate may have made the difference.
My friend Mark Movsesian suggests that the bishops’ highlighting of religious freedom had no effect in the election. I’m not sure he’s right. The University of Akron’s John Green, a noted scholar of religion and politics, believes that the bishops’ highlighting of the HHS mandate helped push white Catholics’ seven-point swing against the Democratic ticket. From the Denver Post:
Green believes the religious liberty issue played a part in Obama’s significant drop in support among white Catholics (it fell from 47 percent in 2008 to 40 percent in 2012).
“I really do think it has a lot to do with that,” Green said. “There are two ways to look at it. One is, ‘Wow, that made a big impact, moved white Catholics away from the president.’ On the other hand, you could say there are limits to what bishops and lay Catholics could do because it only moved 7 points.”
It helped, in short, to broaden the Church’s message to people less motivated by its moral witness against abortion:
As for broader spectrum of Catholics, those unlikely to be swayed by the bishops’ focus on abortion may have been more open to the religious liberty argument, even if they disagree with (and ignore) the church’s ban on artificial contraception. Without digging deeper than the exit polls, it’s impossible to know.
Green suspects the religious liberty appeal connected more with white, regularly-attending-Mass Catholics, both because they trend more conservative and are actually in church to get the message.
This seven-point drop in white Catholic support even exceeded his loss among white Evangelicals (six points)—despite the fact that the latter are usually seen as more reliably conservative and politically organized. White Catholics have various levels of political and religious engagement whereas Evangelicals tend to attend church more regularly and vote conservative more reliably. Yet Obama’s greatest losses came from the Catholic side.
On the other hand, the bishops’ message seems to have had no effect among hispanic Catholics. According to post-election data from Pew, President Obama was able to increase his share of that group by three points—his greatest gain among any group, including black Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated. The difference may well be explained by income or rates of mass attendance, but then again maybe not. In any case, given that white Catholics were a much larger share of the 2012 electorate than hispanic Catholics (eighteen versus five percent), Obama’s major bleeding among the former group overwhelms his relatively minor gains among the latter.
Another group that seems to think the bishops’ efforts made a difference is the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which in the wake of the vote has asked the IRS to launch an investigation of the Catholic bishops. The emergence of efforts to silence the church’s public witness is one indication that it is having an effect.
Campaign operatives on both sides will be studying these numers closely, no doubt. What they’ll find is that it doesn’t behoove candidates to launch a war against religious freedom during election season. The bishops’ Fortnight for Freedom and related efforts may well have cost a somewhat weaker candidate the presidency.
November 9th, 2012 | 2:05 pm
As a corollary, I wonder too how many people outside of Mass going Catholics and those of us in conservative circles truly understood this problem and the assault it presented to religious freedom. I remember talking to a relative on election night who had no idea of the HHS mandate (and she is a fairly regular news reader) and when I explained it to her, she was genuinely upset (although a person who sees no problem with contraception).
Not to pile on, but—the media wasn’t really going to highlight or discuss this issue. I really wish Romney had directly confronted President Obama on this issue: “Why are you restricting the religious liberty of Catholics? Why did you tell their bishops you would be accommodating when you were not?” and then explained it in context. His campaign wasn’t ready for it or simply did not want to engage (such as in the VP debate when Biden seemingly got away with saying the Bishop’s were ok with the HHS mandate and Ryan did not have a quick answer to correct Biden).
The Bishops have their own issues regarding their flock. On this matter I was personally impressed to see how they acted, often with much courage. But the broader issue was why this matter of principle did not seem to resonate beyond a few tribal circles.
November 9th, 2012 | 2:39 pm
I agree with Alberto. I don’t think many Catholics really had a clue what the administration is trying to do with the HHS mandate. Just this morning I (once again) had to explain it to my parents, who are faithful Catholics who attend Mass every week. My mother said, “I haven’t heard anything about this.” Well no kidding. This message won’t sell advertising for the mainstream news outlets. It’s quite frustrating, to say the least.
November 9th, 2012 | 2:55 pm
I think F. Peter Daly is right in his piece in the National Catholic Reporter titled Why Fortnight for Freedom Fizzled Among Average Catholics. The emphasis is mine:
As everyone knows, and as Fr. Daly points out, religious liberty in the United States is not absolute. There is a clear and understandable disagreement between the Obama administration and the USCCB over the contraceptive mandate. However, should the mandate be upheld by the courts and enforced, religious liberty will not have vanished in the United States. In religious liberty conflicts, the courts decide some cases in favor of individual citizens and others in favor of the government, and this will continue no matter what happens with the contraceptive mandate.
November 9th, 2012 | 3:41 pm
Religious liberty will not have vanished.
While it may not vanish, I guess Catholics can just pray in our churches and in our homes. We can count rosary beads in private as that won’t offend the Federal Government.
David Nickol, you have missed the point. Let’s move away from Catholic hospitals. Catholic Charities won’t be able to serve the non-Catholic poor if it does not comply with the HHS mandate. The mandate is designed to force Catholics into a Catholic only enclave, serving only Catholics. And who will fill the void? The federal government, of course. Those who designed the HHS mandate obvioulsy have ill intentions toward the Catholic Church, or any other religious group that opposes aborifacient drugs.
What gives the Obama adminstration the right to undermine religious liberty and freedom in the name of extending access to abortifacient drugs? And yes, the next step is to surgical abortion.
If Obama was truly someone who wanted to find common ground and not divide the nation, he would drop the HHS mandate immediately. He could fund/supply contraceptives and abortifacients any number of others ways than by trampling on the religious liberty of Catholics and evangelicals.
The point is not how many Catholics practice what the Church teaches with regard to birth control. The point is not how many Catholics attend Mass on Sunday.
The point is this: the Obama Administration is hostile to religious liberty. He wants to be a transformational president in areas like energy, education, and health care. He is also being transformational by turning the historical and currently understood meaning of the First Amendment on its head.
Obama is deliberately choosing to support the abortion license over the religious liberty and conscience rights of millions of Americans. He knows what he is doing. Unfortunatley, the electorate did not stop him, for various reasons, economic and otherwise.
As I see the matter, our only hope to stop the Administration lies with the courts. And that is sad.
November 9th, 2012 | 4:00 pm
David,
I am a Catholic high school theology teacher, and my employer is the bishop of the local diocese. Yet according to the way that unelected bureaucrats at HHS wrote the regulation, this administration views my employment as essentially no different than if I were working at Wal-mart. If my school, however, were to fire all non-Catholic employees and expel all non-Catholic students, then we would meet their definition of a “religious employer” and would be exempt from the mandate. So, in other words, if I stop practicing my Catholic faith, by which I am called to educate ALL students who come to me, then the administration will recognize my Catholicism. Play by our rules, or else! This administration (and no administration after this one) will define for me what it means to practice my Catholicism. This is our fundamental right enshrined in the 1st Amendment.
Also, you seem to want to reduce this down to contraception only. That is a misleading reduction of the reality of what is happening. Unelected HHS bureaucrats also defined elective sterilization and abortifacient drugs as “preventive medicine”. I really find it hard to fathom the idea that if one of my colleagues elects to get surgically sterilized, then the diocese (and by extension the rest of us who work within diocesan ministries) must pay for it 100%. Sterilization is NOT healthcare by any reasonable definition.
This entire situation is predicated on the idea that “free exercise of religion” applies only to the rites that we Catholics celebrate in the sanctuary. If Catholics cannot recognize this mandate as an assault against religious freedom, then I see it to be a matter of sticking one’s head in the sand. Coupled with the media noise machine and lack of any substantial coverage in the mainstream news, this makes for a pretty effective smokescreen to obscure the real issues at hand.
November 9th, 2012 | 4:46 pm
Catholic Charities won’t be able to serve the non-Catholic poor if it does not comply with the HHS mandate. The mandate is designed to force Catholics into a Catholic only enclave, serving only Catholics. And who will fill the void? The federal government, of course.
Ezra Brooks,
You seem to have a strange notion that Catholic Charities and the federal government are in competition to care for the poor. In reality, the federal government provides well over half of the annual budget of Catholic Charities, with state and local government contributing as well. For example, in 2010, the budget for Catholic Charities was $4.67 billion, of which $2.9 billion was provided by the federal government.
The various cases of Catholic Charities being “forced out of business” over issues like adoptions by same-sex couples are actually cases of Catholic Charities losing government contracts because they won’t abide by the same rules other government contractors are bound by.
The fact of the matter is that Catholic Charities largely works for the government, and yet many people seem to feel that religious organizations who work for the government should not have to abide by government rules.
As I keep saying, we don’t even know what the final HHS rules will be. This is why several of the myriad lawsuits have been dismissed on the grounds of “ripeness.”
I do hope something will be worked out, but I would have to say that lay Catholics on the issue of contraception have “assimilated” into American culture and use contraception basically the same as anyone else. This is really a fight between the bishops plus a handful of other Catholic leaders and the Obama administration. The bishops can’t convince Catholics not to use contraception, but they are nevertheless prepared to wage total war against the Obama administration not over contraception but over insurance.
To repeat the quote from my previous message, “When language is perceived as exaggerated, it is not taken seriously.” I am not even sure what turning the meaning of the First Amendment on its head would be, but requiring insurance to cover contraception is not turning the First Amendment on its head. There have been many religious objections to general government rules, and the courts have ruled in favor of the government on many of them. This is not a case of the government being opposed to religious freedom in general. It is a case about what the government can require of religious organizations regarding health insurance.
November 9th, 2012 | 5:01 pm
I am a Catholic high school theology teacher, and my employer is the bishop of the local diocese. Yet according to the way that unelected bureaucrats at HHS wrote the regulation, this administration views my employment as essentially no different than if I were working at Wal-mart.
Steve S,
I believe you are mistaken. It is my understanding that Catholic elementary schools and high schools fall under the narrow definition of a religious organization which is “one that (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the [Internal Revenue] Code.” Catholic schools would not have to fire teachers or expel students who are not Catholic.
November 9th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
This entire situation is predicated on the idea that “free exercise of religion” applies only to the rites that we Catholics celebrate in the sanctuary.
Steve S,
That is simply not true. The definitions in the HHS regulation apply only to that specific regulation. What we are talking about here is whether or not the government can require religious employers who provide insurance to accept coverage of contraception to be added to those policies. That is all. No other religious liberty that Catholics have now is at stake. This is not a rollback of existing liberties. It is an issue that has never come up before, and whichever way it is decided, it will not affect other issues of religious liberty in any way.
I know the contraceptive mandate is considered a major issue, but nevertheless it is only one issue, and other issues are not at stake. If the contraceptive mandate in basically its current form makes it to the Supreme Court, they will not decided whether to repeal the First Amendment or end religious liberty in the United States.
November 9th, 2012 | 7:03 pm
Now really, would Romney have wanted all the non-Catholics in the country voting against him?
November 9th, 2012 | 8:23 pm
The Archdiocese of Washington, DC is suing HHS because of the mandate. The lawsuit specifically mentions the negative impact on its elementary schools and the sole diocesan high school, Archbishop Carroll High School:
“However, the mandate’s exemption is the narrowest ever adopted in federal law. Crucially, it does not include any organization that serves the general public. So under this mandate, our Catholic hospitals, schools, and social service programs, which serve all people, are not “religious enough” to be allowed to follow our Catholic beliefs.”
These inner city schools apparently serve too many non-Catholic children according to the Religious Purity authorities of the US government. I suppose HHS bureaucrats can question each student to uncover their religious beliefs, tote them up, and based on the number decide if the school is religious or not. They should issue guidelines about what constitutes acceptable Catholic acts of mercy so we do not again run afoul of government decrees.
November 9th, 2012 | 11:01 pm
David Nickol doesn’t seem to understand all girls, even Catholic, once they start menstruating (from age 9 and up) now get free birth control and abortions from Santa Claus Obama. All they need is Mom’s approval — not their Bishops’. Shocking I know. Even more shocking is the facts that some “Catholic” moms dispense birth control pills-unknowingly- in their daughter’s morning orange juice to prevent a embarrassing whoopsie.
Also, as an actual employee of a Catholic diocese/school David’s remarks on the effects of the mandate are incredibly ignorant. But time and our compassionate Administration shall demonstrate this more effectively than any commentor here can.
November 10th, 2012 | 1:55 am
“Almost” only counts in Horseshoes.
November 10th, 2012 | 5:21 am
Is there any evidence connecting the 7 point drop to the HHS mandate specifically?
Seems pretty speculative. How do we know it wasn’t the economy?
November 10th, 2012 | 8:15 am
[...] Mandate May Have Nearly Cost Obama the Election – Matthew Schmitz, First Thoughts [...]
November 10th, 2012 | 12:08 pm
David,
You would do well to read this excellent article on the HHS Mandate and how it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. http://eppc.org/publications/pubID.4869/pub_detail.asp
The point is this: the Federal Government is forcing Catholic institutions and individual Catholics to violate their consciences by materially cooperating in abortion by paying for and providing abortifacients via health insurance. Forcing people to violate their consciences is no small matter.
In short, the HHS mandate substantially burdens the free exercise of religion of Catholics and others; the federal government has no compelling interest here, namely the spread of contraceptives and abortifacients; and the federal governments has not chosen the least restrictive means of doing so.
You are, of course, free to think my language about the effects of the HHS Mandate is exaggerated. However, a common sense reading of the mandate naturally leads to the conclusion that the Obama Administration does not respect the conscience rights of Catholics and others. While the rules may not be in their final form, the president stated clearly in the campaign that he will not change his position.
The Obama Administration has the more extreme and exaggerated position: forcing religious groups to carry out its version of health care, namely contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, when doing so clearly violates their consciences.
Obama governs, not by compromise, but by marginalizing those who do not share his views. The HHS Mandate is a clear and egregious example.
November 10th, 2012 | 12:39 pm
The fact of the matter is that Catholic Charities largely works for the government, and yet many people seem to feel that religious organizations who work for the government should not have to abide by government rules.
Baloney.
Catholic Charities do not work for the government; they work for God, just as a university professor who receives grant money from NIH, NEA, or NSF works not for the government, but for his or her university.
Catholic Charities does its work regardless of whether the government gives it money, just as university professors do their work regardless of whether the government awards them grants. If the government recognizes that their work coincides with the government’s aims, then chooses to subsidize their work, that no more makes CC an “employee” of the government than it would a professor at Duke University who accepts a government grant.
November 10th, 2012 | 12:41 pm
Incidentally, this passage from the Weekly Standard seems apropos (emphasis added):
It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.“
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
November 10th, 2012 | 1:39 pm
You missed all the other Christians, Jews, Mormons and even some Muslims whose reaction to Obama’s HHS mandate was to stand and proclaim, “We are all Catholics now.”
November 10th, 2012 | 2:49 pm
I am still not seeing a connection between the white Catholic vote and the HHS rule. Nor even a guess as to why if this factor impacted on white Catholics, it did not on Hispanic Catholics (and Asian Catholics, who also moved towards Obama).
I did note in four short years, the Catholic share of the electorate went down from 27% to 25%, coming entirely from white Catholics.
Professor Charles Murray’s research indicates that the Catholic Church is in severe decline among working class whites. I would guess part of the explanation is not the HHS mandate, but that white Catholics increasingly are found in the Romney demographics — the affluent and business owners.
November 10th, 2012 | 3:26 pm
Ezra Brooks,
As I have said before. I think it is a close call whether the contraceptive mandate violates the law (RFRA) or the constitution. But none of the articles you or I link to will settle the question. It will be settled in the courts, probably by the Supreme Court either deciding the issue or declining to take cases where they could overrule lower courts. The latter is what the Supreme Court did by declining to take appeals to lawsuits challenging the New York and California state mandates, after which the federal law is modeled. As I keep saying, I trust our legal system to decided the issue on its merits. I simply refuse to believe a Supreme Court with six Catholic justices headed by John Roberts is going to approve what you and others here seem to believe is a calculated plot by the Obama administration to strike a blow at the Catholic Church.
As I also have said many times before, I can understand the reaction among some Catholics agains the mandate. What I don’t accept or sympathize with is the hints or outright charges that the contraceptive mandate is some kind of conspiracy against the Catholic Church intended to limit Catholic activity to attending Church on Sundays and praying in private.
In debating the issues here, it is one thing to debate the actual merits of the case against the contraceptive mandate. It is another thing to have to contend with statements like the following of Mrs. Jackson:
There’s no way of convincing people who hate Obama that they shouldn’t, since it is not a matter of rational discussion. Neither, it seems to me, are the conspiracy theories and statements like, “Obama governs, not by compromise, but by marginalizing those who do not share his views. The HHS Mandate is a clear and egregious example.” That is the kind of generalization that there’s no way of responding to (or, I would add, of supporting).
I understand the opposition of some Catholic to Obama, and even the anger. What I don’t understand is the mockery and hatred. I do find it interesting to note, however, Obama won the Catholic vote, and even won 42% of Catholics who attend church weekly. If the contraceptive mandate is a clear and egregious attempt by Obama to marginalize Catholics and the Catholic Church, why in the world would the level of Catholic support be that high?
November 10th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
Catholic Charities do not work for the government
Jack Perry,
When you bid on a government contract, you get the contract, and you carry out the work the government wants done with taxpayer dollars, you work for the government. To assert anything else is denial.
I am rather astonished no one here has made the conservative case that government contracts to charitable organizations “foster dependency.” Individual Catholic Charities in dioceses across the country run on up to 82% government funding, and more than half the funding of all Catholic Charities is from federal dollars. For the past many months, we have seen headlines like the following: Romney says Obama favors ‘culture of dependency’. I reject the charge when it comes to, say, individuals receiving disability benefits or Social Security, but I can see a lot of truth to the argument that Catholic charitable organizations have come to be far too dependent on taxpayer dollars.
Regarding Catholic Charities and adoptions, laws vary from state to state. But I think Catholic must face the fact that the authority and influence of the Catholic Church is dwindling not only in the United States, but also in the West in general. The number of priests, nuns, and brothers has plummeted. The sex-abuse crisis has diminished the authority of the bishops. Church attendance among Catholics has dropped from about 74% to 45% since the 1950s according to a 2009 Gallup Poll, and what I have read about Catholic church attendance leads me to suspect that the 45% attendance figure is about 20 points too hight.
And the times they are a-changin’. Whether you think the Church is eternally and infallibly correct on sexual issues or not, there is an ever widening gap between the position of the Church on sexual and reproductive issues, and the position of the prevailing culture in the United States (including to a large extent the position of American Catholics themselves). The Church initially opposed the legalization of contraception itself.
November 10th, 2012 | 5:38 pm
Obama was groomed by Brzesinski and was raised by his Catholic grandmother. Rome, Italy, May 20, 2009 / 06:24 pm (CNA).- The Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano explained today to Paulo Rodari, a Vatican analyst for the daily “Il Riformista,” that President Barack Obama’s speech to graduates of Notre Dame was very respectful and that he “is not a pro-abortion president.”
November 11th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
When you bid on a government contract, you get the contract, and you carry out the work the government wants done with taxpayer dollars, you work for the government. To assert anything else is denial.
To be clear, then, your position is that university professors who receive government grants (NIH, NEA, NSF, DOE etc.) to support their research — which involves bidding on a contract and carrying out the work with taxpayer dollars — are working for the federal government, and not for their university?
I am rather astonished no one here has made the conservative case that government contracts to charitable organizations “foster dependency.”
Not only have I seen that case made (perhaps not here), I have also seen some conservatives argue that private school vouchers are a bad idea, as it opens private schools to regulation by the government.
On the other hand, I’ve also read the argument (again, perhaps not here) that charities are increasingly constrained to do this sort of thing, as a more vigorous government has increasingly crowded out other sources.
Regarding Catholic Charities and adoptions, laws vary from state to state.
So you concede, after all, that the limitations placed on Catholic Charities are not due solely to their taking government money?
November 11th, 2012 | 2:54 pm
Jack Perry,
You are not making an adequate distinction between government grants and government contracts.
To oversimplify somewhat, grants go to people whose work the government chooses to support because it hopefully turn out to be generally beneficial. Contracts go to government contractors who agree to do a specific task for the government, and if the government contractors fail do do the work the government wants, the contractors are not delivering on what they were paid to do.
When a specific branch of Catholic Charities wins a government contract, it has the same relationships with the government as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or Boeing. The government has hired Catholic Charities to do a specific task, and the government pays for it.
So you concede, after all, that the limitations placed on Catholic Charities are not due solely to their taking government money?
First of all, Catholic Charities is a network of organizations, with one branch of Catholic Charities per diocese. If I recall correctly, there are about 180 Catholic Charities in the United States. Because of conflicts with state laws in two states over adoption by same-sex couples, Catholic Charities has shut down its adoption services in those states. (However, if you take a look at Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Chicago, their web site lists in great detail the adoption services they provide. I can’t explain it. Perhaps you can.)
So in truth, there have been a few conflicts between 180 branches of Catholic Charities about perhaps a tenth of one percent of the services they provide. It would be good if these conflicts could be avoided, but there is no question that states have a right to promulgate nondiscrimination rules for organizations that they fund as well as those they license.
Catholic Charities has received billions in federal dollars per year in the past, and they will continue to receive billions in federal dollars in the future. If Catholic Charities refuses to abide by the regulations of the states in areas such as adoption where they must be licensed by the state, then it is perfectly legitimate for the state to deny licenses. Each state has legitimate authority to regulate adoption (and marriage) within its own boundaries. Massachusetts and Illinois did not do anything wrong vis a vis Catholic Charities in their two states.
November 11th, 2012 | 4:45 pm
I pray the Bishops will continue to resist the HHS mandate, by peaceful civil disobedience if necessary. I believe there are still many in the pews who will stand with the Church on this.
November 11th, 2012 | 6:36 pm
David Nickol,
The HHS Mandate is not a conspiracy; it is openly hostile to the Catholic Church. The Administration has chosen a course of action, namely, forcing Catholics and others to violate their consciences, so that contraceptives and abortifacient drugs will be provided through insurance policies paid for, in violation of Catholic teaching and conscience. This is exactly why the Supreme Court will eventually strike it down.
If I could explain why some Catholics vote for Obama in spite of the HHS mandate, I’d either be on the fast track for sainthood or a very rich political consultant.
I can assure you I am neither.
November 12th, 2012 | 9:17 am
The HHS Mandate is not a conspiracy; it is openly hostile to the Catholic Church.
Ezra Brooks,
Here is how I suppose the Obama administration looks at the contraceptive mandate. They view it as the right thing to do for women’s health based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, and while they are aware of Catholic objections, they view the mandate as constitutional and legal and are pursuing it not because of a plot to “marginalize” the Church, but as a plan to make appropriate health care available to as many women as possible.
Some Catholics see themselves as the victims of a deliberate and coordinated attack, one example of which is the contraceptive mandate, another of which is anti-discrimination against gay people and the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage.
I think the message to Catholics should be, “It’s not about you.” The contraceptive mandate, same-sex marriage, and support for abortion rights, are not governmental or liberal plots to weaken or marginalize the Church. They are trends that are occurring that may indeed weaken the Church, but the Church was declining before anyone even dreamed of, say, same-sex marriage.
To explain exactly why the Church is declining I’ have to know a lot more than I do, but certainly Humanae Vitae and the sex-abuse scandal are two factors. There’s no question that society is becoming more secular, but that is not due to a plot by the Democratic Party. It is a lot farther along in Europe than in the United States.
So I understand why Catholics and other religious bodies are alarmed and sometimes even imagine themselves persecuted. But it seems to me that problems from within—say, an almost wholesale rejection by Catholics of the Church’s teachings on contraception—are much more devastating than a government rule on requiring insurance plans to cover contraception. The Church doesn’t even take a strong stand with its own members over their refusal to follow Church teachings against contraception, and yet the American bishops choose contraception as the issue on which to have a showdown with the US government.
November 12th, 2012 | 9:27 am
David Nickol,
I think we have different notions of the meaning of “work for”.
When an organization has engaged in an activity since long before it attracted a government’s attention, they don’t cease to “work for” their “previous employer” simply because the government starts to give them money to expand the scope of their services on that work. Even when the government’s funding grows to become the majority of the organization’s funds, they continue to “work for” their actual, decision-making employer.
Likewise, I don’t think that, say, Ford “works for” the federal government if they decide to sell the National Park Service x Explorers. I can see how someone else might think that, but that strikes me as a figurative sense of the phrase, just as the local Speedy Oil Change “works for” me only figuratively when they change my oil.
Back to the larger point, I happen to think that Ford has the right, if it so chooses, to say that it will sell the National Park Service x Explorers, but due to ethical considerations against military activity, it will not sell the Army y Explorers — just as I think Harvard had the right to receive federal grant money and contracts, yet turn around and deny the presence of ROTC on their campus because they didn’t like the military’s policy on homosexual activity. For the same reason, I think that Catholic Charities has the right to say that it will provide x adoptions to some couples, but not y adoptions to others.
I would also agree that, in all these cases, the government would have the right not to procure such products or services from Ford and Catholic Charities. After all, everyone has the right to shoot themselves in the foot.
But in no way would I ordinarily think that they are “working for” the government, nor do I think most people would. The question on grants vs. contracts simply strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
November 12th, 2012 | 10:00 am
Mr. Parson,
Without negating the arguments against the HHS mandate, it does need to be remembered that it is not the bishops who will be directly faced with compliance, as they are exempt. It will be Catholic institutions that are legally separate from the Church with their own board od directors or trustees. It will be these corporate boards that will have to decide to comply or not. Bishops may deny them the right to call themselves ‘Catholic’ but have no legal control over them.
November 12th, 2012 | 11:23 am
David Nickol,
“I think the message to Catholics should be, “It’s not about you.” The contraceptive mandate, same-sex marriage, and support for abortion rights, are not governmental or liberal plots to weaken or marginalize the Church. They are trends that are occurring that may indeed weaken the Church, but the Church was declining before anyone even dreamed of, say, same-sex marriage.”
This only goes to prove my point. The Administration is essentially saying to Catholics “we don’t care what your beliefs are; you are going to do things our way, or you won’t be doing them at all.” Free exercise of religion must be protected. The Catholic Church, in the HHS Mandate controversy, is not saying that abortifacients and contraceptives should be made illegal. Rather, the Church is saying, don’t force us to pay for something that violates our teaching and conscience.
Compliance with Church teaching is irrelevant to this discussion. The official teaching of the church is. If one person’s conscience is violated, that’s one too many.
The Federal Government would do much better to help and serve the American people by working with the Church, not against her. Society will suffer greatly if the government forces churches out of the public square and out of service to the less fortunate, the sick, the persecuted, and the immigrant.
As for your view that the Church is declining, folks have been writing Her off for 2000 years. Should the United States ever cease to exist, the Church will endure, survive, and thrive.
November 12th, 2012 | 11:58 am
The question on grants vs. contracts simply strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
Jack Perry,
The difference between grants and contracts is objective and factual, not a matter of a difference of opinion between you and me. A government contract is an agreement between the government and (generally) a private company that the company (the government contractor) will provide the goods and/or services the government wants as specified in the contract. The government is saying, in effect, “We want to buy something specific from you. We’ll pay for it. You will deliver it. And if you don’t deliver it, you will have failed to live up to the terms of the contract.”
When the government gives a grant, it is not buying something for itself. It is funding something it thinks will be worthwhile. For example:
If a military contractor gets a contract to build a new aircraft for the Air Force, the government is buying the services of the contractor to design, build, test, and deliver the new aircraft to the government (and nobody else). If a writer gets a grant to work on a novel or a book of poetry, the government is not buying the novel or the poems. And if for some (good) reason the writer is unable to complete the novel or the poems, the government doesn’t demand its money back. Whereas if the contractor doesn’t ultimately produce the aircraft, they will be in breach of contract.
Generally, the government isn’t giving Catholic Charities grants (althought they may). The government isn’t saying to Catholic Charities (or Planned Parenthood—it’s the same type of deal), “We think you’re doing good work, and we’d like to help you out.” They are saying, “There is specific work do be done, and you can apply for a contract to do it. If your bid is low and we consider you competent to do the job, then we will contract with you to do the work we want done, and we’ll pay you to do it.”
The government doesn’t “donate” to Catholic Charities so it can keep on doing what it is already doing. The government contracts for services with Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities is, in many cases, just another government contractor bidding for contracts from the government and doing the work the government pays it to do.
This is not to knock Catholic Charities, or to say they don’t do an excellent job, or to say they work only on government contracts. But in a very real sense, when you are a government contractor, you work for the government.
November 12th, 2012 | 2:46 pm
This only goes to prove my point.
Ezra Brooks,
I never prove other people’s points! :P
The Administration is essentially saying to Catholics “we don’t care what your beliefs are; you are going to do things our way, or you won’t be doing them at all.”
As I said before, I presume from the administration’s point of view, the contraceptive mandate is not about Catholicism. It’s about women’s health. If it can somehow be shown that the intention behind the mandate was to put a burden on Catholics, then it would be a case of religious discrimination. I haven’t heard any legal claims along those lines, although there are people who claim the intent of the contraceptive mandate is to hurt the Church, which is foolish. Now, did the administration know that there would almost certainly be objections from Catholics? I can only assume so. But did they require the mandate in order to get complaints from Catholics, or in order to “marginalize” the Catholic Church? Of course not.
From the government’s point of view, the question is whether the mandate is important enough to impose as a general law, even knowing that some will object. The conclusion of the administration is, obviously, yes. It’s important. Religious liberty is not absolute, and nobody ever would claim it is. The government is not required, when it makes a law or promulgates a regulation, to make sure no one will have religious objections. What it is obliged to do is to keep the law or regulation within the boundaries of what is acceptable according to the Constitution and existing law. Has the government done that in the case of the contraceptive mandate? Maybe, and maybe not. We can all have opinions, but ultimately it is going to be decided by the courts. You believe the courts will strike down the mandate. I believe the odds are perhaps 50-50, or maybe 60-40 on the administration’s side. I trust in the courts to make the right decision, whereas I am guessing many Catholics and others will simply insist the courts are wrong if they uphold the mandate.
It does not indicate contempt or even disrespect for the government to make a law that some people have religious objection to (unless, of course, the law is actually targeted at the religious group). For example, the Amish have objections to insurance coverage, and they are permitted to opt out of paying into Social Security, from which they also will not collect. That the government allows this is respect for their religious freedom. However, Amish employers are required to pay into Social Security for those they employ who choose not to opt out of Social Security. So while the Amish are permitted not to cooperate with the Social Security system in one way (not paying into it for themselves and not collecting benefits), they are not allowed to opt out in another way (by declining to pay into Social Security for their employees). The government has to strike a balance between the religious liberty of the Amish and the necessities of the Social Security system. There are some things the Amish can be exempted from, but there are others where they are forced to cooperate even though they raised religious objections via lawsuits (which they lost).
If one person’s conscience is violated, that’s one too many.
Of course, no government could ever operate by this principle.
The Federal Government would do much better to help and serve the American people by working with the Church, not against her.
As we have already seen, but majority of the funding for Catholic Charities comes from the federal government. A great deal more comes from local governments. The federal and local governments work with the Catholic Church in many ways. Catholic hospitals could not survive without Medicare and Medicaid funds, for example.
It’s a question of balance—women’s health versus claims of religious liberties. Many Catholics may scoff at the idea of contraception being important for women’s health, but a majority of Americans (including a majority of Catholics) support the contraceptive mandate. If the mandate is upheld and Catholic organizations are required to provide health insurance covering contraception (or not provide insurance at all), it will not be the first time a religious group has made a claim to religious liberty that is rejected by the courts. It happens all the time.
November 12th, 2012 | 4:32 pm
As for your view that the Church is declining, folks have been writing Her off for 2000 years.
Ezra Brooks,
It is not my view that the Church is declining. It is a fact. And not just Catholicism, but Protestantism as well.
The number of Catholics in the United States is only slightly than the number of “nones.”
November 12th, 2012 | 4:39 pm
David Nickol,
I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but I disagree with your premises and conclusions.
Public policy or law should not require a person or institution to violate its conscience. This is what the HHS Mandate does in no uncertain terms. At the end of the day, that is why the HHS Mandate is unjust and violates the RFRA. Further, I think your assessment of the Administration’s intent is too benevolent: Secretary Sebellius has spoken of a war against pro-lifers in a speech to NARAL.
What I also find interesting in this saga is that two Catholics in the administration, Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta, originally voiced concerns about the HHS Mandate, and then went suddenly quiet.
Regardless of intent, the HHS Mandate will cause Catholics and others to violate their consciences. No law or public policy should have this effect or end. Whether this was intentional or unintended may be up for debate; what is not up for debate is that the Mandate will force Catholics to violate their consciences. Other religious groups see the writing on the wall.
My final prediction: Catholic and Jewish members of the Supreme Court will vote together to strike down the mandate as unconstitutional and as a violation of the RFRA. Their holding will not be based on their respective faiths, but will be based on the law as properly understood.
November 12th, 2012 | 5:35 pm
“Many Catholics may scoff at the idea of contraception being important for women’s health, but a majority of Americans (including a majority of Catholics) support the contraceptive mandate. ”
That a majority of people are unable to distinguish between chemical or physical agents that restore or even enhance normal function and agents that suppress or abate normal function is not a measure of an objective and unassailable reality, its a sad comment on persistency of popular delusions. Other popular delusions: some people are inferior, alchemy, geocentrism….
November 13th, 2012 | 7:47 am
That a majority of people are unable to distinguish between chemical or physical agents that restore or even enhance normal function and agents that suppress or abate normal function . . .
Adam Baum,
So you’re saying that anesthesia isn’t a medical expense and shouldn’t be paid for by insurance?
November 13th, 2012 | 1:10 pm
Public policy or law should not require a person or institution to violate its conscience. This is what the HHS Mandate does in no uncertain terms.
This won’t settle the debate, but “no uncertain terms” seems a bit much.
An employer and the workers (either individually or by collective bargaining) negotiate in exchange for labor the payment of a wage and certain benefits including health insurance purchased from an outside vendor. That vendor then offers contraceptives directly for those workers who want it, outside of the insurance policy as contraceptives are not included in the written contract with the vendor.
I think it would be only the insurance company that is being asked to violate its principles “in no uncertain terms.”
November 13th, 2012 | 2:24 pm
Kurt,
Under the principle of material cooperation, Catholic institutions and individuals violate their consciences if they pay the insurance premiums that provide contraceptives and abortifacients.
This is also the problem with the Administration’s so-called accomodation: the HHS says that the insurance companies have to provide these “services” for free; but, common sense tells us the premiums will be raised or costs shifted another way so that the Catholic insitution/individual is still footing the bill for “services” that violate a Catholic conscience.
Additionally, some dioceses and other Catholic institutions self-insure, so there is no insurance company in those situations.
November 13th, 2012 | 3:55 pm
. . . . but, common sense tells us the premiums will be raised or costs shifted another way so that the Catholic insitution/individual is still footing the bill for “services” that violate a Catholic conscience.
Ezra Brooks,
There is good evidence that adding contraceptive coverage to existing plans will not increase the cost. There is also good evidence that it might. Basically, it is impossible to predict.
However, whether or not material cooperation is acceptable depends on a great many factors, and it seems to me the “material cooperation” argument is a very weak one. I don’t have time to go through every point I would normally make, but please remember the employer takes no action other than what he or she normally would, the employer very well might not be paying extra, the employees might not take advantage of the coverage, and finally, for, let’s say, oral contraceptives, it is not swallowing them that is morally objectionable (since they have licit uses other than for contraception). It is actually the sex act between the man and the women that the Church considers immoral. It seems to me the employer is far, far removed from acts of sexual intercourse performed by his or her employees.
The argument that contraceptives are readily available already is even more detrimental to the case for material cooperation with evil. Remember, it is the sexual intercourse that is wrong, not the contraceptives themselves. If you are in some way responsible for giving someone something they couldn’t get otherwise, and they use it in an improper way, you bear a certain responsibility, I suppose. But if you are responsible in a minor way for supplying something that a person could easily obtain on his or her own, exactly how significant is your “cooperation”?
November 14th, 2012 | 2:17 pm
Kurt,
Under the principle of material cooperation, Catholic institutions and individuals violate their consciences if they pay the insurance premiums that provide contraceptives and abortifacients.
In response to the HHS basic benefits package, the USCCB staff helped draft the Blunt Amendment. Interesting, the Blunt Amendment gives bosses (for-profit and non-profit) the right not to include contraceptives but gives no relief to employees. Did the Catholic sell out the consciences of tens of millions of lay Catholics, only to consider the bosses?
But on the core issue, there is no premium charge for contraception coverage under the HHS accomodation. Is it remote material cooperation to buy insurance from a company tha tprovides contraception to other customers at the same cost as that billed to the objecting party?
This is also the problem with the Administration’s so-called accomodation: the HHS says that the insurance companies have to provide these “services” for free; but, common sense tells us the premiums will be raised or costs shifted another way so that the Catholic insitution/individual is still footing the bill
The insurance companies say contraceptive coverage actually reduces their costs. Respect for the free market might give deference to these compan’s knowing their business best. One diocese is charged $10 MORE per enrollee by excluding contraception.
Additionally, some dioceses and other Catholic institutions self-insure, so there is no insurance company in those situations.
That is a fair point. I would note that when Wisconsin passed a similar insurance mandate (with self-insurance plans exempted as states do not have authority to regulate self-insured plans), Madison Bishop Morlino ran the numbers and decided that it was okay to offer contraception because it was a little cheaper to him than self-insurance.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact