Franciscan University of Steubenville just dropped health insurance for its undergraduates, thus becoming one of the most prominent early victims of the Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring all health plans to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs. Today the Catholic Church has found itself engaged in a new Kulturkampf, a cultural struggle initiated by State aggression against the libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the Church to manage her own affairs so that her members might flourish in virtue and serve their fellow citizens freely. 
Unlike the war waged against Catholics in the nineteenth century by Germany’s Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, a devout pietist Christian, our battle has been joined not only by many of our Evangelical brothers and sisters but also by many Mormons, Jews, and others of good will. Polls show the politics of the mandate are not playing out as the administration had hoped, however, as women voters’ support of Obama did not spike, and the broader healthcare bill did not seem to fare well in oral argumentation before the Supreme Court.
Whether Catholic, Evangelical, or otherwise, the resistance has tried to frame the narrative along the lines of religious liberty. On one level, this makes sense. The HHS mandate is a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, as even the editorial pages of the Washington Post and USA Today have recognized. Framing it as a constitutional issue seems to make it a public matter of reason, not a private matter of revelation, which invites its marginalization.
The appeal to religious liberty is important, but it must be one prong of a two-pronged strategy. We must also explain why Christians historically have held contraception to be an intrinsic evil. Otherwise, we’ll be regarded at best as irrational eccentrics the state merely tolerates. In the long run, those simply tolerated tend not to fare well.
It is not important, I think, that we actually convince people that Catholics are right on contraception, as amply demonstrated by the support for Catholic rights shown by many Protestants who accept contraception. I do think it is important that people see that we have substantive and well-thought-out reasons for why Catholics reject contraception (as did all major Christian bodies until 1930). We need to show that what is now the Catholic position isn’t simply the fruit of a papal diktat but rather that our position is beautiful, issuing forth from the most profound reflection on Nature and the human person, that our position is a matter of reason and not only revelation, that it’s not really a matter of a mere “religious exemption” at all.
We have before us a real opportunity not merely to defend our right to associate and serve freely in accord with our conscience but also to educate and thereby evangelize the wider public while also catechizing the many poorly-formed Catholics who have little problem with contraception. We should go on offense. While many have been using social media in the struggle for religious freedom, we should also defend the Church’s teaching itself. We should be taking out ads in the New York Times. We should be running television commercials. We should be holding fora on marriage, sex, and family issues not only in our parishes but also in literal public squares like Theology on Tap events in pubs.
We ought to show how our thinking flows from our reasoned and realist conviction that grace completes nature, while the modern biotechnological nightmare we’re facing is a secularized version of the old voluntarist and nominalist idea that grace destroys it. Modern wills use technology to shape their bodies apart from any concern for our natures as embodied men and women. We might make the point that contraception isn’t healthcare because pregnancy isn’t a disease, even though our Gnostic culture considers children a cancer. We ought to argue that Humanae Vitae has proven prophetic. In the face of the West’s demographic decline, we ought to ask progressives what the ultimate ideal future towards which they’re progressing actually is—a sterile secular simulacrum of Eden bereft of the messiness of children?
I have found that most people actually attempt to be people of good will and want to get along with others. And so I have always had a lot of friends who are things I’m not—gay, politically or theologically liberal, agnostic, whatever—who listen to what I say when I say it well. Indeed, some of my best friends and students with whom I’ve been closest are those with whom I disagree most vigorously. They may ultimately disagree with me on serious issues, but they respect me – and I them, when we’ve been able to have substantive discussion of issues, and give each other space. Isn’t that American? Isn’t that Catholic?
The HHS mandate is an existential issue for Catholics, a clear and present danger, which is why Catholics of various theological and political positions have pulled together. As the Church Somnolent rouses herself, however, remembering we’re the Church Militant aided by the Church Triumphant, I would suggest that preserving the libertas ecclesiae requires moving beyond the scope of the limited conscience protections most are arguing for, as if we’re happy to beg the almighty savior State for the table scraps of an exemption. To do so would be to concede the State’s ultimate power over us. While respecting the legitimate domain of the State, we must present the wider public with the beauty, goodness, and truth of our coherent conception of marriage, sex, and family.
Leroy Huizenga is Director of the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota.
RESOURCES
Mary Eberstadt, The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Richard Land: Christians Will Go to Jail
Mere Comments, HHS: Cynical Ploy Failing
Franciscan University Drops Undergraduate Health Insurance
Timothy George and Chuck Colson, An Open Letter to Evangelical Christians
USA Today, Contraception Mandate Violates Religious Freedom
Washington Post, Respecting Religious Exemptions
GetReligion.org, Religious Liberty Loses Appeal
GetReligion.org: Frame Game, Birth Control vs. Religious Liberty, Again
Christopher O. Tollefson, Natural Causes, Divine Commands, and Human Wellbeing
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Exactly.
If Catholic churches, to a significant extent, are filled with people who hold views radically opposed to the traditional Christian view of marriage, sex and family, then to that extent they are filled with people who need to be evangelized. For such people to become fully Catholic, they must reject the ever changing views of the world on such matters and accept the timeless truths of the faith regarding them. Why not unashamedly, confidently present these truths to such people since they assemble in our churches every Sunday anyway? God's providence has never made evangelizing a group of people who obviously need it more convenient. Why isn't this being done?
I suspect it is out of fear of a negative reaction on the part of such people to the truth. How does the Church effectively present the truth where it has become so counter-cultural? Actually it has become more than just that; the truth on these matters sounds like laughable folly to the modern world. To present these truths “confidently” our confidence must be in the Holy Spirit Who Christ promised to send to the Church, not in the ability of any mere mortal to present them persuasively. As Irenaeus put it:
“... just as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men who desire to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any of the rulers in the churches, whatever his power of eloquence, teach otherwise, for no one is above the Teacher (Mt 10:24, Lk 6:40); nor will he who is weak in speaking detract from the tradition. For the faith is one and the same, and cannot be amplified by one who is able to say much about it, nor can it be diminished by one who can say but little.”
The Holy Spirit is the one Who teaches if the Church will but muster up the courage to speak. The effectiveness of the teaching is not a matter of the eloquence or persuasiveness of the “rulers in the churches” presenting it. For example, it was folly to preach Christ crucified. This was the worst possible approach from a worldly, public relations perspective. Who would want to live by the teachings of some guy who ended up being crucified by the Romans? There was indeed much negative reaction to preaching Christ crucified. But those who heard the Church – a Church confident not in human abilities as it preached Christ crucified, but confident in the Holy Spirit promised it by Christ – were hearing Him Who said, “He who hears you hears me.” It was by His power that the known world was converted, not by the “rulers in the churches” making what sounded crazy to the world seem reasonable. It was still folly according to the wisdom of the world, but God's mere folly is in the end infinitely wiser than the world's wisdom and His teaching filled with immense power that is restricted only by the Church failing to find the courage to speak.
Catholics need to start hearing from the pulpit the truth about marriage, sex and family precisely where it sounds the craziest to the world. There will indeed be a negative reaction to this, but the Church unashamedly and confidently proclaiming the truth allows the Spirit of Christ to be heard, which eventually brings about the conversion of the world.
Fewer than 200 students (out of an enrollment of 2096) were buying this insurance, which cost $600 for the school year, so this change affects less than 10% of students. All students were required to have insurance, so the 90% who did not buy the coverage from the university had to be insured in some other way.
Franciscan University of Steubenville said that premiums would double because, under "Obamacare," the maximum coverage amount of the insurance has to be increased to $100,000. If that caused premiums to double, obviously the maximum coverage amount of the insurance they had been offering was well under $100,000.
Given the limited coverage and the small number of students who opted for it, it sounds to me like this simply wasn't very good insurance. Of course, that doesn't mean Steubenville is not telling the truth about the reasons they are dropping it. But it scarcely seems to be a devastating blow to Steubenville students.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/15/catholic-university-drops-student-health-insurance-cites-obamacare/
Per the article:
"Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, said it has so far excluded contraceptive services and products from its health insurance policy for students and will not participate in a plan that “requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.”
If habeas is being disingenuous, he is just one more in a long line of disingenuous people who ignore the Church's position on this moral question while pretending to act in good faith, starting with Obama who feigns concern for the Church's rights while trying to shove contraceptive obligations down the throat of the Church while saying he would never do such a thing.
**********
The conflict began in July 1871, when Bismarck, supported by the liberals, abolished the Roman Catholic bureau in the Prussian Ministry of Culture (i.e., ministry of education and ecclesiastical affairs) and in November forbade priests from voicing political opinions from the pulpit. In March 1872 all religious schools became subject to state inspection; in June all religious teachers were excluded from state schools, and the Jesuit order was dissolved in Germany; and in December diplomatic relations with the Vatican were severed. In 1873 the May Laws, promulgated by the Prussian minister of culture, Adalbert Falk, placed strict state controls over religious training and even over ecclesiastical appointments within the church. The climax of the struggle came in 1875, when civil marriage was made obligatory throughout Germany. Dioceses that failed to comply with state regulations were cut off from state aid, and noncompliant clergy were exiled.
**********
Most of the Prussian bishops and thousands of clergy were imprisoned during the Kulturkampf. Catholics may find the contraceptive mandate objectionable, but it is a far cry from the United States dissolving religious orders and imprisoning bishops and priests.
It is also important to remember that God does not guarantee us religious freedom in this broken world. In fact, it is a common "alien work" of God to allow religious persecution to draw us closer to Him. Christianity has often flourished the most during times when the Church has faced her greatest persecutions.
Our consciences belong to God and cannot be taken captive. They can take our freedom from us and even kill us, but they cannot take Christ from us, or force us to act against our consciences. The primary message I would hope we'd all want the public to hear proclaimed by Christians is that we are NOT "worried" about losing our religious liberty, nor about being persecuted as Christians, because we have absolutely nothing to fear from "those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul."
In fact, not only should we not be worried, we should rejoice if we are be counted worthy to suffer for the name of Christ. Sure, pray for peace and liberty and do what we can as citizens to preserve them, but trust that all things work for good.
"The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications... and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life."
On the Franciscan University website, there is a News and Events link to 'Religious Liberty News'. This will lead you to a series of pieces tracing the Mandate and the response of the Church, including Franciscan University.
The expense in play here seems to the value of a soul.
Thank you, Mr Huizenga, for challenging us, me, to be more conversant with my faith and my neighbors. But to always keep in mind that we are called to share, it is the Holy Spirit Who gives the gift of faith, just as He gave it to us.
Although we no doubt disagree substantially, Erich Heidenreich says something similar to what I have said elsewhere, "The main point we should be making is not the First Amendment religious freedom argument." In point of fact, it is not clear that the contraceptive mandate (or Obamacare in general) is unconstitutional. There is surely an issue of religious liberty involved, but the contraceptive mandate has a significant chance of being found constitutional. Then what will the bishops say? Surely the bishops would be objecting to the contraceptive mandate even if the United States didn't even have the First Amendment. It's possible unconstitutionality is not the main argument against it. While it makes perfect sense to fight it in the courts, and to make the constitutional argument there, surely the bishops' objections are not primarily constitutional. And since matters of constitutional law are not part of the teachings of the Church, no one is obligated to accept the bishops' constitutional arguments as anything but a legal argument from a group that has no expertise in interpreting the constitution.
I would point out, though, that were it not for matters of abortion and contraception, the bishops would be enthusiastic supporters of Obamacare. Had the Obama administrations so chosen, it could have accepted the Stupak amendment and Obamacare would have had the support of the USCCB.
"Most of the Prussian bishops and thousands of clergy were imprisoned during the Kulturkampf. Catholics may find the contraceptive mandate objectionable, but it is a far cry from the United States dissolving religious orders and imprisoning bishops and priests."
If failure to provide acceptable healthcare leads to the end of non-compliant Catholic institutions, as it will given the penalties that will accompany non-compliance, there will be "dissolutions" on a grand scale, just as there were in the Kulturkampf and in Henry VIII's day. Not of orders, but of Catholic institutions.
In truth, in the hostile environment of American Secularism, the Dissolution of Catholic institutions has been underway in this country for half a century now. Look at the Catholic schools which educated 10% of all American students in 1960 but are now in perpetual decline. Or consider the fact that there are no Catholic hospitals in my native city, New York. NONE in a city where so much of the health care of the poor had been provided by Catholic hospitals led by Mother Cabrini and the Sisters of Charity.
The assault on Catholic schools was done in the name of a particular view of the First Amendment, but now the attack on the remaining Catholic institutions (which could not be denied aid given the State's desire to confer aid to other sectarian colleges and hospitals) is being done by pretending that Catholic educational and health institutions are not part of the Religious Actions of the Church and therefore are entitled to no religious freedom protections.
In fact, the Obama attack rests, inter alia, on the premise that a Church institution is not entitled to any religious freedom regard if it seeks to provide services to non-adherents. Clearly, that reading is in direct conflict with an express command we have received from Him we worship as God Himself. Jesus Christ told us to disregard sectarian issues when we saw someone ill or hurt (See the Parable of the Good Samaritan). The Great and Wonderful Obama and his acolyte, Sebelius, though, tell us to ignore non-Catholics if we are going to dare rely on religious protections because they don't regard the Good Samaritan Story as operative for purposes of the First Amendment. Likewise, we should ignore Matthew 25's teaching on the need to care for the least of Christ's brothers.
I would add that Jesus Himself would not meet the Obamacare eligibility requirements for religious exemption. After all, he preached to and helped people who were not from his little group of co-religionists---he taught the Samaritan woman at the well, he healed the Centurion's servant and the Canaanite's child ("even the dogs eat the scraps from the master's table"). No identity politics for Jesus, and that is not good enough for Obama.
"I would point out, though, that were it not for matters of abortion and contraception, the bishops would be enthusiastic supporters of Obamacare. Had the Obama administrations so chosen, it could have accepted the Stupak amendment and Obamacare would have had the support of the USCCB."
Which makes the actions of the Obama administration mind-numbingly stupid. It picked a political fight with very little upside, a very big downside and given the ubiquity and relative low cost (along with Title X funds) of most contraception - quite unnecessary.
You say: "I would add that Jesus Himself would not meet the Obamacare eligibility requirements for religious exemption."
This is basically a meaningless statement. The religious exemption doesn't apply to individuals. It applies to (1) insurance coverage bought by (2) religious organizations with (3) 50 or more employees. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, not a religious organization. There were only 12 apostles. They weren't employees of Jesus.
You say: "If failure to provide acceptable healthcare leads to the end of non-compliant Catholic institutions, as it will given the penalties that will accompany non-compliance, there will be "dissolutions" on a grand scale, just as there were in the Kulturkampf and in Henry VIII's day. Not of orders, but of Catholic institutions."
If Catholic organizations employing over 50 people do not want to provide health insurance to their employees because of the contraceptive mandate, the penalty is $2000 per employee per year. Since the cost of insuring one employee is about $11,000 a year, organizations who currently insure their employees and decide to drop insurance will be saving a fortune!
This, of course, assumes the courts uphold Obamacare in general and the contraceptive mandate. It also assumes Obama is reelected. Even if he is reelected, he only gets another four years—probably with a Republican House and maybe with a Republican Senate. This would not put him in a strong position to dismantle the Catholic Church in just four years (as a lame duck)!
It's amazing all companies everywhere do not drop insurance coverage and save a fortune. Of course, the church organizations who might be forced to do so have said they would increase employee salaries by the requisite amount so that the employees can purchase insurance on their own. They will be paying the religion penalty on top of that, and that's a fortune to pay.
I suspect that these affected church groups will engage in civil disobedience by using passive resistance. They will not close down, they will not pay the religion penalty, they will not refuse employment or service to non-Catholics. The government will back off or shut them down, and they will look like the thugs they are.
As the author of this excellent blog has pointed out, the Catholic understanding of the relationship between truth, nature and freedom is different from that of Liberalism (in either its conservative or liberal manifestations). Because we've failed to mention this for the past 40 years, we've been unwittingly tilling the ground for the Obama's of the world. And even if Obama doesn't get re-elected, we'll have been tilling it for Romney's utterly and purely negatively "free" markets. In both cases we'll have been supporting Liberalism's "freedom from," as opposed to Catholicism's notion of freedom rooted in prior responsibilities to the Good. While fighting political battles, we've lost the metaphysical war.
David, that does not necessarily follow. If one accepts the definition of "common good" that Obama himself is advancing (public companies need to pay for contraception, for the common good of women), what you describe above is quite hypocritical, and actually contradictory. The $9,000 difference per employee will then have to be fielded by the insurance the federal government offers in its place. That of course necessarily means one of two things:
1) The federal insurance will be vastly inferior to that provided by the Catholic institutions, leading to a worsening of national health(care), and degradation of a common good.
2) Or the difference will be made up through increased taxes on citizens or corporations in another form.
Of course, there is a third corollary--that the "savings" obtained by dropping insurance on employees is truly just a ploy to eventually (for all intents and purposes) bring everyone's healthcare under federal control/monopoly. Only the very rich would be able to obtain their own coverage, and that also feeds into the class warfare meme the Obama administration has so divisively and persistently advanced. Jon Lovitz was correct when he said Obama was trying to create class divisions in a society in which people have the freedom and ability to work themselves from poverty to riches.
"This, of course, assumes the courts uphold Obamacare in general and the contraceptive mandate. It also assumes Obama is reelected. Even if he is reelected, he only gets another four years—probably with a Republican House and maybe with a Republican Senate. This would not put him in a strong position to dismantle the Catholic Church in just four years (as a lame duck)! " --David Nickol
David, you seek to minimize Obama's perceived anti-Catholicism, but it's illustrative that you are tacitly admitting it is real. Are you arguing we shouldn't be worried that someone is dangerous/bigoted if they don't have the power to fully act on their beliefs? I'm sure some thought that about Bismark, Mao, etc. prior to their rise to power too...
It also indicates a double standard when liberals argue this for Obama, but argued quite the opposite for the second term of Bush II.
Finally, you fail to mention the possibility that the next president will choose 1 or more Supreme Court Justice, and their lifetime appointment could conceivably have ripple effects for 2-4 decades.
That is not something to equate with "lame duck" status....
If they were to apply that standard to race rather than religion, they'd be rightly judged guilty of reversing the efforts of the Civil Rights movement. They'd be rightly called Racist.
The Church cares for others regardless of color, background, or creed, and for such universal concern for human well-being, they are to be punished. Unless, of course, they become insular and segregationist.
What a twisted ideology liberalism is...and how appalling so many have swallowed it and defend it, hook, line, and sinker.
