As the public controversy over requiring Catholic institutions to hold health care plans that cover contraception has developed over the past three weeks, I have found myself more than a little uncertain about where I stand personally. Recent reports about Catholic reactions to the controversy i
ndicate I am not alone among my coreligionists. On one hand, I am convinced that the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception, and sexuality in general, is in need of serious revision. On the other, the health care mandate seems to be a violation of religious liberty for failing to respect Catholic teaching. Below, I will simply offer an explanation of what this debate seems to be about from the perspective of a moderate Catholic.
The initial plan, as presented three weeks ago by Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, appears to be a serious and avoidable blunder on the part of the Obama administration. I would not expect the average non-Catholic American citizen to immediately understand the strong reaction of the US Catholic Bishops, but the president and his advisors should have been able to anticipate it. It is shocking to me that such an obvious miscalculation could be made, especially in the midst of an election year.
Second, I am not surprised that the Bishops were critical of the compromise offered on February 10. The responses of the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities are perhaps more telling as to the adequacy of the compromise.
The initial rules created a reaction from the Bishops because they would make Catholic institutions clearly financially complicit in the use of contraceptives. It must be admitted that just by being Americans, Catholics already find themselves financially complicit in wars, capital punishment and other morally objectionable acts. The health care rules, as initially stated, simply made following the flow of money from a Catholic institution to an individual using contraception far too obvious to be acceptable. Even if a Catholic institution had no part in individual decisions to use contraceptives, its health insurance premium would directly assist those who did. The recent compromise at least obscures this connection; however, it is of such little substantive change that it could not have been seriously intended to placate the Bishops.
Such a minor revision to the financing of contraceptives could not appease the Bishops because Catholic teaching prohibiting contraception is presented on the basis of natural law, not revelation in a specific sense. Therefore, contraception cannot be a legitimate health care right for anyone, Catholic or not.
To clarify, in Catholic thought there are certain truths made clear by revelation, such as the profession that Jesus is Lord. These truths cannot be imposed on non-Christians because they can only be recognized through faith. On the other hand, there are truths that are deducible through the use of human reason and are therefore theoretically recognizable to everyone. When the Church considers these truths, enlightened by the revelation, it arrives at the moral precepts of the natural law.
Because contraception falls in this category, it is not simply a teaching to which Catholics should adhere, but to which all people should adhere for their own good. To the non-Catholic this may well sound like the Catholic Church imposing its own beliefs on non-Catholics; however, it should be noted that natural law is the basis for the Catholic human rights tradition. Additionally, the prohibition against contraception has been thoroughly and widely critiqued within Catholic Church, primarily for methodological inadequacies in explicating the natural law.
Because the prohibition of contraception is based in natural law, it is not surprising that simply removing the clear implication of Catholic institutions in the use of contraceptives is not a victory in the eyes of the Bishops. Ultimately, the only real victory for the Bishops has to be the removal of contraceptive coverage from all health care plans. The fact that affordable preventative health care (explicitly including contraceptives) is a major principle of President Obama’s health care bill sets the objectives of the President and the US Catholic Bishops in a clear and intractable opposition. It is only the administration’s blunder in seemingly failing to adequately protect religious liberty that has given the Bishops the upper hand in contesting this more fundamental disagreement.
Although President Obama’s critics, including Republican presidential candidates, have used this opportunity to for criticism, they should be cautious to frame this issue as about religious liberty, not the moral legitimacy of contraception. To capitalize on this situation it seems they would do best to suggest that if we allow this infringement today, it may serve as a precedent for more egregious infringements tomorrow. Framing this controversy as a failure to adequately respect religious liberty has helped to garner Catholic support behind the US Bishops.
But the vast majority of Catholics do not find Catholic teaching on contraception convincing enough to put into practice. There is a substantial difference between resolving disagreements within a religious community, and accepting governmental coercion on a matter of conscience, even if that matter of conscience is subject to dispute.
The Bishops have also rallied support through repeated statements that among the “contraceptives” included under the health care plan are some that may be considered abortive. In Catholic teaching, abortion is a more grave moral concern than contraception. Any medication of device that prevents development of the embryo after fertilization has taken place is not really contraceptive, it is abortive. This distinction is clear in Catholic teaching but somewhat obscure in the health care legislation. Although American Catholics are fairly evenly divided over abortion, it seems the Obama administration would do well to be more cautious in this area.
In sum, I am surprised the Obama administration made this mistake, but it is in the President’s best interest to focus on appeasing the majority of Catholics, not the Bishops who forcefully uphold a very unpopular teaching. I am not surprised at the reaction of the Bishops and expect them to continue to protest as long as they are given significant attention by the media. Their greater concern is irresolvable with the administration’s goals.
And, because Catholic teaching against contraception is based on natural law, the Bishops feel they are speaking for a universal good that can be universally recognized (although the history of the contraceptive debate within Catholicism raises its own questions in this regard). The crux of the controversy is about religious liberty, not about the use of contraception as such. Critics of the President will need to be careful not to confuse this, even though the later argument will go over particularly well with evangelicals and a small number of Catholics.
I was raised as a Catholic….or perhaps lowered. 🙂 Whatever. But seriously: I strongly disagree with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops statement, which denounces President Barack Obama’s attempts at compromise as “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions”. On the contrary, the Bishops comments are themselves a needless religious intrusion upon the proper and legitimate functions of government…functions that serve to promote women’s rights, equality, and fairness for ALL. No one is coming into our Churches and trying to tell parishioners what to believe. BUT If the Bishops want to start businesses that employ millions of people of varying faiths -or no “faith” at all- THEN they must play by the rules. Just because a religious group in America claims to believe something, we cannot excuse them from obeying the law in the PUBLIC arena, based on that belief. They can legally attempt to change the law, not to deny it outright. And if they want to plunge overtly into politics from the pulpit, then they should give up their tax-exempt status. Did I miss something, or when it comes to the “sanctity of life”, is every single righteous Catholic still a card carrying conscientious objector, refusing to take up arms, totally against the death penalty, and against contraception in all its forms? Oh well, hypocrisy is at the heart of politics, and politics masquerading as religion even more so. This country is an invigorating mixture of all the diversity that life has to offer, drawing its strength FROM that diversity. We need to work together to preserve, enrich, and strengthen this unique experiment – NOT to tear it down with poisonous, paralyzing, and un-Christian demonization of each other.
Jacob,
Thanks for this.
I hadn’t considered the natural law moral angle. That’s interesting. Personally, I’m not terribly convinced that such a thing exists as natural moral law, and, if it does, I’m also not convinced that anti-contraception sentiments ought to be part of it. That’s a bigger topic for a different time.
More importantly, though, I’m having a really hard time taking the “religious liberty” angle seriously. So far as I understand the issue, if faith-based medical organizations do not want to abide by federal mandates, then they simply need to stop taking federal funding. (Correct me if that is wrong.)
Saying “your organization must operate in this manner” is much different than saying, “if you wish to receive federal grants and funding, then your organization must operate in this manner.” I’m not seeing where an infringement on religious liberty factors into this at all.
-Jared
Jared,
I think the funding question is interesting, and a bit more pronounced when you look at adoption equality for same-sex couples which has “forced” Catholic agencies to shut down. In actuality it forced them to stop taking funding which they depended on to such an extent that they are not viable without it. On the other hand, religious organizations provide a great deal of social benefit for the country and generally do a pretty good job at providing health care, etc. So you have to decide where the trade-offs in these relationships can be made.
Catholics argue for natural law, but how far one is willing to go beyond the fundamental principle “do good and avoid evil” (and the methods they employ) is where you will find a great deal of variation.
Thanks for the comment.
Jake