Thoughts on Friday's proposed new version of the HHS mandate - Updated 2/7

(Update, 2/7 - Here's the expected response from Cardinal Dolan and the USCCB.) 

After sitting on the egg for the past nine months or so, the HHS Dept on Friday (2/1) released a new "notice of proposed rule-making" (full PDF here) regarding the much-contested implementation of the HHS mandate.  (For those keeping score, here are a few of our posts from last year on this issue.)  I've slogged through most of the new document, and have to agree (again) with Archbishop Chaput's brief analysis.

The White House has made no concessions to the religious conscience claims of private businesses, and the whole spirit of the “compromise” is minimalist.

And here, his conclusion:

The scholar Yuval Levin has stressed that the new HHS mandate proposal, “like the versions that have preceded it, betrays a complete lack of understanding of both religious liberty and religious conscience.”  In reality, despite the appearance of compromise, “the government has forced a needless and completely avoidable confrontation and has knowingly put many religious believers in an impossible situation.”
One of the issues America’s bishops now face is how best to respond to an HHS mandate that remains unnecessary, coercive and gravely flawed.  In the weeks ahead the bishops of our country, myself included, will need both prudence and courage – the kind of courage that gives prudence spine and results in right action, whatever the cost.  Please pray that God guides our discussions. [emphasis added]


Here's some of the key language from the full document:

On the exemption:

The Departments agree that the exemption should not exclude group health plans of religious entities that would qualify for the exemption but for the fact that, for example, they provide charitable social services to people of different faiths or employ people of different faiths when running a parochial school.... Accordingly..., the Departments propose to amend the [March 2012] definition of religious employer that was adopted in the 2012 final rules by eliminated the first three prongs of the definition and clarifying the fourth.  Under this proposal, an employer that is organized and operates as a non-profit entity and referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the [Internal Revenue] Code would be considered a religious employer for purposes of the religious employer exemption. (p. 19)

St. Andrew's, Roanoke, VA

Those two articles are regarding the exemption from filing even an information return (Form 990) with the IRS for certain tax-exempt non-profits of religious character:

"(i) Churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions of associations of churches;" and
"(iii) the exclusively religious activities of any religious order."

Thus, the religious exemption has not been substantially broadened at all.  It still excludes most if not all Catholic and other religious colleges, universities, health care institutions, charitable institutions like Catholic Charities, charitable fund-raising foundations, etc.  It does now clearly  include, in addition to parishes, most parish-owned institutions like schools, and possible cemeteries.

For these non-exempt religious employers, there is also very little change in the "accommodation" being offered.  Note first this rather revealing bit of rationalization about the distinctions being made:

In proposed [new rules]..., the Departments propose policies relating to the accommodation of certain group health plans and group health insurance coverage with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement.  The Departments propose a comparable accommodation with respect to student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher education.  The Departments believe these proposed accommodation, as opposed to the exemption that is provided to religious employers, are warranted given that participants and beneficiaries in group health plans established by eligible organizations, as well as student enrollees and their covered dependents in student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations, may be less likely than participants and beneficiaries in group health plans established or maintained by religious employers to share such religious objections of the eligible organizations. (p. 21, emphasis added)

I think it's rather alarming that the HHS feels capable of asserting that the diversity of employees at one Catholic (or other religious) institution makes that institution's Catholic (or other) identity less valuable than the Catholic identity of a less diverse institution.  This is, first, a dramatic example of the "tyranny of relativism."  And second, it betrays core principles of the right to private property - the fact that the Church owns a hospital, and therefore is entitled to define the mission and scope of the hospital's policies etc. (within reasonable bounds of what is consistent with the common good, certainly), is ignored, and the assertion of a newly invented "greater good" is used to violate more than only (only!) religious freedom rights.

For purposes of these proposed rules only, the Departments propose to define an eligible organization as an organization that meets all of the following criteria:

• The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered [under ACA] on account of religious objections;
• The organization is organized and operates as a non-profit entity;
• The organization holds itself out as a religious organization;
• the organization self-certifies that it satisfies the first three criteria...

This proposed definition is intended to allow health coverage established or maintained or arranged by non-profit religious organizations... to qualify for an accommodation. (p. 22)

The actual "accommodation" is thus largely unchanged from its original proposal last February.  The health insurance provider assumes the obligation, directly or indirectly, to provide the coverage to which the religious organization which is contracting with the provider objects morally:

...these proposed rules would provide that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing group coverage in connection with the plan would assume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible organization and its plan, for providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, premium, fees, or other charge to plan participants and beneficiaries. (p. 24)

The proposed rules would direct the issuer receiving the copy of the self-certification [fourth point of eligibility, above] to ensure that the coverage for those contraceptive services identified [as objectionable] in the self-certificate is not included in the group policy, certificate, or contract of insurance; that such coverage is not reflected in the group health insurance premium; and that no fee or other charge in connection with such coverage is imposed on the eligible organization or its plan.

The huge question, of course, is how to guarantee this?  On the surface, it seems impossible that the insurance provider would not include the costs of this additional coverage in its normal business expenses, and assign cost-values to all its plans and customers accordingly.

The proposed rules would further direct the issuer... to provide contraceptive coverage under individual policies, certificates, or contracts of insurance... for plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge.  The coverage would not be offered through a group health plan... The issuer would automatically enroll plan participants in a separate individual health insurance policy that covers recommended contraceptive services... The eligible organization would have no role in contracting, arranging, paying for, or referring for this separate contraceptive service. (p. 24-25)

Two huge questions here.  First, if this individual plan is to be offered to all those enrolled in a given group health plan, how is it more than a merely conceptual difference to call it an "individual" plan?  Second, if all this could be solved by the issuing of individual plans, why is the entire mandate needed at all - why not simply have the HHS provide such individual plans directly, levy a clear tax for it, and avoid the whole First Amendment morass entirely?  And note, furthermore, the "automatic" enrollment.  Apparently even those employees who do, somehow, share the religious employer's religious objections are not permitted to act on their principles, either.

The Departments believe that, in the case of insured group health plans, this proposed arrangement would alleviate the need for eligible organizations to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage while providing contraceptive coverage while providing contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries at no cost.  Actuaries, economists, and insurers estimate that providing contraceptive coverage is at least cost neutral, and may result in cost savings when taking into account all costs and benefits for the insurer. (fn 12)  (p. 26)

But there are huge problems with this assertion: First, the claim itself is contestable, and fact that the paper linked above in footnote 12 was written by an HHS staff researcher doesn't inspire confidence in its accuracy.  Second, in the same paragraph, there is this admission that the costs of these individual plans are simply not separable from the employer's costs of contracting for health insurance: "The Departments believe that issuers generally would find that providing such contraceptive coverage is cost-neutral because they would be insuring the same set of individuals under both policies..." (p. 26, emphasis added)  And third, the document later admits that cost-neutrality is indeed an illusion, offering to off-set those costs with equal rebates to the fees associated with participating in the soon-to-be-imposed "Federally Facilitated Exchanges." (see pp. 27, 28, 33, 34, etc.)

Almost as an afterthought, the same approach is proposed for self-insured plans, with the same reimbursement of expenses from off-set FFE fees.  The "third party administrator" of the self-insured plan will assume the responsibility, with other details remaining again unchanged.  Again, there is no examination of any effective, practical separation of costs associated with the individual plans, merely the assertion that this saves the religious employer from complicity.

We are still waiting from official word from the leadership of the USCCB in response to this proposal. 





 

Cultural Hypocrisy

President Obama's speech from Sandy Hook on Sunday night exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of our culture.  Here's a salient quote:

It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself.  That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation.  And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.  This is our first task — caring for our children.  It’s our first job.  If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right.  That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.  And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations?  Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? [emphasis added]


This is, of course, a fundamental truth.  The whole point of "culture" is to raise children into virtuous, competent adults, and to reinforce by the continuous formation of adults the same virtues being passed on, in a manner consistent enough across time and space to be a shared and unifying vision of the Good.  Successful cultures are successful, stable, and enduring exactly in these terms.  People come to share this commitment to the Good that is envisioned, because it is demonstrably a Good, and because it tests positively against human experience.

But in this speech, Obama moves too easily from truth to truism, and thence to misdirection.

The truism is that threats of violence against our children come from outside, from disordered elements of the culture (like mental illness, or the apparent randomness of many forms of violence):

We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults.  They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school; in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America....  As these difficult days have unfolded, you’ve also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice.  We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate....

This dichotomy is partly true, at the level of personal experience, and yet wholly false, morally.  Obama alludes to this falsity when he says:

[T]his job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation.  And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.

But if that's true, then there's not an "us" who try to protect children from violence and raise them in virtue, and a "them" who try the opposite.  Those who harm our more vulnerable members are also "us."  But from  the ambiguity of the superficial truism, the speech is able to misdirect:

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.  Because what choice do we have?  We can’t accept events like this as routine.  Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?  Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

The misdirection here is actually three-fold.

First, there is the straw man of opposing "freedom" with "preventing more tragedies like this."  Politically, this is a false dichotomy because freedom - true freedom, virtuous freedom, not license (as "freedom" is often cast) - is what makes a culture strong and resilient.  Only a society characterized by humility, fortitude, and prudence is capable of reining in the impulses to violent brutality, without resorting to strict tyranny.  Morally, this is a straw man because moral freedom is essential to love, and to the meaningfulness.  Without moral freedom, life just is; neither good nor evil, but simply to be endured.

Second, there is the implied "big government" thinking, that only (or perhaps, best) the federal government is equipped to deal effectively with this problem.  This is typical of this president's work (bailouts, Obamacare, etc).  This is misdirection in this context to the extent that it belies the need for vigorous subsidiarity in making and enforcing good laws, and so forth.  (The whole question of proper care for the mentally ill can be hooked onto this point.)

Third, and most blatantly, there is the elephant in the room of abortion, and indeed of the whole contraceptive mentality of behavior without natural consequence.  Mr. Obama said, "Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm?"  Abortion is the most grievous form of violence visited upon our children - in scale (roughly 3000 children murdered daily), in social damage (emotional consequences, lives and relationships gravely harmed, etc), and in moral damage (abortion justifies other grave evils, because if this person's humanity can be denied, then so too can this one's).  Abortion is a fatal cancer at the heart of our culture.

A society that teaches people that actions don't have natural consequences is doomed.  Likewise, a society that teaches that some people aren't really human.  A healthy society, by contrast, teaches natural virtue, respect for human dignity regardless of "utility" or circumstances, and the truth that love requires self-sacrifice.  A society that doesn't "accept events like this as routine" is one that also condemns abortion, adultery, promiscuity, infidelity; that also upholds chastity, the sanctity of marriage, and the high dignity of the vocation to parenthood.  Hence my opening comment about fundamental hypocrisy.  It is viciously hypocritical to condemn violence against children in a school, and to propose sweeping societal changes to counter it, while also promoting systematic, devastating violence against children in the womb, and resisting efforts to counter it.

9/11 anniversary reflections

Fr. Robert Barron had an excellent reflection a year ago, on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, on righteous anger, charity, forgiveness, and redemption:



He strongly makes the point here that the main difference between righteous anger and sinful anger is its connection with charity.  Anger at injustice, that compels more strongly the willing of the good of the other, is righteous anger, of the sort (as he points out) that the Bible ascribes to God.  But anger at injustice that clings to the harm done leads rather to some sort of vengeance, than to forgiveness.

One of the further things this distinction entails is a purification of memory.  As we know from our experience, we retain the memory of sin, both as sinner and as sinned-against, even after sacramental confession.  These memories can be powerful, and can affect our charity, often for ill.  It's very easy, in fact, to cling to the memory of the harm done, and to allow that memory to tempt us back into sin.  Often, when the sin is our own, we move from the memory back into the same sin, seeking even despite our (struggling) will and (incomplete) desire for God the fleeting sweetness of sin's illicit pleasure. 

But it's also too often true, when we have been harmed by sin, that, as we remember the harm done, we are tempted against charity to desire a comparable harm to the one who harmed us (or, perhaps, to a substitute "them").  In short, as Fr. Barron says, we desire vengeance, not justice.  Vengeance is so much easier than justice, both because vengeance doesn't require me also to change, the way justice does; and also because vengeance contains that same illicit sweetness of sin. 

I believe this is in fact extremely common.  Most of the time, it leads us to petty and instant vengeance, like yelling at a child who's disobeyed or dropped their dinner on the floor, or like cursing the driver who's just cut us off.  Most of the time, we recognize both that further acts of vengeance would be themselves a completely unjust escalation of the original harm, and that we don't truly desire that kind of harm to the other.  Clearly, this is good, in the sense that we are resisting the temptation to greater sin, even if we are giving in to the temptation to the lesser sin.

But that's precisely the issue, for those who belong to Jesus Christ.  If we thus justify at a personal level the lesser sin of "verbal vengeance," we cultivate the habit of anger separated from justice and charity, and we put ourselves in a very poor spiritual position.  We reflect very poorly the beatitude of meekness (the absence of anger, if not from our reaction to injustice, as we've seen, then at least from our motive in responding).  Socially, we slowly escalate the level of "verbal vengeance" that is acceptable, and therefore that is necessary to portray.  The more socially necessary it is to speak violently, the more abused and dominated are those who cannot do so (convincingly).  At some point, this tips from verbal to physical actions, and the cycle of domination continues apace.  This aptly describes our culture, in fact, and represents a key measure of the marginalization of our Christian heritage.

Thus, as followers of Christ, we need to practice a purification of our memory.  This can be part of our regular examination of conscience.  If we cultivate in the memory of the daily, petty harms inflicted on us the habit of letting righteous anger move to charity, rather than to self-serving vengeance, then we might be capable of the same in remember the more significant harms.  Likewise, when we are the ones harming, if we cultivate a desire to seek forgiveness and redemption in the memory of the little things, we might be able to do so in the more significant.

An excellent example of what martyrdom really means, here and now - Updated 5/24

I saw this both on Facebook and on Fr. Z's WDTPRS.  The original is here. Quite apart from the specific issue of defending traditional marriage, which is of course crucial to a healthy society, this video shows what martyrdom in the United States today really looks like.  Christians who are willing to speak up in public for traditional social values and mores (i.e., in favor of the sanctity and dignity and necessity of life, marriage, children, virtue, and so forth) are being targeted with significant forms of moral violence ("haters," "bigots," etc., and the consequences in loss of friends, loss of jobs or opportunities, etc.), and even physical (as below) violence.  So far, the moral violence far outweighs the physical, but for how long?



This kind of public attitude in favor of forcibly silencing one view, merely because that view is deemed unacceptable by a self-appointed cultural elite, is of one piece with the more formal and deliberate (attempted) attacks on the rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion we're also currently seeing.  Popular intolerance of divergent views justifies and strengthens political attacks on religion; these in turn feed popular resentments, especially by trying to make people committed to God seem intransigent and unreasonable merely for their fidelity.  This kind of cultural/political "feedback loop" is obviously very dangerous, the more so as it becomes more impervious to reason.

For us as clergy (or as future clergy), the challenge is two-fold.  First, we need to cultivate and practice a fidelity to the Church and her teachings, and a courage for the proclamation of the Gospel, that will allow us to be God's true servants even in the face of such a cost.  We do no one a favor by changing or silencing the truths of salvation in Jesus Christ, even when others don't want to hear them.  Second, we need to proclaim the Gospel and defend its truth, without demonizing those who demonize us.  If we engage in similar moral violence, we appear hypocritical and undermine the apostolic mission we are trying to carry out.  Both of these challenges require that we seek deeper prayer, interior life, and union with Christ as our foundation.

Update (5/24) - Another, related, kind of martyrdom: a prohibition on being able to celebrate the holy sacrifice of the Mass with prison inmates.  The story makes it sound like the priest is the primary victim, but in fact, those who are deprived of his priestly service are even more "martyred."

Cardinal Dolan on the HHS Mandate, and two other worthy articles - Update (3/2)

From His Eminence's blog, "The Gospel in the Digital Age:"

Now what to do?

Well, for one, we’ll keep up advocacy and education on the issue. We continue to tap into your concern as citizens and count on your support. Regrettably, the unity of the Catholic community has been tempered a bit by those who think the President has listened to us and now we can quit worrying. You’re sure free to take their advice. But I hope you’ll listen to your pastors who are still very concerned.

Two, we’ll continue to seek a rescinding of the suffocating mandates that require us to violate our moral convictions — or at least a wider latitude to the exemptions so that churches can be free — and of the rigidly narrow definition of church, minister, and ministry that would prevent us from helping those in need, educating children, and healing the sick who are not Catholic.

The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously. Unfortunately, this seems to be going nowhere: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is simply scurrilous and insulting). The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets,” which doesn’t bode well for a truly acceptable “accommodation.” And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff ended with the President’s people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.

So, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere with the executive branch.

Congress offers more hope, with thoughtful elected officials proposing promising legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. As is clear from the current debate in the senate, our opponents are marketing this as a “woman’s health issue.” Of course, it cannot be reduced to that. It’s about religious freedom. (By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country. Here in New York State, Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaid insurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of service to women and children.)

And the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono.

So, we have to be realistic and prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some want us to engage in civil disobedience and be fined; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

Read the whole thing, it's very good. Also, at "Public Discourse," the blog of the Witherspoon Institute, there's a very solid article by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson in response to a stupidicizing editorial in America:

Well, the bishops certainly do oppose mandating this funding (and always have), for contraceptives and abortifacients are, as Cardinal Timothy Dolan and others have noted, not health care. Anovulent pills can be used for genuinely health-related purposes, which the bishops support and even cover for their own employees. But what contraception and abortion prevent or “treat”—the existence of new people—is no illness or disease. They serve, as such, no common good. And when one weighs religious liberty against what is no public good at all, it’s easy to see how the scales of justice will tip. Bishops who point this out are not flexing “political muscle” in a hyped-up “difference over policy,” as America’s editors suggest. They are drawing the plain implications of Catholic principle—to which Jesuit magazines are, we presume, editorially committed.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that these services were forms of health care. Imagine too that the “compromise solution” were more than the election-year I.O.U. of a politician who had already revealed himself to be reckless about religious freedom (and even averse to that term). We still face the fact that the mandate would require Catholic and other religiously opposed employers to provide plans that cover services they find morally abhorrent, or else pay crippling fines. Insurance companies would be the ones to advertise (and, officially, to fund) the plans’ controversial parts, but objecting employers would in practice bear their costs. Which of these tweaks, we wonder, moved Dionne, Shields, Kaine, and Casey from indignant opposition back to gushing support? The America editorial, long on assertion and innuendo but short—very short—on argument, doesn’t say. Let’s go through the possibilities...

Thirdly, Michael Uhlmann at "The Catholic Thing" offers a six-point plan which he argues the bishops should now follow in their continuing struggle against the HHS mandate, and for the larger principle of religious freedom. It's a thought-provoking little essay. I don't disagree in principle with his points, but he's leaving a lot out (especially in 4 and 5, where he seems to leave the door open to libertarian views that may or may not be "Catholic" in any relevant sense), and the path is not nearly as neat or simple as this plan would make it appear.

Update (3/2) - Bishop Lori responds smartly to the same horrible America article:

Have I forgotten any other details we bishops shouldn’t be attending to? Well, I guess we’re policy wonks for wondering if the government has a compelling interest in forcing the Church to insure for proscribed services when contraception is covered in 90% of healthcare plans, is free in Title X programs, and is available from Walmart (generic) for about $10 a month. Pardon me also for wondering whether the most basic of freedoms, religious liberty, isn’t being compromised, not by a right to health care, but by a claim to “services” which regard pregnancy and fertility as diseases.

And didn’t President Obama promise adequate conscience protection in the reform of healthcare? But maybe it’s inappropriate for pastors of souls to ask why the entirely adequate accommodation of religious rights in healthcare matters that has existed in federal law since 1973 is now being changed.

Oh, and as Detective Colombo used to say: “Just one more thing.” It’s the comment in the editorial about when we bishops are at our best. Evidently, it’s when we speak generalities softly and go along to get along, even though for the first time in history the federal government is forcing church entities to provide for things that contradict church teaching. Maybe Moses wasn’t at his best when he confronted Pharaoh. Maybe the Good Shepherd was a bit off his game when he confronted the rulers of his day.

But those are just details.

Cardinal George on the HHS Mandate - Update (2/29)

Cardinal George writes that the Church is being forced to give up its mission in the world, in the areas of health care and education:

This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

Msgr. Pope seems rather to agree, and upholds the mission of the Church to evangelize by word and by action:

Yes, frankly we do have vigorous disagreement with secret (and not so secret), shameful practices. And we will not, in order to be popular or conformed to these times, distort or misrepresent the Word of God. Abortion is wrong. Fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts are wrong. Divorce, and chosen single parenthood, and so called gay “marriage” are wrong. Contraception, sterilization, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, wrong, wrong wrong.

But I cannot force you to obey me. Rather I commend myself to your conscience. And even if Scripture will not be acceptable to you, I will have recourse to Natural Law. I, indeed the whole Church, will continue to commend myself to your conscience. And even though the gospel is currently “out of season” (cf 2 Tim 4:2) and you laugh at me and call me names like intolerant, bigoted etc., I will continue to commend myself to your conscience.

As long as I live I will speak the truth in love. And however you choose to understand me I will continue to speak.

And not least, in Washington State, the conscience rights of pharmacists were recently upheld in court. Worth noting that this is not a religious decision per se, but a constitutional one.

Update (2/29) - Sebelius offers "dialogue" on the non-accommodating "accommodation" - but not with the bishops. Sr. Walsh of the USCCB has some cogent replies to this further deprivation of the most basic rights from the members of the Church, starting with this:

The current tensions over religious freedom come down to a simple fact: the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. That includes the right of Catholic and other religious institutions to define and carry out their ministry.

...and continuing with this:

The Administration’s intrusive decision about what does and does not constitute religious ministry should make every American pause. What falls after freedom of religion? Freedom of the press? Will Caesar tell you what you have to print or air?


...and ending, with copious irony (to which, unfortunately, this Administration seems as insensitive as it does to the Constitution), with this:

Certainly our government, wise as it is, can’t be expected (and shouldn’t purport) to know everything. It might well ease its burdens by leaving some things to the Almighty and rendering unto God the things that are God’s.

More on HHS mandate, and related insanity

100% of Catholic bishops in US oppose the (illegal) mandate.

Secretary Sebelius was testifying before a House panel today about the process of the mandate. She admitted some astonishing things:

Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sebelius further admitted that HHS never subjected the religious liberty issues to a legal analysis, as requested by 27 senators. She also admitted that she never asked the Justice Department to consider this issue.

It gets worse. Today’s New York Times reports today that the administration announced the Obama mandate “before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.” As the Times points out, this is not a slight issue: 60 percent of all workers with health insurance are covered by a self-funded plan, and the figure jumps to 82 percent for large companies. And no one bothered to address this?

So not only is it illegal, but they didn't even bother to do the most basic sort of homework before they rammed it down everybody's throat. That's not even enlightened despotism, guys; you have to at least pretend to be more than hired goons.

I'm not sure if that's the same hearing the Democrats so maturely "stormed out of" because they couldn't get their way:

So because Issa wished to hold a hearing on how the contraceptive mandate infringes on religious liberty, the Democrats, angry that they couldn’t transform it into a hearing on how religious liberty infringes on the right to contraception, stormed out.

In other news, Rome burns while Nero fiddles... This doesn't specifically relate to the mandate, but it shows again (in case we weren't paying attention) the manipulation, dissimulation, and will-to-power of those who are in favor of it.

Pro-life demonstrators against the mandate get arrested at the White House.

On the President's First Amendment "Compromise" Falsely so-called - Updates (2/13 and 2/14)

As everyone has no doubt seen by now, President Obama held a press conference today (2/10) to announce his wonderful "compromise" on the unjust (and illegal) HHS mandate:

Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.

Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

This is a distinction without a difference. Clearly, the question of whether the conscientious objector pays directly, or indirectly by paying a third party to pay for the immoral services, is quite irrelevant to either the wedge issue of contraction (including sterilization and abortifacients), or to the deeper issue of religious liberty. In either case, the one who tries not to be complicit in moral evil is still compelled to be complicit in moral evil.

The best response I've seen is by Bishop Slattery of the Diocese of Tulsa, OK:

We are grateful that the President has begun to listen to the voices raised in opposition to this intrusion on our first amendment rights, and we are encouraged that he understands the urgency of this matter. However, we are dismayed that he does not understand the root issues which are involved here.

There will be a time, there must be a time, when Americans of good will and strong conscience discuss these points in a rational and non-idealogical conversation.
• First, no one is asking why it is that the Catholic Church is opposed to
artificial birth control, direct sterilization and abortifacients. For two thousand
years, the Church has understood that all of these methods that prevent life
damage marriages and thereby weaken the fabric of society.
• Secondly, in describing artificial birth control, direct sterilization and
abortifacients as “Preventive care” it is apparent that the ideology which
underlies this governmental intrusion is that pregnancy is a disease and that
the conception of life should be prevented.
• Thirdly, the question of who ultimately pays for this immoral coverage has
remained unanswered by the President. Free coverage is never free;
someone will have to pay for this coverage in their premium.

He also notes that the religious liberty issue is not limited to church institutions, but also affects individuals, either purchasers of insurace or employers providing it, and even insurance companies themselves. Spot on, Bishop Slattery.

I think there is now another issue here, also. As we heard from Abp (Cardinal-elect) Dolan, President Obama promised him, in an interview in the White House in November, that he respected the Church's stand on the contraception issue[s], and wanted to protect religious liberty etc. etc. But as he proved in allowing the Sebelius mandate to remain unchanged in January, he lied. By making today's announcement of a change (even though the change is not one of substance), he's tacitly admitting that he lied before, and also tacitly admitting that he approved a policy that violated the First Amendment (!!). (If it did not, why would he capitulate, even only in appearance, to the rising demands on behalf of religious freedom?) And now he's trying to change the subject with a "cheap accounting gimmick."

The Anchoress has more round up of responses, many of them also very good. The Beckett Fund's response is particularly pointed. And Bishop Nickless gave a very clear and precise response for tonight's evening news.

Update (2/13): Abp. Chaput, among others, has an excellent response to Friday's "insulting and dangerous" retrenchment by the Obama administration. The USCCB offered its more definitive response very late Friday evening.

Update II (2/13): Lydia McGrew gives a clear and compelling rebuttal of that "98% of Catholic women use contraception" lie that figured so prominently, if irrelevantly, in the logic (for whatever that's worth) of the HHS mandate. (I found this linked via Tom Hoopes at CatholicVote.org.)

Update III (2/14): Pope Benedict gave his third speech to American bishops making their ad limina visit yesterday (see here, but it's not posted there yet). Msgr. Pope gives his thoughts on the address most compellingly. Thomas Peters draws the obvious conclusion that where no compromise is (repeatedly) offered, none is possible, and sets his sights firmly on the electoral defeat of Obama and his oppressive ilk. And the Anchoress shares another little example of that animus, in this otherwise unremarked rule change. Last but not least, the USCCB lists six more things everyone should know about the HHS mandate.

Pray for our Bishops

Thomas Peters at CatholicVote.org has a thorough list of bishops who have spoken out recently against the (unconstitutional, illegal) mandate of the HHS about insurance policies. Please acquaint yourselves with what they are saying. They need our support in this - most especially our constant and fervent prayers, but also some positive encouragement to keep up the zeal they need to lead and defend us.

There is still a good possibility for a legislative solution, that is, that Congress could legislate the defense of First Amendment rights into the HHS policy, which it currently lacks. To that end, the bishops through the USCCB advocate writing to your Congress members:

"To correct the threats to religious liberty and rights of conscience posed by PPACA, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179, S. 1467). This measure will ensure that those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” It is more important than ever that Members of Congress be urged to co-sponsor this measure. For co-sponsors, please check H.R. 1179 and S. 1467 at: thomas.loc.gov."

Another possibility is the judicial one, overturning the mandate on First Amendment and/or other grounds. It's hard to imagine how this mandate could survive in court, but stranger things have happened; we can't take it for granted that it would be overturned. And it would take time to go through the process, probably all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, we'd still be on the hook to compromise our faith.

The third possibility I can imagine is the civil disobedience one. With a sufficiently high measure of unity and commitment among faithful Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals, and other affected groups, this strategy could well be successful. Most likely it would work best in combination with a judicial or legislative (more permanent) solution.

There's a lot at stake in this. It's not just a moral issue that affects a small number of us anachronisms who "cling to our guns and religion." The fundamental issue here is about the Constitution and the nature of the government our children and grandchildren will deal with. Will we keep to the essential vision of the Founding Fathers (i.e., limited (more or less) government, separation of powers, checks and balances, civil law still within hailing distance of the natural law, and the sovereignty of the people), or will we become what we have been drifting slowly toward: subjects beholden to a government wielding unchecked and arbitrary power behind a facade of electoral pseudo-consent? This coercion, if it succeeds, is a big step toward the latter.

Therefore, brothers, pray.

With friends like these...

Here is the text of today’s truly horrible policy decision and implementation by HHS Sec. K. Sebelius, regarding mandatory inclusion of contraceptive services in employer provided health insurance policies. It deserves a good flensing; my emphases and comments:

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services [pregnancy is not a disease; defining these drugs and surgeries this way is logically and scientifically indefensible] for women including recommended contraceptive [again, their ideological definition that pregnancy begins at implantation therefore includes abortifacients among these contraceptives] services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible [!! because clearly it’s more just to make other people pay for these immoral actions]. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers [must meet all three criteria for exemption: employ mostly same denomination, serve mostly same denomination, explicitly inculcate denomination’s religious values; these exclude all religious hospitals, nursing homes, and social charity organizations, and many schools, grammar to university; parishes properly speaking probably do meet the exemption, but that’s a tiny fraction of the people employed by the churches’ institutions] that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support [So, even when HHS can’t force churches to pay for immoral procedures for others, they’ll still try to force the churches to support them by means of mandated public speech. This is supposed to be a choice that protects conscience??]. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns [“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”].

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families [If you don’t count the increased risk of breast cancer, or the mental health problems caused by abortion, or the millions of babies’ deaths as health concerns…], it is documented to significantly reduce health costs [The same self-serving and unscientific definitions at play here, of course.], and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing [Admirably Orwellian: forcing other people to pay for it, at no cost to oneself, is somehow not “cost sharing.”].

This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services [!! NB: “Pay and/or promote for your employees” is their idea of religious freedom.]. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations [churches and institutions willing to compromise elements of faith give government policies like this moral cover; someone please remind me what they give the churches, again?], which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws [Apart from making us violate our conscience by paying for and/or promoting by mandated public speech these same immoral contraceptives and abortifacients] and regulations give to health care providers.

This is exactly what Pope Benedict was talking about in yesterday's address...

Models of Revelation 8

Dulles’s third model is “revelation as inner experience.” This doesn’t mean the bells and whistles of private revelation in the form of visions and whatnot, but an experiential, even existential, model of immediate, interior communion with God. This rejects the objectivity of both the dogmatic and the historical models. It is based on a thoroughly modern set of assumptions: i.e., what is “natural” (immediate and interior, intuitive or instinctive) is “more real” than what is artificial (mediate and exterior, learned objectively); the distrust of authority, here in objective revelation; the denial that noumenal (i.e., the thing as it really is, vs. “phenomenal,” the thing as it seems to my senses to be) reality can be known; individualism.

Again, there are several forms of this model. In this chapter, Dulles is not as clear on the permutations as in the previous. Without clearly defining the differences among them, he notes (p. 69-70) a liberal Protestant version, a modernist Protestant version, a modernist Catholic version, and a “transcendental” Catholic version. This last, he points out, best articulated by Karl Rahner, is “not typical” of this model, and he mostly sets it aside here. (He will return to Rahner under his 5th model.)

The model, in general, works this way: (p 70:) As transcendent and non-contingent Creator, God is in some immediate sense “present to” every point of creation. So then, every part of creation implies at least the theoretical possibility of some kind of “religious” or “mystical” experience of that divine presence. Such experiences, being immediate, are also universal (at least potentially). (p 72:) This experience always communicates the whole of God’s being, therefore not “revealed truth” in dogmatic or even historical form. Dogmas and history, even sacred history, even the Bible, are not “revealed” at all in this sense, but mere human attempts to communicate the reality of this experience in a particular tradition.

Faith and belief, then, are two quite distinct things. Faith is having the experience; belief is only an approximation of the experience in human terms. All belief, then, is necessarily more or less wrong, and therefore any belief is more or less tolerable in itself. (There follows, 73ff, a description of much jumping through hoops in order to try to ascribe some significance to tradition in Christianity; but, if the assumptions be granted, the most that can be said is that certain beliefs, including Scripture, the Church, the sacraments, etc. etc., tend to be more helpful for us, in being receptive to the faith-experience.)

This same problem of tradition and authority must also be faced, in reference to Jesus Christ. Here it can be said that Christ was the highest and fullest example of religious experience, and that following Him in the Church maximizes our potential to have the same experiences. But of course this is a very far cry from claiming that Jesus is the unique and universal Savior.

The substantial weaknesses of this model should be fairly obvious. It is non-Biblical, and even contradicts the Bible in significant ways. “All the passages from Scripture used to support either of the first two models constitute objections to the third.” (p. 78). It denies the prophets' own experience of inadequacy to know and love God. It substitutes elitism for divine election. It cannot be harmonized with a great many traditional Church teachings. It makes the Church herself a secondary, rather than a primary, reality. It disappoints many expectations of what religion is “supposed to do,” such as define the meaning of stuff, especially in the moral and metaphysical senses.

Is there any redeeming feature of this model? Dulles notes two only: “[T]his model made it possible to accept that critique [i.e., the Kantian denial that noumenal knowledge is possible] without falling into skepticism.” (p. 77). There are other, better responses to Kant; nor is it necessary to accept that critique at all, or at least wholly. But the much harder trick, if one is intending to accept Kant, is not to fall into relativism, which this model, by itself, inevitably does. Second, “this model gave striking support to the life of devotion.” (p. 77) By this he means, “New links began to appear between systematic and ascetical theology. The life of prayer and mystical experience… appeared once again as central themes.” (78). To the extent that “systematic and ascetical” theology have been divided since the 17th c. (much more so in Protestant denominations than in Catholicism), this renewed connection certainly is valuable.

One of the most obvious places I think this model has taken root in the Church is in moral theology, specifically in the formation of conscience. Very few Catholics think about the Bible, the Church, or Jesus Christ in these experiential terms, but all too many think exactly this way about their conscience: that it is immediate, rather than needing formation; that it is interior, rather than shaped by our learning and practice of the Faith; and that it is authoritative of itself, rather than needing the authority of the magisterium for full conviction.