Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.The key plaintiff here, at least symbolically, is Notre Dame, which as an institution gave President Obama a lot of credibility early on in his presidency, making him its commencement speaker in 2009. Having Notre Dame jump off the bandwagon is substantial.
Claiming their "fundamental rights hang in the balance," a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations filing were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.
The timing of these lawsuits is interesting, since the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare later this summer. It's entirely possible that these lawsuits are going to be moot.
I suspect there's a message in that, especially to the Catholic justices on the Court, of which there are several, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Sotomayor and Kennedy.
There is another message, though -- the Church, through its health care ministry, is a huge player in health care in this country. There are a lot of Catholic hospitals. If Obamacare survives the Court and the president survives the election, the Church may be getting out of the health care business. If the Church starts shuttering its hospitals, there are going to be a lot of communities that will be in big trouble.
32 comments:
If O-care survives another move would be for the Catholic hospitals to stay open and refuse to comply. Make DOJ dome in and force a shut down, or arrest some people. Put the onus on the government and stay true to your mission.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, NW, I think that's a great idea.
The message would be, "We can't in good conscience turn our backs on those who so desperately need our care and have entrusted us with that care for XX years. Nor can we in good conscience, participate in depriving the most defenseless of their right to live. The laws of man may come and go, but we must stay true to our calling and our mission. Our doors and our hearts will remain open..."
Make Holder put on his Janet Reno suit and send the tanks, or the jack-boots with automatic weapons in after the hospital staff.
Of course, if O-care or the abortion mandate don't survive the Court,or if Obama doesn't survive the election, it's likely moot. What would be really interesting is if the law is upheld but Obama loses. Then the next administration's AG could pursue the case with all the fervor with which the current AG goes after voter intimidation cases.
. If Obamacare survives the Court and the president survives the election, the Church may be getting out of the health care business.
If true, that is a damning assessment of the Church's priorities.
If true, that is a damning assessment of the Church's priorities.
That's not how the Church sees it. The Church's primary mission is saving souls, not providing health care. It provides health care as a ministry, but it's a church and not a social service agency. And if the Church is forced to do something through its ministry that it sees as putting souls at risk, it's going to stay true to its primary mission. It has to, really, because if it doesn't, it merely becomes another agency of the State.
NW, I take your point, but I don't think it would happen, for the reasons I stated above.
Well, that's a fine an explanation of why I am not a religious person, then, because that sounds completely and utterly bonkers from where I am sitting.
Brian: just substitute for science.
you are on a quest for truth/knowledge/facts/answers, right?
that is your mission and calling.
suppose you were mandated to operate outside of facts, to ignore truth... and to receive your funding and do some science you were also required to publish and teach that which you know be be false and contradictory to what you were studying/researching.
would you/could you... keep on teaching/publishing know that you contradicting all the 'right' stuff you are trying to do?
Gino, I think the more appropriate comparison is, would I be willing to let some things slide (say, spend some of my time on research that I don't think is going anywhere) if in doing so, I could keep the larger program afloat. In which case...yes I would do that. In fact, that is a pretty accurate description of how I've managed to stay employed for the last two years.
The premise of your scenario is that the priorities of the Church are this: not paying for any health insurance that might cover an abortion is more important that the mountains of good work Catholic charities and hospitals do for the sick and poor.
The Church is certainly free to set it's priorities (and they certainly do not answer to a heathen like me for them), but from where I'm sitting, that is a completely warped sense of what matters.
I know I haven't been to Sunday School in a long time, but I seem to recall that Jesus was pretty big on helping the sick and poor.
but you are forgetting the biggest part:
the mandate is contradictory to the rest of the Church's work.
to preach about the value of human life... and then say, yeah... well, OK... to something that the Church forbids and preaches againts is a hypocrisy.
God knows we need another church that doesnt really beleive or practice its own teachings, right?
i can point to any number of faith bashers who would be all gleeful and shit pointing out that one.
"I seem to recall that Jesus was pretty big on helping the sick and poor."
and more relevant to this discussion: pointing out hypocrites in the faith leadership who following the laws of man had nullified the word of God.
the big point is:
the Church stands opposed to certain things.
they are standing opposed now.
they are practicing their free excercise in doing so.
I'm thinking, and hoping, that NW nails the plan. The lawsuit certainly suggests that, and I support them in this.
but from where I'm sitting, that is a completely warped sense of what matters.
That's because your focus is on this world, Brian. That's not where the Church's focus is. And while the Church has always chosen to make this world a better place, even though the execution hasn't been very good at times, job one will always be saving souls.
I'm not saying I'm happy about the prospect of the Church pulling out of the health care business, because it would be a very bad thing. But if you don't stand for first principles, everything becomes negotiable and then there is no more Church.
And lets be fair. It takes some kind of chutzpah to kick someone in the balls and then complain when they don't want to play anymore. Sure, you can blame them for not taking it. But doesn't the overenthusiastic knee deserve a little blame?
Another possibility is this: Not only could the Church have an eternal good in mind, the Church could be thinking about a temporal one. By going along quietly, as a kind of hostage to the sentiments folks like Brian espouse, they are sacrificing another good - religious liberty. By standing up now, they might well save both goods, not to mention spiritual considerations.
And again, these conversations affirm why I am not a Christian, or any other flavor of theist.
"Saving souls" is a complete abstraction. Providing health care is a tangible good.
"The world" is what the rest of us refer to as "everything that there is."
"Spiritual considerations" means whatever you say it does.
We aren't even speaking the same language.
"Saving souls" is a complete abstraction. Providing health care is a tangible good.
Reminds me of a line I read a long time ago, when the critic Robert Christgau was discussing the song "Spirits in the Material World" by the Police:
"[W]e're not just spirits in the material world--we're also matter in the material world, which is why things get sticky."
And this is a sticky situation. No doubt about it.
Conversely, C.S. Lewis said the following: “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
Brian; I can think of some hospitals and doctors who left their moral objections behind when the government said that it was either that or be shut down. Whether or not you agree with the Catholic stance on this, their right to their doctrine is an important bulwark against the atrocities for which the 20th Century is too well known, don't you think?
Bubba, don't be absurd. The Church is objecting to paying for health coverage that covers contraception. That is a rather long way from being an accessory to genocide, and you know it.
"Saving souls" is a complete abstraction. Providing health care is a tangible good.
so are thoughts of liberty, but you appreciate them anyway.
i left something out earlier, per the Churches mission and saving souls.
the Church beleives that sin damages the soul, and some major sins or too many minor ones, places the soul in dire jeopardy.
to allow some of these things that the Church deems sinful for the bigger picture of 'saving souls' is a gross contradiction.
yes, Jesus healed the sick... but with the admonition to 'go, and sin no more'... not 'go, and just dont anything really really bad.'
yes, Jesus healed the sick... but with the admonition to 'go, and sin no more'... not 'go, and just dont anything really really bad.'
Yep.
Brian, I am baffled by your complete and total lack of respect for the fact that the government will force an organization to do something that completely contrary to it's core beliefs. The "greater good" argument seems to trump freedom in your eyes. Am I missing something here. What if instead of the Catholic Church, it was you and one of your core values?
anon: i've known, agreed, and disagreed with Brian for several years now.
you're reading him wrong. trust me.
besides being honest, he also likes to intellectually challenge the room.
he's always respectful in doing so.
its called discussion.
you're reading him wrong. trust me.
besides being honest, he also likes to intellectually challenge the room.
he's always respectful in doing so.
Yes, yes and yes.
You are all missing a really big point here: The President came to a private agreement with Insurance Companies that insurers would provide contraception as a part of their base plan. Their actuaries had already weighed in and it is actually cost-efficient for them to do that. Health care coverage, when paid by an employer, is part of a worker's total compensation, along with cash, 403B contributions from employers, pensions, and other various and sundry items. The Church is objecting to paying for health care coverage that happens to cover contraception, but they are divorced from the choice. Insurance companies, which are private companies, have made the decision to include contraception in their basic plans. So the Church's complaint is total BS. Opting in for contraception is a choice of the participant in the health care plan. The Church, or any other employer, should have no say in what an employee legally purchases with their compensation. It's that simple.
What's next? Can the Church fire an employee if they use their pay to buy contraceptives or a handgun? Some people find both things morally objectionable. But both are legal and widely used/owned. Alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Should healthcare plans be made available to employers that allow them to deny coverage for anything stemming from alcohol or tobacco use? Should Baptists be able to purchase plans that don't cover dance injuries. Maybe the Church can have all their employees live in Church owned towns. They can pay them with Church Script and the employees will only be able to purchase Church approved items in Church owned stores. Thank you Father Pullman;) It sounds silly, but it is no sillier than this alleged outrage.
It's fun to watch all these hyper- Catholics with 1 and 2 children get incensed about this tempest in a teapot.
Regards,
Rich
Hey Rich,
Many of the Catholic Organizations are self insured to a large degree, meaning that they are their own insurance company. Sanitize the issue all you want, but it's a mandate to force an organization to do something that goes against it's fundemental values. Pick a different issue and a different issue, with the same government forcing something down someone else's throat for the greater good, and tell me that's not an encroachment on freedom. For once there are bigger issues here than the openly accepted bigotry of Catholic bashing.
Please cite your source about the private insurance companies agreeing that providing free birth control is cost effective.
The Church, or any other employer, should have no say in what an employee legally purchases with their compensation. It's that simple.
Which is why Franciscan and Ave Maria dropped their health care coverage for students. That's the "choice" left to the Church.
And anon makes a crucial point -- many, many Catholic organizations self-insure.
It's fun to watch all these hyper- Catholics with 1 and 2 children get incensed about this tempest in a teapot.
You don't know why they have 1 or 2 kids, dude. Perhaps they can't have any more, or perhaps they're really adept at using the rhythm method. Bottom line is that's a profoundly shitty thing to say and very disappointing. You're better than that.
Oh, and might you define "hyper-Catholic?" Is that something like an "uber-Catholic?"
Aw, shucks guys, I can handle myself. But thanks.
If I could abstract this just for a moment...I think one of the main tensions when policy disputes play out along secular/religious lines is that from a secular perspective, there is nothing special about a religiously-based objection to (or advocacy for) a policy.
For example, I object in the strongest possible terms to incarcerating people for what they put in their bodies. I consider it downright immoral, in fact. I don't base this on any religious conviction (being godless and all) but I nonetheless would call it a "core belief". (One that follows from a first principle of non-aggression.)
Naturally, I pay--indirectly--for this very thing to happen every time I pay taxes. Ditto for wars of choice and probably half a dozen other categories of things that I consider unwarranted aggression on the part of the state.
I'd wager no one here would be in favor of "opting out" of taxes whenever we feel the activities of the state violate our core beliefs, if for no other reason than it would be a completely unsustainable system. The price of civilized society is always compromise of some sort. Anarchy only seems to work on a very, very small scale.
Religious liberty is important, to be sure. As a member of (arguably) the last religious minority an awful lot of people don't seem to have a problem discriminating against in this country, I care about it deeply.
But I don't think the free exercise clause is a get out of jail free card when the state mandates something you don't like, either. And that's hardly a new idea. Just ask the Mormon fundamentalists, or the peace churches.
Is there a meaningful distinction between the government taking your money to pay for something to which you object, and telling you to spend your money on the thing to which you object? Maybe there is, but the net accounting certainly looks the same to me.
brian: i would rather you respond to my previous response to you in light 'free excorcise' and forced contradictions.
should a scientist publish falsehoods under his own name for the 'greater good'?
as for the Fundie LDS: they can work on their issues while i work on ours. should it come to a vote, i vote to allow polygamy.
the 'Peace Churches': arent they exempt from selective service anyway?
see? an exemption was/is carved out for a religious faith with a whole lot less theological tradition than The Church. this should be easy...
unless somebody at the top is trying to force an issue... but Obama wouldn't do that. right?
should a scientist publish falsehoods under his own name for the 'greater good'?
OK. No.
But I would argue that a scientific definition of a falsehood is rather different than a religious one. A scientific fact (or falsehood) is based on evidence, verifiable, testable, and always subject to revision in light of more/better evidence.
Religious facts (and falsehoods) are based on faith, and are generally considered immutable, no? To assert them as such is to end the discussion.
The peace churches are exempt from fighting. But they are not exempt from paying for the war...which was the only point I wanted to make, there.
Brian: you understate the science of theology.
its been around a lot longer than chemistry has. if it was hocus pocus, it would have died out millenia ago.
these are facts: shit was created by something...
or someone before that...
prior to shit not being here at all at one time.
so, who/what put all that shit here?
how we can (or if we can) relate to that creative force is the first seed of theology.
i've dabbled in theological study. it every bit as complex and intellectual as some think science is, because it is a science (if of a different nature), minus test tubes and sacrificial mice.
peer review takes place all the time, and new ideas are tested/challenged with/against the old, and vice versa.
A scientific fact (or falsehood) is based on evidence, verifiable, testable, and always subject to revision in light of more/better evidence. just substitute the word 'understanding' for 'evidence'. theology deals with understanding, or the attempt to understand, that force which cannot be seen but who's existential evidence abounds.
i find this statement peculiar:
Religious facts (and falsehoods) are based on faith
and assuming that shit just got here and piled up with no creative force to make it so...
is that not faith as well?
that all this came from nothing at the hands of nobody?
its one thing to say:
"i have no opinion because my mind just doesnt deal well with that realm."
and another thing to imply...
"ya'll are being superstitious/crazy/stupid and i'm not."
peer review takes place all the time, and new ideas are tested/challenged with/against the old, and vice versa
Yes, and this is an important thing to understand. The Church has never stopped teaching theology, nor have our Protestant brethren. And we continue to learn more with each passing generation. Seminaries aren't just a religious version of Six Sigma training.
Post a Comment