The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBishops' expansion of conscience exemptions is much broader than we think
by Jamie L Manson on Feb. 10, 2012
ANTHONY PICARELLO: ... I think, again, what we're looking for in terms of breadth is to protect the religious liberty interests and consciences of all of those who would be affected by the mandate. So that means employers -- religious employers, yes, but also employers with religious people running them or other people of conviction who are running them.
If you listened carefully to the "PBS News Hour" interview with Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and a chill didn't go up your spine, allow me to highlight one crucial moment in the conversation that ought to be cause for alarm.
Co-host Ray Suarez questioned Picarello about the breadth of protection sought by the bishops. Here is his response:
It means religious insurers. And they do exist. Under this mandate, they're required to include in their policies that they write things that they don't agree with as a matter of religious conviction, and individuals as well who have to pay for it through their premiums.
So all of those entities are the folks whose conscience rights are affected. And the bishops are concerned with all of them, and they have advocated for all of them.
RAY SUAREZ: It sounds like you want something even broader, not just for the colleges and universities and hospitals, but even Catholic employers.
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Well, yes, because the principle here is that of religious liberty. And it's not only religious employers that are entitled to religious liberty under the Constitution.
So all of those should be protected. They should not be put in this situation in the first place. They shouldn't be required by the government to provide, through sponsorship and subsidy, benefits that are offensive to their moral beliefs.
Apparently, not only are the bishops asking for exemptions for Catholic institutions, but also for "employers with religious people running them or other people of conviction who are running them."
So if I'm working for a secular company that is run by a deeply committed evangelical or a conservative Catholic, should I, too, have to worry that I might not have access to the health care or other benefits guaranteed to me under the law?
Earlier in the interview, Piccarello used the "if you don't like the Church's rules, don't work for a Church institution" argument. But this quote seems to indicate that, if the bishops have their way, any employer with strong religious beliefs would be free to subjugate his employees to his religious ideology.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Now that is a slippery slope if ever I've heard of one.
Which leads me to wonder, at what point does the supposed claim to religious freedom start to trump that other constitutional guarantee known as "equal protection under the law"?
"...religious employers, yes,
"...religious employers, yes, but also employers with religious people running them or other people of conviction who are running them."
What I greatly fear is that this is thrown in now so the bishops can throw it out later as their part of a "compromise."
Dear God, religious liberty is now going to mean fiefdoms within the U.S. ruled by religious zealots. And that includes Catholic bishops.
What is awful to learn, too, is the part NCR has played in siding with the bishops, in presenting story after story that almost all support one point of view. (Read Coday's piece from yesterday.)
Oh, good grief! Let me see if
Oh, good grief! Let me see if I understand this.
Under this broad exemption, a Catholic CEO of any corporation, even one with a union work force, could unilaterally and radically change an existing benefit under contract his employees have negotiated and earned, and claim a religious conscience exemption.
And by doing so, there is nothing a court could do to prevent it.
That is exactly
That is exactly correct.
Color me stunned... SHOCKED!!!
--Andy Jo--
POPE v.OBAMA:POWER&SEX .....
POPE v.OBAMA:POWER&SEX ..... ATF, your and Jamie's concerns are well placed. This is not really about sex; it is about power. Obama has stepped up his pursuit of child sex abusers and the bishops are terrified. The bishops are unable to dominate Obama as they dominate Republicans so the pope wants Obama out. The contraceptive Trojan Horse is only a ploy the pope has contrived. The bishops' concern is Federal prosecution, not Federal persecution. Republicans are happy to fund the pope's efforts, of course.
For more information on the pope's contraceptive Trojan Horse criminal defense strategy, please note the comment,"Shame on NCR', accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/obama-administration-went-too-far-con...
"The bishops are unable to
"The bishops are unable to dominate Obama as they dominate Republicans so the pope wants Obama out."
Not the Pope, I think - more likely the US bishops (& probably not all of them). I think the Pope is being misinformed by certain bishops who - mistakenly - see persecution of the Church in the US where there is none; so that he too sees persecution where there is none. STM there is a series of misperceptions here, leading to a great big one. The attacks on Obama make me very sorry for him - too many Catholics are using the over-heated rhetoric more often associated with the wilder Fundamentalists. If they hate his actions and policies so much, they should pray for him. (That of course has implications for those of us who criticise the bishops...)
What is really weird is that Obama, a non-Catholic Christian, is being judged and found wanting by Catholic standards. But there is no more reason why he should bother with them, than there is for Catholics to thionk they are obliged to live by Methodist or Baptist or Muslim or Jewish ior atheist or Buddhist standards. If Abp. Dolan does does not have to gone on the hajj to Mecca like the pious Muslim he does not claim to be, seeing he is not a Muslim; why should Obama, a Protestant and not a Catholic, care two hoots about the Catholic position on contraception ? If he has to act like a good Catholic in bio-ethical matters, what logic prevents his being blamed for not believing in Papal Teaching Primacy, or the Immaculate Conception ? For that is where the idea that the body of Catholic doctrine on bio-ethics - which is by implication the sole theologically valid position, & *therefore* the only position tolerable as the law of the land - leads. But if the bishops wish to judge Obama by Catholic doctrine, why not all his predecessors as well ? Why not condemn Dubya, Clinton, Reagan for bombing civilians ? Where were the Catholic episcopal condemnations of Lincoln, or of Jefferson Davis ? Or did Catholic bio-ethical doctrine & doctrine on human life begin to be obligatory on US Presidents only on November 4 2008 ? And if so - how come ? Why not earlier ? And why only that single department of Catholic doctrine, and not the rest of it as well ?
I don't think the bishops, or other Catholic savagers of Obama, have thought the logic of their position through.
What it is going to mean is
What it is going to mean is that Catholic ethics - however valid they may be; *that* is a different matter entirely - are going to bind Protestants, Anglicans, Muslims, Jews, anyone with a religion. This is not legitimate - it amounts to Catholicisation by the back door. Howrever right the Catholic position on bio-ethics may be, that is no reason whatever for requiring people who are not Catholics, don't want to be Catholics, consider the Catholic position is wrong in whole or in part, reject the legitimacy of Catholicism in whole or in part, or have their convictions on these matters, to hold the Catholic position. It is matter for grave concern if the bishops cannot see that there is wide difference between (a) having the right doctrine (b) having the only right doctrine (c) teaching it to Catholics (d) enforcing it, by stealth & without non-Catholic desire for it, on the non-Catholic public.
There is also the small matter of the US doctrine of the relations of Church and State - but that can be left to those who are from the US.
In a pluralist state, the CC cannot have Catholic doctrine enacted into law like this. Obama cannot have any duty at all, not even a moral duty, to make Catholic bio-ethical doctrine, or any other Catholic doctrine (or that of any one religion or group), the law of the land. If Catholic bio-ethical doctrine does become the law of the land (or of its component states or counties), that should happen, *not* because it is Catholic, but because it has approved itself to society at large and to the lawful representatives of society who are elected to govern the country. Among whom the bishops are not included.
Jamie - I rarely agree with
Jamie - I rarely agree with you, but I think you're absolutely right on this one. A lot of people are being beguiled by the religious liberty argument and will soon discover they're putting other rights at risk. Well said. - robert.
A fundamental position in
A fundamental position in catholic theology is at risk. One persons conscience cannot be used to coerce anothers. There is no threat to religious liberty but there is a real threat from religious insistence on the right to
dominate as in rule over others. In this case a religious entity the RCC is attempting to preempt the right of the civil government to promote their own ends. I see a supreme court involvement no matter which way this goes. At least it will not be the Roman Rota. it is absolutely about freedom of conscience the crux of the matter is whose conscience.
To compel any conscience would be an evil according to Josseph Ratzinger no less. This is more about changing the topic, anything to get away from the
sex abuse and going in the direction of an obvious abuse of power will not help.
TomC
Memo to NCR editors and some
Memo to NCR editors and some correspondents and bloggers: Give the hierarchy an inch and they will take your yard.
Allow me to warn: as an
Allow me to warn: as an European, I know quite well the story of the Church, of the centuries when the popes were king makers (or destroyers). I've lived enough to feel in the skin the support of the Vatican to a fascist regime, and ear from reliable witnesses the horror stories of the crimes commited by another one, also supported by the Church. Until recent times, the Church hated democracy. I'm real afraid that, right now, your bishops are threatening your democracy. Dont't think, please, that they do not know what they are doing. They are perfectly informed about the agenda of the fundamentalist right, and they are playing with fire and, doing so, with your cherished liberties. It's obvious from the start that they want to destroy President Obama. Even if they know that it can be a disaster. I feel a chill in my spine when I ear any of the Republican candidates and think about the harm that they are able to do to your people and to the world. Just a last thought: the world is on the verge of a II Great Depression, which will propably lead to a big war. I'm deeply worried. Dear Ms. Manson: keep fighting and arguing. It is the only Christian option in such a dark scenary.
I fail to see why this is
I fail to see why this is such a big issue. No one is denying women access to artificial contraceptives, sterilization, or even abortive drugs. All that is being said is that no religious organization should be forced to pay for them! If women want to use these drugs so they can engage in sexual proclivity, then they are free to do so. If women need access to these drugs or treatments as a result of health concerns and/or conditions, they are free to have access to them. But, why should a religious entity, entirely opposed to the use of these drugs and procedures, be forced to pay for them? It places the Church in an entirely unacceptable position, saying on the one hand, "artificial contraception is morally reprehensible", while saying on the other hand, "if you want some contraception, just go and your insurance will cover it".
It is an entirely unacceptable and untenable position, and it is designed by the Obama Administration to do one of two things (both, if possible): first, to force the Church to eliminate health insurance benefits for all its employees, thus forcing those employees to look to government for health care coverage, thus requiring the government to expand its health care plan; second, it waters down the Church's teaching on abortion and contraception based on the fact that the Church would not practice what it preaches.
All of this is couched in the phrase "women's health", but in reality it is an insidious attack upon the Roman Catholic Church specifically, and upon religion in general. I hope the bishops wake up and realize that this attack is being launched upon them by the very president whom they supported in his health care reform act! Their support for this president and his health care plans has helped place them and the Church in this position; hopefully they will learn their lesson -- this president cannot be trusted and his, and his party's, antipathy toward religion is blatantly obvious, both in this instance and in their support for overturning the religious exemption to labor laws.
The good news in this is that the bishops are finally standing up and making their voice heard. The other good news is that Obama and his silly administration have seriously miscalculated on this, providing an issue that is having a remarkable effect on the vast majority of the Church in this country, uniting the Church against blatant assaults by the State on religious freedom. This will bite the president in November, mark my words.
" to engage in sexual
" to engage in sexual proclivity.." How about using cotraceptives to plan a family that parents can support both financially and emotionally?
To continue the argument,
To continue the argument, then, does that mean that those of us who are opposed to supporting the military or the death penalty can choose NOT to pay our taxes because those things go against my conscience??????? Just asking.
Good article Ms. Manson
Good article Ms. Manson revealing the true colors of our conservative, republican, catholic bishops for their desire to defeat a sitting President. Every day when I read about the phony "war on the church in the USA." I feel sick to my stomach. These same conservative, republican, catholic bishops turned a blind eye toward the sexual scandal in the church until it was impossible to continue their silence. It appears that many intelligent Catholics may have fallen for this lie about the government trying to destroy our freedom of conscience. I will continue to pray that somehow these immoral bishops will fail to succeed in their attempts to defeat President Obama and turn America into a theocratic state under the rule of the Vatican in Italy.
The bishops' "religious
The bishops' "religious freedom" plank is a species of the ancient Constantinian privileges granted to popes and bishops to be essentially self governing.
The church lost most of its privileges over the centuries because the higher clergy flagrantly abused. Understandably, people nowadays are no longer so deferential to their bishops or priests, and no longer inclined to accept abuse of any kind from the hands or the lips of their "spiritual fathers."
The time has come for a new generation of Catholic Americans to remind their leaders that religious freedom is the right of everyone, not the privilege or the plaything of the bishops.
I have been saying that for
I have been saying that for the bishops an unintended consequence of all this will be the laity's future stance: You are right! You are eloquent. We agree.
Thank you for finally clarifying with such vigor and intensity that 1) our conscience and our religious freedom trump human-made laws and rules and that 2) to punish one's exercise of freedom and conscience formation would replicate the HHS arrogance and disrespect you have so well articulated and decried.
On another blog---but similar
On another blog---but similar topic----the blogger presented the concept that since the seventies----American Catholic bishops have 'pushed' areas that favored wealthier Americans---and have cut their concerns for the poor. Some examples:
1) The closing of inner-city churches---even though many of the people there have no means to travel to the suburbs to attend the thriving churches there.
2) Building/maintaining Catholic schools in the suburbs and closing those that service poor children.
And now this----
Over the past few week, the Catholic bishops have initated an unprecedented campaign opposing new health insurance rules that would expand coverage of contraception. Church leaders are angry that Catholic-affliated hospitals, universities, and social service agencies were not exempted. And thus, we had the reading of the Bishops' letter in 19,000 parishes across the country publicly opposing the new rule.
While the contraception use is a sensitive issue for the Catholic Church, it is hard to stomach this level of outrage when the bishops have been relatively silent on so many pressing issues of our day.
Where was the public outcry over our nation's past use of torture or our involvement in unjust wars? Why aren't the bishops writing letters to be read at Mass about the moral scandal of unemployment and poverty in America? Why aren't bishops divesting themselves of their lavish places of residence---and moving into more modest homes?
On top of this, many bishops are using misleading statements and unnecessarily heated rhetoric to intensify the conflice. So let's look at the facts:
Churches are exempt from these rules: At this writing, the new rules require that institutiions that employ and serve non-Catholics, such as hospitals and universities, are required to include contraceptin voverage in their health insurance plans. No Cathlic parish office or diocesan office will be affected.
No one is being forced to use contraceptiion agains their will. The new rules simply require that employees have access to these services. Individuals who are opposed to the use of contraceiption do not have to make use of the coverage.
There will be fewer abortions because of this decision. Regardless of your beliefs about contraception, everyone should recognize that greater access to prevention services will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies. Fewer unplanned pregnancies will result in fewer abortions. And despite many false claims to the contrary, the contraception covered by this rule does not include abortifacients, like RU-486, that induce abortion.
I saddens me that at a time when so many American families suffer from unemployment and poverty, the leadership of the Catholic Church reserves its loudest voice of moral outrage for issues related to human sexuality. I sincerely hope that American Catholic would press upon our Church leaders to tone down their thetoric, refocus their priorities, and begin to use their voices to address the vast economic insercurities and conflict in the world and honor the rich heritage of Catholic social teaching.
The reality of the situation
The reality of the situation "Little Bear" is that there is no greater charitable organization than the Catholic Church. That is a well established fact that anyone spending 10 minutes of research can confirm. The Church has always spoken out against unjust wars ad nauseum. Perhaps the Church is too busy living out its charitable ministry to be talking about it all the time? The point here is that the Catholic Church is not only concerned with social issues, but even more importantly is its concern for the salvation of souls. The Church cannot stand by as the federal government forces it and its members to actively support something intrinsically and morally evil. We are guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Religious Freedom and freedom from the Government telling the Church what to do. That is the issue here.
If you are concerned with the poor why aren't you concerned with the Obama Administration forcing abortion, sterilization, and birth control on poor African countries as a condition to accepting foreign aid.
Our very own Bishop took
Our very own Bishop took money meant for the poor for his only material desires. The Catholic Church isn't the hierarchy, it is the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE are the ones serving the poor.
If you want to reduce the
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, give people birth control.
The Catholic Church exists in all European countries. Most of those countries provide birth control to their citizens, subsidize it for the poor and try to ensure all have access. Currently 26-28 states in the United States require insurance sold in those states to cover contraceptives. There are Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities right now that are covering contraceptives in the health insurance for their employees. Is the soul of the Church now sullied because of what they have done?
"The Church" also include all the Catholics in this country, the majority of whom use contraceptives. What we really need to have happen is for that silent majority of Catholics to actually speak up to conserve for others the right of conscience that they have claimed for themselves. But that would take courage - and we have been silent for decades now, playing a game of no one say anything. We live a lie. And now the bishops want us to take the lie we live and apply it even more broadly, to our neighbors and friends who work at Catholic universities and hospitals.
The bishops have not yet
The bishops have not yet established that "freedom of conscience" in the US Constitution applies to institutions and not only to citizens. Now they take that for granted and go off in all directions trying to expand the categories of employers whose freedom of conscience may impel them to deny the mandated benefits to their individual workers.
Catholic women have to find a
Catholic women have to find a way to have our voices heard.
No more money in the Sunday envelope -just a printed message
"STAY OUT OF POLITICS!"
come to the Spanish Mass, in
come to the Spanish Mass, in the neighborhood too poor for those fascist Opus Dei boys to bother . . .
"religious insurers"?? An
"religious insurers"??
An oxymoron is not just dry water anymore . . .
insurance is just a fancy form of gambling. I bet you do not die before I get enough money out of you to pay you off for dying.
"and they do exist." sounds like the speaker himself has doubt . . .
And so these gamblers and loan sharks are so religiously and morally pure as to eschew any sort of contraception for anyone?
these guys are joking, right?
what are they doing tonight, between drinks?
Time for us all to read once
Time for us all to read once more together The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology (Moral Traditions series) in particular the Introduction by our great Roman Catholic American Moral Theologian.
Post new comment