Morning Read: Contraception debate in NY and the North Country
The national debate over a Federal requirement that religious groups provide full health coverage — including contraception — to employees continues to simmer, with hearings yesterday in Washington.
The issue also remains front and center on the Diocese of Ogdensburg’s website, with Bishop Terry LaValley’s letter describing the Obama administration initiative as “a heavy blow” to religious freedom and tolerance.
You must know that we cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. Even those who may disagree with the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life recognize that the government has no business forcing religious institutions to sponsor and pay for procedures which violate those teachings.
We’ve asked Bishop LaValley for an interview and hope to sit down with him soon. Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that Roman Catholic institutions in New York have been living with a similar state law for roughly a decade.
Although Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has vociferously argued that a national requirement for religiously affiliated institutions to cover birth control in their insurance plans is immoral and unacceptable, some Roman Catholic organizations in his own backyard have for 10 years been grudgingly complying with a state law making them do precisely that.
Many Roman Catholic institutions in NY now “self-insure” in order to avoid the state law (which Catholic leaders sued unsuccessfully to block) but others have added contraception services to their insurance policies.
NPR’s Rob Stein looked in-depth at some of the issues behind this debate, including the fact that many faith groups now see some “contraceptives” as de facto abortion methods, a shift that has reignited the topic.
A new NY Times/CBS poll shows that most Americans (60%) and most Roman Catholics (58%) are more in line with President Obama’s position on all this than with the bishops and the Church hierarchy. How about you?
What do you take away from this debate? A fight over religious freedom? A swing back to 1950s-era thinking? Comments welcome and — remember — keep it civil and respectful.
But because they served everyone; today they would be deemed not Catholic enough; and thus would not qualify for a religious exemption.
If Catholic Charities only hired and only served Catholics, they would have no trouble right now but would be exempt. But because once again they follow their faith, they are punished by these laws.
Mervel,
My main problem in this brouhaha is the bishops. There was a time when the only important people in the Church were the local priests and nuns. They were the Church. Who knew, who cared who the bishop or the pope was? Now they are always in your face. They stick there noses into everything and are always demanding lock step allegiance.
You can’t talk to them. You must never disagree with them. I think they are so afraid of people leaving the Church that they are now behaving like Custer at his last stand – sad to say.
I’ll bet if Jesus were alive today, they would be the first to cry, “Crucify him!”
Brian (NCPR), I disagree.
This issue was muddled weeks ago when the gov’t said church-affiliated hospitals and schools must provide – and in some cases – pay for employee access to birth control.
But the Obama Administration worked out a solution in which insurance companies will provide/pay for contraceptives. The church is no longer obligated to do something it claims to oppose.
And this raises questions I wish you would put to the bishop:
-Why is this an issue for bishops now?
(The LA Times reported today that Iowa passed a bill in the year 2000 that churches – not just church-owned schools and hospitals, but churches, too – have to cover contraceptives for employees. Several states did this, including Massachusetts while Romney was Governor and Arkansas while Huckabee was Governor.)
-It’s been widely reported that bishops want all employers to be able to deny employee health coverage if the employer has a religious objection or ‘moral concern’ to any form of coverage. If this is true, is the church abdicating its traditional role as an advocate for the poor and instead siding with corporations or anyone who employs others?
-Recently, many clergy within American Roman Catholic churches read a statement from the pulpit during Sunday services that called the Obama Administration deplorable for infringing on religious liberty. When was the last time such a letter was read – about any topic – during Sunday mass? Many American Catholics said they couldn’t remember any letter like that ever being read during services – not for the homeless or jobless and certainly not for victims of child abuse. Please explain why such a letter was read now, in an election year.
-Is the bishop’s position political? Does he hope it will affect voters’ decisions in November?
I’d really like to know the answers. And I’ll take the man at his word.
But, no, this doesn’t appear all that muddled, nuanced or complex.
Mervel: “I figured the anti-Catholic haters would come out on this.
The Church is not trying to impose this teaching on anyone, it is however trying not to be forced to pay for something it believes is wrong and in the case of abortion is evil.”
None of this is about hating the Catholic Church, but the Church wants to have their cake and eat it too. 62% of funding for Catholic Charities comes from taxes that means they are getting a significant amount of money from all of us. I don’t have a problem with that. I believe they do a lot of very good work. The Church also is a tax exempt organization – more money that everyone has to chip in to subsidize the Church’s activities. The President is working very hard to try to thread a line which will allow the Church to maintain the role in the public sphere that the Church has chosen to pursue while still maintaining its principles.
If the Catholic Church wanted to be more like the Amish and live along side but apart from the rest of society this would be a very different discussion.
Mervel: “The only reason the Church is unique is that it isn’t modern, I would not want a modern Church, I think most of us desire an ancient Church.”
Be careful what you wish for. The ancient Church was very different from what the Vatican is now. For one thing priests were allowed to marry and have children. Imagine how different this debate might be if the bishops, priests and nuns were having sex?
(Biting my tongue very hard. Not trying to be funny. And if I can’t use that set-up nobody else should either.)
Churches are already exempt from these regulations. The argument pertains to “religiously affiliated” organizations like universities, hospitals, etc. Why should a secretary or nurse be denied health insurance coverage for birth control just because they happen to work at one of these places?
Where in this discussion is the concern for individual rights? It’s all about a pseudo argument over “religious freedom” for large institutions. It’s the same mindset that gave us Citizens United. There is little difference between a large corporation and a huge international religious organization. Both have no problem trampling over individual rights in pursuit of maintaining control of their empires. And they are misusing the terms “freedom of speech” and “religious freedom” in blatant abuse of the intent of the First Amendment.
TomL-
off the subject but the decision is essentially overriden. Look up this IRS form to avoid collection of paying social security.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf
In Pennsylvania they even get out of having worker’s compensation paid on them which gives them an advantage over “English” workers.
TomL- off the subject but the court decision is moot. Amish avoid collection of social security by using the following IRS form.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf
I appreciate the discussion. As I’ve said before, it makes me think.
Knuckle, true about the ancient Church although celibacy has always been practiced within the Catholic tradition, starting with St. Paul through the desert Fathers and Mothers etc. I certainly wouldn’t freak out of parish priests were given the choice to marry, that may happen.
But anyway I think you have the best point and the reason this is interesting; can a Church take money from the government to do things like feed and care for the poor, which is what Catholic Charities takes money from the government to do, and remain true to your faith? For many decades religious charities such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services (the “big three”) have taken large amounts of money from the government to serve the needy in various ways and I think have done a very good job and a cost effective job with that money.
The Catch 22 is by taking that money are they no longer allowed to be true to their faith? The hard part about this law is that it is not about taking government money or not, if Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army took zero government dollars they would still have to comply by paying for birth control.
I would have less of a problem with the law if it was tied to acceptance of government money. The reason that Catholic Hospitals and Charities are not exempt like the Parish Churches are exempt is that they don’t discriminate by faith in who they serve or who they hire, BUT that IS part of their faith! So it is a tough one.
myown, those institutions are part of the Church that sponsors them, just as much as the Parish or individual Churches are. Catholic Hospitals, Catholic Charities, would not exist if not for the Church.
The individual rights are protected by our constitution, which allows us to work where we please, if we choose to work for a Catholic institution we become an extension of the Catholic Church.
It’s interesting that the Catholic Church has no such opposition to insurance plans that cover Viagra. Because contraception “encourages” promiscuity but Viagra doesn’t.
I guess this is what you expect of an institution run entirely by single, older men.
I wonder how many employees of these hospitals and universities are Catholic. They may find it hard to continue operating if, say, 30 or 40 % of their medical and nursing staff decided to seek work where comprehensive medical care was available?
Jeff, I think you are misinterpreting what I posted, and what the IRS has determined. If you are Amish (or other religious group member with a similar objection to participating in a governmental social welfare program) you can opt out for yourself. That is what the IRS form you posted is for.
However, if a non-Amish employee is hired by an Amish person – and the non-Amish employee plans to draw social security – the employee can’t opt out, AND the Amish employer has to pay in the employer’s contribution. That is what the Supreme Court Case was about. It is still in effect I believe.
As for Pennsylvania state law, I have no idea. Pennsylvania may provide a broader range of dispensation from state laws.
TomL-I read the reference and agree, point was the Amish can opt out no penalty either.
Celibate priests and bishops have never carried, delivered, nursed a baby. Are they the ones to alone decide what we are to do with our bodies and whether our health can be protected?
Celibate priests and bishops have never carried, delivered, nursed a baby. Are they the ones to alone decide what we’re to do with our bodies and whether our health can be protected?