WATERTOWN, Mass. — The “contraception mandate” of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poses a risk to people served by Church entities.
That was the consensus of Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston and lay Catholic leaders who spoke about religious-freedom issues during a nationally televised forum.
“Religious liberty is our first freedom on which all others depend; it’s not a right granted by our government — it’s a right that precedes our government. Religion is an essential aspect of the common good,” said the cardinal Monday evening.
The program, sponsored by the Catholic TV Network, was designed to coincide with the ongoing “Fortnight for Freedom,” an initiative of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It covered a range of related issues.
Joining the archbishop of Boston and the live studio audience was John Garvey, the president of The Catholic University of America; Kim Daniels, an attorney and coordinator for Catholic Voices USA; and Angela Franks, a theology director for the Theological Institute for the New Evangelization (TINE) at Saint John’s Seminary in Boston. Carl Anderson, supreme knight of the Knights of Columbus, also provided statements, which were sent remotely.
Cardinal O’Malley pointed out the tie between the preservation of American religious liberty and the country’s involvement in fighting religious persecution abroad.
“The age of martyrdom has not passed, and if religious freedom is eroded here at home, American defense of religious liberty abroad is less credible,” said the cardinal.
The Church “offers our country its greatest private school system, its largest health-care system, its largest network of social services and one of the largest relief agencies,” Cardinal O’Malley said, mentioning Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which also works abroad.
He said that the entities serve all people and that some inner-city schools have a majority of students who are not Catholic.
“We’re involved in these ministries not because the people we serve are Catholic, but because we are Catholic. To act differently would violate our deepest convictions,” said the cardinal.
The HHS mandate narrows the definition of religious organizations that would be exempt from providing contraception, abortifacient drugs and sterilizations in their health-care coverage.
Daniels, who works on cases dealing with conscience protection for health-care workers, addressed the impact of the mandate on local Catholic organizations.
“It’s these groups — the neighborhood parish school, the local Catholic nursing home, the soup kitchen run by Catholic Charities — that will suffer most if the mandate and the stiff fines that it imposes remain in force,” said Daniels.
Heavy Fines
Cardinal O’Malley recalled the situation of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts being run out of providing adoption services. The archdiocese and Catholic Charities decided to stop offering adoption services altogether in 2006, when it would be required by Massachusetts state law to place children with same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples.
In an interview with the Register, Cardinal O’Malley said that Catholic Charities was established in Massachusetts for the purpose of adoption and that it had been operating for over a century.
“We had such a wonderful track record. We were the largest provider of this service and did such extraordinary work — and then to have to give that up because we were being threatened that all government funding, even our licenses, would be taken away from us if we didn’t violate our own principles,” said Cardinal O’Malley.
Garvey illustrated how CUA would be affected by mandate fines for non-compliance. He said not covering contraception and the like could cost the school $2,000 per full-time employee each year, to a tune of $2.6 million annually.
CUA, the University of Notre Dame, and EWTN (the parent company of the Register) are among a host of 40-plus Catholic entities who have filed lawsuits against the HHS mandate.
Franks said that secular media have brought up myths focusing on access to contraception and that the Church wants to impose its view on others. Instead, she said, the issue is “about forcing Church organizations and every Catholic to provide contraception and abortion-causing drugs and subsidize them. “The government wants to force us to do what we know is wrong. That’s outrageous — this is America.”
Franks called the compromise in March offered by the Obama administration to those opposed to the HHS mandate an “accounting gimmick” which transfers contraception coverage to insurance companies, who would then increase premiums.
The married mother of five also refuted the “war on women” phrase, the notion that the Church is against women for opposing the mandate.
“It offends me, as a woman, that Nancy Pelosi, Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius, the president, the so-called National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood claim to speak for women and assume that we all agree to the bizarre proposition that free contraception and abortion equals women’s equality,” said Franks.
‘That’s All We’re Asking’
Panelists also addressed the idea that the Church’s opposition to the mandate because of religious freedom is a partisan stance. Daniels recalled support from President Bill Clinton and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy for religious freedom and conscience exemptions. She mentioned the diversity of the Catholic organizations in opposition to the mandate.
“Anyone who has listened to a dinner table political argument among Catholics knows that there’s no way this diverse group of litigants agrees about who they’ll vote for in November,” said Daniels.
Cardinal O’Malley also visited this theme later in the broadcast as well as the importance of religious exemptions.
“We are trying to hearken back to a period where both political parties practiced and supported these kind of exemptions. And that’s all we’re asking; we’re not telling people who to vote for or trying to favor one party over the other. We’re simply trying to defend the God-given right of our religious freedom that is also guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States,” said Cardinal O’Malley.
Garvey concluded his opening statements by saying the framers of the U.S. Constitution protected freedom of religion, as they thought it “important for human flourishing and happiness.” He said that society “won’t care about protecting religious freedom for long if it doesn’t care about God.”
“We won’t have — and we probably won’t need — religious exemptions for nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers if no one is practicing their religion,” said Garvey. “The best way to protect religious freedom might be to remind people that they should love God.”
Franks said that the mandate debate has prompted many men and women to explore the Church’s teaching on life, marriage and natural family planning, calling them “life-changing teachings.” She encouraged listeners to visit the website ForYourMarriage.org and “inform themselves and become engaged in the public square.”
Carl Anderson called the Fortnight for Freedom not a two-week celebration or a two-week challenge, but a “call to action for Catholics to move together in a unified way into the future” for the remainder of the year and decade — to “make our Church and our country a better place, a more vibrant place, a more caring place, that reaches out to our fellow brothers and sisters in need.”
Daniels also called attention to the need for action on the local parish level.
“I think this is the chance for us to redouble our efforts and to recommit ourselves to our parish schools, to our local social-services agencies — make a commitment to make those kinds of efforts right on the ground where we live,” said Daniels.
Closing the program, Cardinal O’Malley said that the poor, sick, elderly and disadvantaged “are the people who will suffer the most from this mandate.”
He called for prayer for elected officials, appointees, legislators and also for one another, that “we may have the courage and fortitude to defend our cherished freedoms.”
“Let us educate ourselves and our colleagues, families and friends about what is really being proposed by this mandate and what we can do to defend our religious freedom,” said Cardinal O’Malley. “We cannot stand silently in the face of this challenge.”
Register correspondent Justin Bell writes from Boston.
Matthew Warner: Why the world doesn't take Catholicism seriously
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
Is it true that only 30 people showed up for this?
“Religious liberty is our first freedom on which all others depend; it’s not a right granted by our government — it’s a right that precedes our government. Religion is an essential aspect of the common good”
This quotation indicates fundamental misunderstanding of the 1st amendment. Speech and Belief… in sum, government cannot force thoughts onto the individual.
(PS. I appreciate the “doability” of your captchas)
I am not saying it is so, but if the goal of the President and his people is to get Churches out of medicine,social services, education and foreign aid in order to have everything government run, then his actions would seem to be achieving that. Harry Reid is looking for ways to “control the people”. If Churches are forced out because of conscience, who is there to take over their services? Wouldn’t it become a government monopoly? That would be total control. Just wondering.
Why is it that it is always either/or? Here is Canada we were all hood-winked, and silently duped. Good for you, America to raise the questions! Universal Health Care is a grand idea and a good thing, as long as it respects the limits of the mandate, but as here, you are also paying for others’ abortions. In Canada, abortion is a “cosmetic survey” yet paid for by the tax payer. The Hypocrisy and the Hubris. Now our government wants to rectify the situation, because we are finding that there are a lot of sexual selection abortions, and the LGBT gang are all up in arms! We are coming to the punitive moment in marriage officers work that will forbid any refusal to marry a couple. Our Priests are saying now that they will probably come to the decision that they will not renew their licences! Why can’t our governors keep it simple, and not alienate their people? But then this is not new either, eh? Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Amos all had the painful duty to correct the rulers! Pax super Israel!
The HYPOCRISY/HUBRIS IS all ON THE PART OF MISOGYNIST, FEMALE HATING CLERICS WHO BELIEVE THAT they HAVE A RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE CIVIL/CONSTITUTIONAL/LEGAL RIGHTS OF female VICTIMS OF MALE-INSTIGATED CRIMINAL ACTIONS—ESPECIALLY, RAPE AND/OR INCEST….
FYI: RAPE IS A CRIME. INCEST IS A CRIME. FEMALE VICTIMS OF MALE MISOGYNIST INSTIGATED CRIMINAL ACTIONS HAVE every RIGHT TO refuse TO BE FORCED/COERCED INTO BEARING THE !@#$% OF THE RAPIST…. LET ME REPEAT THAT AGAIN; RAPE IS A CRIME. IT IS PERFORMED BY A MALE against A FEMALE WHO HAS refused TO ACCEPT THE MALE’S DEMANDS. RAPE IS A CRIME. SO IS INCEST. GET IT? IF YOU DON’T PLEASE, do CONSULT THE NEAREST POLICE/SHERRIF’S OFFICE, ETC
“‘We are trying to hearken back to a period where both political parties practiced and supported these kind of exemptions. And that’s all we’re asking; we’re not telling people who to vote for or trying to favor one party over the other. We’re simply trying to defend the God-given right of our religious freedom that is also guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States,’ said Cardinal O’Malley.”
If you don’t know who the “enemy” is and won’t identify him, how do you expect to beat him? All the bishops have to do is have voter registration drives in all parishes and ask those Democrats who want to send a message to their party about our First Amendment Rights, to register out of the Democrat Party and re-register as an independent, or something else. This is perfectly legal and would be a more effective
action than sending letters or anything else to their legislators.
Historian, I am sad for you, that you have so much hurt and anger in your heart. I pray that you will open your heart to Jesus so that you may be able to forgive and heal and live truly free, in the peace of Christ.
Historically speaking, when I studied Catholic teaching re abortion in the 60’s, there was no ban on abortion due to rape or incest or the survival of the mother. It was only to have an abortion for other reasons forbidden, for personal convenience. Rape and Incest are horrific crimes against the very soul of a person, man or woman. But so is unjustified abortion to a woman. I speak with a woman’s heart. However, the issue is religious freedom, that is to practice your faith in the public as well as the private square without government rules and penalties. Fundamentally, the issue is complicated when religious organizations take government funds to operate. With money goes control. If I were deciding, I would not take the money. The Church should stand on it’s own two feet and not give up that power.
@Mary Jane Martin
“Fundamentally, the issue is complicated when religious organizations take government funds to operate. With money goes control.”
There was no government interference with the Church receiving the funds to expend the good works for so many years. It saved the government money compared to government running the programs themselves. It is “complicated” now only because of the leftward decent of the Democrat Party since the late ‘60s, a decent that Catholic Democrats are going along with since the ‘80s under the deceiving concept of “social justice.” Catholic Democrats have to make a decision to be either Catholic or Democrat, they can’t be both. A house divided can not stand, and Catholics who remain Democrats will cause the Church to collapse. Many of us former Democrats made that change. Those that don’t change now is because they get their self identity from being a Democrat rather than being Catholic. That includes bishops and priest.
The fact it is a sin to be a Democrat should weigh on their minds, a constant state of serious sin against the 5th Commandment according to Church teaching for “joining an organization that denies a human right.” Ironically, it is a sin against the 5th Commandment. See Life In Christ - Instruction In The Catholic Church (published 1958).
‘Historian’ is really Nancy Pelosi, with all the hysterics and non sequiturs and incredibly foolish statements, written online in caps, for full effect. Remember Nancy’s directive about Obamacare - ‘We have to vote for it to see what’s in it’ ???!!!!! Shut her - ‘Historian’ - off - she has nothing new or productive to add to our discussions.
Mary Jane - I see your point about taking government money, but remember who has hijacked our government - the liberal Democrats! WE are taxpayers, too, and our values should be just as respected as those (often intolerant, tyrannical) values of the ‘progressives’. It is imperative that we reduce the size and scope of government, so it ceases to creep into every crevice of our lives. Of course, that - government expansion - is what Obamacare is doing to our nation, which is why it is SO reviled. More people on Medicaid - great. Just imagine the corruption and obfuscation and ‘under the table’ income schemes that the pervasive spread of ‘free’ Medicaid coverage will engender.
.
I feel like I am watching our beautiful nation rot before my eyes with this miserable President and his despicable minions running roughshod over our freedoms.
Posted by Mary Jane Martin on Monday, Jul 2, 2012 9:22 AM (EST):Historically speaking, when I studied Catholic teaching re abortion in the 60’s, there was no ban on abortion due to rape or incest or the survival of the mother. It was only to have an abortion for other reasons forbidden, for personal convenience. Rape and Incest are horrific crimes against the very soul of a person, man or woman. But so is unjustified abortion to a woman.”
****************************
I’m not sure what Catholic teaching materials you refer to, but all direct abortions are “unjustified.” Neither rape nor incest change the value & human dignity of the unborn child.That hasn’t changed in Catholic teaching.
@Mary Jane Martin
“...when I studied Catholic teaching re abortion in the 60’s, there was no ban on abortion due to rape or incest or the survival of the mother. It was only to have an abortion for other reasons forbidden, for personal convenience.”
I have a 1958 publication of Life In Christ - Instructions in the Catholic Faith, used in Chicago and throughout Illinois, and I believe the rest of the country. I also have a revised copy of Life In Christ - A Catholic Catechism for Adults, published in 1995.
The teaching in both books on abortion is the same - “all forms of direct abortion are morally unacceptable.” There were no exceptions or discussion on circumstances of the pregnancy.
I know during the ‘70s and ‘80s, in pro-life discussions about the circumstances of a pregnancy, the answer to tough questions like rape and incest was the same - the baby is innocent of the crime committed and should not be aborted. The child should be adopted out if its life brings unpleasantness to the mother’s life. As for the occasion when the mother’s life is threaten by her pregnancy, then the answer is you try to save both lives, knowing that you may not be as successful with the baby’s.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.