Back in the 1850s, if you were sheriff in a “free state,” one in which slavery was prohibited, and bounty hunters came to your county, you were obliged by the Fugitive Slave Act to assist them in the capture of runaway slaves. Once captured, a slave could be returned home or killed in punishment, as the “owner” wished.
Law enforcement officers had no conscience protection that would have allowed them to refuse to assist in the capture of slaves.
The Constitution, the Congress, the executive branch and finally the Supreme Court, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, protected the rights of the slave owner, but not the slave, nor the person who found slavery to be evil.
No doubt, some will object to the comparison of the Fugitive Slave Act and the Health and Human Services contraception mandate. They would argue that slavery may be the greatest evil ever perpetuated in the name of the United States and in contraception neither a human life is involved, nor any evil at all.
However, from the point of view of those who believe human life begins at conception, the analogy is apt.
In point of fact, “contraception” is not really just contra-conception. With the exception of barrier methods and spermicides, the widely used means of birth control are dual purpose.
If they fail to prevent ovulation, they make the uterus inhospitable to the newly created human life.
This “abortifacient effect” makes the use of the term “contraception” and “contraceptive mandate,” as well as the dismissing of moral objections because “it’s not abortion,” morally and logically outrageous.
It would be like judging a man who killed someone in the course of a robbery only as a robber, the lesser of the two effects.
“Contraception” not only prevents human life — it kills it. This is a fact that almost no one on the other side is willing to address, especially with regard to the ethical consequences.
For the citizen who accepts without moral equivocation that human life begins at conception, the opposition to the mandate is as firm as the opposition of those who opposed the devaluation of slaves to three-fifths of a person, or to property.
Using our analogy of the Fugitive Slave Act, therefore, we will refuse formal cooperation. We will not be of one will with the slave owner and the bounty hunter, nor will we actually participate in the capture of slaves.
They are human beings in our eyes and treating them otherwise devalues both them and us.
We will likewise not render the immediate material cooperation of providing the kind of aid to the bounty hunters without which the capture of slaves could not be accomplished. We thus cannot provide oral or written information about where to find slaves or funds for general bounty hunting, because unless we’re self-deceived, we know exactly what the money would be used for: manacles and shackles to capture and transport slaves, possibly to their deaths.
Among the forms of mediate material cooperation, actions not directly connected to the capture and punishment of slaves, there are two kinds: immediate (or proximate) material cooperation and remote material cooperation. These presume that the will does not approve of slavery, otherwise the cooperation would be formal.
Immediate material cooperation has some causal connection to slavery, more or less close. We refuse to cooperate, therefore, with any organization among whose primary ends are the upholding of the institution of slavery and the intellectual, political and economic edifice surrounding it. To do so would have the immediate material effect of advancing slavery itself, even if my support would be for some seemingly good but lesser purpose.
No proportional reason could ever justify such a degree of material support for slavery.
Finally, of the lesser form of mediate material cooperation, remote material cooperation: Since in such cooperation the causal connection is distant, even if not non-existent, we are able to cooperate with individuals and institutions who have some connection to slavery or among whose lesser purposes some support for slavery may be found.
This will no doubt be necessary, as support for slavery is widespread, and few organizations are untouched by it.
However, we will lend even this kind of material cooperation only for proportionately justifying reasons. An example of this would be material cooperation with our own government in matters other than slavery. We understand that individuals with whom we cooperate, and material means we provide through taxes, may incidentally work to continue slavery.
However, the disorder of political and economic disruption, and especially civil violence, would be a far greater evil than the remote material cooperation of a citizen. Political action, litigation, non-violent protest, even civil disobedience, will be our only recourses.
As noted earlier, the analogy will not appeal to some. However, it brings into relief by a concrete historical example the moral cost of cooperation in evil, any evil.
History is replete with such examples, from pre-Christian Rome to Nazi Germany to our own day. The fact that the victim of abortion, including a “contraceptive abortion,” is small and defenseless, having little cultural or civil protection, only makes the evil greater — and the duty to oppose it greater as well.
This is why the HHS contraception mandate should not be imposed on any American citizen — and why no compromise can ever be accepted.
Colin Donovan, STL, is vice president for theology at EWTN. He can be heard on EWTN Radio’s Open Line Fridays from 3-5 p.m.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
I enjoy reading articles like this but it is time for the bishops to start writing editorials explaining their position on birth control and abortion. I’ve seen editorials but since they’re from a lay person, it is merely an opinion and only gets a limited amount of space. A bishop would be allowed more room and he would be speaking with the authority and hopefully the love of the Church.
Although, this article does a great job explaining why the HHS mandate is evil, it’s speaking to the choir. Our Church leaders are being offered a great opportunity to preach to the world, God’s message of love and life.
There are numerous ways we contribute to the sins of another. “Even the just man sins seven times a day.” The ignorance of our sin does not always excuse us because we sin by not trying to learn about such things. Life is a very serious matter. The consequences of how we live the life we are leasing from God will determine our fate for all eternity—without recourse to change the outcome.
Here is a pertinent article from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01100a.htm
Hi Lori, I would say that the bishops need to start writing editorials explaining the Church’s position on bc and abortion, since their own position is also just their opinion and may not be in keeping with the teaching of the Church, unfortunately.
I hope EWTN uses this analogy in the law suit against this deliberate attack on Freedom of Conscience. It is past time that the core issue - contraception - was addressed.
Contraception is poison. Margaret Sangerwas a Nazi.
I don’t understand the criticism of the bishops on this point. They have been more vocal about this HHS mandate than anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes. They are doing what the faithful have been calling them to do for years. All diocesan bishops have written in their bulletins and had letters read at mass opposing the injustice of this mandate. Bishop Lori testified before Congress twice at least. Cardinal Dolan has regularly been a national voice against this. I disagree that the Church needs to defend its position on birth control at this juncture because this issue is not about birth control - it is about basic liberty and that should be the point of focus.
I think this a great comparison. When slavery was legal and felt necessary for the economy, people probably said, well I would not do this evil but the others have “their own choice” to do so. Ave Maria.
While I am overjoyed to see the bishops FINALLY speaking out, I certainly agree with those who criticize them. Their voices are finally being raised, but not very strongly, IMHO. It remains to be seen whether they put up a real fight on these issues.
Those of us who work for the Church and have families to provide for, but are not moral theologians, would appreciate direct answers: 1) Is it immoral for us to pay insurance premiums, some of which will go toward contraceptives/abortifacients we will not be using, assuming that we disapprove of this use of our funds? 2) Will we be morally required to drop our insurance? If so, why has the same requirement not been made of those Catholics who work for secular companies that have always paid for contraception and/or abortifacients? 3) Are there any other ways to provide for our families? What will we do when the government imprisons us or takes away our children because, without insurance, we are “neglecting” them?
I am willing to commit to whatever is necessary, but until that is clear, my assumption is to do what seems best for my family.
I am glad someone has finally raised the question of whether a Catholic who pays monthly insurance premiums to a health insurance plan that covers contraceptives, sterilizations and drugs that can act as abortifacients is cooperating with evil… but I wish the author would have also given an answer. Does paying premiums for such coverage constitute remote, mediate cooperation with evil (which can be justified by the good of having health insurance for when illness strikes)? Or is the insurance benefit for these drugs and procedures high enough that people who would not otherwise have used them will now decide to use them? What about the employer who sponsors such a health insurance plan? And what about the employer who self-insures a health insurance plan so that there is no insurance company intermediary and a much smaller risk pool? Is their cooperation with evil remote enough to justify it? The majority of Catholics are probably in a plan that already covers these drugs, if their plan offers Rx coverage. If this is morally wrong, we need to be told.
The individual who pays a premium but does not use the immoral services is like the taxpayer, or the person who buys a computer. The insurer, the government, or the computer company, may in some corner of its activity do immoral things, but it doesn’t exist primarily for that purpose. Yes, there is some chance that a person who pays taxes, buys a computer, or doesn’t use up all of their premiums in medical care, may be supporting immoral choices. That is pretty remote, however. It is just as likely, perhaps even more so, that someone else’s money, someone who doesn’t object, will be so used.
On the other hand, employers have no such choice. It is not a remote possibility, but a virtual certainty, that premiums paid by employers will pay for such services, or that employees will seek information from the employer on how to get them under the so-called compromise. This makes what is remote material cooperation for the individual, and proportionately justified as a medical necessity for families, into immediate material cooperation for the employer.
Colin Donovan, STL
EWTN
Thank you, Mr. Donovan!
Dear Mr. Donovan,
According to the latest accommodation, (“Certain Preventive Services under Affordable Care Act”), the employer does not pay for contraceptive insurance and it is not in the employer’s contract. Also, the employer does not even have to tell its employees about the availability of contraceptive coverage. The insurer (or the third party administrator in self-insured cases) contacts the employees and grants them separate coverage.
In this case, it appears the Administration is attempting to circumvent all possible objections to the mandate. I would like to know why this is still a cooperation in evil.
Personally, I think the argument is that this is immediate material cooperation. That is, the organization, merely by existing, provides the circumstances which are essential for the government to provide contraceptive coverage. Is this a fair rationale? Is there a better argument?
Regardless of ones position on terminating a pregnancy, Margaret Sanger was not a Nazi.
Colin wrote: Posted by Colin Donovan on Tuesday, Mar 13, 2012 11:15 AM (EST):
“The individual who pays a premium but does not use the immoral services is like the taxpayer, or the person who buys a computer. The insurer, the government, or the computer company, may in some corner of its activity do immoral things, but it doesn’t exist primarily for that purpose. Yes, there is some chance that a person who pays taxes, buys a computer, or doesn’t use up all of their premiums in medical care, may be supporting immoral choices. That is pretty remote, however. It is just as likely, perhaps even more so, that someone else’s money, someone who doesn’t object, will be so used.
On the other hand, employers have no such choice. It is not a remote possibility, but a virtual certainty, that premiums paid by employers will pay for such services, or that employees will seek information from the employer on how to get them under the so-called compromise. This makes what is remote material cooperation for the individual, and proportionately justified as a medical necessity for families, into immediate material cooperation for the employer.”
Seeing that Colin wrote this on 3/13 (after the “abortion premium” was confirmed by HHS), my assumption is that his answer above takes it into consideration. However, since he doesn’t specifically mention it…
Would “remote material cooperation” still apply when a person buys a health insurance plan on a new state exchange that requires the “abortion premium” on plans that have elective abortion? This is assuming the purchaser only wishes to purchase the insurance to protect his family despite knowing that a specific portion of his premium will certainly go to fund abortion. This further assumes that the only “pro-life” plan on the exchanges is financially out of reach and/or doesn’t cover what the family needs.
Trying to think this through, I’m telling myself that it isn’t sinful to buy health insurance, which is the act in question. The fact that my employer (or insurer) segregates my money to pay for morally objectionable things is beyond my control, which makes it remote, yes?
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.