Thanks to the Health and Human Services mandate, the question of religious liberty is now of major importance for Catholics in the United States. Previous generations of Catholics were certainly persecuted, and, yes, anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in the public square.
Still, our habit has been to associate religious liberty, an aspect of the Church’s social teaching, with the persecutions of Christians in other parts of the world.
We may not yet be used to having to fret about this freedom, but we ought to start. For this reason, it is important that we look at the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the subject; for when the question of freedom of religion was taken up by the fathers of Vatican II, they provided a clarity about the topic that can help us today.
Dignitatis Humanae (The Declaration on Religious Liberty) went through more significant revisions than any other document at the Council, despite its being one of the shortest of the writings. In fact, its history through the process has been called “freakish.” This was due in large part to the fact that the Church was not used to speaking favorably about religious freedom and that it is a complicated subject.
It seems little wonder, then, that Catholics and non-Catholics find it difficult to maneuver the question in the face of a media onslaught that talks about everything else but freedom of religion. In expressing what this right of liberty means, the fathers of the Council were very careful to define it as a freedom “to be immune from coercion” from other individuals or society, so that no one “is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.”
That the Obama administration is forcing Catholic institutions and individuals to act contrary to their beliefs would seem to amount to a violation of religious liberty, pure and simple. Still, some corners of the Catholic world have parted ways with the bishops. They argue that in the bishops’ campaign against the abortion mandate they are ignoring the long-held principles of Catholic social teaching. Individual and corporate rights, they say, are not absolute, so must, on occasion, bend to the competing rights of others. When determining whose rights are to prevail, the guiding principle is always “the common good.” Therefore, so the critics argue, it is much better for Americans to have health-care insurance than for the Church to have its conscience assuaged by avoiding paying for someone else’s pill.
The Council fathers would agree that rights are not absolute. Religious liberty must have boundaries. Otherwise, like the Mormons of old, one could claim the right to many wives under the freedom of religion. Knowing this, the Council fathers wrote that this freedom must be exercised “within due limits.” The rub is how one defines “due limits,” and this is what marks the difference between the bishops and the defenders of the Obama administration. The latter argue that the Church’s right to religious freedom is trumped by the common good of protecting the right to access health care.
The Church certainly appeals to the common good when defending the right to religious liberty; but when it comes to limiting this right, to the limiting principle, the conciliar fathers were much stricter and exacting. The Second Vatican Council purposefully adopted a very narrow definition for the limiting principle to religious freedom in order to avoid exactly the kind of situation in which we now find ourselves. Indeed, the phrase “the common good” appears only once in the 16 pages of the document, and then it is done only in passing. This was a deliberate choice because “the common good” is not widely used in modern civil law and because it was too broad a phrase. Any fascist can appeal to the common good to defend his tyranny, after all. Thus, the fathers chose a narrower aspect of the common good as the limiting principle, namely “the public order.”
Therefore, according to Dignitatis Humanae, limiting the fundamental right to be free from coercion from the state so that no one is forced to act against one’s beliefs is justified only when the public order has been violated. Additionally, the young archbishop of Krakow Karol Wojtyla wanted even further clarification about the meaning of “public order” since, under Soviet rule, a peaceful gathering of aggrieved dock workers praying the Rosary could be seen as a disturbance of the public order. Archbishop Wojtyla argued that this order should be based upon the “objective moral order” and not on the whims of the state, and certainly not upon the pining of Planned Parenthood. This makes the limiting principle to religious liberty even narrower than the defenders of the White House would like.
In short, if the state is going to force us to act against our own beliefs, it ought to be justified not by an appeal to “the common good,” but, rather, to the maintenance of public order founded on the objective moral order. For this reason, the bishops have been arguing so vociferously: because there is no violation of the public order here.
Exempting Catholic institutions and Catholic individuals from having to pay for procedures we find morally repugnant does not violate peace or order. What’s more, forcing us to pay for abortion-inducing drugs violates the objective moral order. Indeed, that moral order is sullied if Catholics comply with the law. Since this is the case, the public order is maintained, the common good is protected and our bishops have remained faithful to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
It is those who are defending the Obama administration who have gone astray of the spirit and the letter of Vatican II. We ought to maintain unity as Catholics and with the bishops defend ourselves against what is by definition a violation of our conscience, our freedom and our Catholic life.
Omar Gutierrez works for the Diocese of Omaha, Nebraska. He writes about culture and faith at RegnumNovum.com.
Comments
Post a Comment
Notwithstanding the bishops’ arm waving about religious liberty, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences. Contrary to bishops’ assertions and the widespread belief of those who trustingly accept their claims, the law does no such thing.
Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans). Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved. Solved—unless an employer really aims not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather to control his employees’ health plan choices so they conform to the employer’s religious beliefs rather than the law, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.
Indeed, some have continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.
The bishops are coming across more and more as just another special interest group with a big lobbying operation and a big budget—one, moreover, that is not above stretching the truth. The bishops want the government to privilege their business enterprises by allowing them to offer their employees health care plans conforming to the bishops’ religious beliefs rather than the law. They’re so keen on this that they have resorted to a media blitz centered on the false claim—sometimes uttered in priestly tones by bishops themselves—that the law forces employers to act contrary to their consciences. Bunk!
There is more to this than simply coming up with a labyrinthine rationalization of how Catholics aren’t really being made to pay of contraception, even though indirect material support for evil is enough to object. Contraception is not only evil no matter who does it, but the State has no interest in promoting it.
If the Bishops don’t first demonstrate that contraception is a violation of natural law and an evil for everyone, aren’t they leading people to think they believe that religious liberty is a moral absolute? Doesn’t the general American public believe that it a moral GOOD? Didn’t the Bishops remain silent when they thought people of good will and even the faithful who owned large business would have to pay for contraception? Wasn’t the Bishops support of socialized medicine in violation of the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity in the first place?
Why are the bishops so outraged by the HHS Mandate’s violation of Dignitatis Humanae but so indifferent to the massive and widespread violations for 40 years by the Catholic laity of Humanae Vitae. This leads me to think that personal holiness, the main aim of the Catholic Church, is being trumped by political and public relations considerations. I don’t get why no one else is raising this question? Isn’t it a very logical and reasonable question? It seems as if lay Catholics pay for their contraceptives privately and keep quiet about it, the bishops have no problem with that. Only when the government forces the bishops to face the fact that most of their lay people are using contraceptives do they go into outrage mode. Something seems wrong here. Doesn’t anyone else see this? Is the Catholic Church just a political organization now?
Our Constitutional Amendment should read:
“The family being a cornerstone of this nation; Congress shall make no law for the benefit of any group of persons whose benefit proves unavailable or undesirable to all citizens; whereby the rights of the several states, localities, and religious organizations shall not be infringed; Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman.”
True marriage (we all have a mother and a father) is universally beneficial. If the left attacks it they simply prove to be pandering to a special interest. Hey, this fixes the HHS birth-control/abortion mandate also!!!
What we must take care in doing, is to not exaggerate claims of persecution. Doing so inflames the ill informed but perhaps that is what some wish to do. Inflaming the ill informed has taken a life of its own in America’s public square and leads to greater divisions and wounds.
The idea that a corporation whether Catholic or not, is a religious institution, is a debatable fact. A corporation that accepts taxpayers money must be held accountable to the taxpayers to act in a manner that abide by the common good for all citizens. If an individual is paying for healthcare they are paying for a service. In what way do they not deserve to receive a service they are paying for? If someone else was paying for their healthcare service that someone else would have a right to object to what kind of services they received. If you have healthcare and require a surgery is someone else paying for that surgery. I think in that case, you would argue, that you have paid your premiums and are entitled to coverage. If an employer hires someone with health insurance as a benefit of employment, what right do they have to decide what coverage the employee deserves? The act of employment is strictly a business arrangement no more or no less.
Does anyone have a right to deny a Protestant who does not agree with the church’s stance on contraception be denied their freedom not to be subjugated to Catholic doctrine? The argument for coercion could just as well be applied to Catholics seeking to impose their beliefs on other Christians.
To take this argument beyond its defined boundaries with an argument involving “public moral order” is a leap that entails issues involving many recent church failures. To use this argument is to open a can of worms of one’s own behavior. Better to stick with a limited argument.
I have no doubt many find contraceptive morally repugnant. I suspect many more do not.
Vatican ll in my interpretation says we must respect the rights and beliefs of others. To me this suggest a openness and maturity to focus on where agreement can be found and not a strict rigid stance of we are right and anyone who does not agree is wrong or worst, morally deficient. If one’s conscience tells them something is wrong and without any saving grace, it is important that they express this, having done so their conscience is cleared. It does not give anyone the right to make moral decisions for anyone else but themselves.
I sense there are any undercurrents that have propelled this issue to the surface; I suspect not all of them are pure in nature.
A point of order: the HHS mandate does not contain abortifacients. Please try to be accurate.
Maichus: Birth control pills ARE abortifacients!
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.