Reams of paper emanate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about how to "accommodate" religious groups that are upset by the recent HHS mandate. Yet for all the fallen trees, HHS ignores a neuralgic point: the government has overstepped its boundaries when it defines what constitutes religious ministry.
The mandate, for the few who do not know it, would force employers, even religious ones, to accept contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization, as part of their health coverage for employees. It offers a narrow religious exception that, among other things, defines a religious organization as one that hires primarily its co-religionists, serves primarily its co-religionists and has as its purpose the inculcation of religion. In short, it dismisses the work of the Good Samaritan, who modeled helping another because of his or her need, not creed. The mandate seems to declare as non-religious hospitals that do not ask for a baptismal certificate in the E.R., soup kitchens that ask "Are you hungry?" instead of "Are you Catholic?" and shelters that do not teach the Apostles' Creed before giving a stranger a bed for the night.
This miserly definition of a religious ministry was devised by the American Civil Liberties Union for a law related to contraceptives in California, and HHS has adopted it as if it were wisdom from the Oracle of Delphi.
Until now the federal government has respected the church's role in defining its ministries and has not tinkered with doctrine. Despite this history, however, HHS and the rest of the Administration now are digging in their heels on the neuralgic point. They stick to the ACLU definition unreasonably, even while saying it's only for this health care regulation and won't apply to others. They turn a blind eye on those of us who shudder at Caesar's defining what constitutes a church ministry.
Why President Obama seems to have chosen this moment to become theologian-in-chief is a mystery. Why should Caesar weigh in on theological questions such as what ministry is religious enough? Distributing Holy Communion at the altar? Yes. Distributing bread in the soup kitchen? No. He might have to meditate on where the loaves and fishes on the hillside would fit, in this theological framework.
HHS seems to be torturing itself to facilitate ways to apply the mandate while circumventing religious freedom. On March 16, it floated some ideas to which it wants the public to respond. Here's hoping they do.
In the past, numerous health care laws have refrained from defining how religious the objecting entity was -- they simply said, for example, in the federal employees' health plan, that an insurer was exempt from the mandate if it had "a religious objection," or in that program and others, that health care providers, whether individual or institutional, didn't have to take part if that would violate their "religious beliefs or moral convictions." The emphasis was on the nature of the objection, rather than on what kind of other ministries the entity engages in to make it "religious."
Perhaps it is time to de-sanctify the ACLU definition of religious ministry and find an approach with which the country can live peacefully. The Administration, HHS, and the bishops, as well as the hungry, the hospitalized and the homeless, would sleep better for it.
Follow Sister Mary Ann Walsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/USCCB
Rabbi Daniel Brenner: Every Sperm Is Sacred? Jewish Perspectives on Contraception
The church is trying to claim a secular power in the name of religious liberty. It will not succeed.
The Church has taken the position that choosing to space one's children :: leading to healthier mothers and children :: to have only as many as one can responsibly raise is 'immoral' and sinful.
For many people, however, choosing to space children :: fewer preemies, more robust weights, less mortality and/or health risks for these children :: is not only moral but the only responsible choice. To say that our biology must regulate our choices :: instead of that we, having G*d-given minds, can regulate our biology to improve our welfare and that of our childre :: is what is immoral to such people (including myself).
You being an employer does not allow you to intrude on my moral choices.
You are not the only ones with "rights". It seems to have escaped your notice that non-Catholic people have rights, aswell.
You have the religious freedom right to practice your religion FOR YOURSELF, not to impose it on your employees, be they Catholic or not. They are NOT your slaves. You have no religious right to enslave them by refusing them healthcare or the right of their own convictions.
The employees have the religious freedom to choose FOR THEMSELVES, to not be bullied by you in what you find unacceptable (although it has nothing to do with your person).
Get used to it, Sister : you're nor special, just a little wannabe slavedriver. Unfortunately for you, the laws of this country don't allow it any longer.
Of course, "peacefully" in your mind is when you're satisfied without regard to those employed by said institutions.
How would the hospitalized, hungry, and homeless be affected? Unless of course you are threatening to shut down all those activities which would now be subject to these new requirements. I'm sure your god would LOVE that you would stop helping people in need just to prevent the appearance of endorsing what you deem an immoral behavior.
So anything the church decides to do should be given a pass no matter what it is? Functionally a delineation must be set for the church to function in a society.
This is the correct definition. If your motivation to do an activity is religious, you do not automatically become exempt from the rules governing that activity.
Provide for yourself.
As long as they don't pay taxes, we have to provide for them.
They should provide for themselves if they want us to do the same.
Once the government begins to take away the fundamental rights, your precious contraceptives will mean little.
You still have your freedom of religion. You just don't have the right to force your religion on your employees by proxy.
YOU don't have the freedom of MY religion, only of yours.
The solution is to employ only devout Cathoilcs, and you can do it legally when you stop begging for state funding. Only then will you have the right to impose what you want on anyone who accepts it of their own free will.
In the end it's all about money for the Catholic Church, isn't it ? :)
Repeating it does not make it true!
OK Sparky, let's review, shall we?
A Church is a place where people who agree on matters of religion go to worship together and all agree to follow the rules of that religion. They are exempt from the health care rules.
A hospital which hires and serves the GENERAL PUBLIC - people who do NOT adhere to or follow the rules of that religion - is NOT a ministry and therefore is NOT exempt from following the health care rules and cannot FORCE their employees to follow someone else's religious beliefs.
Get it? Or did I use too many big words for you?
You also missed the entire point concerning the definition of a ministry - neither you or the government has the right to dictate to any religion what their ministries should be. If you don't like the Constitution, you can find many places on Earth where no such protections exist.
Additionally the health care mandate applied to employees only, not the 'general public'.
If 'horse pucky' is the biggest term you can wield on the topic, you are are in a catch-up position.
I agree with the HHS mandate. If it is your church and your employess of the church, do as you will. I could give a rats rump about your definition about your ministry when you multi-million dollar business, accepting federal funds, and paying non religious employees.
Tell me, how much did the Good Samaritan charge?
If a "ministry" requires payment it is a "business".