Bishops will continue to defend religious freedom

    What is your evaluation of the latest developments concerning the federal mandate that church-related entities provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization? Recently, the U.S. Senate, on a 51-48 vote, tabled the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act that would have exempted churches and those with religious objections from being subject to the mandate. Sen. Mary Landrieu was among those who voted to table the bill.
    I was disappointed in Sen. Landrieu’s vote on this issue. While Sen. Landrieu agrees with the church on many social justice issues, on this issue and on the issue of abortion, she does not. I urged her to reconsider her position.
    Some would make the argument that when legislators disagree with church teaching, we should end the dialogue and condemn them. I take my cue from Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, who always reach out to those who do not support church teaching. We must pray for them and keep dialogue open.
    What troubles you the most about President Obama’s actions regarding the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate?
    Last November, President Obama invited Cardinal Dolan to the White House to discuss religious freedom in general and how the health care law specifically would apply to so-called “preventive services.” He assured Cardinal Dolan that our religious liberty would not be tampered with. The president does not seem to be fulfilling that commitment. The basic question is whether or not a government bureau – the Department of Health and Human Services – can define for us what is religious ministry and how we can exercise that ministry. Can a government entity compel the church to violate its conscience? We say, no. Is that not protected by our constitution?
    In Cardinal Dolan’s letter to bishops on March 4, he indicated all options were open, including legal options, and that the HHS mandate would be a major topic of discussion at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Administrative Committee meeting March 13-14 in Washington, D.C.
    I am a member of the Administrative Committee and I’ll be there for that meeting. What seriously concerns us is that it seems as though the federal administration is not open to making any adjustments either to the mandate or to the narrow exemption it has staked out for those with religious or moral objections to the law. The president promised to “work out the wrinkles.” But it doesn’t seem as though there has been any effort to truly sit down and do that. The White House already has notified Congress that the mandate and all the rules have been officially published – without change – in the Federal Register. The secretary of HHS already has said that there has been an accommodation. We can’t find the accommodation. What we do know is that in a meeting between the staffs of the USCCB and the White House, we asked if the mandates or the exemption were open for discussion. We were told those topics were off the table – they were a fait accompli. What does “working out the wrinkles” mean?
    What are you major concerns with the law as it is now defined?
    On Feb. 10, the president offered what he called an accommodation whereby insurance carriers – not the church or its entities – would have to pay the bill for artificial contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. This did nothing to allay our concerns. First, HHS still has not addressed our deep concerns about the violation of our religious freedom or about the federal government’s action in which it attempts to define a religious organization and what type of ministry it considers “religious.” Second, many Catholic ministries are “self-insured,” so we still would have to pay for those morally objectionable services. In addition, we would have to adopt policies that would allow practices that the church has consistently taught are wrong and in which we cannot participate. Third, the federal government already has excluded some of the church’s ministries from participation in federal programs that aid victims of human trafficking, immigrants and refugees, and the poor and hungry simply because we will not make referrals for abortions, sterilization or contraception. And, what about the owner of a small business who is not affiliated with a religious group but who has a moral objection to providing these services? That business owner still will have to provide this coverage. The Feb. 10 “concession” further muddied the waters.
    Some opponents have argued that the church doesn’t care about women’s health issues?
    That’s a very strange argument. Why does the church operate hospitals? Why do we shelter abused women and children? Why do we have clinics for the poor? Why are we teaching natural family planning? We have always been concerned about women’s health. We do not believe, however, that it is in a woman’s good health to have an abortion performed on her or to use medication that would cause an abortion. It goes without saying that abortion also violates the humanity and the right to life of the unborn child.
    A few Catholic entities such as the Catholic Health Association and America magazine have suggested the bishops are wrong for not accepting the “modified” mandate.
    The federal government has tried to divide the church. The Catholic Health Association, which is led by Sister Carol Keehan, and America magazine have come out in support of the “accommodation,” and the federal government is using that as political cover, implying that the bishops are out of touch or that we do not know or understand Catholic teaching. Some would like us to cave in. We are not going to do that. We are speaking with one voice in supporting Gospel values and church teaching.
    Do you have hope that the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the Hosanna-Tabor case will buttress the bishops’ claims of religious freedom?
    Yes. The Supreme Court unanimously defended the right of the church to define its own ministry and service. Doesn’t this HHS mandate fit into the same category? And, if our religious freedom is taken away or infringed upon in something like health care, what will stop the government from telling us what we are to teach in our Catholic schools and what “marriages” we must witness?
    Will this ultimately end up in court?
    I would hope and pray that good sense and the common good would allow us to sit around the table and come up with a morally acceptable accommodation or a compromise. That does not seem to be the case at this point. If it is not the case, certainly we as the church and the conference of bishops will be prepared to take legal action. As Jesus tells us in the Scriptures, we should go and be reconciled with our brother and sister, even on the way to court. But the Scriptures also say, if that doesn’t work, then we are justified in going to court to make sure that justice is not blurred.
    Questions for Archbishop Aymond may be sent to [email protected]