Category: ChristianityCatholic

US Catholic bishops vow to fight “HHS violations of religious freedom”

The Administrative Committee, the highest authority of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops outside the semi-annual sessions of the full body of bishops, has issued a statement asserting that the Conference will continue to resist efforts by the federal government to require objecting religious believers to provide insurance coverage surgical sterilization, contraceptives and embryocides.  The Conference objects to an unprecedented and unwarranted “government definition of religion,” which “has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom,” the bishops said.

 

Bishops promise to continue ‘vigorous efforts’ against HHS violations of religious freedom in health care reform mandate

Declare government has no place defining religion, religious ministry

Seek protection for conscience rights of institutions, individuals

Stress action with the public, White House, Congress, courts

NEWS RELEASE

US Conference of Catholic Bishops

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops are strongly united in their ongoing and determined  efforts to protect religious freedom, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) said in a March 14 statement.

The Administrative Committee, chaired by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the USCCB, is the highest authority of the bishops’ conference outside the semi-annual sessions of the full body of bishops. The Committee’s membership consists of the elected chairmen of all the USCCB permanent committees and an elected bishop representative from each of the geographic regions of the USCCB.

[Full statement]

The Administrative Committee said it was “strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day.” The bishops will continue their vigorous work of education on religious freedom, dialogue with the executive branch, legislative initiatives and efforts in the courts to defend religious freedom. They promised a longer statement on the principles at the heart of religious freedom, which will come later from the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty.

The bishops noted that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that forces all private health plans to provide coverage of sterilization and contraceptives – including abortion-inducing drugs – called for an immediate response. Of particular concern, they said, are a religious exemption from the mandate that the bishops deem “arbitrarily narrow” and an “unspecified and dubious future ‘accommodation’’’ offered to other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

The bishops thanked supporters from the Catholic community and beyond “who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”

“It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate.”

The bishops said this dispute is not about access to contraceptives but about the government’s forcing the Church to provide them. Their concerns are not just for the Catholic Church but also for “those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block.”

“Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church – consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions – to act against Church teachings,” they said.

The Church has worked for universal healthcare in the United States since 1919, they added, and said the current issue “is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.”

The bishops called the HHS mandate “an unwarranted government definition of religion,” with government deciding who is a religious employer deserving exemption from the law.

“The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom,” the bishops said.

“Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry,” they said.

“If this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity,” they said.

The bishops said the government’s foray into church governance “where government has no legal competence or authority” is beyond disturbing. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers,” the bishops said, “will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world.”

The bishops also called the HHS mandate “a violation of personal civil rights.”  The new mandate creates a class of people “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to live in accordance with their faith and values,” the bishops said. “They too face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values – whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees, or as insurers themselves – without even the semblance of exemptions.”

The bishops called for the Catholic faithful, and all people of good will throughout the nation to join them in prayer and penance “for our leaders and for the complete protection of our First Freedom – religious liberty.”

“Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength,” the bishops said, “for without God we can do nothing. But with God all things are possible.”

Contact Sr. Mary Ann Walsh

Study reveals US Catholic hospitals are providing surgical sterilization

A study by Dr. Sandra S. Hapenney has revealed that almost half the Catholic hospitals surveyed in seven states performed over 20,000 surgical sterilizations and billed them as “sterilization for contraceptive management.”   The results of the study are disputed by Catholic Health Association of the United States, which, despite not having reviewed it, has stated that it contains “gross errors.”

Dr. Hapenney has demanded that the CHAUSA identify the errors. “Until they establish facts contrary to the findings of my research, they should avoid inaccurate and uniformed disparaging characterizations. Such attacks are as unjust and unwarranted as they are unworthy of the Catholic heritage these institutions represent.” [Daily Record]

 

A correction and qualifications

Letter to the Editor
The BC Catholic
Vancouver, B.C. Canada

20 February, 2012

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

A correction and some qualifications are in order with respect to the article by Deborah Gyapong about the contraception insurance controversy in the United States (“A Canadian debate over contraception is unlikely,” BC Catholic, 20 February, 2012).

In the first place, Mr. Roche of the Catholic Health Association of Canada is mistaken in his assertion that Catholic hospitals in Canada cannot be compelled to do things contrary to Catholic teaching. In 2006, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, operated by the Saskatchewan Catholic Health Association, decided to stop doing contraceptive sterilizations. Public protests resulted, and a woman denied a tubal ligation filed a human rights complaint. In June, 2007, St. Elizabeth’s was transferred to the Saskatoon Health Region and re-named the Humboldt District Hospital. Three months later, the Saskatchewan Catholic Health Corporation agreed to pay almost $8,000.00 to the complainant in the human rights action to settle the case.1 It would be most unwise to think that this kind of thing could not happen again.

Concerning the situation in the United States, it is true that the Catholic bishops, in a remarkable display of unanimity, have been vocal in protesting the demand to provide insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives and potentially embryocidal or abortifacient drugs or devices. Many of them have said that they will refuse to comply with the law. It does not appear that they share Mr. Roche’s view that an emphasis on Catholic identity may be counterproductive with respect to the mission of Catholic health care. Nor do they seem to think that Catholic identity and Catholic mission are in conflict with each other, though they may well be in conflict with dominant social norms – as the example of what used to be St. Elizabeth’s Hospital demonstrates.

The prominence of the Catholic response notwithstanding, this is not a ‘Catholic’ issue. Strong protests have also been made by Jewish groups, Southern Baptists, Lutherans and Evangelical Christians. Colorado Christian University, a non-Catholic institution, filed suit months ago against the U.S.  federal government because of this mandate.2 Two more lawsuits have just been filed by Southern Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian colleges.3 And former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. recently declared that the response to the Obama administration’s mandate reminded him of President John F. Kennedy’s statement to the people of Berlin after the erection of the Berlin Wall: “Ich bin ein Berliner” (I am a Berliner). Huckabee, a Baptist , said, “In many ways, thanks to President Obama, we’re all Catholics now.”4

Testifying before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik warned that “not only does the new regulation threaten religious liberty in the narrow sense, in requiring Catholic communities to violate their religious tenets, but also the administration impedes religious liberty by unilaterally redefining what it means to be religious.”5

So this is not a ‘Catholic’ issue. Nor is it about women, or health, or birth control or contraception, as Dr. Laura Champion told the same committee. As the Director of Health Services at Calvin College in Michigan, she explained that the College has no objections to contraception, but she was emphatic that the morning after pill is not the same as cancer screening or vaccinations. “Pregnancy is not a disease,” she said. “This is a premise that I reject both religiously and medically.”6

Finally, the BC Catholic story states that the Catholic Health Association of the United States “decided on ‘a cautious acceptance’ of the compromise.” However, the actual wording of the newly published regulation is exactly the same as the wording that launched the firestorm of protest in late January.7 The administration’s promises have no legal significance, and, in any case, will not be fulfilled before the November presidential election. The description of the scheme as a ‘compromise’ thus seems premature.

Notes:

1.  CBC News, 13 September, 2007, “Woman given settlement after being denied tubal ligation.”(Accessed 2012-02-20)

2.  To see a graphic illustration of the resistance to the HHS mandate, see the interactive map.

3.  Alliance Defence Fund news releases, 20 February, 2012 : “ADF, Louisianna College challenge Obama Mandate“; “ADF, Geneva College to reveal lawsuit against Obama mandate Tuesday” (Accessed 2012-02-20)

4 “Mike Huckabee’s Full Speech at CPAC 2012.” ABC News, 10 February, 2012 (Accessed 2012-02-20)

5.   Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience? US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,16 February, 2012: Testimony of Rabbi Meir Soloveichik

6.  Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience? US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,16 February, 2012: Testimony of Laura Champion, MD.

7.  PART 147—Health Insurance Reform Requirements for the Group and Individual Health Insurance Markets § 147.130 Coverage of preventive health services.

UK human rights chairman wants freedom of religion restricted

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, has said that religious believers should not be free to adhere to their own tenets when acting in the public domain.  “Once you start to provide public services that have to be run under public rules, for example child protection, then it has to go with public law,” he said.  He agreed with the court ruling that forced the closure of all Catholic adoption agencies in Britain because they objected to adoption by persons identified as homosexual.  [The Telegraph]