The Church Writ Large

Over the past several days, many words have been expressed at the Mirror of Justice and in other venues about the compelling need for the Federal Government to reconsider the HHS mandates regarding health insurance coverage of “reproductive health services” such as artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortion as they may or will apply to the Church. The concerns raised have often indicated the need to consider the Church in a broad fashion, that is, she is not only the parish or chancery, but she is also schools, educational institutions of higher learning, hospitals and clinics, and other organizations that provide a wide variety of critical services dealing with many vital social issues, e.g., counseling and adoption.

It is becoming clear that many others share the view that the Church as something much more than the place of worship. Her presence is ubiquitous. It follows, then, that there is also the matter—bearing an important legal dimension—that determining what is and what is not an ecclesiastical institution and function is a decision for the religious community and not some government agency to make. A while back I addressed similar concerns in the regional decision of the NLRB, which asserted competence to determine what is and what is not a Catholic institution. [HERE]

In a different but not unrelated context regarding a separate ecclesiastical community (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), Justice Wm. Brennan, in his concurring opinion in Presiding Bishop v. Amos, (1987), emphasized the significance of self-definition by the religious group in determining what is religious, and therefore Constitutionally and legally protected. As he indicated then, this is especially true when the activities of the organization are not-for-profit.

Knowing that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, the People of God, other issues regarding the HHS mandate are or should likely be coming to light regarding the breadth of exemptions from the HHS mandate that are sought because of ecclesiastical teachings and fidelity of members of the Church to those teachings.

One concern that I see necessitating consideration deals with the lay faithful who own businesses that, under law, must provide health-care coverage for their employers. If any meaningful religious exemption is adopted, will these persons, their businesses, and their livelihoods be protected or not from the HHS mandate? If these persons who own businesses are elements of the Church, as the Church declares them to be, should their objections regarding the HHS mandates also be heard and protected?

I think that the concerns of such persons would be of legitimate concern to those reconsidering the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the HHS mandate.

In the context of same-sex marriages, we have seen faithful members of the laity resign or be removed from their livelihoods due to their opposition to SSM. This should make the legitimate concerns of the Catholic business owner who provides health insurance coverage to employees all the more palpable.

 

RJA sj