Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Winters on the Notre Dame Contraception-Mandate Suit
Overall, I think, a fine post by MIchael Sean Winters on Notre Dame's suit. There's some inflammatory language ("Sebelius and her fellow travelers") in a post that condemns inflammatory debate, but overall it seems to me incisive, and hard-hitting in the right places and manner. Money quote:
The central objection Notre Dame puts forward is that the Administration employs an unconstitutional standard in deciding what kinds of religious organizations are exempt from the new mandate and what kinds are not. This has been the central objection of many of us since the President’s January announcement, especially those of us who tend to lean to the left and care deeply about the Church’s social justice ministries. We reject – how can we not? – the distinction between a house of worship, which is exempt, and a religious charity, hospital or university, which are not exempt because, as Catholics, we believe that caring for the poor, healing the afflicted, and pursuing faith and reason together, are as essential to our Catholic identity as is our Sunday worship.
The Notre Dame complaint and Fr. Jenkins's letter explain cogently why, even assuming the administration's good faith in its claim to be seeking further accommodation, Notre Dame could not wait until it all might get sorted out. As is true in many cases, I think, the language of his message packs extra punch (more than most interventions on both sides of this debate) because it is measured, non-demonizing, and simply lays out the steps in the university's reasoning:
Although I do not question the good intentions and sincerity of all involved in [the further-accommodation] discussions, progress has not been encouraging and an announcement seeking comments on how to structure any accommodation (HHS Advanced Notification of Proposed Rule Making on preventative services policy, March 16, 2012) provides little in the way of a specific, substantive proposal or a definite timeline for resolution. . . . We will continue in earnest our discussions with Administration officials in an effort to find a resolution, but, after much deliberation, we have concluded that we have no option but to appeal to the courts regarding the fundamental issue of religious freedom.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/05/winters-on-the-notre-dame-contraception-mandate-suit.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
"We reject – how can we not? – the distinction between a house of worship, which is exempt, and a religious charity, hospital or university, which are not exempt because, as Catholics, we believe that caring for the poor, healing the afflicted, and pursuing faith and reason together, are as essential to our Catholic identity as is our Sunday worship."
This is respectable and all, but houses of worship continue to be treated differently than other places. For instance, the government has special rules to carefully treat them in respect to the surveillance and there is special concern -- not shown respecting hospital janitorial staffs and the like -- their sanctity seems to be violated.
Also, others honestly believe that a broad range of jobs are "essential" to "identity" for religious practices. The open-ended nature of this is seen by the Blount Amendment, which after all received broad Republican support in the Senate. There IS a difference particularly when non-believers are employed and serviced. I think you should be careful here. If a church and a hospital is going to be put on the same level, or a more similar level, you might not like the end result.