Print Blog
Email a FriendIt is coercive and yes, I believe it’s intentional. I believe the roadmap for these conscience [non-]protection clauses was the California contraceptive coverage law, which was upheld in a 6-1 decision by the California Supreme Court in Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court. Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote an excellent dissent, pointing out that the purpose of the law (per legislator public comments) was to force Catholic employers too to provide contraceptive coverage, and it impermissibly let the court determine what “religious” means *in contrast to the religious practitioners themselves*. The courts should not be inserting themselves into theological discussions, which is essentially what a determination of what counts as “religious” activities is. If a Catholic employers says that, because of its religion, it must serve others who are not co-religionists, the courts shouldn’t have the right to tell it otherwise. The California law and that decision were a travesty, and so are the similar faux-“protection” laws in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and now the federal government. It is definitely a war on Catholic values ... sadly enough, often orchestrated by “raised-Catholic” types, too :/
The Coming Christian Ghetto
Posted by Rebecca Teti in News on Friday, August 26, 2011 11:00 AM
This time next year, the Health & Human Services Dept’s Guidelines for Women’s Preventive Services will go into effect.
The guidelines are offensive to Catholics and other pro-lifers because they mandate that all insurance policies cover abortifacients and contraceptive sterilizations, among other procedures abhorrent to those who view human life as other than a commodity.
Yes, there is a conscience exemption for religious groups, but as Christopher Haley points out, it’s crafted in such a way that almost no Christian apostolate qualifies.
Here’s the definition of “religious employer” under the proposed rule:
a religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code.
In other words, only if you are Catholics hiring and serving only Catholics for directly Catholic purposes are you a “religious employer.” It’s hard to name a Catholic school, hospital, shelter or other charity to which the exemption would apply. A seminary, perhaps.
As Haley puts it:
Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities do not serve primarily Catholics, they serve everyone; there is no baptismal requirement to receive services from Catholics. We do not serve people because they are Catholic; we serve people because we are Catholic. And the same goes for members of other religious groups.
The rule confronts Catholics with a choice: either become complicit in abortion and the instrumentalization of human life or lose your right to interact with non-Catholics by employing and serving them.
That’s not a conscience clause, that’s a choose-which-way-to-violate-your-conscience-clause.
Haley thinks the guidelines are expressly designed to create a Catholic ghetto (and it will certainly isolate other Christians and faith-based charities in similar fashion), in which Catholics are not permitted outreach to anyone beyond their own communities. (Unless, borg-like, we assimilate).
I don’t know if that is their purpose, but it will certainly be their effect.
The rules shine a light on how their crafters conceive of religion and how little they appreciate the role religious believers have played and continue to play in building up the nation’s social fabric. These guidelines were designed by people who conceive of the free exercise of religion as a narrow enterprise: nothing more than having the right to enter a house of worship and pray there.
It evidently doesn’t enter their imagination that anyone might put what’s heard in Church into action in “real life,” or the extent to which energy for service of society as a whole is generated and sustained by religious faith. Do we really want a policy that excludes believers from action in their own communities and forbids people to look beyond their own tribe when inspired to help others?
That’s “solving” the “problem” of Catholic intransigence on the meaning of life by discarding the free exercise of religion and sowing terrible sectarianism in place of “e pluribus unum.”
Comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
It’s definately intentional. Hopefully the states can cause enough problems in the courts to weaken these new laws. But, I wouldn’t count on it.
If the worst case scenario occurs and this actually goes through. I think Catholic agencies themselves should say they will only serve Catholics. I don’t think we should intentionally seek out non-Catholics to serve. But, if we later get caught serving non-Catholics we get caught. I have a hard time believing a jury of peers will convict someone for giving food to the hungry. Or for giving emergency medical treatment to accident victims. I mean I rarely carry my Catholic identification card with me. So perhaps we assumed those we served were Catholic and they really aren’t ;D Accidents happen.
And if they do convict these people of serving non-Catholics. I guess thats what becoming a saint is all about. I think this is one of those situations where God expects us to follow his laws….not the governments. We will all be a bunch of rebels;D
I don’t think this will give us the “choice” to either serve mainly Catholics or violate our consciences with regard to life issues… I think the clause is just a joke. Catholics would not be *allowed* to “discriminate” against other religions if they even wanted to (which they don’t). SO… basically, it seems like the clause is in there to appear to give religious exemption while not giving it at all. All this says only one thing to me: “there is no religious exemption for anyone.”
I think that’s exactly right. Which is why it infuriates me that (for instance) that the Maryland version of its gay “marriage” bill is called the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act.” It’s completely Orwellian. The New York bill supposedly has the same “protections,” but they’re designed to actually not apply to anyone. Any Catholic business owner who chooses not to, say, photograph gay weddings is not actually protected under the religious exemptions. It’s very much intentional.
This insures the marginalization of those faithful to Rome. Listen for the unbiquitous “CINO” voices to declare how “reasonable” and “inclusive” this supposedly is. Those Quislings will provide cover for the continuing attacks on the Faithful As you have noted, other denominations/faiths will also suffer from this and in a similar manner. At the end of the day, those few of us who remain counterculturally faithful to the Magisterium will find ourselves harrassed and penalized for “intolerance” and other versions of thoughtcrime. There will be little if any relief in 2012 should the GOP be allowed to take the reins of power. The national drift into the embrace of Moloch is felt across all party lines. May God’s will be done.
Also need federal conscientious objection protection for Catholic researchers on human embryonic stem cell research. If any federal grant accepted, should not be forced into HESC research when there is plenty of non-HESC research. Consequences can be career ending.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
