#351 Our Unfinished Business

EXCERPT:
As I follow the still-brewing storm over new health insurance mandates for Catholic institutions, I cannot help filtering everything I’ve read and hear through my recent experience.

…That experience cuts through much of the overheated rhetoric we’re getting from right wingers, left wingers, bishops, pundits, and politicians, to shed light on the real situation in the Catholic Church.

I am not sure is going on here, but I am pretty sure it has something to do with the ancient notion of sensus fidelium—the “sense of the faithful.”

Among Catholics thinkers and teachers, there is general agreement that the sensus fidelium exists, and also that it matters. But there agreement ends, for what it means in practice--and how it works--is highly disputed.

Catholics on the right see sensus fidelium exercised only when rank and file Catholics staunchly support official Catholic teaching on a particular matter. They tend not to accept sensus fidelium working as a corrective for erroneous teachings when the rank and file supports change.

Those on the left believe that when rank and file Catholics disagree with official teaching in overwhelming numbers, the teaching should be adapted to a more acceptable position.

Those on the right respond that this is tantamount to letting polls govern the Church, and they sometimes go so far as to suggest that such “dissenters” do not belong to the “faithful” at all.
…
I prefer to take a third view, and I believe this view can help us to understand the current troubles over contraception.

At Vatican II (1962-1965), the Council Fathers decided to clarify the official understanding of sensus fidelium this way:

"The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. Jn 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when 'from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful' (St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. 14, 27:PL 44, 980) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the People of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the Word of God (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13). Through it, the People of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3), penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life." -Lumen Gentium, No. 12

The key words here are “the entire body” and “from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful.” This means that, when we speak of sensus fidelium, we do not restrict “faithful” to the laity alone. “Faithful” means everyone.

The Council also denotes the main function of sensus fidelium: Since it cannot err, it provides evidence (or even guarantees) that the church is teaching and acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
…
So the notion of sensus fidelium can function two ways: (1) its presence provides evidence that we have achieved a faith we are certain cannot err, but (2) its absence shows that we have not yet achieved such certainty; it shows us what work still needs to be done.
…
Back to my experience in parish work. On the matter of contraception, the people I meet raise no voice in dissent of official Catholic teaching. Instead, they feel, speak, and act as if it were not relevant.

This reflects, of course, the attitudes and behaviors of nearly all American Catholics. Current statistics indicate that 98% of all Catholic women of childbearing age have use contraceptives, and apparently (presuming the experience in confessions of the pastors I meet is typical) they do so with a clear conscience.

This does not mean any of these people are right, or that the official teaching is wrong. It does not mean a poll should determine Church teaching. But it does mean that there is a wide gap between official teaching and the practice of rank and file Catholics…And this gap means we do not have “universal agreement.”

To me, this looks like another classic case of the failure to achieve a sensus fidelium on a question of faith and morals. Such a dramatic and longstanding failure is extremely rare in Catholic life. I cannot name another similar case during my lifetime, or even in the last few centuries.

What does it mean? It means that the sensus fidelium which “cannot err” is lacking, is absent. It means we still await the formation of a universal consensus from “bishops on down.” It means the matter is not settled. It means unfinished business. It means work yet to be done.

#350: Is the Obama Administration Forcing Catholics to Violate Conscience?

Some years ago, my wife worked for Catholic Charities, which provided our family’s health insurance. Our insurance card was coded to indicate that this Catholic institution’s insurance did not cover contraceptive services. 

Now the Obama Administration’s healthcare reform has included a provision mandating that Catholic institutions can no longer be exempted from such coverage. Such institutions (not including churches or houses of worship) will be required to provide coverage that includes contraceptive services. So open war has broken out between Catholic leaders and the Obama administration.  Peggy Noonan, in a Wall Street Journal column this week, has called it “a battle the president can’t win.”

I am not writing to defend the Obama Administration, since I believe the new provision infringes on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.  I hope the administration either removes the mandate or adapts to satisfy religious institutions.  Failing that, I expect to see the mandate challenged and reversed in court--particularly after the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision reinforcing the freedom of religious institutions to operate by their own, constitutionally protected values.

But at the same time, I am deeply troubled by the rhetoric used by many Catholic leaders.  I see this as a constitutional issue--that is, as a question of basic religious freedom.  But bishops and media commentators across the country are portraying it as a moral crisis.

In fact the buzz-phrase repeated in hundreds of parishes, dozens of websites, and endless interviews of bishops, claims that this mandate will force Catholic institutions to “violate our consciences.”

I’m afraid such language not only distracts us from the real issues, but represents a disingenuous or even hypocritical manipulation of Catholic teaching and practice.

I say this because, while talk of “violating our consciences” is an argument that may serve the political agenda of protecting religious liberty for Catholic institutions, it does not fit either Catholic beliefs or the facts of Catholic life in America. 

At best, it reflects special pleading based on an inconsistent and selective view of Catholic tradition.  At worst, it is the hypocrisy of people invoking their version of “tradition” in one particular case to oppose a principle they have already accepted many times over.

I should begin by clarifying with the mandate does not mean. It does not mean Catholic institutions would be required to provide contraceptives to their clients. It does not require providing contraceptive services to their employees. It does not require that Catholic institutions provide direct payment for these services.

Here is what it does mean: like any insurance system, this will require Catholic institutions to put money into a pool of funds to which many other institutions also contribute.  When employees of any of the institutions need health services, the bill for those services will be passed on to the insurance company, which will pay by drawing money from the contributors’ pool.  By that point, of course, such money can no longer be identified as “Catholic” money or any other kind.  It is all pooled together. [None of this is new. Of 28 states that already require employees’ insurance coverage to include contraceptives, 20 provide no exemption for Catholic hospitals. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx ]

In practice, this means three things: (1) Catholic institutions do not know if their employees will ask for contraceptive services or not; (2) If employees do ask, that action will either conform to or violate the individual conscience of that employee, so the moral burden will be on that person, not his employer; (3) In any case, they will be no way to determine whose money actually pays for those services.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is relevant because my description of how insurance works also describes how taxes work: taxes pay for government spending by drawing from a pool of funds maintained by many contributors.

So the connection between Catholic institutions and the services covered by their employees’ insurance has a direct analogy--namely, the connection between Catholic taxpayers and the services covered by government spending.  And the simple fact is this: we Catholics are already paying taxes (on the federal, state, and local levels) into spending pools that fund any number of things opposed by the Catholic Church.

Many tax-supported institutions already provide contraceptive services.  So do government-funded services like Medicaid. Catholic taxpayers cannot claim their “conscience” prevents them from paying such taxes.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg.  Taxes also pay for executing convicts.  Taxes pay to deport illegal immigrants even if it splits the family apart.  Taxes pay for unjust wars opposed by the US bishops.  Taxes support an unfair tax system that promotes extreme income inequality and class conflict.  Taxes pay for manufacturing and maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  Taxes pay for torture, rendition, aid to dictators, and drone strikes that kill women and children.  Some taxes pay for abortions (e.g. in case of rape or incest).

All these are opposed by Catholic teaching.  This begs the question: do 60,000,000 Catholics “violate their consciences” by paying taxes? By definition in Catholic teaching, that would make taxpaying a sin, and require Catholics to suffer fines or jail to protect their consciences.

The simple answer is no.  True, we disapprove of many tax-supported actions; we do not like tax money being used for things the Church opposes; we would like that changed, and we look to our executives, our legislators, and our courts to make those changes.  But we keep paying.  And neither the Catholic Church nor Catholic taxpayers label taxpaying as a sinful act in “violation of our consciences.”

We know that we do not have the option of picking which government spending to support, and which spending to refuse.  Our money goes into a huge pool like everyone else’s, and we cannot control what happens to it afterward.

If the US had a single-payer healthcare system, it would work the same way (Medicare already does): taxes would fund a huge pool, and that pool would pay for health services.  We might disapprove of some services, but we would be at best inconsistent, and at worst hypocritical, to suddenly cry “this is violating my conscience” after we had already spent years paying for so many other bad things!

Of course, “Obamacare” is not a single-payer system, so instead of paying taxes into a pool of government money, we pay insurance premiums into a pool of corporate money.  But while both systems use different institutions to handle the money, they use our money in exactly the same way.

If we suddenly hear Catholic bishops, leaders, and media crying “conscience violation!” one reason may be that most Catholic institutions enjoy tax-exempt status, so they are unused to funding services they disapprove of.  But American Catholics have been doing it all their lives.  So just whose conscience is suddenly violated?

Some protesters are saying it is the conscience of the institutions themselves.  I find this position bizarre in the extreme.  Conscience involves an “inner sense” of right and wrong, but institutions have no senses at all.  Any “soul” or “spirit” an institution has comes from its members, who are live human beings.  Any talk of an institution’s “conscience” is really a metaphor for the collective, communal sense among its members.  And since these members (even bishops!) are taxpayers, they are disingenuous at best to suddenly say “I am shocked!  Shocked!” to discover the government mandating payment for services they disapprove of. Even if institutions have “consciences,” this is a troubling double standard.

Catholic institutions are tax exempt for a reason: the separation of church and state makes them exempt from contributing to any government services, whether good or bad.  To my mind, this is clear grounds for battling the new mandate: that it violates the separation of church and state, and fails to ensure the freedom of religious institutions to apply their own values in their own way.

In other words, this battle can be won on authentic First Amendment grounds; it does not require spurious use of the notion of “conscience.” 

So when Peggy Noonan suggests that Catholic outrage over this mandate will force its reversal, she may be right.  But by writing “The Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore” she goes too far. The mandate impinges on Catholic freedom, but the Catholic Church remains Catholic even when it is not free (e.g.:the decades of Polish Catholicism thriving under communist rule).  And Catholics who pay for government-mandated services they oppose do not stop being Catholic.

The Catholic hierarchy, struggling to regain its moral authority among Catholics and Americans, disserves itself by using over-the-top rhetoric that can backfire.  What will they gain if they win the battle over policy but reinforce the PR image of a hypocritical hierarchy?

Bernard F. Swain PhD 2012

#349: Expanding the Religious Option

EXCERPT:
For generations Americans typically assumed the First Amendment made us a “Christian nation,” where Christianity (especially its Protestant version) remained on prominent public display. So our money says “in God we Trust,” Congress opens with prayer, presidents end speeches with “God bless the United States of America,” our Pledge of Allegiance is to a nation “under God.”

As a public school first-grader I was taught to recite the “Protestant” version of the Lord’s Prayer every day, after my teacher read a psalm from her King James bible. We always had school off for Christmas and Good Friday, and Christian symbols were displayed in classrooms for both Christmas and Easter. School cafeterias never served meat on Fridays, out of respect for Catholics.

Such public prominence to Christianity began to shift in 1962 when the U.S. Supreme Court banned prayer from public classrooms. This triggered a trend toward banning all Christian practices from public schools, and eventually from all public places. By 2012, Christian symbols and activities are typically not allowed in our public schools, parks, buildings, and institutions. Attempts to provide funding for religious schools (or even vouchers to parents) have consistently been ruled unconstitutional, and people seeking legal support for their faith-based positions on abortion, creationism, intelligent design, and even marriage have generally been rejected by the courts.

Many conservative movements and media have spent recent years claiming there is a governmental “war on religion,” especially on the part of “activist” judges.
All this begs a question: is the US becoming a European style “lay state”? Is our historical desire to protect religious freedom giving way to an approach that restricts religion to the private realm? Is the First Amendment no longer protecting religious practices that clash with public policy?

On January 11 the US Supreme Court delivered a loud “No!”--a landmark decision that may be as much a turning point as the 1962 school prayer decision.

In an era of chronic split-decisions by a divided court where one swing vote often determines the outcome, there was nothing marginal about this court’s 9-0 verdict. There could have been no clearer declaration that the court considered the issue at stake here to be a no-brainer.

And that issue was religious liberty…

For American Catholics, this decision has at least four ramifications:

First, it reverses the trend of cases restricting religion by affirming, especially by its 9-0 vote, that protection for free religious practice is a constitutional cornerstone. …

Second, this was also a reversal (some are calling it a “knockout punch”) for the Obama Administration, whose lawyers argued against the ministerial exception. When EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) lawyer Leondra Kruger argued that the constitution grants churches no ministerial exception, only the same rights to free association that secular organizations (like labor unions and social clubs) enjoy, Justice Antonin Scalia objected: “That’s extraordinary! There, black on white in the text of the constitution, are special protections for religion. And you say it makes no difference?”

Similarly, Justice Roberts rejected the administration’s argument: “Their position, however, is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives spe¬cial solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”
Remarkable, the unanimous decision included two supposedly “radical-leftist” Obama appointees.

Third, this decision reaffirms how unique the First Amendment is, compared to other countries’ ways of separating church and state. Two justices refer to the constitution as singling out religion for “special” protections that no other institutions enjoy….

Fourth, this decision should allay fears that changes in civil policy could impose changes on religious practice….

The US Bishops, for example, have tended to treat same-sex marriage as if it were a threat to the sacrament of matrimony, but the court rejected all suggestions that churches could be forced to marry homosexuals, accept married priests, or ordain women. The fact that religious liberty enjoys such extraordinary protection also means that liberalizing social movements cannot be treated as coercion against more conservative church practices…

Scholars have cautioned that this decision is restricted to how “ministers” are treated by churches. But while this application is somewhat narrow, the notion that religion enjoys “special” constitutional protections given to no other institutions has implications broad enough to touch not only Catholics, but all Americans, and even the human family. Far from becoming a “lay state,” the land of the “religious option” has just strengthened that option.