The new HHS Mandate, by which all insurers will be forced to provide contraceptives of various type (both pharmaceutical and surgical), is a most troubling development. From our perspective as Catholics, this mandate is troubling for two reasons. First, because of our objection on moral grounds to contraceptives themselves, and second, because of the failure of the mandate to protect fundamental religious liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Let’s evaluate briefly both of these concerns. First, our objection to the mandate that insurers provide contraceptives (both pharmaceutical and surgical).
Contraceptives fall into two different categories based upon how they prevent pregnancy: either by preventing conception itself, or by preventing the implantation of the fertilized ova after conception.
Catholics believe that life is sacred and that it begins at conception. Many pharmaceutical forms of contraception are effective precisely because they act as “abortifacients.” This means that they prevent - after conception - the newly formed life from properly implanting in the uteran wall. The contraceptive itself, therefore, essentially acts as an abortion-inducer. To positively and willfully cooperate in such an action constitutes a direct taking of what we believe to be human life. Such direct and willful participation is not tolerable to us on moral grounds. If we are to hold that human life - in all its forms - is sacred and inviolable, then we can not in conscience participate in such an action.
Not all contraceptive methods, however, are abortifacient. Surgical sterilization procedures (a.k.a. tubal ligation and vasectomy) as well as the use of condoms and diaphragms, are effective because they prevent conception in the first place. Such methods are unacceptable to Catholics for reasons different than contraceptives that act as abortifacients. Catholics believe that the conjugal act (sexual intercourse) is an act which has two principle ends: unitive and procreative. It is unitive insofar as it is an intimate expression of love between a man and a woman (appropriate only between those who are in a committed marriage relationship). It serves to express and deepen their commitment to one another in the bonds of love. It is also the means by which children are conceived and brought to birth (again, appropriate that this be into a family of a man and a woman committed in marriage). The Catholic objection to these non-abortifacient forms of contraception is based upon the belief that the two “ends” of the act of sexual intercourse should not be separated. Just as we believe it would be wrong to eliminate the unitive aspect of the conjugal act (i.e. engaging in sexual intercourse solely for the purpose of procreation and purposefully and actively eliminating the unitive end), so too do we believe it is wrong to actively and purposefully eliminate the procreative end.
The United States has a long history of protecting the religious liberty of groups who object on religious and moral grounds to certain activities. Examples of this include exemptions from compulsory military service for those who are conscientious objectors to war to various Supreme Court rulings guaranteeing the rights of churches and individuals to act according to their religious beliefs (e.g. Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC is a most recent example).
The objection of the Catholic Church, and the many other churches and organizations that have spoken out against the HHS mandate, is that it requires religious institutions as well as individual employers - by mandating them to provide such services through health benefits - to positively cooperate in actions that violate their religious and moral beliefs. Furthermore, the current administration’s revision of this mandate fails to address this fundamental concern. It is a distinction without difference, in that whether or not the service (i.e. access to contraceptives) is provided directly by the institution (as was previously mandated) or through contracted third parties, the mandatory provision of contraceptive measures still constitutes positive cooperation in activity that the Catholic Church and others find morally objectionable. The mandate to provide services or products that are deemed to be immoral by any individual or organization who objects is an unconscionable violation of the religious liberty of that individual or organization.
Very Rev. R. Paul Beach, JCL
Pastor, All Saints Church, Taylorsville, Kentucky
Pastor, Saint Francis Xavier Church, Mt. Washington, Kentucky
Judicial Vicar, Archdiocese of Louisville in Kentucky
No comments:
Post a Comment