Contraception Mandate and Formal vs. Material Cooperation w/ Evil

[camerong]

I was complaining to a friend about Obama’s recent mandate and he said “if paying premiums to insurance companies which cover contraception was such a bad thing, why aren’t the Pope and bishops telling Catholics to cancel their current insurance policies, since the great majority of policies cover contraception?”

Thinking about it, I recalled the distinction between formal and material cooperation with evil. I have seen it written that private insurance premiums when the policy covers contraception are not illicit because this is mere material cooperation with evil, because, among other things, one does not share the evil intent, and the evil avoids a great harm (i.e. forgoing health insurance). (I can’t find that article now because it is buried in Google results about the mandate). Assuming that is true, why are our good bishops stating that Catholic organizations will be unable to provide health insurance? Obviously, I understand the evil of contraception and deplore this attack on our religious freedom, but assuming the above principle regarding private insurance, I don’t see how complying with the latest mandate would be illicit.

I’m sure I’m missing something–can someone point it out? Thanks!

 

[Cristiano]

First a most of Catholics cannot cancel their health insurance because they are dependent employees. The insurance is provided automatically thus their choice is only not to use some of those so-called benefits. The employer is not going to change health insurance policies for individuals because of legal liabilities, so if you do not want that insurance you do not have a job.

In the case of Catholic provider there are two real choices: the best one would be of not supporting immoral behaviors and the other is not to provide insurance.

 

[Nate13]

Catholic hospitals and other Catholic institutions now have a choice in what kind of plan they will offer to their employees that reflect their values. This law would force them to offer insurance that paid for birth control and the morning after pill, and would take away the options they have now. It is also highly likely that it will eventually pay for abortions as well if the Constitutionality of it continues to be upheld. Obama knows this and probably expects abortions to begin being covered after the first person sues. Then he will throw up his hands and say there is nothing he can do about it, and we will see how empty his promise of preventing tax payer funded abortions really was.

 

[camerong]

I still don’t understand. Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly.

If it is morally illicit for a Catholic charity to provide health insurance for its employees which covers contraception, shouldn’t it be morally illicit to pay any premiums to any policy which provides such coverage? Most employees are not forced (at least until the mandate comes out) to accept coverage; right now, most could decline coverage. And most employees, when they have family coverage, pay at least part of the additional premiums themselves. To put it bluntly, if this is such a big problem, why haven’t all Catholics been encouraged for a long time to examine their employer-sponsored policies, and, if they include coverage for contraception, decline that coverage and find private insurance that does not have this coverage?

Perhaps the answer is that this really isn’t possible–either because most people couldn’t afford private insurance or because its impossible to find a plan that doesn’t cover contraception. But I still can’t see how this new revelation differs all that much–either way, Catholics have been directly contributing premiums to policies which cover contraception (and probably abortions) for years. If it wasn’t a huge crisis before, why is it now?

I repeat, I fully oppose this mandate, seeing that it is bad, but as a theoretical issue of moral theology, I cannot see how complying with it is illicit, rather than a kind of necessary evil (i.e. material cooperation with evil). Thoughts?

 

[Leegal]

I was complaining to a friend about Obama’s recent mandate and he said “if paying premiums to insurance companies which cover contraception was such a bad thing, why aren’t the Pope and bishops telling Catholics to cancel their current insurance policies, since the great majority of policies cover contraception?”

Thinking about it, I recalled the distinction between formal and material cooperation with evil. I have seen it written that private insurance premiums when the policy covers contraception are not illicit because this is mere material cooperation with evil, because, among other things, one does not share the evil intent, and the evil avoids a great harm (i.e. forgoing health insurance). (I can’t find that article now because it is buried in Google results about the mandate). Assuming that is true, why are our good bishops stating that Catholic organizations will be unable to provide health insurance? Obviously, I understand the evil of contraception and deplore this attack on our religious freedom, but assuming the above principle regarding private insurance, I don’t see how complying with the latest mandate would be illicit.

I’m sure I’m missing something–can someone point it out? Thanks!

Insurance plans are fashioned or designed and vary. If a Catholic Organization has employees the drug benefit feature may be a rider – or the contraception and abortificants may be a separate rider which the Church opted out of. Or there may be no option and drug coverage is part of the whole. In that case, the Church the Church did not seek out the evil intent because it is in the policy and the Church cannot re-write the insurance laws of each state, which is how the policies are written and reviewed by a state insurance department.

Now, if the drugs for contraceptive pills and abortificants, or abortion itself, was an opt-out feature - or a rider which has been declined as to not be included in the offering of insurance, the HHS law would now put the Church Organization in a position of actually including this rider, and seeking out the intent, by force of law, to provide the banned items.

From my understanding this will not force the Catholic Church itself to provide contraception – it forces Catholic run organizations to provide contraception because groups like Catholic Charities and Catholic Universities can, and likely do, have non-Catholic workers. Your local parish should be safe from this law. It targets faith-based charities and Universities. Obviously, it targets the Catholic Church since most Jewish sects do not prohibit contraception. However, Jewish Orthodox organizations may be affected. They can apply for an exemption (it’s hard to get though) and the law won’t then go into effect until August 2013 if they get the exemption-- otherwise this law goes into effect this year. Hopefully, by then the USSC will take up a challenge and strike this down.

By the way, the Catholic Church also has a faith based outreach to help those who are the victims of human trafficking and modern day slavery. We have already been cut off from federal funding to help these victims because our faith based charities will not direct the victims to abortions or contraception. This happened on October 31st. The contracts went to 3 other organizations and the Catholics were excluded.

 

[Leegal]

First a most of Catholics cannot cancel their health insurance because they are dependent employees. The insurance is provided automatically thus their choice is only not to use some of those so-called benefits. The employer is not going to change health insurance policies for individuals because of legal liabilities, so if you do not want that insurance you do not have a job.

In the case of Catholic provider there are two real choices: the best one would be of not supporting immoral behaviors and the other is not to provide insurance.

True. For a person to opt out entirely from the company offered insurance plan, at least in my state, the person always had to prove that they had insurance elsewhere such as from a spouse who had better coverage.