Moral Question Regarding HHS Mandate

[JaKael02]

I’m trying to understand the HHS Mandate in regards to Catholic Moral theology.

Question: What is the level of cooperation with evil when a business owner is forced to comply with the HHS Mandate?

This is the template I use to understand/study Catholic Moral Theology:

Cooperation with evil:

1. Formal – occurs when someone participates in the act itself (second font).
   a. Explicit formal cooperation the participant shares the intention (first font) & act itself (second font).
   b. Implicit formal cooperation occurs when the participant does not share the intention of the person sinning, but still participates in the act itself (second font).
   c. Explicit & Implicit formal cooperation is IMMORAL.
2. Material – occurs when someone participates in the circumstances (third font) pertaining to the sin.
   a. Immediate material cooperation occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is necessary to the commission of the sin (without which the sin could not occur). A good intention alone is not enough to make an act moral.
   i. Immediate material cooperation is IMMORAL.
   b. Mediate material occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is not necessary to the commission of the sin. (Allowed on basis of Double effect)
   i. Proximate mediate material cooperation makes a causal contribution to the principal agent’s act, which is directly ordered to the act.
   ii. Remote mediate material cooperation makes a causal contribution to the principal agent’s act, which is indirectly ordered to the act.
   iii. Either form of Proximate or Remote can be permissible given:
3. when there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation
4. the moral distance of the cooperator must be proportionate to the gravity of the wrongdoing
   a. proximate mediate material cooperation requires a more serious reason for cooperation than remote mediate material cooperation
5. the danger of scandal must be sufficiently avoided

 

[jim1130]

I’m trying to understand the HHS Mandate in regards to Catholic Moral theology.

Question: What is the level of cooperation with evil when a business owner is forced to comply with the HHS Mandate?

This is the template I use to understand/study Catholic Moral Theology:

Cooperation with evil:

1. Formal – occurs when someone participates in the act itself (second font).
   a. Explicit formal cooperation the participant shares the intention (first font) & act itself (second font).
   b. Implicit formal cooperation occurs when the participant does not share the intention of the person sinning, but still participates in the act itself (second font).
   c. Explicit & Implicit formal cooperation is IMMORAL.
2. Material – occurs when someone participates in the circumstances (third font) pertaining to the sin.
   a. Immediate material cooperation occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is necessary to the commission of the sin (without which the sin could not occur). A good intention alone is not enough to make an act moral.
   i. Immediate material cooperation is IMMORAL.
   b. Mediate material occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is not necessary to the commission of the sin. (Allowed on basis of Double effect)
   i. Proximate mediate material cooperation makes a causal contribution to the principal agent’s act, which is directly ordered to the act.
   ii. Remote mediate material cooperation makes a causal contribution to the principal agent’s act, which is indirectly ordered to the act.
   iii. Either form of Proximate or Remote can be permissible given:
3. when there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation
4. the moral distance of the cooperator must be proportionate to the gravity of the wrongdoing
   a. proximate mediate material cooperation requires a more serious reason for cooperation than remote mediate material cooperation
5. the danger of scandal must be sufficiently avoided

Hobby Lobby based out of Oklahoma City is a Christian business that has filed a suit against the HHS mandate although they do not object with the birth control issue. This may be a story of interest for you to follow.

From what I have read, if something is intriscally evil then no amount of good can supplant it, such as substituting charitable work and offerings to the poor by serving in a soup kitchen over ignoring protecting the life of the unborn or elderly.

I am not sophisticated enough to intelligently present an authoritative position to offer too much guidance, but our Archbishop has presented a three-part commentary on “Our Moral Duties as Catholic Citizens” that may be helpful. The issues are August 26, September 9, and September 23: archokc.org/past-issues/current-issue

 

[bzkoss236]

I’d say the core issue of the HHS Mandate isn’t necessarily about birth control or contraceptives in general, but that it is the government trying to force people to do something that is against their religious beliefs, or to partake in it second-hand by “allowing” them to pay a tax instead of providing it. It infringes on religious freedom.

Think of the law in regards to hiring an assassin. It is both wrong/illegal to murder someone and to hire someone to murder (paying for murder). Also it is wrong/illegal to assist someone in murder (second-degree murder). A bit of an extreme case (unless you account for the fact that many birth control pills can cause abortions), but it hopefully gives you a comparison.

 

[interestedman]

I’d say the core issue of the HHS Mandate isn’t necessarily about birth control or contraceptives in general, but that it is the government trying to force people to do something that is against their religious beliefs, or to partake in it second-hand by “allowing” them to pay a tax instead of providing it. It infringes on religious freedom.

I view it differently. I think the mandate stops people from enforcing their religious convictions on their employees, which is a good thing. And if your employer believed in faith healing and was exempt from providing health insurance you might think the same.

 

[bzkoss236]

I view it differently. I think the mandate stops people from enforcing their religious convictions on their employees, which is a good thing. And if your employer believed in faith healing and was exempt from providing health insurance you might think the same.

Contraception isn’t healthcare. Pregnancy isn’t a disease. Birth control can be used as medication, and in that case it should be covered, but not when it is to be used as contraception. You talk about keeping the government out of the bedroom except when you get free benefits.

 

[JaKael02]

Good responses.

My question has not been answered yet.

If you are a private business owner, and the gov’t forces you to purchase insurance for your employees that have contraceptives/abortificants. Would this be formal cooperation with evil or material cooperation with evil? More specifically, what level of formal or material cooperation with evil?

Within material cooperation with evil: (which would it be? I think it falls under one of these too levels)
Mediate material occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is not necessary to the commission of the sin.
Proximate mediate material cooperation makes a causal contribution to the principal agent’s act, which is directly ordered to the act.

 

[JaKael02]

I view it differently. I think the mandate stops people from enforcing their religious convictions on their employees, which is a good thing. And if your employer believed in faith healing and was exempt from providing health insurance you might think the same.

The employee has a choice to work for the private employer. The private employer has no choice but to provide resources contrary to his moral beliefs. Your take?

 

[interestedman]

The employee has a choice to work for the private employer. The private employer has no choice but to provide resources contrary to his moral beliefs. Your take?

Technically the employee has a choice, but there isn’t much to choose from in this job market. The private employer should not enforce his own moral beliefs on his employees.

 

[JaKael02]

Technically the employee has a choice, but there isn’t much to choose from in this job market. The private employer should not enforce his own moral beliefs on his employees.

Amen. Your right this job market isn’t too hot!!

Could you argue the Gov’t is forcing their moral beliefs regarding contraception as a civic healthcare right on the private owner? Your opinion?

 

[edwest2]

Opinions aren’t truth.

I suggest the OP call a priest. I’m not joking.

Meanwhile, the Federal government does not have the legal authority to force its citizens to purchase any product or service. Period.

becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/

Peace,
Ed

 

[JaKael02]

Meanwhile, the Federal government does not have the legal authority to force its citizens to purchase any product or service. Period.

Ed - Good resource for the HHS Mandate. You said the gov’t doesn’t have the legal authority. Do you know why it’s immoral to force it’s citizens to purchase a product? I’m trying to find the moral reason why it’s wrong.

Thank you, James

 

[edwest2]

Ed - Good resource for the HHS Mandate. You said the gov’t doesn’t have the legal authority. Do you know why it’s immoral to force it’s citizens to purchase a product? I’m trying to find the moral reason why it’s wrong.

Thank you, James

James,

It’s illegal. That should be obvious to anyone.

Best,
Ed

 

[JaKael02]

James,
It’s illegal. That should be obvious to anyone.
Best,Ed

Yes, but after the HHS comes into effect, it’s illegal to dissent. So morally that doesn’t hold. Would you say it’s more aligned to Immediate material cooperation with evil or mediate material?

In your opinion, which of the following?

1. Immediate material cooperation occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is necessary to the commission of the sin (without which the sin could not occur).
2. Mediate material occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is not necessary to the commission of the sin.

 

[edwest2]

Opinions do not matter. I hope you find the following helpful:

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=36708

We, including employers, are being forced to do something against our will. As I’ve noted, lawsuits are in place and others should follow. We may have immoral to use products and services available to us, but we still have the choice not to use them. Contraception cures nothing. It is not healthcare, but that fact has been ignored by those who want to make more money. If companies are forced to provide these products and services and we don’t use them, then nobody gets billed. The only people who make money are the insurance companies.

If you try to force someone to do something against their will, what is that called? It’s called coercion. The US government can call a draft in times of war. It can collect taxes. And one judge has called this a tax, which is a lie. It is a big money gift to insurance companies and those who make and provide immoral products and services. Once again, even if they become part of our heath care at work, don’t use them - ever.

Even if you have insurance, you still get to choose to pay for certain services out of pocket. That’s what I’m doing in one case because I have zero confidence in my plan to give me the level of care I need.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[_Abyssinia]

Cardinal Raymond Burke says

Thomas McKenna: “It is beautiful to see how the faithful have rallied behind the Hierarchy….How does your Eminence comment on the union of solidarity of our bishops?”

Cardinal Burke: “Yes, I have received emails and other communications from lay faithful who say that they are supporting their bishops 100% and they have communicated to their bishops their gratitude and assured them that they want them to continue to be courageous and not to be deceived by any kind of false accommodations which in fact continue this same kind of agenda which sadly we have witnessed for too long in our country which is totally secular and therefore is anti-life and anti-family. I admire very much the courage of the bishops. At the same time I believe they would say it along with me that they are doing no more than their duty. A bishop has to protect his flock and when any individual or government attempts to force the flock to act against conscience in one of its most fundamental precepts then the bishops have to come to defend those who are entrusted to their pastoral care. So I am deeply grateful to all of the bishops who have spoken about this and who are encouraging the members of their flock to also speak up because our government needs to understand that what is being done with this mandate is contrary first of all to the fundamental human right, the right to the free exercise of one’s conscience and at the same time contrary to the very foundation of our nation.”

Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin…the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”

my emphases

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has published an analysis saying that it will be immoral for a Catholic who owns a private business to purchase health insurance for his or her workers under Obamacare and its implementing regulations–which mandate that insurance plans bought by businesses and individuals must cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.

“Dropping all coverage appears to be the most morally sound approach,” the Catholic ethicists concluded.

They further said that Catholics have an affirmative duty to oppose the Obamacare mandate.

“Most importantly,” they wrote, “we are impelled to recall the distinct moral obligation of all persons of conscience, and especially Catholics, to resist unjust laws.

“This duty was outlined explicitly by our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium vitae: ‘There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. … In the case of an intrinsically unjust law … it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’”

 

[jim1130]

Yes, but after the HHS comes into effect, it’s illegal to dissent. So morally that doesn’t hold. Would you say it’s more aligned to Immediate material cooperation with evil or mediate material?

In your opinion, which of the following?

1. Immediate material cooperation occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is necessary to the commission of the sin (without which the sin could not occur).
2. Mediate material occurs when someone participates in the circumstances of the sin in a way and to an extent that is not necessary to the commission of the sin.

Illegal to dissent? That seems a violation of the First Amendment (Protects the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government) and Tenth Amendment (Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution).

I do not think this is a matter in which you can apply that the good outweighs the bad IF the bad is intrinsically evil.

 

[JaKael02]

Illegal to dissent? That seems a violation of the First Amendment (Protects the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government) and Tenth Amendment (Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution).

I do not think this is a matter in which you can apply that the good outweighs the bad IF the bad is intrinsically evil.

You missed the first part of the discussion. We are on the same page.

 

[JaKael02]

Cardinal Raymond Burke says

my emphases

Great response! This answers my question perfectly. Thank you all for your efforts!! Kindly- James