Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’

[gilliam]

Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members–led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars–have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School–is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame’s top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university’s Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.

In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded President Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame law degree. …

“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said. “It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”

cnsnews.com/news/article/notre-dame-faculty-obama-grave-violation-religious-freedom-and-cannot-stand

 

[Teelynn]

This softens up my opinion of N.D. This seems to be a pretty strong statement that they will NOT go along with this…hats off to Fr. Jenkins.

 

[bellasbane]

I have a question.

If a person is a Mennonite or a Quaker, can they use this same argument to refuse to pay federal taxes which go to support war and state taxes which go to support the police? After all, pacifism is a central tenet of their faith. Does it also mean that their young men will no longer be penalized for failing to register for the draft? Back when I was younger, the penalty was that you could not apply for any federal loans for college if you failed to register.

 

[Corki]

This softens up my opinion of N.D. This seems to be a pretty strong statement that they will NOT go along with this…hats off to Fr. Jenkins.

Did Father Jenkins sign it?

 

[Corki]

I have a question.

If a person is a Mennonite or a Quaker, can they use this same argument to refuse to pay federal taxes which go to support war and state taxes which go to support the police? After all, pacifism is a central tenet of their faith. Does it also mean that their young men will no longer be penalized for failing to register for the draft? Back when I was younger, the penalty was that you could not apply for any federal loans for college if you failed to register.

That’s a red herring argument. This isn’t about taxes. If you want a Quaker or Mennonite example, this would be akin to requiring a Quaker college to fund and support an ROTC program and hold military exercises on campus.

 

[PTL]

Your tax analogy is on a totally different level.

All taxes are on a general level, there is no separate war tax. Though our tax money are used for abortion, we cannot refuse to pay tax since tax is collected on a general level. We pay federal tax, state tax, etc, we don’t pay war tax, abortion tax. And tax collection includes everyone lives in the country.

As for this HHS mandate, it is on an individual level, and specifically on women. It directly violates a Catholic 's conscience and impose on each individual level. Tax and this HHS mandate are on two different levels, and they are two different things.

 

[Leegal]

I have a question.

If a person is a Mennonite or a Quaker, can they use this same argument to refuse to pay federal taxes which go to support war and state taxes which go to support the police? After all, pacifism is a central tenet of their faith. Does it also mean that their young men will no longer be penalized for failing to register for the draft? Back when I was younger, the penalty was that you could not apply for any federal loans for college if you failed to register.

I don’t recall about federal loans, but yes Quakers can be C.O.'s. They register as C.O.'s.

Taxation is another issue, though it’s been suggested that if Catholics refused to pay their taxes should these mandates actually become reality, the government could not incarcerate every Catholic. Of course, the government has other ways – but it should would make a lot of paperwork for the government if the Catholics in this country each decided not to pay their taxes. Remember, taxes also go for police protection, fire protection and maintenance of the infrastructure.

Not all taxes support wars and other objectionable mandates such as the one at issue.

 

[Religion_Ninja]

Yeah maybe they should ask for that honorary law degree back.

 

[Hokomai]

It seems to me that this whole debate is an artifact of the US private medical system. In the absence of the sort of public system available in, e.g., the UK, people must have private insurance. The insurance industry spreads its risk by contracting with employers to provide this, with money that would otherwise be paid in wages. if this employee benefit were to be ‘cashed up’ in wages, then there would be no issue. It is only the route taken in the money-go-round that causes the Church problems. Whether the government has a right to require this of employers is another question, but akin in my mind to the ‘can the State tax for an unjust war’ argument. It is highly technical.

 

[bellasbane]

Your tax analogy is on a totally different level.

All taxes are on a general level, there is no separate war tax. Though our tax money are used for abortion, we cannot refuse to pay tax since tax is collected on a general level. We pay federal tax, state tax, etc, we don’t pay war tax, abortion tax. And tax collection includes everyone lives in the country.

As for this HHS mandate, it is on an individual level, and specifically on women. It directly violates a Catholic 's conscience and impose on each individual level. Tax and this HHS mandate are on two different levels, and they are two different things.

Insurance premiums are calculated on a general level too. The cost depends on the average risk across a pool of people. From a cost perspective, it seems logical that insurance premiums would be lower on policies that include contraception coverage with no copay. So Catholic institutions are really arguing for the right to pay more, not less, for insurance.

The whole things appears quite muddled to me. The only issue I see is that Catholic institutions and employers will have to get out of the insurance business. As for the ROTC analogy, that would be true if the original mandate had been retained, but I don’t think it applies to the compromise rule.

As for the Mennonite and Quaker analogy, I believe it does apply to the issue of freedom of conscience. The government compels them to financially contribute to what the majority believes is for the “good of society” - but which they deeply oppose on religious grounds. I don’t see much of a difference.

 

[mrkstlzr]

I’m pleased to see ND faculty voicing their outrage. But aren’t these the same people who invited the most pro abortion president in history to speak on the ND campus not too many years ago? Or maybe not the same people. I’d like to know. I’d also like to know what the difference is now? I must say that this sort of action taken by government is what chased our ancestors to this continent in the first place, and it’s so wrong as to cause me fear. I’m comforted only by the fact that I know God is still in charge, and that no matter where such government dictates lead, it will be for good for those who love the Lord and are called according to his purposes.

 

[bellasbane]

It seems to me that this whole debate is an artifact of the US private medical system. In the absence of the sort of public system available in, e.g., the UK, people must have private insurance. The insurance industry spreads its risk by contracting with employers to provide this, with money that would otherwise be paid in wages. if this employee benefit were to be ‘cashed up’ in wages, then there would be no issue. It is only the route taken in the money-go-round that causes the Church problems. Whether the government has a right to require this of employers is another question, but akin in my mind to the ‘can the State tax for an unjust war’ argument. It is highly technical.

Why is the Church OK with a third party (i.e. the state) providing contraception through a single payer model like they have in Canada, but not OK with a third party (i.e., insurance companies) providing contraception through a multi-payer model like the individual mandate?

Unless you want to be a Catholic insurance company.

 

[Corki]

Insurance premiums are calculated on a general level too. The cost depends on the average risk across a pool of people. From a cost perspective, it seems logical that insurance premiums would be lower on policies that include contraception coverage with no copay. So Catholic institutions are really arguing for the right to pay more, not less, for insurance.

From my experience, every additional coverage category increases the rate. So adding contraceptive coverage would cost more than a plan without it. What you are talking about is an actuarial analysis. Since contraception is widely available (in the US) there would be no actuarial benefit to the insurance company to providing the benefit.

The whole things appears quite muddled to me. The only issue I see is that Catholic institutions and employers will have to get out of the insurance business.

That or that insurance companies will refuse to cover faith-based organizations (it isn’t just Catholics objecting to this).

As for the ROTC analogy, that would be true if the original mandate had been retained, but I don’t think it applies to the compromise rule.

Touche! The compromise analogy would be for the government to require the Quaker university to invite the local military recruiter to set up a table in the quad and solicit students to enlist.

 

[PTL]

The only issue I see is that Catholic institutions and employers will have to get out of the insurance business.

To force Catholic insurance companies out of business is indeed an issue, but not the only one. Many Catholic organizations are self-insured. That means the employer and the insurer are the same one. That means all these Catholic organizations have to be forced out of business also. Is it right for the government to force so many companies and organizations out of business?

Plus, the so called “accommodation” is like put a blind fold on the Church and tell the Church to pretend there is no such a thing. In other words, the government is saying “pretend you are not killing anyone, we will have someone else hold the knife and do the killing, and you just pretend you have nothing to do with it.”

Keep in mind, not only Catholics are against this, many Protestant churches, groups, along with Jewish faith and Muslim groups are all objecting this evil law. This is not only a Catholic problem.

 

[bellasbane]

From my experience, every additional coverage category increases the rate. So adding contraceptive coverage would cost more than a plan without it. What you are talking about is an actuarial analysis. Since contraception is widely available (in the US) there would be no actuarial benefit to the insurance company to providing the benefit.

You lost me there, but I will take your word for it.

That or that insurance companies will refuse to cover faith-based organizations (it isn’t just Catholics objecting to this).

Do you mean because of the extra cost?

Touche! The compromise analogy would be for the government to require the Quaker university to invite the local military recruiter to set up a table in the quad and solicit students to enlist.

That’s closer, but still not quite right. The idea would be that the government declares that anyone who wants to engage in ROTC training must allowed to do so regardless of where they go to school. Furthermore, the government defines ROTC training as a form of physical education and then mandates that all Universities offer PE courses. The Quaker University says, “We are fine with PE, but we can’t offer ROTC as an option, because it is against our faith”. The government then says OK, but the people you pay to teach PE must separately reach out to your students and offer them ROTC training on the side - and not charge them for it.

It’s a bit tortured, but I think it’s a fair analogy.

 

[catharina]

Did Father Jenkins sign it?

**In the copy I saw yesterday on
the ND Law School stationery,

NO.

Fr. Jenkins did NOT sign it.**

 

[bellasbane]

To force Catholic insurance companies out of business is indeed an issue, but not the only one. Many Catholic organizations are self-insured. That means the employer and the insurer are the same one. That means all these Catholic organizations have to be forced out of business also. Is it right for the government to force so many companies and organizations out of business?

Plus, the so called “accommodation” is like put a blind fold on the Church and tell the Church to pretend there is no such a thing. In other words, the government is saying “pretend you are not killing anyone, we will have someone else hold the knife and do the killing, and you just pretend you have nothing to do with it.”

Keep in mind, not only Catholics are against this, many Protestant churches, groups, along with Jewish faith and Muslim groups are all objecting this evil law. This is not only a Catholic problem.

I count self-insured Catholic organizations as being in the insurance business, and yes, I totally see the problem there.

As for the “blind-fold” - that gets back to the Mennonite/Quaker analogy. The government forcing pacifists to suck it up despite their religious beliefs and pretend that their tax money isn’t going to kill people in Iraq, because it is for the “common good”.

 

[PTL]

I count self-insured Catholic organizations as being in the insurance business, and yes, I totally see the problem there.

As for the “blind-fold” - that gets back to the Mennonite/Quaker analogy. The government forcing pacifists to suck it up despite their religious beliefs and pretend that their tax money isn’t going to kill people in Iraq, because it is for the “common good”.

Well, still like I posted earlier, tax applies to everyone lives in the country, but HHS contraception and abortion mandate applies to women only and specifically, therefore, it is not logical to have analogy between the two. But actually, the main point is freedom of religion is intruded, conscience is violated. This is very dangerous. If this can be it, all other immoral issues and freedom threat will follow. I think that is why so many other faith groups are yelling also.

 

[Jersey_Jeepster]

Yeah maybe they should ask for that honorary law degree back.

I’m with you. This is too little, too late from Notre Dame, as far as I am concerned. Notre Dame offended their Catholic brethren when they gave such a pro-abortion politician an honor during his visit there. You reap what you sow.

One could conclude that Notre Dame is complicit in this administration’s mistreatment of Catholics.

 

[donsnow]

It seems to me that this whole debate is an artifact of the US private medical system. In the absence of the sort of public system available in, e.g., the UK, people must have private insurance. The insurance industry spreads its risk by contracting with employers to provide this, with money that would otherwise be paid in wages. if this employee benefit were to be ‘cashed up’ in wages, then there would be no issue. It is only the route taken in the money-go-round that causes the Church problems. Whether the government has a right to require this of employers is another question, but akin in my mind to the ‘can the State tax for an unjust war’ argument. It is highly technical.

Good evening, Hokomai,

For about thirty years I lived with only the medical insurance provided by employers. I had many employers and very few of them provided medical insurance. So, I lived without medical insurance or any other professional health care until 2000, when I discovered I qualified for Veterans Affairs care. The VA is now my medical provider.

I offer this information to show that people do not have to obtain medical insurance nor other professional health care, I lived quite well without it for most of those thirty years. I also offer this to back up my opinion that there is no “right” to free health care. That’s a luxury, not a necessity. My tour of duty in the USMC earned me the benefit (not a right, but a benefit) of VA medical care. All these imaginary rights are going to destroy America like they destroyed Europe’s moral core.

God loves you,
Don