Why can't Catholic employers comply w/ contraception mandate?

[mpartyka]

I don’t see the conflict either. No matter what the HHS does, some people just don’t want this benefit available. It’s the same as paying taxes, a portion of which helps pay for ABCs. You don’t see people refusing to pay their taxes because a portion of it goes to pay for ABCs.

Well, as the discussion has gone, it depends on the kind of arrangement we’re talking about:

1. If a Catholic employer pays premiums to a non-Catholic health insurance company to secure coverage for its employees, it’s not clear that the fact that the government is forcing the non-Catholic health insurance company to cover contraception is a violation of the Catholic employer’s religious freedom. When entity 1 gives money to entity 2, what entity 2 does with that money is not necessarily entity 1’s fault.
2. If a Catholic employer self-insures, then for government to require the employer to cover contraceptive services may be a violation of the employer’s religious freedom, depending on the services (e.g., oral contraceptives vs. surgical sterilization) and the reason for the procurement of those services (e.g., a medical reason or personal choice).
3. If a health insurance company is itself a Catholic business, the same situation as #2 applies.

I’m wondering, though, if the fact that prescriptions for oral contraceptions are currently required (I think) might put an additional layer of moral distance between even a self-insuring Catholic employer or Catholic health insurance company and the elective procurement of contraception. Does the Catholic agent involved have the right to question the doctor’s judgment in prescribing contraception to his/her patient?

It seems to me at some point the Catholic agent has to step back and say, “You know, I’m going to do what’s required of me under the law, and I’m going to have to trust that the beneficiaries of my compliance don’t abuse the system and do what I believe is immoral.” 1 Cor 13:6-7 says, “Love…always trusts, always hopes…,” and it doesn’t seem like Catholics are displaying that kind of love if they assume that granting people the freedom to sin in a certain way necessarily means that the sin will occur.

 

[mpartyka]

I didn’t say anything about using the coverage, only that you have buy the coverage.

But do you not see that purchasing “coverage”, which is the provision of a particular service if certain conditions are met, is not the same as purchasing the service itself? If a person “covered” for birth control never activates that “coverage” by actually purchasing birth control, there is no sin to be disputed.

Also, I want to say again that we’re talking about a particular service that does have morally legitimate uses such that a Catholic agent would have no issue procuring the service even directly in those cases (i.e., if a woman needs an oral contraceptive to assuage debilitating menstrual cramps, there’s no moral wrong in a Catholic’s procuring prescribed contraception for the afflicted woman, whether indirectly through an insurance company or directly through cash or credit).

So what we’re talking about here is a legitimate medical service that the government requires all health insurance companies to cover if the doctor prescribes the service for his/her patient. Of course, it is entirely possible for someone to procure the service from a doctor for illegitimate reasons, but this taking advantage of the system is surely the responsibility of the patient and/or doctor, not the health insurance company or the employer paying for the coverage, correct?

 

[zz912]

1. If a Catholic employer pays premiums to a non-Catholic health insurance company to secure coverage for its employees, it’s not clear that the fact that the government is forcing the non-Catholic health insurance company to cover contraception is a violation of the Catholic employer’s religious freedom. When entity 1 gives money to entity 2, what entity 2 does with that money is not necessarily entity 1’s fault.

Fundamental misunderstanding. First, the insurance company doesn’t have a magical money tree behind their corporate offices. All money they have is from premiums charged to customers. Second, this is NOT a separate transaction. The Catholic employer is directly purchasing an evil product. You can create all kinds of mental gymnastics to try and get around this, but at the end of the day, this is what is happening. A Christian can NOT cooperate with evil like this.

And as an aside, you should investigate when your particular denomination changed their theology and diverted from the Christian faith on the issue of contraception. Before 1930, ALL Christian denominations agreed that contraception was evil.

 

[Spider42]

First, the insurance company doesn’t have a magical money tree behind their corporate offices.

However, they prefer to provide contraception because it saves them money. Contraception is much cheaper than maternity health costs. So it isn’t magical money, but extra profits.

That is not moral from a Catholic perspective, but it is how it works economically. That’s why Snowe and 7 other GOP senators who receive a lot of money from the insurance industry pushed for a national mandate back in '97. Or at least partially why they pushed for it, I can’t presume to know their hearts and minds.

 

[Spider42]

Before 1930, ALL Christian denominations agreed that contraception was evil.

I’m sorry, that is not historically accurate. Church tradition on contraception was mixed. The earliest Pauline’s favored complete abstinence, because they thought that the second coming was imminent (see the epistles of St. Paul). Ideas about family structure changed a great deal (monogamy, procreation, etc.) in the 4th and 5th century. Writings from that period (St. Jerome, St. Augustine, etc.) are often cited, but there were numerous shifts in theological thought after that time. That is why the matter was definitively settled by Humanae Vitae.

Pope Paul VI took this step after there was some divergence of opinion even in the pontifical council he had convened.

But that isn’t really the issue here. I, personally, have no trouble in obedience with the Church’s position on contraception. Likewise, I accept that freedom of religion is a fundamental and pressing moral issue (Sacramentum Caritatis).

But the question at hand is, does the mandate truly represent an intrusion on freedom of religion. Some local princes say yes, others have stated that the theological argument is weak. A subset have taken legal action, the majority have not. I, personally, am waiting for more guidance from the Magisterium, which would generally be the bishops acting more collegially. I also have an obligation to give as much deference to all the individual bishops that I can. But as a trained theologian I can understand why the ‘religious freedom’ argument is not found very compelling by some princes, many theologians, and many lay Catholics.

 

[choose_to_love]

@spider: can you provide an instance in which you contend the Church, or some part of it, specifically approved of contraception?

I contend the matter was “settled” way before HV, as the constant, uninterrupted, and universal teaching of the ordinary Magisterium from the Didache on down, not to mention Genesis 38.

 

[mpartyka]

Second, this is NOT a separate transaction. The Catholic employer is directly purchasing an evil product.

But the product is not evil in and of itself. Oral contraceptives have a legitimate medical purpose for some women, so you cannot say that merely purchasing coverage for a product that has a morally legitimate use is intrinsically evil. It’s only if the coverage is activated by the doctor and patient for an illicit cause that an evil is committed, and there is no actual consent rendered by the employer or the health insurance company there.

Before 1930, ALL Christian denominations agreed that contraception was evil.

Well, if you count the actual practice of the Catholic faithful rather than the teachings of the hierarchy, today ALL Christian denominations agree that most contraception is perfectly fine.

 

[mpartyka]

The earliest Pauline’s favored complete abstinence, because they thought that the second coming was imminent (see the epistles of St. Paul).

Paul didn’t favor abstinence within marriage, mind you, just outside of marriage. Paul specifically ordered husbands and wives in 1 Cor 7 not to defraud each other.

Ideas about family structure changed a great deal (monogamy, procreation, etc.) in the 4th and 5th century.

There was already a setting up of monogamy as the ideal in the pastoral letters of Paul that encouraged Timothy and Titus to ordain “the husband of one wife.”

Pope Paul VI took this step after there was some divergence of opinion even in the pontifical council he had convened.

Let’s not understate the case: According to Wikipedia, the council voted 65-7 in favor of legitimizing birth control.

 

[choose_to_love]

IIRC, the issue the commission was set up to investigate was whether the then-new oral contraceptive pill was, in fact, contraception.

 

[mpartyka]

Let me restate my last point, since the vote count there might not have been accurate – I have a book on this matter at home but don’t have access to it presently:

Let’s not understate the case: It’s difficult to determine the exact or final vote count, but according to most of the vote counts the council was at minimum 75% in favor of legitimizing birth controls. The primary reasoning of the majority was that in using the rhythm method a couple was already using their rational faculties to have sex with a greatly reduced probability of sperm meeting egg, thus separating the unitive and procreative functions of sex, and using artificial means to keep sperm and egg from meeting was merely an extension of man’s use of reason in this direction. The primary reasoning of the minority was basically that contraception has always been taught by the Church to be wrong, and therefore contraception must continue to be wrong, or else the Church must admit that it can be wrong. Humanae Vitae took the middle path and basically agreed with both sides: Yes, it is okay for people to use reason to prevent pregnancy, and yes, the Church has always been correct about contraception – the real problem with contraception is not the intent but the means: natural contraception is okay, but artificial contraception is not, supposedly because artificial contraception separates the unitive and procreative functions of sex in a way that I must admit I still do not fully grasp.

 

[zz912]

1. But the product is not evil in and of itself. Oral contraceptives have a legitimate medical purpose for some women, so you cannot say that merely purchasing coverage for a product that has a morally legitimate use is intrinsically evil. It’s only if the coverage is activated by the doctor and patient for an illicit cause that an evil is committed, and there is no actual consent rendered by the employer or the health insurance company there.
2. Well, if you count the actual practice of the Catholic faithful rather than the teachings of the hierarchy, today ALL Christian denominations agree that most contraception is perfectly fine.

1. You are assuming that oral contraception is the only thing covered. And the Church can’t pretend that the massive majority who use contraception don’t use it for contraception, not for other legitimate needs.
2. That is a dodge. I know you are being playful, but it is a serious question that demands a serious answer. For 19 centuries, all of Christendom, even those who couldn’t agree on ALMOST ANYTHING about the Christian faith, ALL agreed that contraception was evil. Did the Christian faith change in the 20th century, or did the majority of Christianity depart from the faith?

 

[mpartyka]

You are assuming that oral contraception is the only thing covered.

Good point. If there is a form of contraception whose only purpose is contraceptive – i.e., there is no other purpose for that contraceptive besides contraception – I can understand a religious objection to providing coverage for that form of contraception.

And the Church can’t pretend that the massive majority who use contraception don’t use it for contraception, not for other legitimate needs.

But I think that’s irrelevant because to simply say, “We’re not covering contraception at all,” basically tells people with medical needs, “Sorry, you can’t have what you actually need because other people misuse it.” It’s not the Church’s province to deny legitimate medical care to people, and it’s certainly not the Church’s province to come between doctor and patient and say that contraception in the case of a patient is not a medically necessary procedure, contrary to the doctor’s judgment. The Church is not the State – it has power to levy clerical penalties up to and including excommunication, but it does not possess any executive power to actively restrict the faithful’s actions.

For 19 centuries, all of Christendom, even those who couldn’t agree on ALMOST ANYTHING about the Christian faith, ALL agreed that contraception was evil. Did the Christian faith change in the 20th century, or did the majority of Christianity depart from the faith?

How about this: Beginning in the 19th century, people actually figured out how babies were made – i.e., not according to the “a man plants his seed in the fertile soil of a woman’s womb” paradigm that existed prior to the invention of the microscope, but rather according to the sperm-and-egg paradigm in which each parent contributes half of the genetic material that creates a new human being. This paradigm shift is important because under the seed-and-soil paradigm, it’s easy to understand why “wasting seed” (i.e., artificial contraception) would be abhorred – a man is actually spilling out a human life to no avail (i.e., the “seed” is tantamount to an embryo). But once it was understood that the “seed” of a man contributes only half the material, and a human life doesn’t actually exist until that half meets the other half that is provided by the woman, there’s no human life to be destroyed through the “wasting” of “seed”.

So I would argue that Christianity was absolutely correct in pronouncing contraception wrong according to the science of the time, when it was thought that the “seed” of a man was in fact a human life that needed to be implanted in the womb of a woman to survive, but once science improved, thus giving Christianity a clearer picture of what actually happens during reproduction, it was realized by practically everyone that there is nothing wrong with any contraceptive method that keeps sperm from meeting egg, so long as that method cannot also injure any embryo that forms if that method should fail in its contraceptive purpose.

 

[zz912]

How about this: Beginning in the 19th century, people actually figured out how babies were made – i.e., not according to the “a man plants his seed in the fertile soil of a woman’s womb” paradigm that existed prior to the invention of the microscope, but rather according to the sperm-and-egg paradigm in which each parent contributes half of the genetic material that creates a new human being. This paradigm shift is important because under the seed-and-soil paradigm, it’s easy to understand why “wasting seed” (i.e., artificial contraception) would be abhorred – a man is actually spilling out a human life to no avail (i.e., the “seed” is tantamount to an embryo). But once it was understood that the “seed” of a man contributes only half the material, and a human life doesn’t actually exist until that half meets the other half that is provided by the woman, there’s no human life to be destroyed through the “wasting” of “seed”.

Oh, so if we aren’t killing someone, we’re okay. That is not the only issue and concern.

So I would argue that Christianity was absolutely correct in pronouncing contraception wrong according to the science of the time, when it was thought that the “seed” of a man was in fact a human life that needed to be implanted in the womb of a woman to survive, but once science improved, thus giving Christianity a clearer picture of what actually happens during reproduction, it was realized by practically everyone that there is nothing wrong with any contraceptive method that keeps sperm from meeting egg, so long as that method cannot also injure any embryo that forms if that method should fail in its contraceptive purpose.

But the oral contraceptive does have as one of its methods is preventing implantation, which is killing a child.

 

[mpartyka]

Oh, so if we aren’t killing someone, we’re okay. That is not the only issue and concern.

Well, that is not the Church’s only concern, I grant you, but that is probably the only concern of the Catholic couples who use contraception. If the Church agrees that it is okay to have sex for the purpose of pleasure rather than conception, and if contraceptive sex allows a couple to have sexual pleasure with a more greatly-reduced chance of conception, and if the contraception used doesn’t jeapordize a human life, then what’s the harm? (I’m not myself asking this, I’m just echoing the questions of many Catholic couples who see no sense in the Church’s stance against contraception.)

But the oral contraceptive does have as one of its methods is preventing implantation, which is killing a child.

The main purpose of oral contraception is to prevent the ovaries from releasing eggs into the fallopian tubes. I don’t know whether all oral contraceptives have the additional effect of preventing implantation – I suspect not. And certainly neither condoms nor surgical sterilization prevent implantation.

 

[Spider42]

@spider: can you provide an instance in which you contend the Church, or some part of it, specifically approved of contraception?

I contend the matter was “settled” way before HV, as the constant, uninterrupted, and universal teaching of the ordinary Magisterium from the Didache on down, not to mention Genesis 38.

The simplest example would be natural family planning (NFP) methods. The point of NFP is contraceptive, avoid or interfere with conception. Look at Genesis 38:8, was Onan not engaging is a rudimentary attempt at ‘natural’ contraception as well? The word in 38:8 is ‘shachath’, Onan ‘wasted’ his seed.

To be fair, Genesis 38 is actually a bit more complicated than that. To really start to understand everything involved, we need to look at context. Read Deuteronomy 25 and compare those portions of Mosaic law to what happens in Genesis 38, you might find it interesting. But I digress.

The point is, if we look at earliest tradition, as you suggest, we’ll read things like Soranos of Ephesus early 2nd century treatise “On the Use of Abortifacients and of Measures to Prevent Contraception”. That tradition sees no moral distinction between ‘natural’ methods and medicinal herbs, etc.

This is one of the theological splits between the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Church. The Eastern rite saw no distinction, but in the Latin Church, traditions of acceptance for some forms of pregnancy avoidance emerged and views on human sexuality shifted.

For example, in 1679, Pope Innocent XI’s Congregation of the Holy Office issued the opinion that it was not sinful to initiate sex “solely for pleasure”. St. Alphonsus Liguori, the 18th century author of “Moral Theology” and a Doctor of the Church wrote extensively about this and came to some conclusions than are more permissive than HV permits today, but he is well worth reading, not just because he was a saint and a Doctor of the Church but, because, if nothing else, he points out that things like the legitimacy of coitus interruptus (which is statistically about as effective as a condom) were being debated in the Magisterium 1700 years after the founding of the Church and more than 2000 years after Genesis 38 was first written.

There are actually some more extreme examples in Church history, but I am reluctant to bring them up, since they are easily misconstrued as being more at odds with modern doctrine than they actually were.

Many people are upset to learn things like the Church’s position has evolved about slavery, contraceptive practices, even abortion in the case of maternal health. But I think this is the wrong way to look at it. The foundational beliefs are remarkably unchanged, in this case, sex belongs inside the sacrament of marriage and the primary purpose is procreation, God’s gift of life. Although it is blessed with the Gift of Authority, the apostles today are, just like the first apostles, human. It takes time for true and complete understanding to emerge, and conditions also change. That’s why we have a living Magisterium.

 

[Spider42]

But the oral contraceptive does have as one of its methods is preventing implantation, which is killing a child.

No, oral contraceptives are not permitted for contraceptive use primarily because of their contraceptive nature. Some types of pills do elevate fetal risk if taken after pregnancy, but they are not really abortificants in the modern Catholic definition. That is why there are some, very narrow, licit uses acknowledged by Rome.

The bishops have speculated that ‘morning after’ contraceptives, like Plan B and Ella (ulipristal acetate) might have an effect on implantation, which would be abortive. But there is no scientific evidence at this time that such an effect occurs (the bishops have an obligation to error on the side of life and since a thinning of uterine wall has been observed, the abortive characteristic might exist). The primary and only observed mechanism is prevention of ovulation.

But because it is not scientifically established, many Catholic hospitals will administer emergency contraception in cases of rape, provided that the victim does not test positive for pregnancy. This is not at odds with HV, because the event was not a procreative act of love, but unjust aggression and the women is exercising licit self defense.

 

[samiam1611]

Good point. If there is a form of contraception whose only purpose is contraceptive – i.e., there is no other purpose for that contraceptive besides contraception – I can understand a religious objection to providing coverage for that form of contraception.

But I think that’s irrelevant because to simply say, “We’re not covering contraception at all,” basically tells people with medical needs, “Sorry, you can’t have what you actually need because other people misuse it.” It’s not the Church’s province to deny legitimate medical care to people, and it’s certainly not the Church’s province to come between doctor and patient and say that contraception in the case of a patient is not a medically necessary procedure, contrary to the doctor’s judgment.

You are mistaken on one thing. For medical purposes, insurance through a Catholic employer WILL cover “birth control” (aka the Pill, etc).

I work for a Catholic employer and I got my insurance to pay for Mirena IUD bc of heavy periods. Mind you, I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get it - pre-request it, get denied, appeal it by saying it was for medical purposes, get a letter from my doctor stating I did have the condition and that Mirena was an appropriate treatment option for me. Lots of paperwork :banghead:

But take for example, Paragard (copper IUD) would not have been approved bc it only is a contraceptive, not a treatment for disease.

So the Church does NOT deny legitimate medical care. The Church does NOT come between the patient and doctor. Birth control IS available to employees of Catholic employers such as myself.

[At this time], they don’t cover contraception for contraceptive purposes. They do NOT say, “we’re not covering contraception at all.” It just so happens that there are products that treat illness that also are contraceptives. Those products are covered.

The point you made in your OP still stands. It’s just this line of thought that is a non-issue. Well except for the paperwork. Maybe next time, I won’t have to go through the appeals process.

 

[Spider42]

If the Church agrees that it is okay to have sex for the purpose of pleasure rather than conception.

It doesn’t. Pleasure is great, another gift from God. Only pleasure is not.

I really don’t want to oversimplify since it is an important, but complex part of Catholic belief, but the foundational building block for societies in Catholicism is the human family. In recognizing the trinity we even view God as a family.

The building blocks are so important, that forming them is a Sacrament, honored in the vocation of marriage. The Catholic view is that sex belongs inside the context of this Sacrament. So, while it is OK to enjoy the great parts, we have a responsibility to remain receptive to the primary purpose.

Yes, it seems out of whack with modern society, but the goal of these teachings still resonate with a lot of people. Humanae Vitae was, and is controversial, but some of the predictions it makes about societies where sex is not limited to the confines of the Sacrament are pretty prophetic:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

You might also enjoy Lisa Sowle Cahill’s “Family: A Christian Social Perspective”. She is a first rate theologian and her books on theological bioethics might be informative to you as well.

 

[Spider42]

You are mistaken on one thing. For medical purposes, insurance through a Catholic employer WILL cover “birth control” (aka the Pill, etc).

That assumes all Catholic employers have the same insurance coverage, which is far from true. The only insurance we can afford at our shelter is major medical. It would never cover what you got covered.

The insurance I receive teaching for a Catholic institution would cover what you want with a lot fewer hoops than you describe.

The point of the HHS policies is not contraception in particular. They are to standardize coverage provided by carriers so that costs can be reduced through competition. That is, to change the big gap in coverage between the two Catholic employers I am involved with. The Church has been receptive to this move in concept, the objection is over this particular standard.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

But the product is not evil in and of itself. Oral contraceptives have a legitimate medical purpose for some women, so you cannot say that merely purchasing coverage for a product that has a morally legitimate use is intrinsically evil. It’s only if the coverage is activated by the doctor and patient for an illicit cause that an evil is committed, and there is no actual consent rendered by the employer or the health insurance company there.

Well, if you count the actual practice of the Catholic faithful rather than the teachings of the hierarchy, today ALL Christian denominations agree that most contraception is perfectly fine.

First of all…there are very few medical problems that are actually solved by birth control…they are over prescribed.

Second of all…please do not attempt to pretend to know what happens with the Catholic faithful…to which I am one…and do not consider it to be just fine.

Thirdly…it’s nice of you to tell the Catholic Church what their beliefs ought to be. BTW the Church is not the only one against this mandate…focus on the family and Billy Graham are also to name a few.

Lastly, Catholic employers do not JUST have Catholic employees…so yes providing and paying (either directly or indirectly) is cooperating with something that we believe to be wrong and immoral.