Catholic Moral Theology at the Supreme Court

I never expected to see Father Henry Davis’s Moral and Pastoral Theology (1935) cited in a Supreme Court opinion. But there it was in footnote 34 of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the Court ruled that two non-Catholic families, the Greens and the Hahns, were not required to comply with the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Father Davis was an English Jesuit and famous moral theologian who died in 1952 at age 85. The string cite quotes Father Davis’s text as follows: “Cooperation occurs ‘when A helps B to accomplish an external act by an act that is not sinful, and without approving of what B does.’”

Davis was one of the best practitioners of the old art of the Catholic moral manual, books that were usually written by priests for other priests. The manuals presented illustrative “cases of conscience,” so that priests could give moral guidance to Catholics as well as learn to assess what was sinful in the confessional. Davis was particularly incisive in writing about the principles of formal and material cooperation with evil. Many of his cases centered on medical ethical questions of cooperation with “evil” procedures and employees’ participation in “evil” actions commanded by an employer.

Advertisement

Today Davis was cited on behalf of the employers, the Green family in Hobby Lobby and the Hahn family in Conestoga Wood. The legal context was that plaintiffs must establish that the government substantially burdened their exercise of religion in order to win a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim. The Greens and Hahns believe that 4 of the 20 contraceptives covered by the contraceptive mandate are abortifacients and that providing insurance coverage to employees was a substantial burden on this belief.

Justice Ginsburg cogently argued in dissent that any burden on the Greens’ and Hahns’ religion was “too attenuated” to qualify as substantial. The employees decide whether to use contraception, and “no individual decision by an employee and her physician….is in any meaningful sense her employer’s decision or action.”

Justice Alito rebutted that legal argument with Catholic moral theology. Hobby Lobby, he wrote, citing Father Davis, “implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another.” It is not for the Court, he concluded, to determine whether a burden is substantial or insubstantial under RFRA; that is the moral judgment of the plaintiffs and the Court must simply defer to it, even when that moral belief may conflict with the beliefs of individual employees.

Yet interpreting statutory language like “substantial burden” is precisely what the Court is supposed to do. In deferring completely to plaintiffs’ moral beliefs, Justice Ginsburg is correct that the majority provided a “decision of startling breadth,” possibly applying to “employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others).”

Would moral theology say that opening the door to all these possible exemptions—and more—involved some evil? Too bad we can’t ask Father Davis, who would probably be surprised to find himself in the midst of a U.S. Supreme Court debate.

Leslie C. Griffin is the William S. Boyd Professor of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law.

 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Vincent Gaitley
3 years 5 months ago
The Court's decision in Hobby isn't one of "startling breath", the Affordable Health Care Act is. This is the very reason the government shouldn't be in the business of providing or mandating insurance across a vast and diverse population because someone's faith or morals will be trampled along with the civil rights to exercise those beliefs. We are a free people because the government is limited, if the government becomes unlimited, then your freedom ends no matter what God you trust.
Michael Barberi
3 years 5 months ago
A Supreme Court justice is not a moral theologian and citing one, and one small part of what he said in 1952 is far from being morally persuasive given the evolution of this discipline in the post-concilar period. A substantial burden for one, even if the reasons are disputed, may be not be a substantial burden for another. It is like the argument that has been going on for the past 45 years over moral method where the good in the chosen means-act must be proportionate to the good in the agent's end or goal. Similarly, we find this issue in the principle of double effect where one of the principles is that the good effect must outweigh the bad. What is the criteria for weighing good and bad effects, good and bad intentions or right and wrong action…not to mention the criteria for determining a substantial burden? Should authority make this decision or should the agent decide as long as his judgment is not in contradiction to reason and virtue? I don't think the SCOTUS wants to get into this moral minefield. I think Justice Alito made a good call by deferring it to the judgment of the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, Leslie Griffin raises an important issue that has yet to be clarified, namely, will the Hobby Lobby decision apply to “employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?” Will we likely have to wait for another court case for an answer. It appears that the contraceptive accommodation that exists for non-profit religious affiliated organizations will be upheld when the Little Sisters of the Poor and other similar cases come before the SCOTUS. After all, both Kennedy and Alito both said that there exists a legitimate resolution for closely-held for-profit companies with religious beliefs, namely, extending to them the Federal Government's ACA contraceptive accommodation that exist for non-profit religious organizations. Regardless if Obama does this, the SCOTUS seems to believe that this is a legitimate resolution to claims of religious liberty and the RFRA. Of course, if Republicans control Congress and the Presidency in 2016, the ACA and RFRA may be reformulated and another round of Court cases will occupy our attention.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Homeless people are seen in Washington June 22. Bishop Frank J. Dewane of Venice, Fla., chair of the U.S. bishops' domestic policy committee, released a statement Nov. 17 proclaiming that the House of Representatives "ignored impacts to the poor and families" in passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the previous day. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)
The United States is thwarting the advancement of millions of its citizens, a UN rapporteur says.
Kevin ClarkeDecember 16, 2017
Why not tax individuals for what they take out of society instead of what they contribute?
Paul D. McNelis, S.J.December 15, 2017
Pope Francis will renew the mandate of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors for another three years, informed sources told America this week.
Gerard O’ConnellDecember 15, 2017
Worshippers recite the Lord's Prayer during Mass at Corpus Christi Church in Mineola, N.Y., on Oct. 13. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz, Long Island Catholic)
Making ancient Scripture sensible in contemporary languages will always prove a hazard-heavy challenge.
Kevin ClarkeDecember 15, 2017