HHS Revision Update I

As we await word from the U.S. bishops' conference on the latest proposed revisions to the contraception mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services, at least one bishop has weighed in. Below is the statement from Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. of Philadelphia.

For another take, seeblogger Nicholas P. Cafardi's history and analysis of the controversy.

Advertisement

To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).
– Augustine

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that prudence is the auriga virtutum, the “charioteer of virtues.” It's “right reason in action,” the guide to correctly applying all other virtues. Rash action, no matter how well intended, violates prudence and usually does more harm than good. God gave us brains. He expects us to use them to judiciously pursue the highest moral good for others and for ourselves.

At the same time, the Catechism warns that prudence should never be used as an alibi for “timidity or fear, duplicity or dissimulation.” Real prudence has a spine called fortitude, the virtue we more commonly know as courage. And courage, in the words of C.S. Lewis, “is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality.”

Here's why both these virtues are vital in the weeks ahead. On Friday, February 1, the Obama administration issued for public comment a set of revised regulations governing the HHS “contraceptive mandate.” At first glance, the new rules have struck some people as a modest improvement. They appear to expand, in a limited way, the kind of religiously-affiliated entities that can claim exemption from providing insurance coverage for contraceptive and abortion-related services under the new Affordable Care Act.

White House apologists and supporters have welcomed the proposal. The New York Times called it “a good compromise.” Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL Prochoice America have praised it. And at least one Washington Post columnist implausibly called it a victory for America's Catholic bishops.

The trouble is, the new rules are very complex. And they may actually make things worse. In the words of Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard Bradley:

“Gauging the net effect of the new administration proposal [is] hazardous. But one can say with confidence the following: (1) religious hospitals are, as before, not exempt 'religious employers'; (2) religious charities are very likely not exempt either, unless they are run out of a church or are very tightly integrated with a church. So, a parish or even a diocese's Saint Vincent De Paul operations would probably be an exempt 'religious employer,' whereas Catholic Charities would not be; (3) the new proposal may (or may not) make it more likely that parish grade schools are exempt 'religious employers.' But Catholic high schools are a different matter. Some might qualify as 'religious employers.' Most probably will not.

"It is certain that Catholic colleges and universities do not qualify as exempt 'religious employers.' The new proposal includes, however, a revised 'accommodation' for at least some of these institutions, as well as some hospitals and charities. The proposal refines the administration's earlier efforts to somehow insulate the colleges and universities from immoral complicity in contraception, mainly by shifting -- at least nominally – the cost and administration of the immoral services to either the health insurance issuer (think Blue Cross) or to the plan administrator (for self-insured entities, such as Notre Dame). This proposal adds some additional layering to the earlier attempts to insulate the schools, but nothing of decisive moral significance is included.”

The White House has made no concessions to the religious conscience claims of private businesses, and the whole spirit of the “compromise” is minimalist.

As a result, the latest White House “compromise” already has a wave of critics, including respected national religious liberty law firms like the Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom. And many are far harsher than Professor Bradley in their analysis.

The scholar Yuval Levin has stressed that the new HHS mandate proposal, “like the versions that have preceded it, betrays a complete lack of understanding of both religious liberty and religious conscience.” In reality, despite the appearance of compromise, “the government has forced a needless and completely avoidable confrontation and has knowingly put many religious believers in an impossible situation.”

One of the issues America's bishops now face is how best to respond to an HHS mandate that remains unnecessary, coercive and gravely flawed. In the weeks ahead the bishops of our country, myself included, will need both prudence and courage—the kind of courage that gives prudence spine and results in right action, whatever the cost. Please pray that God guides our discussions.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Vince Killoran
5 years ago
The Archbishop does not like living in a pluralistic, secular republic. His "argument" (it doesn't really qualify as more than a series of claims) is structured this way: 1. Assert that the people welcoming the Administration's modifications as understanding them to be "modest improvements." In fact, they are significant policy revisions and that is how they are understood. 2. Smear those who back the HHS guidelines as "apologists" and supporters of NAARL (very McCarthyite). 3. Instead of assessing the actual changes, dismiss them as "very complex" rules and then leave the heavy lifting to a law professor whose drive-by legal analysis (whatever happened to his opening reminder than "God gave us brains"?) concludes with the murky complaint that the revisions offer "nothing of decisive moral significance is included.” What does that mean? The Archbishop's comments are political ones.
Ralph Bremigan
5 years ago
I note that +Chaput dismisses E. J. Dionne, a fellow Catholic, Rhodes Scholar, professor at a Catholic institution, and a man of demonstrated intellect, wisdom, and charity, only as a not-to-be-named "Washington Post columnist."

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

(Nick Ansell/PA via AP, archive)
Recent allegations about one of the United Kingdom’s biggest and best-known charities has driven increased demands from some quarters that overseas aid be reduced, if not abolished completely.
David StewartFebruary 23, 2018
Students who walked out of classes from Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland protest against gun violence in front of the White House on Feb. 21 in Washington. (CNS photo/Kevin Lamarque, Reuters)
The desire for stronger gun control may not translate into more caution with gun storage among owners of firearms.
Kevin ClarkeFebruary 23, 2018
Of the estimated 14.5 million school-age Catholic children in the U.S., about or 55 percent are Latino. Yet 4 percent of school-age Latino Catholic children are enrolled in Catholic schools.
Maria Luisa TorresFebruary 23, 2018
Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, is pictured at the Vatican in this Oct. 9, 2012, file photo. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Cardinal Sarah questions why Catholics stand—rather than kneel—and receive Communion in the hand.
Michael J. O’LoughlinFebruary 23, 2018