Leaders Call Obama Statement "Unacceptable"

Early this morning, a letter was signed by five leaders, calling a recent statement by President Barack Obama "unacceptable." The signers were: Mary Ann Glendon (former Vatican Ambassador), Robert George (Professor, Princeton University), O. Carter Snead (Law Professor, University of Notre Dame), John Garvey (President, Catholic University of America), and Yuval Levin (EPPC Fellow).

The letter has been copied in full below:

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services.  Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

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.  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.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage.  For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers.  More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual.  They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer.  It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer.  What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.  This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.  It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty.  The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

Signed:

John Garvey

President, The Catholic University of America

Mary Ann Glendon

Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

Robert P. George

McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead

Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Yuval Levin

Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

The Diginity Question

Amidst all the heated debates surrounding the recent federal mandate that will have a profound effect on the Catholic Church and her institutions in this country, there is one that is of particular interest as it lies at the root of any ethical-political discussion; the dignity of the human person. However, in particular, these debates have taken a recent form by some to argue over the dignity of the woman beyond. I have in mind here, in particular, Emily Bieniek and Joel Moore's "Dignity in contraception" and Anne Reser's "A woman's dignity".

There is no doubt, of course, that the question of one's dignity it utterly important and therefore, utterly controversial. However, I hope to shed a little light on the issue. In the first article, beyond the series of claims against the 'forms of rhetoric that the RTL group chose to utilize that should not be allowed,' Bieniek and Moore make a most curious point: "People throughout the United States and across the globe use condoms and contraception to protect themselves and their loved ones in a variety of difficult circumstances that include, but are not limited to: protecting against consequences of domestic violence and rape, preventing the spread of HIV and other STDs and ensuring that they can feed the children that they already have. These people are not undignified. In fact, they are actively taking steps to improve their situation with bravery and dignity."

This immediately calls to a mind a sentiment along similar lines from the Holy Father that caused a bit of hype itself. In chapter 11 of "Light of the World", Benedict XVI states: "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." You are quite right then to note that at times, those who use contraceptives do so for a somewhat-noble reason; that is, they perceive themselves to be protecting life rather than destroying it. This is, however, few and far between. Furthermore, I note it to be somewhat-noble as the contraceptive 1) still functions as a life-preventer rather than a life-supporter and 2) leads to a contraceptive culture which is, while subtle, most dangerous. As the Holy Father furthers elaborates: "As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being."

This then leads into Ms. Reser's article. One of the two claims I take Ms. Reser to be making is that a woman's dignity it not tied to "her ability and desire to produce children." She states "Who I am as a person is not in any way related to the reproductive state of my uterus." This is actually more in line with the sentiments of Pope Benedict, and the article she is responding to, than she might think.

To begin, it is important to note that one's dignity, as an imago Dei, is something utterly mysterious, transcendent, and immeasurable. Now I say she is on to something here because she is quite right to take issue with a sentiment that views women as merely child-bearing animals; as if their sole function is to bear children. The same applies, of course, to men who are not mere seed-dispensers. This utilitarian view of "the other" leaves absolutely no room for the beauty and mystery that is a human person; we do not equate a persons dignity with his functions but rather discern his nature, his essence, from his function and in that resides the dignity of the person. (I recommend glancing at St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, Ia, q. 29, a. 1, corpus here)

The irony in this, of course, is that precisely what Ms. Reser takes offense to is precisely what Benedict warns against as the result of a contraceptive culture. Sex is utterly stripped of its meaning; one looks at a woman (or man) merely for the sexual pleasure she/he might dispose and not the love and intimacy that can be shared between the partners. Contraceptive sex allows for all the pleasure without the so-called "consequences" that is a new created life. One may disagree on this point but it is important to note that right reason always, always, sides with life over death. This is precisely the eternal act of God and essence of Christ's resurrection from death! This is the fundamental and foundational point of any ethical or political stance that stands in accord with God and His Church ; a stance for life and against death (note this a Catholic commentary rooted in Catholic tenets, not modern liberal tents).

However, this is not to say that women (and men) aren't distinctively dignified in their ability to procreate. What rarely gets noticed in this discussion is the most dignified position man holds in the whole order of Creation; man, in a way both brute-animals and angels can't, shares in God's creative action. Yes, two dogs can produce a puppy but they cannot do so except from their innate nature to reproduce; its is merely habitual and devoid of any meaning for animals. Angels, of course, by their very nature, are incapable of reproducing. We however, participate in God's creative act, as images of God, in a most profound way; we do so rationally and rooted in a unitive love.

For this reason (and I have quoted this before), the Code of Canon Law clearly notes, “For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.” (Can. 1096 §1.) The two go hand in hand and cannot be divorced. This speaks to Ms. Reser's mere hind-sight consideration, then, that as one who is not in a position to bear children and raise a family, that she "should defer the process until a time at which it would be responsible and healthy for all involved" This is similarly confused. Fundamental to our nature as free-willed rational agents are the notions that “Omne agens agit propter finem” and “Omne agens agit propter bonum.” That is to say, all agents act for an end...and an end that is good for him. That is not to say that a married couple, with all the rights and privileges of engaging in sexual intercourse, is not capable of, as you note, withholding from conceiving a child at certain times under Natural Family Planning (NFP). This, however, must be done with an eye to a culture and motive rooted towards life, not death or contra-life (contraceptive). However, and its not unusual to view NFP as simply another form of contraceptive, to draw out the distinction is beyond the scope of this post. Thus, at this point, I can merely assert with the Tradition of the Church that, while NFP can be used in an evil manner, it is not inherently evil as contraceptives are.

Now, this brings us to a fundamental point (and brings up the second point Ms. Reser mentions: her issue with the notion of being "sexually available to any man.") What is the end in mind when we have sex. Now, I must grant that when one is "in the moment," I highly doubt that a rational discursive act is taking place in his/her mind as to the end. However, the end is innate to us; re recognize it immediately. Is it pleasure or procreation. If pleasure, is it pleasure for myself or for the other. What the contraceptive culture allows for is sex to be merely about pleasing myself...again having the pleasure without the so-called consequences. The end in fact is two-fold. It feels good for a reason but the that is not the sole end; bodily pleasure. What is the first commandment God gives Adam and Eve in the garden; to be fruitful and multiply. God planted in our hearts the innate desire to have sexual intercourse with our spouse but the consideration of procreation is also positively essential. We engage in sex because it feels good but not only because it feels good; that leads very dangerously to using the other as merely a tool for my own sexual pleasure. In a contraceptive culture, the other merely becomes a tool and in that, we are incapable of recognizing one's dignity in 'their intelligence, in their determination and drive in their kindness and loyalty' or more importantly, in the fact that they are a image of the Creator.

-Michael Black is a contributing blogger for Notre Dame Right to Life. He graduated from Notre Dame in 2011 and is currently a seminarian for the Diocese of Covington

Contraceptives and Control

Elliott Pearce, ND'11, continues recent debate on artificial contraception. His article may be read by clicking here, and it has been copied below:

I would like to reply to Notre Dame Right to Life officers' Jan. 31 letter, "Contraception and Dignity," touched off when it sternly condemned the use of artificial contraception. I am going to argue on behalf of the original letter's position by responding to some of the arguments made by "Contraception and Dignity," Feb. 3.

Emily Bienek, Joel Moore and John Galeziewski argued contraception can mitigate the harmful consequences of domestic violence, rape and drunken hook-ups. This argument fails because these problems cannot be solved by contraception. If women are really so afraid of being assaulted by friends, boyfriends, husbands and strangers they feel they must be taking contraception at all times to prevent unplanned pregnancies, our society suffers from a far greater problem than a lack of reproductive choice.

I would rather make the world safe from violence against women than hand out birth control pills to potential rape victims. Similarly, the fact that many Notre Dame students regularly get so drunk that they cannot control their behavior contributes to a host of problems of which unplanned pregnancies are only one. We can better resolve that issue by helping students drink responsibly than by constantly struggling to reduce the harm they do to themselves and others when they are drunk.

Bienek, Moore, Galeziewski and Anne Reser all made the point artificial contraception helps women by allowing them to regulate how many children they have and when they have them. This allows women to pursue other goals before starting a family and to responsibly regulate the size of their families once they have them. Abstinence before marriage and NFP during marriage can do the same things. Researchers at the University of Heidelberg in Germany found NFPis as effective as "the pill" at preventing conception, and (forgive the cliché) abstinence remains the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs.

John Galeziewski suggests NFP, even when properly used, is no different than other forms of contraception. On the contrary, NFP does not upset the delicate chemical balance within a woman's body in ways that could damage her health, as hormonal contraceptives do.

It also does not fundamentally change the nature of the sexual act by chemically or mechanically eliminating one of its key functions, something all forms of artificial birth control do as well. Finally, NFP makes sex more intimate for couples that use it by giving them a greater understanding of the natural reproductive process and how to work within it to plan their families.

Anne Reser deplores the fact "there are still people who believe that a woman's dignity is somehow tied to her ability and desire to have children." I believe she has misunderstood "Contraception and Dignity" on this issue. At the risk of putting words in the authors' mouths, I believe the people behind "Contraception and Dignity" would not call a woman's reproductive ability the sole source of her worth. Rather, they would assert that a woman derives her dignity from all of the various and wonderful gifts God has bestowed on her by making her in His image, and that her ability to create and nurture life within her own body is merely one of these gifts, though it is an awe-inspiring and very important one.

Women do not need artificial birth control to protect themselves, plan their families or affirm their dignity. They can avoid unplanned pregnancies and STDs by abstaining from sex before marriage and regulate the births of their children within marriage by using NFP. They can better respect themselves by embracing their ability to bear children as an important part of their nature than they can by denying the beauty and significance of one of the greatest abilities of any human person, which they alone happen to possess. The only thing women (and men) "need" artificial contraception for is to have sex whenever they want and with whomever they want. Modern society thinks sex should be like television: entertainment on demand. Those of us who believe that sex is a total, loving and fruitful gift from one person of incommensurable dignity to another believe sex was meant for something more.

Elliott Pearce

junior

Knott Hall

Feb. 3

Regrounding the HSS Mandate Debate

The issue of contraceptives is not a new issue; however, due to recent mandates from the Nation’s Capitol, we have seen a recent increase in excitement and energy with regards to the dialogues revolving around the use, and dispensation, of contraceptives. This letters considers Mr. Evan Graham’s “Protecting the right to choose,” which in itself serves as a response to the letter the Notre Dame Right to Life Club published on Feb. 1.

Typically (and this is evident by the ‘dialogue’ between Mr. Graham and NDRTL), the discussion has two parties talking right past each other. You have, on the one hand, one noting that a contraceptive act halts the potentiality of life (the natural result of a sexual encounter) and, on the other hand, the claim that a woman has a right to choose, not only whether or not she can use contraceptives (that is, that it should be readily available and the choice of contraceptives is up to the woman, rather than the government), but whether or not she carries the baby that would be conceived in the womb. (N.B. I am avoiding the discussion of abortion here; I merely mention the choice to engage in sexual, and therefore reproductive intercourse, and choose not to conceive altogether).

There are a good number of points, then, that Mr. Graham glosses through rather quickly. First he states that it is a choice of whether or not the contraceptives are used. He then jumps immediately to the point that it is a most difficult choice. He then jumps to a quite different discussion in hopes of justifying his point on the right of the woman: his direct repudiation of the original article’s quote of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. After fundamentally disagreeing with the Church, he switches gears once again and enters the current debate of whether or not a religious institution ought to be required to provide contraceptions.

Undoubtedly, there are some at Notre Dame, even Catholics, who disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraceptives. Yet, the Church teaches "Without the [unitive and procreative] aspects the sexual act is stripped of its meaning, and man and woman fail to give themselves to each other in complete love." (§ 2399) These two cannot be separated. One can truly not be unitive if they are procreative and vice versa. The decision, he argues, “whether or not to have children involves many factors in a person's life, such as finances, the woman's job and the current health of both parents.” I add the same goes for getting married. The mistake here is separating the procreative from the unitive. As the Code of Canon Law clearly notes, “For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.” (Can. 1096 §1.) What Mr. Graham offers is a mere hind-sight consideration to validate the contraceptive; these same issues and factors are to be considered before the marriage is even contracted.

The decision “to hold off on having children or to not have children” is, then, equally a decision to get married or not get married. Further still, contrary to what he wrote, the procreative act defines the love expressed between two people in indescribable ways; the very procreative act allows man to take part in the great act of love that is God Almighty’s act of creation; his reditus of an outpouring of love.

This is not the current debate, however. Regardless of your moral leanings, the Church has a strong stance contra contraception. The current debate is rooted in our post-Lockean liberal state that is founded upon a notion of Natural Rights rather than the Natural Law. Fundamental to this then, is the right of religious freedom and the notions of separation of Church state. Conflated together in his article, Mr. Graham discusses the right of a woman on the private level to use a contraceptive and offers a counter-theology to the Church’s teaching on a woman’s right to use a contraception; yet he misses one last fundamental point to this recent spark of controversy surrounding the contraception debate at large -- that of religious freedom.

Just as people are entitled to their own religious beliefs, views on contraception, etc etc, so too are religious institutions entitled to choose whether or not they offer contraceptives. There is no doubt that there are students at Notre Dame, even Catholic students, who disagree with the moral code upon which the university is founded; the very ethos that permeates Our Blessed Mother’s institution. However, to state that the university is somehow failing to give a basic right to woman rests merely on a view that woman have a fundamental right to use a contraceptive. Further, the last point that it strips that “right” away from those who are not Catholic is to me quite absurd. We have in this country alone, a myriad of institutions of various backgrounds and foundations. Now imagine yourself who just happens to be an avid lover of all things pork decides to attend a Jewish institution; would you honestly be offended or even surprised that pork is not served in the dining halls? Of course not!

Of course, this is the fundamental issue that is highlighted by the recent debate; whether or not a religious institution ought to be obligated and mandated to perform an act that stands in complete opposition to the religious views of the institution. Leaving the fact that one has a state-given right to contraceptives aside, this mandate atrociously disregards any notion of religious freedom in the name of a radical secularism. Under the guise of liberal politics and a free democracy, a prejudice against the Catholic Church and her teachings on the dignity of the human person runs free (Here, Newman's Apologia pro sua vita applies). What is accomplished in this country is a certain kind of plurality of religions where no religion has any authority to assert or proclaim its doctrines in the public sphere; for how can the Church tell a woman whether she can use a contraceptive? Religion, then, is pushed into a purely private and individualistic sphere. That this is problematic for the Church doesn't take much explanation: Christ commands his Apostles to go out and Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Yet, progressing even further, we now have the Church in a position in which it cannot uphold its owns fundamental teachings!

Students who choose to attend a Catholic university do so for a good number of reasons. In the choosing of a university it is evident that the ethos is going to be present in the university’s history and academic principles. Does it come as a shock to any, upon arriving on campus and seeing our Blessed Mother, gold upon the dome, that this university stands with a fundamental foundation in the teachings of the Church? Therefore, those who choose to attend a Catholic university should know and accept that they are involving themselves in a certain environment in which Catholicism is taught and lived out by the faculty, staff, and even the students. For a Catholic university to deny its Catholic roots, to compromise the Catholic ideals, to forfeit Catholic morality does a grave disservice to the institution, its faculty and staff, its alumni, benefactors, and most importantly its students, who have paid dearly for a Catholic education.

For Notre Dame to offer contraceptives is not an issue. If she wants to maintain her role as a Catholic university, she cannot compromise. What is at stake here is not the right of one to use or not use a contraceptive; in this country, that is already the case despite the great danger a contraceptive culture can do to a society. What is at stake here is a question of religious liberty. Notre Dame does not and would not be forcing those in disagreement into agreement with Her Teachings; they attend or work there out of their volition (and this of course is quite right as a purely obligatory approach to religion and morality can never succeed). For those who feel that their “rights” are being infringed upon, as Mr. Graham claims is the result, there are numerous drug stores in South Bend or Mishawauka. But to ask a Catholic institution to offer contraceptives is as ridiculous as asking a Jewish family to eat pork. It is not a question of rights to contraception; it is a question of the government forcing a religious institution to perform acts contrary to their beliefs. That is to say, the government is committing a horrific overstep contra religious freedom. The rights of religious conscience and liberty for one cannot compromise the conscience and liberties of another; for then it is no longer liberty but tyranny. And tyranny has no place in a university; where the freedom to explore the realms of academia must prevail in order to continue to seek the truth for which man longs.

-Michael Black is Right to Life's first contributing blog author. He graduated from Notre Dame in 2011 with majors in philosophy and theology. He is a former member of Right to Life, and he is currently a seminarian for the Diocese of Covington.

Footprints Issue IV now available

Issue IV of Footprints, NDRTL's official newsletter, has just be released. You may view it by clicking here (or by visiting chooselife.nd.edu and clicking "Newsletter").

This issue includes:

• The 2012 March for Life, including reflections by students.
• A national meeting for pro-life leaders, organized by NDRTL
• A letter from the officers of NDRTL on artificial contraception and human dignity (an abridged copy of this letter was printed in The Observer and may be read by clicking here).
• And more!