Thursday, February 2, 2012

Our Fragile Religious Liberty: Part II

In many ways these posts on the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) controversy can be seen as an outgrowth of what I thought was going to be a series called American Sunset?, on the United States' apparent political, cultural and spiritual decline.  If America is in decline it's because we've lost touch with certain key values that define our national character and unify us as a people, in this case our belief in religious liberty.  I will return to that broad topic soon, but for now more on the government's contraception mandate.

The main premise behind the HHS policy to force all employers, irregardless of religious affiliation, to pay for workers' birth control is the core belief that access to contraception is a basic human right.  Many who follow this line of reasoning would include access to abortions on that list.  For them these perceived rights are absolute, superseding the consciences of all citizens.  This is astonishing considering how many of this policy's supporters accuse the Church of trying to dictate how people should live.

What is at stake is religious liberty here in the United States, but there is a broader question of what role government should play in the lives of the people.  In mandating these services the government is not simply fulfilling its responsibility to protect citizen's rights, but also is claiming authority to dictate their consciences.  To think that the Church is trying to tell people how to live in this case is laughable; it is instead the government who claims the prerogatives of the absolute monarchs of the 17th century, or commissars of the 20th.  It is a totalitarian state that claims that level of control over their citizens' minds and hearts.  If that sounds like overheated rhetoric, I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to describe it.

What is being purposed is not only a violation of our religious liberty, but of our freedom of association as well.  No one is forced to work at a Catholic institution, attend a Catholic school or seek medical services at a Catholic hospital.  If they do choose to associate with the Church in such ways they should know what the policies are, and if they don't like them go elsewhere.  The Times had an article about a student at Fordham Law School who organized a makeshift clinic, of sorts, off campus for students who wanted the Pill but were denied prescriptions at the University clinic. The article was sympathetic to her plight, and used the anecdote to show why the HHS policy is necessary.  But if this young lady was smart enough to get into Fordham, she was smart enough to know it is a Catholic school, and should have taken the time to research the implications of such an affiliation.  I'm sure she was also smart enough to have gotten into NYU or some other private none religious or public law school, and attend one of them if she found that life at a Catholic university would have violated her personal beliefs.  No one is putting a gun to her head or a rosary on her ovary, as the pro-abortion feminist chant goes.  She is free to vote with her feet.

The Catholic Church is not actively seeking the abolition of the birth control pill (heck, we aren't even brave enough to defend the teaching to our own members most of the time).  As far as I know neither are we saying that using contraceptives bars you from from classes at Fordham, for instance.  All we are saying is that if you want them you can't get them here.  Just as this woman has the right to associate or not with Fordham, the Catholic Church has the right to free association, and the government is placing unreasonable restraints on our ability to exercise that right. We are left with the choice of either violating our consciences or closing the doors of our various social service and educational institutions.  Excuse me if I think there are those who see in this policy the means of forcing us to make the latter choice.

More on this later.

No comments: