The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

Catholic Church receives federal funds but refuses laws

Parisa Rouie / Opinion Editor
Parisa Rouie / Opinion Editor
Parisa Rouie / Opinion Editor
Parisa Rouie / Opinion Editor

I am a practicing Catholic. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and I plan to vote for him in November.  I believe that health care is a universal right, that life begins at conception, that separation of church and state means that the government should not intrude on the rights and practices of religious organizations and also that no religious organization has the right to intrude on the ability of the government to implement laws that benefit the public.

In the recent debate about the decision of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to require health insurance plans to cover contraception drugs, regardless of religious affiliation, it is not President Obama but the leaders of the American Catholic Church that are wrong.

I do not begrudge those who wish to have an informative, substantial debate about religion’s place in government. However, I refuse to accept the demagoguery coming from the conservative right and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) decrying this move as an attack on religious freedom.

While some argue that this is a blazing attempt by Obama to control the Church, I argue that this is simply a matter of that funny thing called the separation of church and state. The number-one payer to hospitals and health care providers in this country is Medicare, followed by Medicaid.

Medicare and Medicaid are two government-run programs that provide health care coverage for citizens 65 years and older or those below the poverty line, respectively. In 2010, according to the 2011 Medicare Trustees Report, Medicare alone paid out $516 billion in claims. There is no doubt that fine Catholic-aligned institutions received their fair share of that pot.

Story continues below advertisement

Let me ask: If a Catholic institution is receiving funds from the federal government, why should it not also have to abide by federal law?

Religious institutions are barred from receiving tax breaks from the state – Saint Louis University argued to the Missouri Supreme Court that it was not a religious-run institution to receive a tax break from the city of St. Louis to fund Chaifetz Arena in 2007 – so why should they be exempt from any other public law? If the Church wishes to be clear of providing health coverage that is contrary to its practicing beliefs, then it has a clear option: Refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid payments. Would Catholic organizations prefer to refuse these programs, potentially reducing the amount of care they can provide for the sick elderly and poor, or accept that they will have to make available contraceptives to their employees?

Neither Obama nor DHHS is asking Catholic institutions to hand out Plan B pills or perform abortions; simply, they must comply with a law that all public institutions shall adhere to.

Therefore, there is a separation between the church and the state. The Obama Administration’s exception after the uproar – announced on Friday, Feb. 10 – for Catholic institutions should be celebrated, and yet, astonishingly, the USCCB is still up in arms with the controversy of alleged First Amendment violations from the government.

When 52 percent of Catholics agree with Obama’s policy — and a Public Policy Survey noted that over 68 percent of Catholic women have used contraceptives and 90 percent have had premarital sex — maybe it is the Catholic Church that should be revising its policies. Again, to be clear, the mandate from DHHS only requires that birth control be an option to employees as part of their health coverage, not that the institution must supply it to the employee. That is a very big difference.

Insofar as the argument about the intrusion into the religious liberties of Americans, consider this: On Sunday, Feb. 5, Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan asked clergy around the United States to remark about the DHHS mandate during their Homily sermon. Dolan issued a “call-to-arms” to the members of the congregation to “restore religious liberty” to the United States.

The Church’s decision to lecture its members about public policy is disgusting, disappointing and absolutely inappropriate.

It is the clergy’s duty to discern for us what God’s teaching on a particular matter is and then let us, as individuals of faith in good conscience, make personal and private decisions based on our own convictions. Perhaps the biggest violation of the First Amendment in this debacle is Dolan’s decision to have his letter read aloud in Mass. As an American, I am horrified. Why is it that the Catholic Church cannot evolve in its ideals?

Consider: “We must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships and promote adoption.”

If you thought that quote came from Pope Benedict XVI, you would be mistaken. Attribute that to the 44th President of the United States: Barack Obama.

 

Derrick Neuner is a senior in the Doisy College of Health Sciences.

View Comments (5)
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (5)

All The University News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • W

    Western WatchmanMar 1, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Ms. Pratt — No one is trying to take away your precious birth-control pills, and no one wants to force you to work for anyone who is conscientiously opposed to paying for them for you. If you don?t want to get a job working for someone who finds it morally objectionable to pay for chemical contraception, abortifacient drugs, and sterilization procedures, then you?re perfectly free to work for someone else. No one is imposing their faith perspective on you. The choice is entirely yours.

    Reply
  • E

    Elizabeth PrattFeb 28, 2012 at 10:00 am

    I am Catholic, I am married, and my husband and I use contraceptives. We’ve decided that we are financially/situationally unready to have a family and we don’t want to leave it to chance. Even though Natural Family Planning is advertised by the Catholic Church as more effective than hormonal birth control, it requires a great deal more involvement which is impractical for anyone but a stay at home housewife.

    We believe we are being responsible adults, and responsible future parents by not entering into a situation for which we are not prepared. Unless a person is extremely fortunate to be independently wealthy, having an unplanned pregnancy means being partially if not wholly dependent on government programs such as Medicaid and WIC. Making contraception readily available to all women is socially and fiscally responsible, because it will cut down on unplanned pregnancy thus reducing the burden on public programs.

    Hormonal contraception prevents an egg from implanting in the uterus. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, conception/ensoulment does not occur until this has happened. I believe a lot of furor in the contraceptives debate comes from a lack of medical and theological knowledge. Politicians present incorrect information, which their supporters believe without doubt, when they should be researching these things themselves and forming their own opinions.

    The issue that Catholic institutions won’t provide contraceptives as part of their insurance programs is ridiculous. No one is making anyone take contraceptives, the government is not physically shoving them down Catholic women’s throats. To prevent employees who do not follow Catholic beliefs from having contraception is impinging on their rights just as much as Catholics believe the contraception mandate is impinging on theirs. I would also say that if Catholic institutions don’t want to follow federal law by making contraception available TO THOSE WHO WANT IT, they should not provide drug coverage at all, which I’m sure would not be a popular move among Catholic employees of Catholic institutions who have expensive drug expenses for heart disease, cancer, and genetic ailments.

    I believe that preventing a woman’s access to contraceptives is taking our country and our faith down a path that will reverse over a hundred years of human/women’s rights. When the founding fathers declared “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, they didn’t mean just for Caucasian European conservative Christian men, they meant it for all genders, faiths and ethnicities. If, for you, this means un-implanted zygotes as well, more power to you, but don’t force beliefs on others who do not want them.

    Elizabeth Pratt
    U-News Chief Illustrator 2007-2009
    Alumnus, College of Arts and Sciences, 2009

    Reply
  • J

    JFeb 20, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Well, the U. News actually ran two articles about the subject, presenting both sides of the debate, which is something admirable because it is a two-sided debate. You say “with what Catholics actually believe notwithstanding” – what gives you the privilege to decide what Catholics actually believe? show me a quantitative survey that all Catholics – specifically female Catholics – agree with the celibate body of older men (the bishops) on this debate and maybe I will take your comments as marginally more credible.

    Reply
  • J

    JimFeb 18, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    Sadly predictable of U. News to run a column where liberal relativism is presented as somehow “Catholic”, the direct and glaring conflicts with what Catholics actually believe notwithstanding. The fabricated idea of the clergy’s role as enabler of further dissent and imaginary “Catholicism” was just too much.

    Reply
  • J

    JimFeb 17, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Derrick, I don’t think anyone would confuse the President’s quote with the Pope’s. I think you still must be awed by his rhetoric, which after this long, is just sad.

    Reply