Eufaula Church of Christ

Last year, the state ended its relationship with Catholic Charities in adoption and foster care because the agency, which operates under the auspices of the Catholic Church, declined to honor the state civil union law. We defended the state’s position.

The government, we wrote, can’t “order Catholic Charities to follow secular law in violation of religious doctrine.” That’s a basic tenet of the First Amendment. Nor, for that matter, can the state pass an anti-discrimination law and then be a willing party to its violation, which is what would have happened had the state continued to contract with Catholic Charities. Thus, the transition of Catholic Charities contracts to Christian Social Services of Illinois — which can abide by the civil unions law because it is not affiliated with the Catholic Church.

This was an example of the tricky road that must be navigated when government functions interface with church-affiliated organizations. The state’s position was correct, we believe, because it imposed no action on Catholic Charities.

The same can’t be said about the ruling last month by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that will require contraceptives to be covered by all employer insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. Here we have the inverse of the Catholic Charities case, as the federal government is requiring Catholic-affiliated institutions — hospitals, colleges, schools, nursing homes and many others — to contradict Church teaching on contraception or be in violation of federal law.

Sure, those institutions have alternatives. They can offer no health insurance to their employees — an act that hardly would be consistent with Christian doctrine. Or, in Illinois, they could choose to be self-insured, which is impossibly impractical for the entities in question.

Complicating this discussion is the striking contrast between official Catholic doctrine on contraception and practice among the Catholic rank and file. According to a survey last year by the Guttmacher Institute, “Only 3 percent of married Catholic women who do not want to become pregnant rely on natural family planning.” Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, himself a Catholic, made a worthwhile anecdotal observation writing in opposition to the HHS rules last week:  “One does not see many Catholic families of six or 10 or 12 that were quite common in the 1950s. Contraception might have something to do with this.”

It’s hard to ignore such evidence, but it should not blur the line being violated under these rules. (Further complicating the debate is Plan B contraception, which most Catholics regard as a form of abortion and will be covered under the HHS rules.)

Last year, the state ended its relationship with Catholic Charities in adoption and foster care because the agency, which operates under the auspices of the Catholic Church, declined to honor the state civil union law. We defended the state’s position. The government, we wrote, can’t “order Catholic Charities to follow secular law in violation of religious doctrine.” That’s a basic tenet of the First Amendment. Nor, for that matter, can the state pass an anti-discrimination law and then be a willing party to its violation, which is what would have happened had the state continued to contract with Catholic Charities. Thus, the transition of Catholic Charities contracts to Christian Social Services of Illinois — which can abide by the civil unions law because it is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. This was an example of the tricky road that must be navigated when government functions interface with church-affiliated organizations. The state’s position was correct, we believe, because it imposed no action on Catholic Charities. The same can’t be said about the ruling last month by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that will require contraceptives to be covered by all employer insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act. Here we have the inverse of the Catholic Charities case, as the federal government is requiring Catholic-affiliated institutions — hospitals, colleges, schools, nursing homes and many others — to contradict Church teaching on contraception or be in violation of federal law. Sure, those institutions have alternatives. They can offer no health insurance to their employees — an act that hardly would be consistent with Christian doctrine. Or, in Illinois, they could choose to be self-insured, which is impossibly impractical for the entities in question. Complicating this discussion is the striking contrast between official Catholic doctrine on contraception and practice among the Catholic rank and file. According to a survey last year by the Guttmacher Institute, “Only 3 percent of married Catholic women who do not want to become pregnant rely on natural family planning.” Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, himself a Catholic, made a worthwhile anecdotal observation writing in opposition to the HHS rules last week:  “One does not see many Catholic families of six or 10 or 12 that were quite common in the 1950s. Contraception might have something to do with this.” It’s hard to ignore such evidence, but it should not blur the line being violated under these rules. (Further complicating the debate is Plan B contraception, which most Catholics regard as a form of abortion and will be covered under the HHS rules.) The real frustration here is that a compromise could easily have been forged had the administration more aggressively pursued it. Hawaii has just such a compromise in place, allowing religious-affiliated employers the right to decline contraceptive coverage as long as employees are informed and given information about obtaining such coverage. Delivering the keynote speech at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference in Washington, D.C., in 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama emphasized the “need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice.” We are on record in favor of the Affordable Care Act, imperfect work in progress though it may be. We want every American to have access to quality health care. But we’re not willing to sacrifice First Amendment sanctity in pursuit of that goal.