As I understand it, the accommodation makes no provision for an institution such as Notre Dame, which self-insures, so even if you thought that there was something appealing as a general matter in the attempt, as it were, to shift responsibility for the provision of artificial birth control, sterilization, and abortifacients from the purchaser of the insurance to the insurer itself, this doesn’t help ND, which self-insures.
But as to “what we should do?” There are layers of prudential judgments involved, and the argument is not yet over. But at this point we should be behaving in such a way as to signal the importance of this teaching to us as an institution, and our grave reservations about being forced to behave in a way that compromises our deep moral commitments. The wide range of people (including me) at ND and elsewhere signing the very strong statement prepared by Carter Snead, Robbie George, and Mary Ann Glendon shows that the accommodation did not go nearly far enough to resolve these grave reservations in the minds of people who could not fairly be characterized (as a group or individually) as partisans spoiling for a fight.
But more than just fighting for a better accommodation through the political process, I have a broader hope for how this struggle might be fruitful for the Church. I would love to see Notre Dame take this opportunity as a community to consider together not just the liberty that is at stake, but the teaching that we are being asked to compromise in deference to a vision of human relationships that is quite out of step with our tradition but has come to dominate even Catholic culture, if the polls are to be believed. In this way, a secular threat to our fundamental character and mission as a Catholic institution might end up serving as a needed wake up call to embrace our tradition with greater openness and zeal. If we do not in fact live up to our ideals, if the clergy don’t preach them, if our schools don’t teach them with confidence and vigor, we should be little surprised when the cultured despisers of religion presume that we can be easily coerced to abandon them. And considered this way, we see that a zeal for the truth and for the formation of conscience brings us back to a consideration of liberty in another dimension: VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT [the truth shall set you free].
Rev. William R. Dailey, CSC
Visiting Associate Professor of Law
Notre Dame Law School
Notre Dame is being forced by the Obama administration and, indeed, by the president himself, to discern whether it shall be a Catholic apostolate. No Catholic apostolate can give faithful witness to the truths of Catholicism, including the truth that contraception is morally evil, if it complies with the HHS mandate. The decision which Notre Dame faces is perhaps complicated a bit by the awkwardness of having welcomed President Obama here so warmly three years ago, and by the repeated good-faith efforts of Fr. Jenkins to persuade the administration to provide real protection for religious liberty. Even so and however awkward it might feel, the university should live out its call to be a witness to the Gospel, and refuse to cooperate with the Obama administration’s oppressive policy.
Gerard V. Bradley
Professor of Law
Notre Dame Law School
I think that it is important to note that the new rule still exempts houses of worship and their employees, as well as other institutions that primarily employ and serve co-religionists. Under the law, churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship will not be required to cover contraceptives, and I think that it is good that such institutions remain exempted from the law. I also think that it would be good if men and women who want and would benefit from coverage of preventative services but who are employed by a religious institution could still receive coverage for those services. However, the new law is problematic because it seeks to define what is or isn’t a primarily religious organization or ministry not only by the demographic that the institution employs but also by the demographic that it serves. When a hungry person comes to a Catholic soup kitchen, he or she is fed, regardless of his or her religion. That does not make the soup kitchen less Catholic (in fact, I would argue that it makes the soup kitchen more Catholic). Thus, the demographic that is served by an institution is not necessarily indicative of whether or not the institution is primarily religious. For this reason, I think that we might benefit from a broadening of the health care exemption.
Finally, I understand that there is a possibility that the new health care rule has imperiled the future of the Affordable Care Act, without which we would not be talking about extending preventive services for women to anyone. I think losing the Affordable Care Act all together would be a tragedy, and I hope that that is not the final outcome.
Lauren Rasch
Senior, Program of Liberal Studies
Notre Dame should dissociate itself from protests that have narrow and hypocritical political ends. If it wants to be a witness to truth, let it be to larger truths. One truth is that there are poor mothers. Society cannot demand that they give birth to children that they do not have the money to care for. Changing the economy or the systems of social support so that this becomes possible should be acceptable if we want to regard abortion as a “choice.” Another truth is that respect for life is not limited to the unborn, but covers the life of all humans. This can start with being kind to our own children, and to those of our neighbors who are different from us. It can end with not feeling a thrill on hearing the drums of war, and not believing that the deaths of civilians abroad are unavoidable. Even if we don’t like them, it ought not to be so easy to deny that what they possess is indeed “life.”
Mazen El Makkouk
PhD Candidate, Literature
