It should be an obvious question for journalists who have been covering the Little Sisters of the Poor drama at the U.S. Supreme Court.
What do the sisters do in their ministry work that downgrades their First Amendment rights? What are they doing that undercuts their vows to follow the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church?
There has to be something that creates a legal gap between Catholic parishes and a religious order like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who specialize in taking care of the elderly and the poor.
Maybe the problem is that they do something other than “worship” inside the doors of a chapel or convent? Maybe the problem is that they hire other people to assist them in their ministries? Is that what turns them into a vaguely religious non-profit organization?
These are some of the questions discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which dug into some of the news coverage of this order’s latest visit to SCOTUS. This is, of course, linked to the order’s rejection of the Obamacare mandate requiring most “religious institutions” to offer their employees, and often students, health-insurance plans covering sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including “morning-after pills.”
What’s the problem? Consider this passage from the NPR coverage of the sisters and the high court:
At issue in the case is a Trump administration rule that significantly cuts back on access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, the massive overhaul of the health care system, sought to equalize preventive health care coverage for women and men by requiring employers to include free birth control in their health care plans.
Houses of worship like churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the provision, but religiously affiliated nonprofits like universities, charities and hospitals were not. Such organizations employ millions of people, many of whom want access to birth control for themselves and their family members. But many of these institutions say they have a religious objection to providing birth control for employees.
Maybe the problem is that all churches and synagogues do is “worship,” inside the doors of their sanctuaries, while schools, charities and hospitals (often called “ministries”) do “real” things, like education, medicine and social activism. Thus, even if religious doctrines are at the foundation of their work, these groups are not as “religious” as houses of worship?
The bottom line: The government (along with the press) gets to decide when doctrines are protected and when they are not worthy of protection. After all, it’s crucial that doctrines stay safely hidden inside sanctuary doors, as much as possible.
Moving on. The Little Sisters of the Poor, and lots of other doctrinally defined institutions, believe that they have the right to hire people (to assist in their ministry work) who support Catholic teachings. At the very least, they do not want to cooperate in helping some their workers violate church teachings. Thus, the war over the Obamacare mandate.
To hear the other side of this argument, consider this passage from a CNN report, built on remarks by Brigitte Amiri, the deputy director the of ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom project.
According to Amiri, “the Trump administration and Vice President [Mike] Pence have long wanted to … take away coverage for contraception. They want to block access to birth control. They want to block access to abortion … so this is all part and parcel of the overall attack on access to reproductive health care.”
She maintains that if the expanded Trump rules are upheld for religious objectors, hundreds of thousands of women across the country will lose their contraceptive coverage. Ultimately, Amiri says, there just is no way to maintain birth-control coverage for employees who work for religiously affiliated institutions unless that employer, as she puts it, is willing to “raise their hand” to opt out.
To cut to the chase, the Little Sisters of the Poor do not want to raise their hands and take part in government efforts to help the order’s employees violate Catholic teachings, which the sisters seem to think have something to do with their lives and work.
Ditto for the leaders of many religious colleges and universities, who do not want to cooperate in offering birth control to unmarried students — students who (along with faculty) have signed doctrinal statements promising not to be sexually active outside of marriage. Reporters can note that most Protestant ministries do not object to offering birth control to married employees, but do reject coverage of “morning-after” pills. In other words, these groups have different doctrines than Catholics. Is that surprising?
Once again, what is the difference — under the First Amendment — between a “church” and a religious order such as the Little Sisters of the Poor or a doctrinally defined institution like Wheaton College?
Is it the difference between mere freedom of “worship” and freedom of “religious practice”?
In a strange sort of way, some of the problems seen in news coverage of the Little Sisters of the Poor can be seen in other coverage of Catholic sisters and nuns. I mention this because of a post that I wrote this past week focusing on a New York Times story about the coronavirus crisis and the School Sisters of Notre Dame.
Now, these sisters focus on teaching — which is something “real.” However, please note that the order’s constitution stresses the following:
Our Mission is to proclaim the good news as School Sisters of Notre Dame, directing our entire lives toward that oneness for which Jesus Christ was sent. As He was sent to show the Father’s love to the world, we are sent to make Christ visible by our very being, by sharing our love, faith, and hope.
With that in mind, please consider this passage from my post about the Times report:
It’s crucial to understand that this is a rather long story — 1,200-plus words. There was all kinds of room to explore religious issues linked to the lives and work of these nuns. Why did they take vows in the first place, since there is nothing unusual about women becoming teachers?
In this case, it helps to search the story for some symbolic terms.
Take “Jesus,” for example. Zero hits.
How about “God”? Zero hits.
Maybe “rosary”? How about “Mass,” “vows,” “faith” or “chapel”? No references to any of those terms.
Maybe these terms have nothing to do with the work of the School Sisters of Notre Dame and the lives (and vows) of members of the order?
I kind of doubt that. So what is going on here?
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on.
ybvdadminuser
