WASHINGTON & SANTA
FE, NM (By Michael
Gerson, WP) February
1, 2012 — In
politics, the timing
is often the
message. On Jan. 20
— three days before
the annual March for
Life — the Obama
administration
announced its final
decision that
Catholic
universities,
hospitals and
charities will be
compelled to pay for
health insurance
that covers
sterilization,
contraceptives and
abortifacients.
Preparing for the
march, Catholic
students gathered
for Mass at Verizon
Center. The faithful
held vigil at the
National Shrine of
the Immaculate
Conception. Knights
of Columbus and
bishops arrived to
trudge in the cold
along the Mall. All
came to Washington
in time for their
mocking.
Catholic leaders are
still trying to
process the
implications of this
ambush. The
president had every
opportunity to back
down from
confrontation. In
the recent
Hosanna-Tabor
ruling, a unanimous
Supreme Court
reaffirmed a broad
religious autonomy
right rooted in the
Constitution. Obama
could have taken the
decision as
justification for
retreat.
And it would have
been a minor
retreat. The
administration was
on the verge of
mandating nearly
universal
contraceptive
coverage through
Obamacare without
public notice. There
would have been no
controversy at all
if President Obama
had simply exempted
religious
institutions and
ministries. But the
administration
insisted that the
University of Notre
Dame and St. Mary’s
Hospital be forced
to pay for the
privilege of
violating their
convictions.
Obama chose to
substantially burden
a religious belief,
by the most
intrusive means, for
a
less-than-compelling
state purpose — a
marginal increase in
access to
contraceptives that
are easily available
elsewhere. The
religious exemption
granted by Obamacare
is narrower than
anywhere else in
federal law —
essentially covering
the delivery of
homilies and the
distribution of
sacraments. Serving
the poor and healing
the sick are
regarded as secular
pursuits — a
determination that
would have surprised
Christianity’s
founder.
Both radicalism and
maliciousness are at
work in Obama’s
decision — an edict
delivered with a
sneer. It is the
most transparently
anti-Catholic
maneuver by the
federal government
since the Blaine
Amendment was
proposed in 1875 — a
measure designed to
diminish public
tolerance of
Romanism, then
regarded as foreign,
authoritarian and
illiberal. Modern
liberalism has
progressed to the
point of adopting
the attitudes and
methods of
19th-century
Republican nativists.
The implications of
Obama’s choice will
take years to sort
through. The
immediate impact can
be measured on three
men:
Consider
Catholicism’s most
prominent academic
leader, the Rev.
John Jenkins,
president of Notre
Dame. Jenkins took a
serious risk in
sponsoring Obama’s
2009 honorary degree
and commencement
address — which
promised a
“sensible” approach
to the conscience
clause. Jenkins now
complains, “This is
not the kind of
‘sensible’ approach
the president had in
mind when he spoke
here.” Obama has
made Jenkins — and
other progressive
Catholic allies —
look easily duped.
Consider
Catholicism’s
highest-ranking
elected official,
Vice President
Biden. Biden had
encouraged
engagement with the
U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops on
conscience rights.
Now he will be
remembered as the
Catholic cover for
the violation of
Catholic conscience.
Betrayal is always
an inside job.
Consider
Catholicism’s most
prominent clerical
leader,
Cardinal-designate
Timothy Dolan, head
of the Conference of
Catholic Bishops.
Dolan had pursued a
policy of engagement
with the
administration. In
November, he met
face to face with
Obama, who was
earnestly reassuring
on conscience
protections. On Jan.
20, during a
less-cordial phone
conversation, Obama
informed Dolan that
no substantial
concession had been
made. How can Dolan
make the argument
for engagement now?
The implications of
Obama’s power grab
go further than
contraception and
will provoke
opposition beyond
Catholicism.
Christian colleges
and universities of
various
denominations will
resist providing
insurance coverage
for abortifacients.
And the astounding
ambition of this
federal precedent
will soon be
apparent to every
religious
institution. Obama
is claiming the
executive authority
to determine which
missions of
believers are
religious and which
are not — and then
to aggressively
regulate
institutions the
government declares
to be secular. It is
a view of religious
liberty so narrow
and privatized that
it barely covers the
space between a
believer’s ears.
Obama’s decision
also reflects a
certain view of
liberalism.
Classical liberalism
was concerned with
the freedom to hold
and practice beliefs
at odds with a
public consensus.
Modern liberalism
uses the power of
the state to impose
liberal values on
institutions it
regards as backward.
It is the difference
between pluralism
and
anti-clericalism.
The administration’s
ultimate motivation
is uncertain. Has it
adopted a radical
secularism out of
conviction, or is it
cynically appealing
to radical
secularists? In
either case, the war
on religion is now
formally declared.
