Legal experts say HHS dispute pits government against God

Last updated on: June 22, 2012 at 6:05 am by CNA Daily News

Legal experts say HHS dispute pits government against God 2012-06-22T06:05:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Indianapolis, Ind., Jun 22, 2012 / 12:05 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The HHS contraception mandate shows the federal government asserting its own authority as a “rival” to God, legal scholars warned, as the U.S. Church began two weeks of action for religious freedom.

“Power hates a rival, and allegiance to an all-embracing, monotheistic God poses a significant threat to power,” University of Oklahoma law professor Michael Scaperlanda said during a June 21 panel discussion on religious liberty at the 2012 Catholic Media Conference in Indianapolis.

“We are told today that our nation is too diverse to be influenced by religious moral principles. But history reveals a deeper and darker reason for marginalizing religion,” Scaperlanda said. “Simply put, the state is jealous of the rival source of authority.”

The University of Oklahoma professor offered his thoughts on the mandate, and related threats to the free exercise of religion, alongside Canon Law Society of America President Rita Joyce, and Professor Carter Snead of the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Their remarks to journalists and other media came as the U.S. bishops began the June 21-July 4 “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign. The initiative seeks to rally Catholics against the mandate requiring religious employers to offer objectionable services, including sterilization and abortion-causing drugs.

Joyce spoke about the 23 pending lawsuits that have been filed against the mandate by 56 different plaintiffs, including many Catholic dioceses. The canon law society president is also general counsel for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, which is among the local churches suing to block the mandate.

She stressed that the Church had been forced to defend itself by the Obama administration's denial of conscience rights. While the Church's own internal laws normally require compliance with civil law, the contraception mandate forces the Church to choose between obedience to God, or to the state.

“Canon law defers to civil law in those matters where it doesn't conflict with 'Divine law' – or God's law,” Joyce said. “Civil law, here, is conflicting with our law. It's conflicting with God's law, with the Church's law.”

“We do need to resist it, from a canonical point of view, because civil law here is coming in conflict with canon law.”

Snead, who specializes in public policy and bioethics at Notre Dame, stressed that the Obama administration had not followed through on a promise to “accommodate” employers with moral objections to contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing drugs.

“This is one of the great myths of this debate. There is no accommodation,” Snead said.

Instead, he explained, the president had made a “promise to try to find some form of accommodation by August 2013” for groups with moral objections to the mandate.

“Those of you who pay attention to politics might notice that that's significantly after the presidential election,” Snead remarked.

Even “non-cynical” observers, he said, should ask themselves why the president would wait until after the election “to resolve this very vexed controversy” that involves the “very important voter population” of U.S. Catholics.

He summed up the administration's message to concerned Catholics: “Don't worry about this very serious problem that you're concerned about; I'll deal with it after the election's over, in a way that I'm sure you'll find satisfying.”

The Notre Dame professor described the mandate as a “radical form of coercion” against religious groups. He also rejected the notion that Catholics were seeking to restrict access to contraception, an objection raised by some activists who have sought to shift the debate away from religious freedom.

“The very definition of 'coercion' has been perverted in this debate,” Snead objected. “People are saying that it's 'coercion' on the part of the religious institutions, to not pay for something that is available through other means.”

“It's not coercion for me not to pay for something for you that violates my religious tradition.”

Previous Post

June 21, 2012

Pope prays for Syria as worries of larger conflict loom

Next Post

June 22, 2012 Scholars defend findings of difficulties among same-sex parented children

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who dreamed of a ladder reaching to heaven?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul Joseph Jacob Daniel