Before Responding to New Health Care Rules

The following is a statement issued by Bishop Salavatore Cordileone on Friday, February 10.

The backlash provoked by the recent announcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandating all employers to provide insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives and sterilization is an encouraging sign that our nation’s collective conscience is still around. 

People of all political and religious persuasions rightly understood this as an attack on our God-given and constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom, and the recent reaction of the Administration gives us hope that this right can still be protected when we join together to voice our common concern. Its willingness to reopen the discussion is a helpful start to reaching a resolution, although the details of any such revision will still have to be studied and evaluated as they are made known.

The possibility of such a resolution notwithstanding, I wish now to add my own voice of protest to those of over 160 of my brother bishops and to many other people of good will all across the political spectrum. Some people have asked why I have not done so sooner. I hope to make that clear with this statement.

The new federal mandate does allow an exemption for religious organizations, but it gives the most restrictive definition possible. To qualify as a “religious organization,” the organization must (1) employ primarily people of its own faith, (2) serve primarily people of its own faith, and (3) have as its primary purpose the inculcation of religious values.

What many may not know is that the requirements of the HHS mandate are almost identical to a state law we have had in California for over ten years now.

In fact, the 2004 decision of the State Supreme Court in the lawsuit challenging the law,Catholic Charities of Sacramento vs. Superior Court of the State of California, established quite explicitly that it is for the state, and not the Church, to decide for us who is and is not Catholic and what constitutes the “inculcation of religious values.” Now the federal government has stepped way beyond the boundaries of its authority by deeply breaching the wall of separation between Church and state.

While our dioceses as such and our Catholic schools qualify as religious organizations even with this most narrow of definitions, the real problem lies with our institutions that are committed to serving all people in need regardless of their faith or lack thereof, especially our Catholic hospitals, institutions of higher education, and Catholic Charities agencies.

Only very recently was it brought to my attention that, in order to continue serving the poor as only they can, our Catholic Charities of the East Bay made some accommodations in the insurance coverage it offers its employees. I judged that I could not issue my own statement in good conscience without first gathering information and assessing the situation, and then begin to take steps to correct it.

That is exactly what I have been doing these last several days. I have now had an initial discussion with the leadership of CCEB, and will continue working with them to make the necessary adjustments. I pledge to do whatever may be possible to enable CCEB to continue its good work in a way that fully respects our moral principles, but it is quite possible that we will not be able to do so without making some changes to allow for increased expense for employee compensation.

There are those who would say that, if our social service agencies are going to accept government funding, then they must do the government’s bidding. However, the government’s bidding is not to invade the sanctuary of peoples’ consciences. The role of the government is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

In this, faith-based organizations are the most helpful – and should be the most welcome – partners with government agencies, for they accomplish more with fewer resources in serving the poor, the sick and the marginalized, thus contributing to the promotion of justice and the common good.

Here in the Diocese of Oakland we can be rightfully proud of all that our Catholic Charities and Catholic schools accomplish in showing the face of the compassionate Christ to those in great need. When we are pushed out of our ministry of serving the needy by not being allowed to do so with reasonable protections of our conscience, everyone loses….

To read entire statement, Click here.

 

READER COMMENTS

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:11 AM By 4unborn
Without going into detail, Bishop Salavatore Cordileone, indicates he may give employees of Catholic Charities additional money to buy insurance which would include contraceptive and abortifacient coverage. Don’t deceive yourself, Bishop Cordileone! That is immoral also. The only moral alternatives at this time is to continue with coverage the employees have or to go out of business. Look upon this situation as an opportunity for subsidiarity.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:16 AM By Doc Mugwump
God bless you Bishop Cordileone. You have spoken the truth of the teaching of Christ well and with love. This is the type of spiritual/moral leadership that is necessary in our age. Courage!

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:41 AM By JLS
Episcopal shrewdness deserves a raise; so like with abortion, the Church allows it if one intends to protest it. Whoever knew the Church would finally see the light, after two thousand years of error?

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:09 AM By MacDonald
This is not only about CATHOLICS being angry. On Feb. 10 the Wall Street Journal published an article by a Protestant, a Jew, and a Catholic (Archbishop Timothy Dolan), all condeming this intrusion into religious liberty. Very well written! It’s like the recent attempt of the County of San Francisco to prohibit circumcision, which Muslims, Jews and Catholics all spoke out against.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:54 AM By Georgia
Excuses,excuses,excuses. Double talk. Excuses, excuses,excuses. Double talk.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:02 AM By george
Looks like Cali Courts in 2004 contributed insights into Obama’s current focus on trampling the 1st amendment. I think the major players in the RC hierarchy at that time were in LA & SF with Bp. Niederauer waiting in the wings in Salt Lake City… did these progressives lift a finger to to address this evil decision? I’m sure Bp. Cordileone in 2004 was just trying to survive in SD as Bp. Brom’s aux. But now it’s his time to step up with some straight talk & traditional action … no gibberish !!!

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:19 AM By JimAroo
He is setting the stage for his eventual capitulation to his Democrat buddies. You can’t be in bed with the democrats for 70 years and now get upset because you find out they snore. The whole protest by the Bishops looks staged.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:49 AM By Dottie
So what did this Bishop really say? What did he really mean? Is he sewing confusion? Scandal? He admits Obama’s mandate is an attack on Religious Freedom, yet he intends to violate requirements of our faith to serve the poor??? CCC: ” 1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. ONE MAY NOT DO EVIL SO THAT GOOD MAY RESULT FROM IT.” Abortifacients, Contraceptives, and Voluntary Sterilization are Mortal Sins.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:58 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply ot JLS: (1) What you dismiss as “shrewdness” is nothing other than Bishop Cordeleone’s assiduous attention to the juridical definition of the present situation. (2) JLS, the Church does NOT “allow abortion” (the direct killing of preborn infants). You’re suggestion of exceptions to is false. (3) Nor is material heresy, even if it comes in the form of a rhetorical question, acceptable — I am referring to your question, “Whoever knew the Church would finally see the light, after two thousand years?” Reply: Indefectibly, the Church has always been, and will always be, in possession of the light of Christ. Why so? Because Christ himself is the sole source of this indefectibility. Accordingly, in Ludwig Ott’s text on Church dogmatics, we read: “The intrinsic reason for the indefectibility of the Church of Christ lies in her inner relation with Christ, who is the Foundation of the Church (1 Cor. 3:11) and with the Holy Spirit, who dwells in her as essence and life-principle” (297).

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:05 AM By Sandra
I use to be a Democrat–a Kennedy Democrat–Union supporter and organizer–USE TO BE. The Democrats are corrupt, the unions are corrupt. One must move on when the Truth no longer applies and the evil one is leading the pack. Die hard Democrats (thick headed)–wake up! Your liberties are being unsyruped and you support a culture of death.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:44 AM By ANNE
Dottie is correct. – 8:49am. Is the Bishop going to participate in evil? How long did he know his Diocese Charities were participating in evil and did nothing about it? Those in his Diocese must send him the words of the CCC # 1761 quoted in Dottie’s post. The Bishop can not allow his Catholic organizations to participate in Mortal Sins.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:52 AM By Denise
“Only very recently was it brought to my attention that, in order to continue serving the poor as only they can, our Catholic Charities of the East Bay made some accommodations in the insurance coverage it offers its employees” Every dime that Catholic Charities has for all of the food programs in the US are from grants using US Tax dollars, not only that but these grants the Catholic Church applies for and receives are very specific to state that in distributing these tax dollar monies, whether it be for food or care, the Church receiving the grant cannot in anyway evangelize those they help with these services. I saw a grant that forbid Catholic Charities LA from even speaking the name Jesus Christ to clients. Doesn’t anyone GET THIS ? ! You see we’ve already agreed to deny Christ when we took the 30 pieces of silver. Read the grants from which all the money comes! Why shouldn’t the democrats and anyone else for that matter not be baffled that all of a sudden everyone’s screaming my conscience hurts…

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:57 AM By Barb
The government has changed (unjustly) the defining traits of it’s mission and hence it is no longer prudent to accept money from the government.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:59 AM By FrMichael
Dottie, I think you jumped to conclusions. Granted he didn’t write very clearly, but it is certainly possible that by dropping health coverage for CCEB employees, the cash salaries of CCEB employees may have to rise to allow them to buy individual insurance policies with similar amounts of medical (not contraceptive and abortive) coverage. That’s what I took away from the letter. Since his review of CCEB policies is ongoing, IMHO the best choice for us here is to wait until the review is completed and final policy announced. I have trust the Bishop Cordileone, a straight-shooter, will not try to pull a fast one like some of the other CA bishops have been known to do.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:11 PM By JMJ
This bishop is in a very difficult position, but, no matter what: he has to be in obedience of the Holy Roman Catholic Church +JMJ+

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:21 PM By steve
“unsyruped liberties”? I prefer them with jam anyway. LOL

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 2:43 PM By Denise
“Only very recently was it brought to my attention that, in order to continue serving the poor as only they can, our Catholic Charities of the East Bay made some accommodations in the insurance coverage it offers its employees” Every dime that Catholic Charities has for all of the food programs in the US are from grants using US Tax dollars, not only that but these grants the Catholic Church applies for and receives are very specific to state that in distributing these tax dollar monies, whether it be for food or care, the Church receiving the grant cannot in anyway evangelize those they help with these services. I saw a grant that forbid Catholic Charities LA from even speaking the name Jesus Christ to clients. Doesn’t anyone GET THIS ? ! You see we’ve already agreed to deny Christ when we took the 30 pieces of silver. Read the grants from which all the money comes! Why shouldn’t the democrats and anyone else for that matter not be baffled that all of a sudden everyone’s screaming my conscience hurts…

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:02 PM By Mike McLaren
Why should I as a Catholic care about contraception? I have never once heard a parish priest talk about it or why it is a grave sin. I do believe it is a sin, but it’s only because I have done my own studying.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:13 PM By gracedlife. 
Any employee of Catholic institutions who seeks the healthcare services in question must understand that A) the services are in direct violation of our Catholic teachings B) these teachings were instituted by Christ and are based on scripture C) they freely chose to work for the Catholic institutions under fire and D) our tax dollars already and unfortunately subsidize these services through the likes of Planned Parenthood, so they will have no problem gaining access to them. Bishops please stand firm in protecting our first ammendment, which is the real issue here.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:18 PM By JLS
Maguire, not every aspect of religion boils down to some “juridical” procedure. Read the Gospel accounts of Jesus labeling the religious leaders as sharks and sons of the devil … because they reduced religion to legalism.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:22 PM By JLS
Why have the bishops accepted the role of distributors of government ideologies and food supplies? Why are the bishops reduced to nothing more than employees of the government? Why does the government need the Church to distribute its taxpayer welfare?

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:55 PM By Dave N.
So then, it Catholic Charities in Oakland implemented the terms of the HHS mandate a long time ago because that was California law? How can the bishops oppose the Federal regulation but then simultaneous support State laws that accomplish the same thing? This seems like a hypocritical, very confused mess.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:22 PM By JLS
Mike McL, because you are your brother’s keeper.

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:26 PM By JLS
A perspective: If the bishops stopped administrating govt money, then who would the govt find to do it? Would the govt then hire the ex Church bureaucrats who would be laid off for lack of programs to run? Or, wait, maybe this is the defacto situation now, the bishops being in effect the poster boys for the govt programs?

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:40 PM By InformedAndFree
“Only very recently was it brought to my attention that, in order to continue serving the poor as only they can, our Catholic Charities of the East Bay made some accommodations in the insurance coverage it offers its employees. I judged that I could not issue my own statement in good conscience without first gathering information and assessing the situation, and then begin to take steps to correct it.” AND “…but it is quite possible that we will not be able to do so without making some changes to allow for increased expense for employee compensation.” I’m sorry. I don’t fully understand what the Bishop means. Why did he need to make adjustments to employees salaries in the past few days? Is he going to get rid of their health benefits and give them the money to buy their own?

Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:43 PM By JLS
He should not adjust the salaries, and if they don’t like it, then they can leave … “smaller holier Church”.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:55 AM By irishsmile
This bishop is one of the very best!!! Unfortunately his diocese has more than its share of extreme progressives both in the pew and within its clergy. His words are carefully chose but don’t sell this bishop short!!!

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:11 AM By FrMichael
Dave N., while we orthodox Catholics may be well-aware of the numerous abuses in Catholic Charities, CCHD, Catholic schools, and the like, bishops live in a rarefied air where these obvious realities are not apparent. They make a Catholic school visitation and see the crucifixes on the walls. What they don’t see is the Gay/Lesbian/Straight Alliance club. They visit a Catholic Charities site and see the poor being served. What they don’t see is that the short-haired CC worker is a partnered lesbian who moonlights as a “womynpriest” on the weekends. Letters to the chancery get screened by the all-important bishop’s secretary or other chancery functionary. Priests complaining about the abuses and laxness get cast out into obscure parishes or chaplaincies and have no input into diocesan policies. We should applaud when a bishop is able to pierce the fog and realize that all is not well in his diocese. If you aren’t familiar with the classic 1995 article on the subject by James Hitchcock, google JFH-ConservativeBishops and learn!

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:33 AM By John F. Maguire
To the contrary, JLS, there is no reductionism in my post underscoring Bishop Cordileone’s assiduous attentiveness to civil-legal definitions of the present situation. It is that attentiveness, and just that attentiveness, that sheds light on Bishop Cordileone’s February 10 Statement.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:51 AM By Catherine
Fr. Michael, “What they don’t see is that the short-haired CC worker is a partnered lesbian who moonlights as a “womynpriest” on the weekend.” Thank you for helping others to see that this abuse really does take place. A few years ago a friend of mine who had been away from the Church for a few years attended a wedding in a Catholic Church in the L.A. Archdiocese. She was shocked to see women on the altar acting as if they were concelebrating the Mass along with a priest. A short time later I attended a funeral at an Episcopalian Church up north. The female pastor told me that she often met with the female priests down in Southern California. While it is true that the Catholic Church does not permit women priests, disobedience has certainly been taking place.

Posted Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:02 AM By Rosemary Getty
Bishop Cordileone’s former diocese houses the Catholic University of San Diego which in dealing with this problem, refused to accept a health care package which would have appreciably lowered the insurance premiums paid by employees in order to pluralistically accommodate diversely-minded employees and chose a similar package to the one suggested by the good bishop. I would suggest that some committed pro-life attorney look into not one but two violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The first and most obvious is the Free Exercise Clause (tested by Sherbert v. Vernor) the temptation to violate our Catholic faith, and the second, the Establishment Clause. The government is actually practicing a defined (by the Supreme Court) religion, Secular Humanism. (Read “Humanist Manifesto’s I and II” and also James Hitchcock’s “What is Secular Humanism?.” The Catholic Church (or any other for that matter) need not comply to a government not practicing what it preaches from the “bully pulpit.”

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:16 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
The Traditional priests at my Traditional parish have already announced that they will probably give up their health insurance and rely on God rather than surrender to this. If the Bishop gives them money to pay for insurance policies that comply with the Obamanation, isn’t he then guilty of material cooperation with the sins against the Sixth Commandment? God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:32 PM By Tota Tua
Mr Fisher if your priests give up their insurance then they are not being good stewards of the collection entrusted to them, as one heart issue can cost in excess of $100K. They should stick with the Diocesan coverage since it is a larger group the terms of coverage can be specified. Nowhere do I see Bp Cordileone saying that the employees were going to buy coverage outside. That is because in Cali, groups over 50 are required to provide health insurance, but he may be looking at coverage that will cost employees more out of pocket to get the terms he wants. Yes I did insurance in another career.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 8:25 PM By JLS
If St Paul would’ve had health and travel insurance it would have bankrupt the Roman Empire.

Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 8:29 PM By JLS
Rosemary G, is there any legal precedent for taking the government to task for establishing religion? Obviously that is what it is doing, but demonstrating clearly to voters that it is so, does not seem to be an easy thing to do.

Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 11:28 PM By Abeca Christian
Kenneth M. Fisher we still have an obligation to provide health insurance for our priests. I need it for my children, I can’t afford to pay out of pocket even with the insurance, I can imagine how much more it would be without it. To even place that on the head of our Bishops as them committing some sort of sin, I find that unacceptable.