In the week that was, we witnessed an especially interesting set of juxtaposed events, as the proprietors of Hobby Lobby met with the Supreme Court and Pres. Obama met with Pope Francis. Religious liberty was at the forefront of both discussions.
As always, we must first sift through the plethora of stabs at rhetorical spin, knowing that political motivations unfortunately always pierce the transparency objective observers crave. In fact, I found the dueling press releases from the White House and Vatican somewhat ironic, as the administration emphasized the topic of “growing inequality,” a phrase absent from the Vatican’s public statement.
The White House press office stated that the Pope “did not touch in detail on the Affordable Care Act,” and that he and Obama “actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms.” Obama added that any social schism “really was not a topic of conversation.”
The Vatican’s far more brief description stated the following: “In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform.”
With the Vatican referring to the case before the high court, the question is: should a company whose owners morally object to an action be forced by government to act anyway?
The issue with Hobby Lobby has zero to do with any or our personal opinions on whether or not birth control and contraception products and services should be included within Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act/whatever-you’re-most-comfortable-calling-it-now. The question before the court is whether the government is violating one’s religious liberty. The family-owned company is a crafts retail chain that objects to being compelled to provide four specific preventive services believed to be abortion-inducing.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” Is the government burdening the owners’ free exercise?
What if we removed the specific subject? What if we spoke of something other than birth control? What if we removed the subject that causes some of our emotions to swell? Simply stated, does the government have the right to trump our religious beliefs? Is some wiser, compelling governmental interest involved?
As I wrestle with this, two aspects cause me to pause. One, if the federal government is allowed to mandate behavior here, how far will they go? What limitations will exist on what government can require? And two, I’m uncomfortable with government feeling they are wiser than the church. Friends, the Intramuralist is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but my sense is that the Pope is attempting to receive his direction from an authority greater than most. Obama uttered a similar statement, saying after their meeting, “His job is a little more elevated. We’re down on the ground dealing with the often profane, and he’s dealing with higher powers.”
My sense is we should pay more respect to anyone dealing with the divine than pursuing our own political policy and opinion. My sense is also that when we begin to justify trumping an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs — whether or not we adhere to similar thinking — we are treading in dangerous territory, less mindful of any “higher power.”
Respectfully,
AR