Home » Opinion » Do the bishops really need to close hospitals?

Do the bishops really need to close hospitals?

By on October 18, 2012 6:18 am in Opinion / 9 comments

 

Tags

, , ,

Related Posts

About the author

In their dispute with the Obama Administration over the HHS contraception mandate, a number of U.S.bishops have suggested that they will have to close hospitals, schools and Catholic universities if the mandate is not modified or withdrawn.

But would the bishops really be required to do this?  While I’m sympathetic to the bishops’ concerns and support their efforts to broaden the exemption for religious employers, I do not think it is true that a failure in this regard would require the closing of Catholic institutions.  For the moment, I am going to set aside the question of whether closing is the most likely outcome or whether the institutions in question would merely be asked to sever their formal ties with the Church. Clearly, neither is a desirable outcome.

The concept in moral theology that is in play here is known as “cooperation.”  When we facilitate the acts of another person in some way, we are said to be cooperating with them.  If those acts are evil, then we may share some moral culpability for those actions.

In general, Catholics are called to “do good and avoid evil.”  If we share the evil intent of the other person (e.g. driving the getaway car to facilitate a bank robbery), it is said to be formal cooperation with evil and morally blameworthy.  However, if the actor is cooperating but does not share the intent of the other person (e.g. driving the getaway car because you have a gun to your head), their cooperation is said to be material.  Material cooperation may be permissible if the act of cooperation is not itself intrinsically evil (driving a car is, in itself, a neutral act) and there are proportionate reasons for the material cooperation (e.g. fear of death).

A related concept is the degree of proximity between the person cooperating and the original actor.  My moral culpability in the actions of another person may be greater if my actions directly facilitate his act.  If my actions assist the original actor only indirectly and I do not share his evil intent, this is said to be “remote material cooperation” and my moral culpability is reduced still further.

We can assume that some employees of Catholic institutions use contraception, which Catholic teaching holds to be an intrinsically evil act.  To what extent is the Church, as their employer, morally complicit in those acts?

Does the Church share the intent of the actors?  One might be inclined to say “no,” at least at the level of moral principle.  However, if Church institutions are providing insurance that covers contraception, one could use this as evidence that, whatever their stated views, they either share the evil intent or are neutral about it.  On the other hand, if the Church is only providing the coverage because they are mandated to do so by law, that case is considerably weakened.  Ironically, the mandate itself mitigates the problem of formal cooperation. [More]

SOURCE

J. Peter Nixon/Commonweal Magazine

 
 
 
 

9 Comments

  1. Phantom says:
    January 4, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    Fed up with all this political
    negotiating.Politics are always
    negotiable.Principles and our
    religious teachings shouldnt be.Politicians shouldnt due
    Gods work.* See fiscal cliff

    Reply
  2. Ed Hynes says:
    November 23, 2012 at 9:50 am

    “Tom Wilson, how dare you!”???? He questioned what on the face of it appears like an extreme response–how was this “chastising the Church for caring for others”? It looks to me like the reverse. As for the Church’s employee insurance covering contraception, rather than threatening to close hospitals and schools, the Church might have started lobbying for universal health care that was not linked to employment. Or is that anti-Catholic?

    Reply
  3. Catholic Guy says:
    October 19, 2012 at 11:32 am

    There are morally-acceptable ways to get around this, if we have the political will to do it. Contraception coverage could be provided through secular outlets, just as flu shots are currently provided, free of charge to all. Of course, the taxes of Catholics would be partially used to pay for this, but under current law, our taxes are used for a number of things that are sinful to us, such as war, experimentation with WMA such as germ warfare, distribution of condoms to soldiers, etc. The question is– why won’t Congress make this simple adjustment? Answer: because they prefer to prolong the drama for political gain.

    Reply
  4. Dave Melley says:
    October 18, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Wow! It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anyone contort himself into a pretzel trying to avoid a clear moral choice. This really is NOT about contraception. The mandate includes the “day-after” pill which very often, if not always, an abortifacient. To try and justify this by saying it’s only happening in my rearview mirror, not in front of me, I don’t have to object to it because if I didn’t happen to look in the mirror, I might not have seen it, is misusing God’s gift of rational thought. And I haven’t even mentioned the unconstitutionality of the mandate. Come on, folks, Thou shalt not kill even if it’s taking place around the corner.

    Reply
  5. TOM WILSON says:
    October 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    I think the Bishops who are being hyper political in this matter already know it is a moral issue and that they are not about to sin if they follow the Mandate. They have chosen to play cheap politics by screaming that Religious Freedom is at stake–not so of course. It is a Moral issue pure and simple. Not religious. Unfortunately for the political Bishops they are backing themselves into a corner by threatening (their tantrum) to get out of the Hospital etc business (and BIG Business it is)unless like spoiled children they get their way. They have struggled to have their way for centuries and when that dominance is threatened the Church has a habit of acting out rashly and immorally–i.e. burning nonconformists live at the stake etc. They won’t burn them today but they probably once again will make fools of themselves and the Church.SAD.

    Reply
    • Concerned says:
      October 19, 2012 at 10:47 am

      very well said Tom.

      Reply
    • Don_E says:
      November 23, 2012 at 2:10 am

      Wow! To echo Dave Melley – What a pretzel! Just how is abortion NOT a sin? Just how is the freedom to follow what your religion has taught for centuries NOT being denied by the Obama administration? Your saying so doesn’t MAKE it so. The first schools and hospitals in this country were Catholic. Now you are chastising the Church for caring for others? Tom Wilson, how dare you!

      Reply
    • Jim says:
      January 4, 2013 at 10:34 pm

      Tom W — now that you’re retired, you have more time to read history books. Pick up a book that is historically accurate — not the typical Church-hating propaganda inspired by Satan — about the Inquistion. You will then have a substantially different understanding of the Inquisition. You know, a guy published a book in the 1990s titled “Hitler’s Pope”, claiming Pius XII was complicit in the Nazi war crimes. The book made the NY Times bestseller list; yet, secular historians panned it, noting that it was historically inaccurate. My point is that, if the author couldn’t get it right just 50 years after the war, do you really think these idiots who hate the Catholic Church writing 500 years later don’t twist the facts and the lens through which those facts are presented? And you consider yourself a smart man who thinks critically? You are so easily fooled. But, I’ll give you credit — part of the reason you are easily fooled is not because of intellectual deficiency, but because you want to be fooled — you don’t want the Church to be right, because then you would be convicted for your heretical beliefs and your tearing down of the Church. Cheers.

      Reply
 
 

Leave a Comment

 





 
 

 
 
 

Switch to our mobile site