LAWSUIT FILED: Notre Dame v. Sebelius

May 21, 2012

A Message from Father John Jenkins, C.S.C.,

President, University of Notre Dame

Today the University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana regarding a recent mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  That mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching.  The decision to file this lawsuit came after much deliberation, discussion and efforts to find a solution acceptable to the various parties.

Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about:  it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services.  Many of our faculty, staff and students -- both Catholic and non-Catholic -- have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives.  As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs.  And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents.  We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.  For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions.  For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements.  If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name. 

The details of the process that led to the mandate are publicly known.  In an Interim Final Ruling issued August 3, 2011, the federal government required employers to provide the objectionable services. A narrow exemption was given to religious institutions that serve and employ primarily members of their own faith, but, departing from a long tradition in federal law, organizations like Notre Dame—schools, universities, hospitals and charitable organizations that serve and employ people of all faiths and none—were granted no exemption, but instead were made subject to the law to the same extent as any secular organization.  On September 28, I submitted a formal comment encouraging the Administration to follow precedent and adopt a broader exemption.

Despite some positive indications, the Administration announced on January 20, 2012, that its interim rule would be adopted as final without change.  After an outcry from across the political spectrum, President Obama announced on February 10 that his Administration would attempt to accommodate the concerns of religious organizations.  We were encouraged by this announcement and have engaged in conversations with Administration officials to find an acceptable resolution.  Although I do not question the good intentions and sincerity of all involved in these discussions, progress has not been encouraging and an announcement seeking comments on how to structure any accommodation (HHS Advanced Notification of Proposed Rule Making on preventative services policy, March 16, 2012) provides little in the way of a specific, substantive proposal or a definite timeline for resolution.   Moreover, the process laid out in this announcement will last months, making it impossible for us to plan for and implement any changes to our health plans by the government-mandated deadlines. We will continue in earnest our discussions with Administration officials in an effort to find a resolution, but, after much deliberation, we have concluded that we have no option but to appeal to the courts regarding the fundamental issue of religious freedom.

It is for these reasons that we have filed this lawsuit neither lightly nor gladly, but with sober determination. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The lawsuit is available online at http://opac.nd.edu/public-information/hhs-complaint

Bishop Jenky Homily

A campus controversy has developed at Notre Dame over Bishop Daniel Jenky's recent homily in which he said, "Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path." Bishop Jenky, C.S.C. is the local ordinary of the Diocese of Peoria, IL and sits on Notre Dame's Board of Fellows; you can read the full text of his homily here. In response, scores of Notre Dame faculty denounced Bishop Jenky and demanded that he either retract his statement or resign from Notre Dame's Board. You can read the faculty letter to the Observer, addressed to Rev. John Jenkins and Richard Notebaert, Board Chairman, here. A number of Catholic scholars have responded to the Notre Dame faculty, including Michael Pakaluk, Chairman of the Philosophy Department at Ave Maria University, in his piece, "Incendiary Educators." For background on the controversy surrounded President Obama's visit to Notre Dame in 2009 when he was awarded an honorary degree as commencement speaker, read the National Catholic Register's interview with Rev. Bill Miscamble, C.S.C.

'Beyond Ignorance and Dogma' by Christian Smith

Notre Dame Sociology Professor Christian Smith gave sociologists who deride religion a dressing down in the most recent issue of the American Sociological Association's journal. In "Beyond Ignorance and Dogma: On Taking Religion Seriously," Prof. Smith says,

"The time has come for American sociology to stop being so ignorant and dogmatic about religion. As someone who knows something about the real history, cultures, and organizations of religious traditions, I am regularly appalled by the illiterate prejudices about religion that are routinely expressed by sociologist colleagues. It is embarrassing for our discipline and galling to those who know better."

Read the full article on page 14 here.

World Down Syndrome Day is Today

The University of Notre Dame community will mark World Down Syndrome Day on Wednesday, March 21, with Mass at 5:15 pm in the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, followed by a reception in Remick Commons in Carole Sandner Hall (located behind the Basilica). This gathering, to which all members of the campus and off-campus communities are invited, is in support of persons with Down Syndrome and their families. Sponsorship of the free event is provided by the Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE) and the Jacques Maritain Center. This March 21 is the seventh anniversary of World Down Syndrome Day but is the first time the day will be officially observed by the United Nations.

Here are two wonderful youtube videos celebrating the blessings the Down Syndrome children bestow on their families:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVxz71ygHbk

http://www.ds-int.org/let-us-in-i-want-to-learn

NRO covers Edith Stein Project

Katheryn Jean Lopez of the National Review Online covered last weekend's student-run Edith Stein Project in her discussion of the current contraception debate. Her article quotes Margaret Kennedy, one of our undergraduate assistants, who served as a co-chair of the conference. An excerpt:

“Contraception,” she says, “is but a mask,” covering up our vulnerabilities. It’s like alcohol, she adds: “a way not to confront our fears or take responsibility for our actions.”

Read the full article here.

Unacceptable Compromise

Unacceptable

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services.  Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.  It is certainly no compromise.  The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust.  Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage.  For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers.  More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual.  They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer.  It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer.  What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.  This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.  It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty.  The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

Signed:

John Garvey

President, The Catholic University of America

Mary Ann Glendon

Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

Robert P. George

McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead

Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Yuval Levin

Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Carter Snead in WSJ

Future Director of the Center for Ethics and Culture Carter Snead, of Notre Dame's Law School, and Princeton University Professor Robert P. George have written an article that was published in today's Wall Street Journal. They analyze last week's struggle over funding between the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood. An excerpt:

"The reality is that Planned Parenthood—with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion—does little in the way of screening for breast cancer. But the organization is very much in the business of selling abortions—more than 300,000 in 2010, according to Planned Parenthood. At an average cost of $500, according to various sources including Planned Parenthood's website, that translates to about $164 million of revenue per year.

So how did Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in politics and the media react to Komen's efforts to be neutral in the controversy over abortion?

Faced with even the tiniest depletion in the massive river of funds Planned Parenthood receives yearly, the behemoth mobilized its enormous cultural, media, financial and political apparatus to attack the Komen Foundation in the press, on TV and through social media.

The organization's allies demonized the charity, attempting to depict the nation's most prominent anti-breast cancer organization as a bedfellow of religious extremists. A Facebook page was set up to "Defund the Komen Foundation." In short, Planned Parenthood took breast-cancer victims as hostages."

Read the full article here.

Contraception debate rages on campus

Notre Dame's official student newspaper, the Observer, has been printing a series of Viewpoint letters to the editor concerning the HHS mandate that will force Notre Dame and other Catholic institutions to provide coverage of contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs through its health insurance. Today we are proud to feature a letter written by one of the students in our Integritas undergraduate formation program. It was published in the February 6 edition of the Observer:

I would like to reply to Notre Dame Right to Life officers' Jan. 31 letter, "Contraception and Dignity," touched off when it sternly condemned the use of artificial contraception. I am going to argue on behalf of the original letter's position by responding to some of the arguments made by "Contraception and Dignity," Feb. 3.

Emily Bienek, Joel Moore and John Galeziewski argued contraception can mitigate the harmful consequences of domestic violence, rape and drunken hook-ups. This argument fails because these problems cannot be solved by contraception. If women are really so afraid of being assaulted by friends, boyfriends, husbands and strangers they feel they must be taking contraception at all times to prevent unplanned pregnancies, our society suffers from a far greater problem than a lack of reproductive choice.

I would rather make the world safe from violence against women than hand out birth control pills to potential rape victims. Similarly, the fact that many Notre Dame students regularly get so drunk that they cannot control their behavior contributes to a host of problems of which unplanned pregnancies are only one. We can better resolve that issue by helping students drink responsibly than by constantly struggling to reduce the harm they do to themselves and others when they are drunk.

Bienek, Moore, Galeziewski and Anne Reser all made the point artificial contraception helps women by allowing them to regulate how many children they have and when they have them. This allows women to pursue other goals before starting a family and to responsibly regulate the size of their families once they have them. Abstinence before marriage and NFP during marriage can do the same things. Researchers at the University of Heidelberg in Germany found NFP is as effective as "the pill" at preventing conception, and (forgive the cliché) abstinence remains the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs.

John Galeziewski suggests NFP, even when properly used, is no different than other forms of contraception. On the contrary, NFP does not upset the delicate chemical balance within a woman's body in ways that could damage her health, as hormonal contraceptives do.

It also does not fundamentally change the nature of the sexual act by chemically or mechanically eliminating one of its key functions, something all forms of artificial birth control do as well. Finally, NFP makes sex more intimate for couples that use it by giving them a greater understanding of the natural reproductive process and how to work within it to plan their families.

Anne Reser deplores the fact "there are still people who believe that a woman's dignity is somehow tied to her ability and desire to have children." I believe she has misunderstood "Contraception and Dignity" on this issue. At the risk of putting words in the authors' mouths, I believe the people behind "Contraception and Dignity" would not call a woman's reproductive ability the sole source of her worth. Rather, they would assert that a woman derives her dignity from all of the various and wonderful gifts God has bestowed on her by making her in His image, and that her ability to create and nurture life within her own body is merely one of these gifts, though it is an awe-inspiring and very important one.

Women do not need artificial birth control to protect themselves, plan their families or affirm their dignity. They can avoid unplanned pregnancies and STDs by abstaining from sex before marriage and regulate the births of their children within marriage by using NFP. They can better respect themselves by embracing their ability to bear children as an important part of their nature than they can by denying the beauty and significance of one of the greatest abilities of any human person, which they alone happen to possess. The only thing women (and men) "need" artificial contraception for is to have sex whenever they want and with whomever they want. Modern society thinks sex should be like television: entertainment on demand. Those of us who believe that sex is a total, loving and fruitful gift from one person of incommensurable dignity to another believe sex was meant for something more.

Elliott Pearce
junior
Knott Hall
Feb. 3

The Best Thing in Life Was Unplanned

This Friday Ryan Bomberger will be giving a talk at Notre Dame on life issues in the black community at 4 p.m. in the Geddes Hall auditorium.  Ryan Bomberger is a pro-life activist who founded the Radiance Foundation to spread the light and beauty of life.  This Christmas season, Bomberger used the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ to honor the joy of all life.  As he so aptly puts its, the circumstances in which Jesus was born reflected the difficulties many experience in facing unplanned pregnancies:  "An unplanned pregnancy. A courageous teenage mother. A father who chose adoption over abandonment. This is Christmas. Without this scenario, we wouldn’t be honoring the most history-altering moment for humanity."

Even though Christmas is long past, the Holy Family and their decisions in light of less than ideal circumstances stands as a true testament to the wonderful gift of life.

To read more of Bomberger's article on Life News, click here.

ND to welcome Patrick Deneen to faculty

Georgetown political science professor Patrick Deneen has publicly announced his move to Notre Dame this fall. He is the founding director of the Tocqueville Forum on the Roots of American Democracy, an accomplished scholar, and a devout Catholic. His announcement has rocked Georgetown's Government Department, and is a cause for celebration at Notre Dame. Read more about his reasons for moving to Notre Dame in his blog post "Why I am leaving Georgetown."

An excerpt:
"Notre Dame has recruited me explicitly because they regard me as someone who can be a significant contributor to its mission and identity, particularly the Catholic identity of the institution. Considerations of “mission fit” has become a criterion for faculty hiring at Notre Dame – indeed, it was a major consideration in seeking to hire me – whereas it is generally not a consideration at Georgetown. Without such a criterion, Georgetown increasingly and inevitably remakes itself in the image of its secular peers, ones that have no internal standard of what a university is for other than the aspiration of prestige for the sake of prestige, its ranking rather than its commitment to Truth. Its Catholic identity, which should inform every activity of the community, from curriculum to dorm life to faculty hiring, has increasingly been cordoned off to optional activities of Campus Ministry. I would like to be a contributor to a more widely-embraced institutional mission in the life of my institution and community. I don’t doubt that there will shortcomings at Our Lady’s University. But, there are at least some comrades-in-arms to share in the effort."

Read a Georgetown student's analysis of the loss here. An excerpt from "The State of the University":

"Perhaps more alarming, though, is Deneen's explicit grievance at the lack of Catholicism at this place. We are Georgetown, the nation's oldest and preeminent Roman Catholic college, founded by no less than the first Catholic bishop in the United States. We are the touchstone of Catholic education in this country. If Georgetown loses the faith, who indeed is left to defend it?

In a word, it is a tragedy that brilliant Catholic academics who wish to integrate their religious convictions into their vocation no longer feel welcome in Washington. We will never go back to being a small religious school. To have the space compressed, however, for those who would defend the old ways, and to squeeze them out slowly is the best example of eradicating intellectual diversity from a place that ostensibly prizes free discourse and thought."

HHS refuses to expand religious exemption to contraception mandate

Earlier this year, Fr. Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, wrote a letter to Kathleen Sebilius, Health and Human Services Secretary for the Obama administration, making a plea for a wider religious exemption from the new laws requiring all employers to cover contraception in their health insurance plans for employees. That plea has fallen on deaf ears. The Obama administration has refused to modify its new rule requiring Notre Dame and religious educational institutions like it to provide coverage of contraceptives in all its health insurance plans. Religious institutions are being given until Aug. 1, 2013 to comply fully with the new mandate. Here is the full statement from the HHS:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 20, 2012

Contact: HHS Press Office (202) 690-6343

A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible.  The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.  Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country. 

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.  We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.  We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good.  And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

Happy Feast of Bl. Basil Moreau!

Today we celebrate the feast day of Blessed Basil Moreau, CSC, the French priest who founded the Congregation of Holy Cross, which founded Notre Dame. Here is a special reflection for today's feast, by a long-time friend of the Center:

Happy Feast of Blessed Moreau

Published: January 20, 2012

Author: Mr. Andrew Polaniecki

http://vocation.nd.edu/blog/28406-happy-feast-of-blessed-moreau/

The beatification of Blessed Basil Moreau took place in Le Mans, the place in France where he lived, died and was buried, as well as the home of the mother church of his order, the Congregation of Holy Cross. The beatification of Blessed Moreau testifies that he practiced the theological and cardinal virtues to a heroic degree and that he is model of a life that exhibits vision, prayer, zeal, and extraordinary piety.
The first decades following the French Revolution, which were also the years when Blessed Moreau was first ordained a priest, the European world was moving in a direction that emphasized social individualism over the collective good, an ideological shift that continues to be prominent in our secular culture today. It is therefore appropriate for all people, both professed religious and the lay faithful, to use Blessed Moreau’s Feast Day as an opportunity to reflect on an idea that is central to the life of the Congregation of Holy Cross: a sense of community that would be in radical opposition to society’s growing emphasis on the individual.

Early in the life of Holy Cross, Blessed Moreau presented his religious with the Holy Trinity as the image of the union they should strive for among themselves: “Just as in the adorable Trinity … there is no difference of interests and no opposition of aims or wills, so among the priests, brothers, and sisters there should be such conformity of sentiments, interests and wills as to make all of us one in somewhat the same manner as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. This was the touching prayer of our Lord for His disciples and their successors: “That they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I am in you’” (Circular Letter 14).
In other words, characterizing the communal life of Holy Cross are individuals sharing a life of common prayer and work where the good of the community would be put ahead of the good of the self.  Whether in educational institutions, parish life, or missionary endeavors, Blessed Moreau believed that the common life of the community would be the driving force for the evangelization and transformation of the people Holy Cross religious served. He hoped that the lived witness of the communal and common life of Holy Cross would lead observers to a radical commitment to the service of God.   

The current Constitutions of the Congregation of Holy Cross state it this way: “It is essential to our mission that we strive to abide so attentively together that people will observe: ‘See how they love one another.’ We will then be a sign in an alienated world: men who have, for love of their Lord, become closest neighbors, trustworthy friends, brothers” (Constitutions 4:42).

Like many others, my four years of high school consisted of playing sports, attending class, hanging with friends in the lunch room, and growing in faith and knowledge. However, these ordinary experiences where shaped and formed by the lives of the 10 or so Holy Cross religious that were the very flesh and spirit of the Notre Dame High School community (today called Notre Dame College Prep) in Niles, IL.  What I never envisioned was that the joy, faithfulness, and love that I saw in this family who were my teachers, coaches, and mentors would inspire me to live my life in a uniquely “Holy Cross” way.

Although I initially discerned a vocation as a Holy Cross religious, I was eventually led by the Spirit and called by God to be a Holy Cross educator in the faith as a married man and father.  Blessed Moreau’s charge that it is necessary to live a life of common prayer and shared faith is still entwined in the very depths of my heart. I primarily live out this life in my family, but I also live it out with the Holy Cross religious that I work with on a daily basis as the director of Campus Ministry, the dozens of Holy Cross lay educators that partner with me to make up the faculty and staff of Holy Cross College, and of course the hundreds of students with whom I am intimately connected on a daily basis.

Blessed Moreau’s Feast Day is one of great joy in which we give thanks and praise for his family of religious men and women who share a common life of faith and work together to bring hope to the world.

Mr. Andrew Polaniecki, who spent several years in formation with Holy Cross at Old College, is now the Director of Campus Ministry at Holy Cross College in Notre Dame, Ind. A great friend of and collaborator with Holy Cross, he helps us today celebrate the Feast Day of Blessed Basil Moreau. Learn more about the holy founder of the Congregation of Holy Cross.

You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown

We at the Center for Ethics and Culture congratulate our old friend, Msgr. "Charlie" Brown, a graduate of Notre Dame, who on the Feast of the Epiphany was ordained Archbishop Charles Brown by Pope Benedict XVI in Rome. He now goes to take up his new position as papal nuncio in Ireland. Bishop Brown has spoken at a number of our events over the past five years, most notably the annual Fall Conference; he helped organize our annual medical ethics conference when we took it to Rome; and he has been a good friend of many of us at the Center, especially David Solomon, who has know him since he was an undergraduate at Notre Dame. You can read Pope Benedict's homily for the occasion here.  Let us pray for the new archbishop, and for the whole Church, as he goes serve Ireland, where the Church is in great need of his holiness, wisdom, and compassion.

The Contraception Mandate

Notre Dame Law Professor Rick Garnett has a column in USA Today arguing that the mandate for contraception coverage in all new healthcare plans should be scrapped. The mandate violates the conscience rights of religious institutions who are opposed to contraception, abortion, and sterilization. An excerpt:

"It is true that the administration's proposed mandate includes an exemption for some religious employers, but it is so stingy as to be nearly meaningless. It does nothing for individuals or insurers, and it applies only to employers whose purpose is "the inculcation of religious values" and that hire and serve primarily those of the same religious faith. The vast majority of religious educational, social-welfare and health care organizations — not to mention the ministry of Jesus on earth — do not fit this crabbed definition.

The proposed exemption covers only inward-looking, members-only, religious-instruction organizations while excluding those that respond to the call to feed the hungry, care for the sick, house the homeless and share the good news with strangers. Religiously affiliated hospitals, charities and universities that serve people of other religions would be vulnerable. The exemption assumes that religion is only about belief and values, not service, sacrifice and engagement. It purports to accommodate religious believers, but it actually would confine their belief."

Read the full column here.

Fall Conference news coverage

LifeSiteNews ran an article last week on our annual Fall Conference. Kathleen Gilbert has a lengthy article giving the flavor of the proceedings. Find it here. An excerpt:

"Wandering among crowds of professors, scholars, and students at the University of Notre Dame for the 12th annual conference of the Center for Ethics and Culture (CEC) for the first time, one can get a little overwhelmed.

Sit down with a Baptist scholar with a thick Southern accent, and he may just start talking to you about the richness of Catholic social teaching, and Marian tradition.

Or you might just run into the “Orthodox posse,” a group of Eastern scholars often hovering near ethicist Tristram Engelhardt, who may buy you a scotch and ask just why exactly you haven’t converted to the true faith.
In any event, the first thing that’s clear is that the CEC annual Fall conference is no ordinary scholarly conference. The second, is that this conference forms an intellectual catalyst for advancing the culture of life virtually unparalleled at any other university in America."