Should Catholic Judges Recuse Themselves from the Contraceptive Mandate Cases?

December 26, 2013

I believe Catholics can be good citizens. I also think Catholic judges and justices can fulfill their obligation to respect and enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States. However, I’m not sure the Catholic Church considers a judge’s oath of office to take precedence over the judge’s obligation to avoid being complicit in evil. This is troubling—because the Church has a very broad understanding of what it means to be complicit in evil.

You’re probably at least somewhat familiar with the litigation over the contraceptive mandate included in Obamacare and its implementing regulations. The mandate requires employers with health plans to provide cost-free contraceptive coverage to their employees. However, the government has gone to great lengths to accommodate religiously affiliated nonprofits. Religiously affiliated nonprofits which object to any or all forms of contraception can opt out of any involvement in providing care—requiring the insurer to pick up the costs—by simply completing and submitting a form certifying they have an objection. In other words, they just have to officially state what they have already unofficially stated.

There are dozens of cases involving religious objections to the mandate. Generally speaking though, the cases can be divided into two groups: for-profit companies which claim they have a religious identity and are entitled to be free of substantial burdens on their exercise of religion (and that providing contraceptive care through an insurer burdens their religion), and religiously affiliated nonprofits which assert that the government’s accommodation of them is not sufficient.

Although the for-profit and nonprofit cases raise different issues, tying these cases together is a common argument, which has been advanced most prominently by the Catholic Church and institutions affiliated with it. According to the Church, it violates the moral obligations of a Catholic to do anything—anything—that would facilitate the provision of contraception to an individual. (See this summary of recent court decisions for an overview of this argument.) According to the Church, this includes the simple act of filling out a form certifying that the employer has an objection to contraception. This act by itself would make the employer complicit in evil. It’s for this reason that some religiously affiliated nonprofits are suing over the mandate—even though as result of the government’s accommodation they will not have to pay a penny or spend one minute to arrange for contraceptive care for their employees.

Interesting. Think of the implications of this argument.  If simply filling out a form objecting to contraception makes one an accomplice to evil, what about rendering a judicial decision upholding the contraceptive mandate? This would appear to be a much more affirmative and consequential act than the completion of a form. But if that is the case, how can a judge who is a good Catholic by Church standards possibly render a decision upholding the mandate?

In the past, Catholics in the U.S. have suffered from prejudice and bigotry. One of the traditional knocks against Catholics had been they did not and could not support the separation of church and state. John Kennedy, along with many other progressive Catholic politicians, did much to lay those fears to rest. They showed that support for a secular state is not incompatible with being a good Catholic.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church may now be resurrecting concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen, or at least between being a good Catholic and an impartial judge. In arguing for an extremely expansive understanding of a Catholic’s moral obligation, the Church is effectively undermining confidence in Catholic judges.

There are six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. Can they possibly vote to uphold the contraceptive mandate? If they share their Church’s understanding of what it means to facilitate evil, I don’t see how they can.

Comments:

#1 Jerry Schwarz on Thursday December 26, 2013 at 10:09pm

in my view being a “good” Catholic isn’t something a non-Catholic, especially an atheist, should be judging. 

I’m pretty confident that when the cases get to the Supreme Court that at least one of the Catholic Justices (Sotomayor) will be on the side supporting the contraceptive mandate.  And most likely the result will hinge on the way another (Kennedy) votes.

I know a nun who counsels woman on using contraception.  Is she a “good” Catholic?  I don’t know but I’m sure she would be greatly offended if I told her I thought she isn’t.

#2 Ronald A. Lindsay on Friday December 27, 2013 at 9:48am

Jerry, I thought I was pretty clear that I was discussing what the Church considers to be a “good” Catholic—not what I consider to be a good Catholic. For example, I discuss what a judge “who is a good Catholic by Church standards” is supposed to do.
I’m well aware that there are many Catholics who, thankfully, do not follow Church doctrine on contraception and other issues.

#3 Ophelia Benson on Sunday December 29, 2013 at 6:03pm

It seems to me that whether or not a judge (or a hospital administrator or a doctor or a pharmacist or or or) is a “good” Catholic in church terms is something everybody <I>has<I> to be judging, for the reasons Ron spelled out. If their religious beliefs and “obligations” trump everything else, how could that not be a public concern?

#4 Jerry Schwarz on Monday December 30, 2013 at 12:18am

Ron,

I think you are missing the point.  You wrote “I’m not sure the Catholic Church considers a judge’s oath of office to take precedence over the judge’s obligation to avoid being complicit in evil.” 

And I don’t know either, but what the Church says is irrelevant to me.  What counts is what the Judge thinks.  But the same is true of Protestants or any other religion.  I’m not naive.  I recognize that judges are influenced by lots of things besides the law. For example I’m pretty convinced that Bush v Gore was decided on partisan political grounds.

But the implication of asking them to recuse themselves in contraception (or abortion, or same-sex marriage or ...) cases is in effect asking them to resign because of their religion.

#5 Jerry Schwarz on Monday December 30, 2013 at 12:27am

Ophelia,

No I don’t have to judge whether they are doing what they are doing because they are Catholics. What I care about is what they are doing.  They have professional, legal, and other obligations.  And they should be held to those standards whatever the Catholic Church says.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.