.
Feedback

Archdiocese of Washington Files Lawsuit Defending Religious Freedom

The Archdiocese of Washington files a lawsuit defending religious freedom.

Today, the Archdiocese of Washington filed a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) unprecedented mandate dramatically redefining religious ministry and requiring religious organizations to provide coverage for drugs and procedures in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.  Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc.; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; and The Catholic University of America are also plaintiffs in the same action.  This local lawsuit is one of 12 actions filed nationwide today, on behalf of 43 separate Catholic institutions around the country.

The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment and federal law by forcing the plaintiffs, all Catholic organizations, to sacrifice their beliefs in order to be able to continue their mission of serving all people in need. Specifically, the suit stems from the mandate’s new definition of what constitutes a religious organization. Contrary to long-standing precedent, the law exempts from the mandate only those religious institutions that primarily serve and employ individuals of their own faith.  Any other religious organizations, like Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and charities that serve all individuals regardless of their faith, do not themselves qualify as religious for purposes of the exemption.  Consequently, the HHS mandate forces these organizations to act in direct violation of their Catholic beliefs.

“For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice—schools, hospitals, and social service organizations—are not ‘religious enough,’” said Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington. “Catholic institutions of the Archdiocese of Washington, including its schools and social service ministries, do not qualify as religious and the mandate forces them to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that we believe are morally wrong,” Cardinal Wuerl said.

The current law states that a Catholic institution is exempt from the mandate only if the federal government determines that the inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization and that it mainly serves and employs Catholics. So, the mandate gives special power to a federal government official to regulate and investigate religious organizations and their ministries.  The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that this government interference with the free exercise of religion violates the First Amendment.

“There is no way out of the dilemma the mandate forces upon us.  Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and social service ministries employ and serve millions of people in this country and do so without regard to their religious beliefs.  Under the government’s new rules, religious organizations will face an impossible choice,” said Jane Belford, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Washington. “Serving our neighbor is part of our baptismal calling.  We do what we do because we are Catholic, not because those we serve are.  We have always asked:  Are you hungry?  Are you sick?  Now, we will be forced to also ask:  Are you Catholic?” said Mrs. Belford.  “This is wrong. Our mission is to serve the needs of our neighbors regardless of their faith or their beliefs.”

Through the legal action filed today, the archdiocese aims to defend through judicial means the fundamental human right to religious freedom.  The plaintiffs are seeking a solution supported by the First Amendment and federal law, which permits all religious organizations, not just houses of worship, to follow their religious convictions and continue to serve all who are in need.

For more information, visit www.preservereligiousfreedom.org.

 

# # #

barbin May 22, 2012 at 02:27 pm
This lawsuit is all about the Roman Catholic Church imposing its will on its institutions that hire non-Roman Catholics. Yes, imposing its religion on everyone else. The Church may win the lawsuit, but it's a loser--on many levels--regarding women.
jj May 22, 2012 at 02:51 pm
No one is forcing people to work for these Catholic organizations. If you elected to work for such an organization you must accept the health plan they offer. Obama Admin is just using this matter as a backdoor war on the church -- the " I hate religion crew " has control over the Dem party now. Women have the same right to guide their own lives as before. Wake up and stop the nonsense.
Piotr Gajewski May 22, 2012 at 03:15 pm
JJ
United States Congress (not Obama) rejected the notion that a company can pick and choose what coverage to exclude from its medical plan when it voted down the Blunt Amendment. Republican Lisa Murkowski originally voted for the amendment but then had a major change of heart after hearing from her constituents. You can read about it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/lisa-murkowski-blunt-amendment_n_1323427.html
Jeff Hawkins May 22, 2012 at 03:25 pm
I think what you are trying to say is that our premiums will go up...... whether or not it's a tax in the classic sense, the end result is the same..........somebody has their hand in my wallet.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/
Theresa Defino May 22, 2012 at 03:31 pm
No, that is NOT what I am trying to say. Don't put words in my mouth. It's not "free," it's not a tax, and you certainly aren't paying for it. There is now a medical loss ratio rule that requires health plans to spend more on actual care and make less in profits. You need to understand all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act and how they are working. This is one small part, designed to ensure that people actually get what they pay for from the for-profit (and fake non-profits) health insurances that run our system.
Jeff Hawkins May 22, 2012 at 03:47 pm
@Theresa:
Did you read the link to FactCheck.org ???
Theresa Defino May 22, 2012 at 03:51 pm
Yes, did you? They said there was no evidence that premiums would go up, and no evidence they wouldn't. I also didn't find their analysis rooted in the context of the rest of the law, which, as I said, caps profits.
Theresa Defino May 22, 2012 at 03:52 pm
It also requires reviews of premium increases, which has never happened before.
Jeff Hawkins May 22, 2012 at 04:06 pm
Yes I did.........that's why I shared it with you. It appears this goes back to my original comment. It depends one's slant doesn' it? By both the writer and reader.
Theresa Defino May 22, 2012 at 07:03 pm
This author of this piece, Brie Hall, is a communications manager for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. That should be posted somewhere by Patch. She gets paid to do PR for the church. Patch should seek out alternative views and not present this as faux news.
Jeff Hawkins May 22, 2012 at 07:28 pm
@Theresa;
"This author of this piece, Brie Hall, is a communications manager for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. That should be posted somewhere by Patch. She gets paid to do PR for the church. Patch should seek out alternative views and not present this as faux news." It appears that she is doing her job I guess? It looks like all the authors who use the "Local Voices" section do NOT identify who they are with and Patch does not either, nor does anybody offer an official counterpoint to any of them. For example Ben Cardin, just a picture of Ben and his name and his story......no identity given, no counterpoint offered. I suppose it's up to the Patch reader's to question them? Lastly........I don't think anybody is considering this "hard news". You may find this hard to believe, but there are some folks out there who are able to figure it out, but just in case they can't...........you're doing a fine job of "splaining" :)
Shaun Courtney (Editor) May 22, 2012 at 07:53 pm
Hi Theresa, this post appeared as a blog under our Local Voices section. We try to make it clear by labeling it under our Local Voices section that this is not content written by our professional staff. The blog expresses the opinion and viewpoints of the writer. We welcome all viewpoints and would be pleased to have a group that disagrees with the blogger's views write his or her own blog. It is a free platform that we provide to the communities we serve to help create constructive dialogue about issues in our coverage area. -Shaun Courtney, Georgetown Patch Editor
Theresa Defino May 22, 2012 at 09:20 pm
@Shaun: when the writer is being paid to write and post and gives a one-side view of something, his or her employer should be disclosed. This is no different than when you identify the gentleman who writes a column about real estate sales or the woman who posts items on health lifestyles from Shady Grove Adventist. No different also from including a bio of the mom who writes about having an autistic child. I also notice that this post, contrary to the other one written by this archdiocese employee, is not marked "opinion" as her previous post on the HHS Secretary was. You can see that here:
http://rockville.patch.com/search/blog_posts If Patch is to be a respected as a journalistic endeavor it needs to fairly, accurately and consistently present information about its so-called "bloggers" and actively seek to present all sides of an issue. I certainly see Huff Po, your mothership, doing that. Why can't Patch? I also don't see how this posts in any way fit the definition of "blogger," according to your descriptions. They more fit the definition of propaganda that only serves the aims of the employer of the paid writer. "Blog On Patch Share what you know. Ask what you don't. Patch blogs give anyone from gardening enthusiasts to community leaders to local business owners the power to easily share ideas, expertise, questions, or even just a cool photo with the whole neighborhood...."
Tiffany Arnold May 22, 2012 at 09:54 pm
@Theresa — paid by whom? Bloggers aren't paid.
Theresa Defino May 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Which bloggers? Do you work for Patch? As I already wrote, the author of this post works for the Archdioceses of Washington, the subject of this one-sided post. Any reasonable person would conclude she was paid to write this as part of her job duties.
Tiffany Arnold May 22, 2012 at 10:25 pm
I work for Patch. Bloggers do not. That is all I want to clear up.
Theresa Defino May 22, 2012 at 10:38 pm
That was already clear and not what the conversation is about. I asked if you worked for Patch so maybe you could weigh in on why the author of this post wasn't identified as an employee of the Catholic church. If a blogger is paid by his or her employer d to post on Patch and elsewhere, shouldn't Patch identify them as such? And provide basic information about all bloggers? Without a bio and with a byline, Brie Hall actually looks like she works for Patch.
Dave May 22, 2012 at 10:42 pm
This is to jj. The Catholic church's hospitals, such as Holy Cross in Silver Spring, are publicly regulated and their mere existence precludes other non-Catholic hospitals from being built. This is regulated by the state to avoid a glut of hospital rooms. Holy Cross and Adventist Healthcare have been have big battles over who will be granted the right BY THE STATE to build a new up county hospital. Holy Cross is also fighting against Adventist's plan to build a new facility in White Oak. As such, many nurses and other health care workers DO NOT really have the option to work for a non-religious hospital in their area.
Laura L Thornton May 22, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Hello Theresa,
If one clicks on Brie Hall's name at the top of the page, one will arrive at a list of her blogs. To the left of that list, click on "Profile Home," and you'll get this: "About Brie"—"Communications Manager for the Office of Media and Public Relations of the Archdiocese of Washington" The identifications of bloggers are in their profile pages. -Laura L. Thornton, editor of Chevy Chase Patch
Bora Mici May 22, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Should we identify religious freedom for religiously-affiliated organizations as the ability of those organizations to determine what their employees believe and how they act or as their ability to encourage a particular viewpoint?
Theresa Defino May 23, 2012 at 02:15 am
That's very good to know, thank you. I thought I was on the profile page but didn't see the information. Perhaps it should appear under the name, not just when you click on it. I am glad the information was there somewhere, but still think it's probably more useful to reported pieces on provocative topics like this rather than posting the words of just one side and no actual news story. The opinion piece is fine once the news piece runs.
Jeff Hawkins May 23, 2012 at 11:53 am
Can you say fussy !!! :))
LeszX May 23, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Employees can beleive what they want. The issue is what "benefits" the employer needs to provide to employees.
This goes beyond the religious freedom issue. Employers should be free to provide whatever employee benefits they choose. Better yet, if the government did not subsidize employer-provided insurance coverage, employees would be free to choose whatever insurance coverage they want - without reference to the employer.
LeszX May 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Birth control is legal, to be sure, but it is neither safe nor moral.
The postion of the Catholic Church is not established by men - but, rather, by men (and women) faithfully discerning God's will in the matter. If you want to speak about the "war on women", you should take a look at the effect of the drugs and plugs with which men would afflict women - all for the sake of making women readily available as sex objects. Married couples are not obligated to have as many children as physically possible. Using methods that are wholly approved by the Catholic Church, a married couple can successfully limit the number of children, if there is a seriopus reason for doing so.
Bora Mici May 23, 2012 at 09:03 pm
What if an employer who does not believe in contraception coverage employs people who believe that contraception coverage is part of their religious freedom? Why would the employer's belief system override that of the employees? Who gets to determine what people should believe (presuming that people act according to their beliefs?)
LeszX May 23, 2012 at 09:12 pm
Then let the employees pay for their own contraception.
Religous freedom does not mean that everything we want - and is acceptable to our religion - should be provided to us free of charge.
Bora Mici May 25, 2012 at 05:35 am
No - there is no correlation between religious freedom and the provision of benefits free of charge. The problem this article sets out is one of religious freedom and its infringement by the federal government. Unfortunately the author does not define religious freedom but offers a line of complaint that suggests that religious freedom is something unique to established religious organizations and that these particular organizations can impose their beliefs on their employees, whether the employees choose to adhere to these beliefs or not. Creating special interest insurance pools might or might not be viable, but employers need to be respectful of the beliefs of all their employees, even if they constitute a minority.
LeszX May 25, 2012 at 10:55 am
I'm not sure I understand how failing to provide contraception coverage to an employee imposes the employer's beliefs on the employee. Under the law, the employee is still free to procure contraception with her own resources - thus is not prevented from by the employer's beliefs from doing what she wants.
On the contrary, if the employee forces (by dint of federal regulation) the employer to pay for her contraception coverage, she is imposing her beliefs on the employer who may have religious objections to the practice. But I agree, religious freedom is not something that is unique to established religious organizations. Individuals - such as owners of a private business which has no connection to any organized religious activity - should have the freedom to practice their business in accord with their religious beliefs.
ArlVaPete May 25, 2012 at 11:21 am
Freedom of religion = my freedom from your religion.
Freedom of religion = my freedom from my employer's religion. I should have the same choices as everyone else regardless of my employer's religion. End of story.
LeszX May 25, 2012 at 11:25 am
Fine, ArlVaPete, as long as I do not have to pay for your choices. End of story.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Georgetown Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something