Submit or Subvert?
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : October 6, 2004
I just read a Christianity Today “Weblog” about California forcing Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive health benefits to employees, per state law.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that contraceptives are immoral, as the Catholic Church teaches. At this point, which would be the most Christ-ian thing to do:
1. Submit to the law and start paying for contraceptive health benefits for employees.
2. Subvert the immoral law by refusing to pay.
3. Do #1, meanwhile appeal.
4. Do #2, meanwhile appeal.
5. You believe the question is invalid.
Give your answer, followed by a reason, if you would. I’ll post what I think they should do in a few days…
Mark Van Steenwyk is the editor of JesusManifesto.com. He is a Mennonite pastor (Missio Dei in Minneapolis), writer, speaker, and grassroots educator. He and his wife Amy have been married since 1997. They are expecting their first child in April.
Anchored in the West Bank neighborhood of Minneapolis, Missio Dei is committed to following Jesus' way of peace, simplicity, prayer, and hospitality.
The Missio Dei Breviary includes morning and evening prayers for one month. Edited (and freely shared) by Missio Dei, it draws primarily upon the Gospels, reflects Anabaptist convictions, and emphasizes missional commitment.
Christarchy! is a growing network of small groups for people who want to put the ethical teachings of Jesus into practice.
As an evangelical who truly does think contraception is immoral, my answer might surprise you. I would say #1, they should submit to the law. The reason is because they have non-Catholic employees and those employees are not required to profess Catholic beliefs. If the State were forcing them to DISTRIBUTE contraception publically, that would be a different story I think. But Catholic Charities has shot themselves in the foot by having one foot in the public sector.
I agree with Chris B. that they have shot themselves in the foot by having one foot in the public sector. However, I would encourage them to stop using public funds so that they will be able to return to their Catholic roots. While in this process, I would say that they should do #3 because they may be able to overcome this conflict of interest (although I doubt that they would win on appeal).
As to the having non-Catholic employees, I think that CC would do well to stay consistent in their teachings and work towards not providing these benefits because they truely believe that this is immoral. What Chris is saying could be akin to an evangelical group paying for abortion benefits for its employees. It just doesn’t make sense. Nobody’s forcing people to work at CC, and people know what they’re getting into when they get a job there (I’m drawing from social contract theories here).
So, Chris, is it an issue of them having non-catholic workers or an issue of them receiving state funds?
I think they should subvert…but be fully prepared to stop receiving federal funding. The fact that they get Federal funds means that they have a conflict of interest. I don’t believe they should resolved that conflict of interest by submitting. They should refuse and be willing to resolve that conflict of interest by cutting financial ties. The issue of non-Catholic employees is moot in my mind. I don’t think that a church non-profit organization should pay for benefits it doesn’t believe in, but it has to make such thing clear before hiring.
So you agree with me.