One of President Obama's administration's answers as to why it can hold Catholic hospitals and charities to secular standards when it comes to the HHS mandate, is that those organizations behave indistinguishably from secular versions of them.
And he's right.
He's not right about this mandate. But he's right about that first part. A Catholic hospital might employ a few nuns or priests, and there will be crucifixes and statues on the wall. But in most serviceable ways, ones experience there won't be any different from the secular hospital down the road.
Both will charge the same, both probably have financial assistance, both have decent doctors etc. I bet a secular hospital can even find you a chaplain if need be.
To qualify for the exemption under HHS, like Churches, "A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of
religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share
its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its
religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal
Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii).
45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)."
I'm not sure we can do much about conditions 3 and 4, but one and two should have been a no brainer. A Catholic ANYTHING should have as it's purpose the inculcation of Catholic views. We should be providing charity and care to as many people as we can, whether they're Catholic or not, but in the process, we should of course be teaching the faith and spreading the gospel. I mean, come on. Wasn't that the great commission?
As for employing mostly Catholics, can we legally do that? If we can, why the hell weren't we all along? We should want the best employees for everything sure, but all else being equal, if a Catholic group could use being Catholic as the tiebreaker, than they should have been doing so.
As to No. 3, primarily serves persons who share its
religious tenets, well that's a stupid rule. Catholic health care and to a greater degree Catholic charities are trying to help as many people as they can, regardless of their faiths. This is an undue restriction, but that's on the administration, not the Catholic groups.
As for being a non-profit, I admit to almost no knowledge of how this works but I do think many Catholic charities probably fit that bill.
Anyway my point is this. While I don't think Catholic employers should be forced to violate their consciences by providing what is generally an elective pill/device etc., I also don't think they can sit back and play pure victim.
We need to remember who we are and live up to our own standards if we're going to ask people to recognize them.
Non-Profits don't necessarily have to be charitable. They can still charge, like a business. The difference between a non-profit org and a traditional company is that the non-profit cannot distribute surplus revenues to shareholders. So if they make a little more money than they budgeted for, they can't release dividends. Instead they would have to reinvest that back into the NPO, by building on a new wing, or pumping the money into charitable efforts, or giving employees a bonus or something.
ReplyDeleteI would be perfectly fine with Catholic hospitals mostly employing/servicing catholics. But they would probably have to close down most of their hospitals because the supply would exceed the demand. But that's good, from my perspective. Plus, no crisis of conscience for catholic hospital owners. Win win.
And I assume (but don't know) that whether you can employ strictly catholics, depends on whether you service strictly (or mostly) catholics. If it's more exclusive, like a church, I'm betting it would get the protection of law like a church.
DeleteI don't think that should be relevant. Why can't we be a hospital that cares for all, but does so with a message? That's how we started. And back then we employed mostly Catholics because nuns made up most of the nurses. Now we hire like everyone else hires and I don't think we can refuse to hire if you're not Catholic.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm ok with hiring non-Catholics, so long as they know what they're getting into.
I don't know, I'm really kind of operating from ignorance here. Some facts would help to light the way. I'll try to run them down later.
ReplyDeleteFound it. The applicable laws regarding religious descrimination in hiring practices are in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII.
ReplyDeleteHere's a useful link: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.
So really, we lost this fight in 1964 then.
ReplyDeleteBut the point stands, I don't think the exception would apply to many hospitals or most charities, although I'm not sure about that.
However, because their primary goals are caring for the sick and caring for the poor respectively, which are tenets concurrent with the faith and with secular values, I'd argue maybe then should meet the exception.
"So really, we lost this fight in 1964 then."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's the opposite of what is true. Hiring exclusively one religious group is NOT considered descrimination if it's for a Church or "Religious Organization", the guidelines for which are linked/quoted.
Among the factors to consider are whether it's incorporated with a religious purpose, whether it's not-for-profit and whether it's affiliated with or supported by the church.
IN OTHER WORDS, if it's tangibly tied to the church, or has a distinctly churchy purpose. Which makes perfect sense.
So, what you are advocating in this would fly, I would think. If they beef up their open affiliation with the Church, actively proselytize and are non-profits they can hire exclusively catholics who have no problem with the birth control thing.
I think that's how we should be doing things then....and that's partially on us. Not the administration.
ReplyDelete