Are Liberal Terms Dominating the HHS Mandate Debate?

Vast and even incalculable quantities of ink have already been spilled over the issue of the HHS mandate that religious organizations purchase contraception as part of their compliance with the Obama health care plan. It would seem that little remains to be said.

I have read and pondered this issue as it has unfolded. I have signed a document, with many other scholars, objecting to the recent “compromise” on the grounds that it does not resolve the basic issue of forcing a religious institution to provide a service that is incompatible with its doctrine and belief. I am largely in agreement that this issue represents a profound and disturbing encroachment upon the internal ordering of religious organizations.

However, I am disquieted by the way in which the issue has largely been framed – not only by the Left, but perhaps more by the Right. The Right has sought to defend “religious liberty” on the grounds that the HHS mandate would represent an abrogation of the First Amendment’s right to “free exercise” and that it would violate the “conscience” of religious adherents. By these appeals to the “rights” of religious organizations to hold certain religious beliefs – whatever those may be – and by an appeal to “conscience” informing that belief – no matter what it may hold – critics of the HHS policy have framed their response in the dominant privatistic language of liberalism. Their defense rests on the inscrutability and sanctity of private religious belief. It borrows strongly from sources of private religious devotion that lays no claim to public witness, in keeping with liberalism’s dominant mode of allowing acceptable religious practice so long as it remains outside the public square. The appeal to conscience, while lodged at the level of institutional belief, subjects itself easily to the same claim by adherents within that religious order who might similarly object to a religious mandate (e.g., the prohibition on artificial birth control) on grounds of “conscience” to aspects of that belief (think Martin Luther. Or Andrew Sullivan.). The public response of critics of the mandate essentially cede to liberalism most of the ground that they would need to mount a serious case against the individualizing, relativizing and subjective claims that lie at the heart of the mandate and, more broadly, liberalism itself.

More than a few commentators have noted that this issue seems particularly oriented toward and at the Catholic Church. While some wags have questioned why other religious traditions don’t seem to have a problem with other aspects of the mandate (e.g., Christian Scientists haven’t risen up in objection to coverage of blood transfusions), frank speech requires acknowledgement of a more fundamental truth: from its earliest articulation, liberalism has set its sights on the rout of Catholic Christendom. Liberalism was fundamentally animated by a deep philosophical and theological objection to Catholicism – and, until recent times, vice-versa. Debate over the HHS mandate should be understood in its broadest context: the longstanding effort to wholly remake society in the image and likeness of liberal philosophy. That philosophy holds at its core that humans are by nature free, autonomous and independent, bound only by positive law that seeks to regulate physical behavior that results in physical harm to others (and, increasingly, selves). Liberal people should not be bound by any limitation upon their natural freedom that does not cause harm (mainly physical harm) to another human; otherwise, the State should be indifferent (“neutral”) to any claims regarding the nature of the “the Good.” Liberalism seeks to secure legal structures governing “Right” – procedures ensuring fairness with an aim to protecting (and expanding) the sphere of individual liberty while balancing claims regarding the “harms” of some individual practices (e.g., liberalism seeks to limit some harmful activities of the market at the edges while leaving its basic structure intact).

Liberalism understood from the outset that it could not abide any religious tradition that sought to influence the order of society based upon its conception of “the Good.” “Private” belief could be tolerated: such belief would extend only to the immediate adherents of that faith; its adherents had to personally choose their allegiance to that faith; and any faith commitment would be the result of voluntarist choice and thus, a chosen self-limitation on the part of the faithful. Famously in his “Letter Concerning Toleration,” John Locke refused to extend toleration practically to only one faith – Catholicism. His claim was that toleration could not be extended to any faith that acknowledged a “foreign potentate,” which, for all practical purposes, meant the Pope. But, it requires a peculiar set of assumptions to conclude that the Pope is a “foreign potentate” – while the Pope does not claim political rule over Catholics, the Pope is the final arbiter of doctrine that is to govern not only the private behavior of Catholics, but their role and witness in the world. It is no coincidence that many of the cases involving “religious liberty” now involve Catholics, inasmuch as Catholics have erected worldly institutions in the effort to live out the witness of their faith – schools, universities, hospitals, charities, and the like. The Catholic faith is, by definition, not “private”; it involves a conception of the human Good that in turn requires efforts to instantiate that understanding in the world. As such, Catholics represent a threat to the liberal order, which demands that people check their faith at the door and acknowledge only one sovereign in the realm of proscribing public behavior – the State.

Catholics begin with a fundamentally different understanding of the human person than liberalism. We are not by nature “free and independent”; we are, rather, members of the Body of Christ. In the natural law understanding, we are by nature “political and social animals” (so states Aquinas, following and amending Aristotle), requiring law, culture and religion for our flourishing and right ordering. The law does not simply seek to regulate and prevent bodies from committing harm; rather, the law necessarily derives from, and seeks to advance, a positive vision of human good and human flourishing. The law reinforces the Divine law, seeking the restraint not only of practices that will harm others, but which will tend toward a condition of sin and self-destruction. Even where the law is “silent,” we are not at leave simply to act as we wish; rather, we are admonished to live in accordance with and by the practice of virtue necessary to human flourishing. A polity based upon securing “the Right” is radically insufficient; rather, the polity is understood to be a reinforcement of efforts to orient people toward “the Good.” While the Church and State necessarily operate in different spheres, the State’s activities are oriented by the vision “the Good” articulated by Church and God’s word.

Critics of the HHS mandate have framed their responses to the mandate within liberal terms. This is doubtless a requirement and necessity in contemporary liberal society – to gain a hearing at the table of public opinion, and especially the Courts, arguments must be framed in dominantly liberal terms. Thus, critics of the Mandate have sought to craft their response by claiming that the Church’s internal beliefs will be violated by the Mandate, that the Mandate represents an encroachment upon “conscience.” Critics of the Mandate thus downplay and even ignore the content of the belief in question; they rally around the protections of conscience, claiming a sphere toward which the State should manifest indifference, in which they should not meddle. The nature of the belief is largely irrelevant for the sake of the claim. Many of the Mandate’s critics (especially non-Catholics) claim that they regard the Church’s view on birth-control to be somewhat batty, but that fact is irrelevant to the Constitutional issue protecting private institutional conscience and free-exercise. Catholic critics don’t depart much, at all, from this same argument.*

Catholic as well as non-Catholic defenders have largely sought to hold at arms length any claims about the rightness or truth of the Church’s teachings on birth control: these are to be treated as belief within a “black box” that should be ignored by liberal society. As long as those crazy beliefs don’t harm individuals within or beyond the faith tradition, then they should be accorded respect and indifference by the State. The Church seeks the leave of the State on the only terms recognizable by the liberal state: we have a certain set of private beliefs that aren’t harming anyone. Leave us alone, and we’ll be quiet.

However, everyone is aware, even if dimly, of the real issue, though few explicitly raise the matter. The Church does not seek to propound its teachings as a matter of internal belief solely for its faith adherents: it claims that its teachings are true as a matter of human good. The teachings regarding birth control are not simply a peculiar faith tradition that is thought to apply to adherents of Catholicism; it is a teaching that Catholicism hopes and intends to be adopted by all people, regardless of their faith tradition. The strictures concerning birth control are not propounded as a “faith-based” peculiarity applicable only to Catholics, like Jewish dietary laws, but as a considered position concerning the Church’s deepest understanding of the human good – one that can be, and has been, framed in terms that are intended to be accessible and persuasive to non-Catholics. Among other reasons offered, the adoption of a birth control concerns a practice that Catholicism has understood to entail profound social consequences that, when widely practiced, leads to profoundly damaging social practices.

The Church’s argument – made at a time when it was believed by many that the Church had no choice but to update itself to be relevant to changing times – was articulated forcefully by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” and is addressed not only to Catholics, but to “all men of good will.” As nicely summarized recently by Brendan Patrick Dougherty and Pascal Emmanuel-Gobry, Humanae Vitae articulated four discrete areas of social and political concern that they believed would become manifest with the widespread use of birth control:

1. General lowering of moral standards

2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy

3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men

4. Government coercion in reproductive matters

The first three – unarguably evident in our time – concern the social implications of transforming sexuality from its intimate and natural link to reproduction to a “recreational,” hedonic activity. The Church understood that the cumulative decisions of individuals – not intended to “harm” anyone – would nevertheless lead to manifest and extensive social ills. Liberalism begins and ends with the view that individual choice is paramount, and social costs can and should be redressed by government alone, leaving as much latitude possible to individual satisfaction of desire; Catholicism (echoing Aristotle) holds that society is an intricately woven fabric in which autonomous actions aimed at the satisfaction of individual desire will often prove destructive of that fabric. The Church holds this to be the case in all realms of human activitiy – sexual as well as economic, a point that is too often missed by American Catholics who allow their partisan identities to define their understanding of their faith (are those who oppose abortion and pornography any less “Social Justice Catholics”?). Liberalism holds that the State must be indifferent to the personal choices of individuals; Catholicism holds certain choices not only to be inherently wrong (even if they do not result in the immediate and evident harm of others), but, over time and cumulatively, socially destructive.

The last area of concern is perhaps even more difficult to grasp in an intuitive fashion than the first three. The last claims that the widespread adoption of birth control will eventually entail government coercion in support of its use. The Church understood – long before this tendency became evident – that liberalism was finally incapable of “indifference” toward the choices of individuals, particularly when those choices involved the limitation of individual autonomy, and particularly when any such limitation occurred in the context not of organizations that stressed individual choice, but rather asserted the preeminence of conceptions of the Good that commended practices of self-limitation. In short, liberalism would finally reveal its “partiality” toward autonomy by forcing institutions with an opposing worldview to conform to liberalism’s assumptions. Liberalism would seek actively to “liberate” individuals from oppressive structures, even at the point of requiring such liberalism at the point of a legal mandate and even a gun.

The response of American Catholics to the HHS mandate has (perhaps necessarily) been framed in dominantly liberal terms that give it a chance of receiving a hearing in today’s public sphere and within its Courts. But it should be acknowledged (as the response to the “Compromise” reveals) that the Church will ultimately lose the argument simply due to the fact that the way it is framed already represents a capitulation to liberal premises. Doubtless, an argument that stated more explicitly the Church’s opposition to birth control would be even more quickly dismissed (but, first, caricatured and mocked) than the current invocation of “religious freedom.” But, the real debate is not over religious freedom, in fact: it is over the very nature of humanity and the way in which we order our polities and societies. Catholicism is one of the few remaining voices of principle and depth that can articulate an forceful and learned alternative to today’s dominant liberal worldview. That it truncates those arguments for the sake of prudential engagement in a contemporary skirmish should not shroud the nature of the deeper conflict. That conflict will continue apace, and Catholics do themselves no favors if they do not understand the true nature of the battle, and the fact that current arguments aid and abet their opponent.

This article was originally posted on Front Porch Republic.

Patrick Deneen


Patrick Deneen is Associate Professor of Government and Founding Director of the Tocqueville Forum on the Roots of American Democracy at Georgetown University.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Patrick Deneen has gone to the heart of the matter.

    As Blondel pointed out, “one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural
    destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order.”  

    This is what Laberthonnière meant, when he accused the Neo-Thomist theologians of his day of being influenced by “a false theological notion of some state of pure nature and therefore imagine the state could be self-sufficient in the sense that it could be properly independent of any specifically Christian sense of justice.”  As Blondel also observes, we find “only in the spirit of the Gospel the supreme and decisive guarantee of justice and of the moral conditions of peace, stability, and social prosperity.”

    If we do not insist that religion is comprehensively, inclusively pertinent to the human condition, we shall, inevitably, acquiesce in the Liberal’s privatisation of religion.

  • Ronnielester

    Sen. Orrin Hatch made the point that the religious exemption is not as bad as the unprecedented government intrusion itself.

  • Gail Finke

    This is an excellent piece and the end is particularly good. As he says, the inevitability of government coersion is NOT self-evident, at least to people who don’t begin with the same philosophical principles. And yet, here it is, happening whether you accepted those principles or not. And the scary part is that if you are the sort of person who did not accept those principles, then either 1) the government coercion surprises and confounds you, and you can’t figure out what to do about it, or 2) you agree with it and are part of the government coercion! 

  • Chris Floyd

    I’m delighted to see Prof. Deneen’s work on Crisis.  I hope we’ll see him more in these virtual pages.

    •  It is hard to sustain much outrage at Locke’s exclusion of Catholics from toleration… given the vicious intolerance of contemporary Catholic monarchs like Louis XIV (the sponsor of James II, whose overthrow Locke was defending). We are blessed by God to live in a land where religious tolerance is one of the governing mores–so that not every political battle is a vicious duel to the death like the French Revolution, the Cristiada, and the Spanish Civil War. Thanks to the Anglo-American, classical liberal heritage, we can defend the liberty of Catholic institutions to promote an unpopular Catholic doctrine, without having to prove what too few Catholics believe–that contraception is intrinsically evil, and should be forbidden to every citizen, regardless of his faith.  So chalk me up as a proud classical liberal.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        But this is to suggest a false dichotomy. 

        One can defend the liberties and immunities of the Church, without embracing the false philosophy of Locke on the one hand, or defending particular doctrines on the other.

        The principle for which we should contend is that taught by Pope Leo XIII in “Immortali Dei,”“In like manner it is to be understood that the Church no less than the State itself is a society perfect in its own nature and its own right, and that those who exercise sovereignty ought not so to act as to compel the Church to become subservient or subject to them, or to hamper her liberty in the management of her own affairs, or to despoil her in any way of the other privileges conferred upon her by Jesus Christ. In matters, however, of mixed jurisdiction, it is in the highest degree consonant to nature, as also to the designs of God, that so far from one of the powers separating itself from the other, or still less coming into conflict with it, complete harmony, such as is suited to the end for which each power exists, should be preserved between them.”

      • str1977

        On the contrary, J0hn.

        While the government of Louis XIV (BTW, hardly a model Catholic) was indeed intolerant towards its Protestant subjects, this cannot legitimately made into an argument for being intolerant of others that simply happen to be members of the same religious group, especially if they have no control over Louis’ actions.

        And since you mention James – while Louis was intolerant, James in his attempt to re-enfranchise his coreligionists was the actual proponent of religious tolerance, not just to Catholics but also to nonconformist Christians. As the High-Church Tories that were the chief supporters of James’ reign were opposed to this, the whole policy cost James his throne in the so-called “Glorious revolution” and which ironically resulted in the ascendancy of Whigs like Locke. England had to endure another 140 years of religious discrimination.

  • ChuckEdward

    Good article. Certainly thought provoking. However I am not
    clear on what the recommended course of action is. How should the Church be
    addressing this issue, in the present reality of modern sensibilities? While
    what the author says it all true and interesting. It’s also a very simple truth
    that the government cannot compel people how to believe what it want or to do things against
    their moral convictions.

  • Jack

    This article, as I’m reading it, is basically saying that the debate over the Obamacare mandate is happening within the dominant liberal discourse (that separates private from public and the right from the good), and that what Catholic critics of the mandate should be doing is trying to overthrow that whole discourse and replace it with Catholicism and its doctrines.

  • Perhaps the Catholic Church should recover its concept of “public morality,” once commonly invoked. As far as I know, it is only recently mentioned in Paragraph 2210 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The phrase strikes at the heart of the privatization of religion, and drives home the Catholic position that this issue isn’t like “Fish on Fridays” but one of natural law.
    When Catholic institutions are being forced to subsidize contraception for their unmarried students, why shouldn’t they object that this will likely result in greater tolerance for fornication and for activities which weaken future marriages?

  • Pingback: Convert Journal – Obama’s war on religion (update #3)()