To live well is
nothing other than to love God with all one’s heart, with all one’s soul
and with all one’s efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept
whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb
it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice),
and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit
or trickery (and this is prudence).
– Augustine
By Archbishop Charles Chaput
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that prudence is the auriga virtutum, the
“charioteer of virtues.” It’s “right reason in action,” the guide to
correctly applying all other virtues. Rash action, no matter how well
intended, violates prudence and usually does more harm than good. God
gave us brains. He expects us to use them to judiciously pursue the
highest moral good for others and for ourselves.
At the same time, the Catechism warns that prudence should never be
used as an alibi for “timidity or fear, duplicity or dissimulation.”
Real prudence has a spine called fortitude, the virtue we more commonly
know as courage. And courage, in the words of C.S. Lewis, “is not
simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing
point, which means at the point of highest reality.”
Here’s why both these virtues are vital in the weeks ahead. On
Friday, February 1, the Obama administration issued for public comment a
set of revised regulations governing the HHS “contraceptive mandate.”
At first glance, the new rules have struck some people as a modest
improvement. They appear to expand, in a limited way, the kind of
religiously-affiliated entities that can claim exemption from providing
insurance coverage for contraceptive and abortion-related services under
the new Affordable Care Act.
White House apologists and supporters have welcomed the proposal.
The New York Times called it “a good compromise.” Groups like the
American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL Prochoice America have praised
it. And at least one Washington Post columnist implausibly called it a
victory for America’s Catholic bishops.
The trouble is, the new rules are very complex. And they may
actually make things worse. In the words of Notre Dame Law Professor
Gerard Bradley:
“Gauging the net effect of the new administration proposal [is]
hazardous. But one can say with confidence the following: (1) religious
hospitals are, as before, not exempt ‘religious employers’; (2) religious charities are very likely not exempt
either, unless they are run out of a church or are very tightly
integrated with a church. So, a parish or even a diocese’s Saint
Vincent De Paul operations would probably be an exempt ‘religious
employer,’ whereas Catholic Charities would not be; (3) the new proposal
may (or may not) make it more likely that parish grade schools
are exempt ‘religious employers.’ But Catholic high schools are a
different matter. Some might qualify as ‘religious employers.’ Most
probably will not.
“It is certain that Catholic colleges and universities do not qualify
as exempt ‘religious employers.’ The new proposal includes, however, a
revised ‘accommodation’ for at least some of these institutions, as well
as some hospitals and charities. The proposal refines the
administration’s earlier efforts to somehow insulate the colleges and
universities from immoral complicity in contraception, mainly by
shifting — at least nominally – the cost and administration of the
immoral services to either the health insurance issuer (think Blue
Cross) or to the plan administrator (for self-insured entities, such as
Notre Dame). This proposal adds some additional layering to the earlier
attempts to insulate the schools, but nothing of decisive moral
significance is included.”
The White House has made no concessions to the religious conscience
claims of private businesses, and the whole spirit of the “compromise”
is minimalist.
As a result, the latest White House “compromise” already has a wave
of critics, including respected national religious liberty law firms
like the Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom. And many are
far harsher than Professor Bradley in their analysis.
The scholar Yuval Levin has stressed that the new HHS mandate
proposal, “like the versions that have preceded it, betrays a complete
lack of understanding of both religious liberty and religious
conscience.” In reality, despite the appearance of compromise, “the
government has forced a needless and completely avoidable confrontation
and has knowingly put many religious believers in an impossible
situation.”
One of the issues America’s bishops now face is how best to respond
to an HHS mandate that remains unnecessary, coercive and gravely
flawed. In the weeks ahead the bishops of our country, myself included,
will need both prudence and courage – the kind of courage that gives
prudence spine and results in right action, whatever the cost. Please
pray that God guides our discussions.
