Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Health insurance issue calls Notre Dame’s identity into question

Observer Editorial

Published: Friday, September 30, 2011

Updated: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:09

Sometimes, the smallest details can raise the biggest questions.

Fr. Jenkins wrote an open letter to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday. Jenkins' request was simple, but requires some background.

The Affordable Care Act signed by President Obama in 2010 to reform the American healthcare system placed a number of regulations on insurance companies, including a requirement that every plan cover a minimum package of basic benefits with no additional cost beyond the monthly premium. As is standard practice in lawmaking, the broad brushstrokes of the package were outlined in the bill, but the specific details were delegated to Sebelius and HHS.

Sebelius asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a nongovernmental organization that works to provide unbiased advice on biomedical issues, to review the issue of women's health based on existing research. After one year, the IOM recommended that contraceptives be included in the "basic benefits package." HHS accepted the recommendation and it became a regulation with an exception for religious employers — but the exception on religious grounds was too narrowly defined to include Notre Dame, and, for that matter, Saint Mary's.

As it stands now, Notre Dame will be required to provide insurance plans to students and faculty that pay for contraceptives as of August 2012, a position Jenkins finds untenable. He therefore asked Sebelius to redefine the religious exemption to broaden the requirements and move it in line with the tax code's more expansive definition of "religious employer" before the final version of the rule is released.

Jenkins is right. Notre Dame should not be legally required to pay for insurance plans that contain contraceptives if it feels that to do so would be immoral.

But this is not about the morality of contraception.

This issue strikes at a balancing act Notre Dame has been trying to manage for years. What does it mean to be a "Catholic university"? Are Notre Dame and Saint Mary's educational institutions that happen to be Catholic, or are they Catholic institutions that happen to teach? Recent trends suggest education takes precedence over religion. Though Notre Dame continues, in the words of its mission statement, to be informed by the Catholic faith, it has established itself as first and foremost a university. No statement of faith is required to attend or teach here. There is no doctrinal control over what is taught in the classroom. Faculty, staff and students are encouraged to seek the truth in whatever form it takes, including that of scientific research.

Yet despite its insistence on being a research university, Notre Dame clings to its Catholic identity in inconsistent ways. In this case, the Jenkins administration that has vociferously supported scientific research has now asked to be exempt from a rule based on the recommendation of America's premier scientific researchers. This inconsistency in identity is at the heart of the matter.

This issue is even more salient for Saint Mary's as a women's college. This regulation was designed to improve women's health across the nation — the reason the religious exemption is defined so narrowly is so as many women as possible can benefit from the scientific consensus on women's health.

Notre Dame and Saint Mary's must make a choice. Either they must commit to being modern universities and accept all that entails, or they must commit to being primarily Catholic. They cannot split the difference forever. To do so is inconsistent and smacks of political opportunism.

So while on the surface, this may be a technical question about a small paragraph in one rule drawn from a 2,000 page bill, it is far more than that. It is an issue that forces all of us in the Notre Dame community to ask one question: when the rubber meets the road, who are we?

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

9 comments

Andrew Spinner
Mon Nov 7 2011 12:07
Anonymous #5 (Oct 21):

An endorsement of increased secularization is implicit throughout the editorial. By the end, the reader is left with no doubt about "which way" The Observer wants the university to go. What a disgraceful comment from a fellow grad, for its inability to display fundamental reading comprehension.

Anonymous
Fri Oct 21 2011 00:37
But... it... doesn't suggest that they secularize? All they're saying is, go one way or the other. It doesn't say which way to go, just to go some way. What a disgraceful comment from a fellow grad, for its inability to follow argumentation.
Anonymous
Thu Oct 20 2011 13:09
What a disgraceful editorial from my alma mater's student newspaper, not only for its impertinent and pompous call for Notre Dame to repudiate its founding Catholic mission and secularize, but for its abominably specious reasoning that conflates "suppor[t] for scientific research" with acquiescence to a political policy recommendation with moral and religious dimensions. Whether Notre Dame should be forced to subsidize contraception in its employee and student health plans has literally nothing to do with "supporting scientific research." To pretend otherwise is a blatant straw man and intellectually dishonest.

As for the "parent of an ND graduate" who theatrically demanded, "Allow these same students, faculty, and staff the right to follow their individual beliefs" - Newsflash: They already are. Nobody is stopping them from doing so on their own dime. Just don't expect Notre Dame to subsidize behavior antithetical to Catholic doctrine.

Anonymous
Thu Oct 20 2011 10:36
How did I miss this gem? Supporting scientific research and agreeing with the morality of a particular panel of scientists are completely different propositions. Saying Notre Dame should sacrifice its Catholicity in order to be a 'modern' university is another way of saying Notre Dame should sacrifice its Catholicity to be a generic university--to provide no diversity to the array of private universities in the US. If 'modern' means secular, then I see no reason why being such would help Notre Dame provide a better education.
Scratease
Fri Sep 30 2011 10:57
Alfredo,
All sarcasm aside, I think you're right to a certain extent. It's not as if Fr. Jenkins said anything to the secretary about contraception being an immoral thing, just that Notre Dame doesn't want to be in a position where they really explicitly would have to dissent against one or another Church teaching. So really, his letter reads more like, "Come on guys, when we went along with Obama we took a lot of flak for it. Can't you throw us one of those exemptions you've been handing out like candy to your favored political groups?!?!? *anxiously* We're one of those, right?!?!?!?"

A lot of people have said that they're pleasantly surprised that Fr. Jenkins would send such a letter, but I really wonder whether he did so out of concern for having to do something that he thinks is wrong, or whether he just wants to save face in front of the people who really do think it is wrong. Also, I wonder who really wrote the letter. But these are questions to which only he knows the answers. I suppose the best we can all do is pray for him, because whatever his motives, at least the action of sending such a letter is good.

Anonymous
Fri Sep 30 2011 10:33
No, this does not belong in the hysterical debate over ND's Catholic identity. If anything, the fact that Fr. John is taking the action to resist and reform the regulation only further proves ND's genuine commitment to it's Catholic identity. It is shallow and silly to try and leverage this 'question.'
Alfredo
Fri Sep 30 2011 10:13
Anonymous,

You're confusing the university with the Catholic Church. The university most assuredly does not hold as a fundamental belief that contraception is immoral. It has not done so since at least 1968. (Ask Janet Smith, who was run out of town largely because she openly dissented from the dissent on this issue.) So why is Fr. John balking at the regulations handed down by his friends in the federal government? What's the big deal?

Anonymous
Fri Sep 30 2011 10:00
"Happens to be Catholic"?? That is not the Notre Dame that I graduated from. It is, and should remain, a Catholic university.

The university of Our Lady should be allowed to follow its beliefs and not be forced by the government into action that the university believes is not moral.

Ginny Pauwels
Fri Sep 30 2011 07:05
As a parent of an ND graduate, I applaud your editorial. I hope the university decides to follow the road of being a modern university that happens to be Catholic. Teach the Catholic doctrine of birth control, but leave the choice up the those you have taught. You welcome students, faculty, and staff of all faiths and no faith to learn, to teach, to work at Notre Dame. Allow these same students, faculty, and staff the right to follow their individual beliefs.




log out