Even if cooperation is remote, HHS mandate is still immoral, explains analyst
CWN - February 22, 2012
Some moral theologians have argued that Catholics could be morally justified in accepting the HHS mandate, because they would be required to engage in “remote material cooperation” with the provision of contraceptives. But Robert Miller of Villanova law school finds a flaw in that reasoning. Even if individuals (or institutions) could justify cooperation, he argues, the HHS mandate would remain morally wrong because is forces compliance with a policy that some people find repugnant. He explains:
Even if their cooperation is not culpable, the objecting employers would be cooperating only because they are being coerced into doing so: if they do not comply, then the law imposes on them rather substantial financial penalties. Such a law is morally objectionable even if the coercion involved makes complying with the law morally permissible.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($20,841 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!