Editor’s Note:  Catholic Exchange is happy to announce that Sheila Liaugminas has agreed to blog at Catholic Exchange.  In fact, she’s in the blogger queue already.  The following indicates the tremendous contribution she will be making to our online community.

Misinformation abounds in the media about President Obama’s alleged ”accommodation” for religious liberty in his administration’s hardline HHS mandate.

Let’s have some clarity. Three responses, for now.

First, Liberty Counsel, a group in solidarity with Catholics because everyone’s fundamental conscience rights are at stake in this.

Obama’s “new directive” only underscores the problem that he has the power to issue a directive, without any legislative oversight, that directly conflicts with freedom of religion and the right of conscience.

He stated, “If a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles. The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.” (Emphasis added)

Obama’s speech reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Forcing an insurance company to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients is only an accounting gimmick, which he acknowledges would still require religious organizations to fund contraceptives and abortifacients indirectly. Someone has to pay for this funding, and that burden will fall upon all employers, including religious organizations. Moreover, religious institutions that are self-insured, such as Liberty University, the world’s largest Christian school, are still required to pay directly for these items.

Laundering a Catholic or Christian organization’s money through the insurance company to pay for abortifacients does not suddenly correct the moral sin inflicted by Obama. ObamaCare is a direct attack on the moral and religious beliefs of our nation. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty representing three organizations in lawsuits against the Obama administration.

Facing a political firestorm, President Obama today announced his intent to make changes to a controversial rule that would require religious institutions, in violation of their conscience, to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs. But this “compromise” is an exercise in obfuscation, not a good faith effort to solve the problem. Thousands of churches, religious organizations, businesses, individuals, and others will still be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

For example, the fake compromise will not help the Becket Fund’s clients Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, Colorado Christian University, and Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), a Catholic media organization. They will still be forced to pay for insurance that provides contraceptive coverage. The White House’s claim that “the insurance companies will pay for it” is silly. For-profit insurance companies aren’t going to donate contraceptives and abortion drugs to employees; the employer will pay for it one way or the other. More fundamentally, the Becket Fund’s clients still face the same chilling dilemma they did yesterday: choosing between helping their employees buy immoral abortion drugs or paying huge fines.

“This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the President’s re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience,” says Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for The Becket Fund. “No one should be fooled by what amounts to an accounting gimmick. Religious employers will still have to violate their religious convictions or pay heavy annual fines to the IRS.”

According to a White House “fact sheet,” some religious employers will no longer be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing drugs; coverage for those services will instead be provided for free directly by insurance companies. This does not protect anyone’s conscience. First, the problem is helping employees get abortion drugs, not the cost of providing those drugs. Since providing insurance benefits would still help employees get insurance, religious employers still have to choose between providing health benefits that help employees get abortion drugs, and paying annual fines. Second, thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will be forced to pay directly for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Third, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations.

“It is especially telling that the details of this fake ‘compromise’ will likely not be announced until after the election,” said Smith. “Religious freedom is not a political football to be kicked around in an election-year.

And yet it is. Which is unacceptable to thinking people.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers. To call it “morally obtuse” is both intellectually restrained and academically polite.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick. That transparency Obama promised when he ran for president is actually being delivered, whether he likes it or not.

The Vatican’s official transcript of the Pope’s comments at the Amman airport records him as saying:

My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.

There are so many different angles to this situation. First, we have the spectacle of a Pope being received as a head of state. This is wrong on so many counts. Second, we have the Pope speaking in diplomatic jargon, rather than in plain and direct speech. Third, we have the Pope speaking of “respect” without any clear understanding of what this really means. Does the Pope believe that Muslims can be saved through the teachings of Islam?

Actually, he probably does — at least within the context of a salvific inclusivism. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are “included in the plan of salvation” by virtue of their claim to “hold the faith of Abraham.”

In the words of Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents adopted at Vatican II:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

The same language is basic to the current official catechism of the church as well. Within the context of the document, this language clearly implies that Muslims are within the scope of God’s salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ’s salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.

Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of “respecting” Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot. …

Let’s see what we have here. First of all, the pope is a head of state. Since to Mohler, a Baptist, the pope is no spiritual authority at all, he is nothing other than a head of state. Certainly Mohler can understand why a head of state would be welcomed as such on a foreign visit. However, when Mohler says that it is wrong for the pope to be welcomed as a head of state, he saying that it is wrong for someone in the pope’s spiritual position — a position Mohler does not recognize as real — to be treated that way. Either there is an actual spiritual office the pope holds or there is not. To Baptists there is no such thing as the papacy. Now, if there really is and Mohler wants to address the way the office is handled, that is one thing, but to claim an office does not exist and then criticize the way it is carried out is as silly as criticizing a bald man’s hair style.

Second, the pope is not speaking in diplomatic jargon. The pope is not speaking in euphemisms or coded language. The pope is being forthright, but with kindness and tact. The kindness and tact recommended in that book that Evangelicals claim is their “sure norm”: “Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person” (Col. 4:6) and “[A]lways [be] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).

Third, Pope Benedict XVI really does understand what respect means. Mohler is the one with the problem.

Mohler says: “Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of ‘respecting’ Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot.” His detour into the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism very conveniently separates that criticism and claim of difference from the actual words that the pope said. It’s convenient because it allows time for the reader to forget what the pope actually did say — which was nothing at all about respecting Islam! Look again at the quotation from the pope:

My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.

Respecting the Muslim community — those made-in-the-image-of-God human beings who are adherents to Islam — is not the same thing as respecting Islam. Mohler knows this; really he does, because later on the article he says:

Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive.

In order to pretend that there is some great divide here between the Evangelical viewpoint and that of Catholics regarding the Muslim faith, Mohler has to ignore what the pope actually said, (which he quoted!) and ignore his own quotation from Lumen Gentium — which does not say that Muslims are included in the plan of salvation “by virtue of their claim” to hold the faith of Abraham. It does not even say that Muslims hold the faith of Abraham, merely acknowledges that they claim to.

Yes, the Catechism says that God’s plan of salvation “also includes… the Muslims.” That’s because the Catechism says that all men are included in God’s plan of salvation! Nowhere does it make the assertion Mohler is trying to attribute to it: that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ’s salvation “through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.” What the Catechism does say is reasonable, balanced, and scriptural; read it for yourself and see:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

In addressing the issue of how those who do not hear the Gospel might come to be saved, the Church does not attribute salvific power to any false belief system, whether Islam or any other, but rather to God’s mysterious ability to sow faith in Himself into every human heart that sincerely seeks HIm. But even this acknowledgment of God’s power does not diminish the world’s need to hear the Gospel:

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

It was just such evangelistic zeal that motivated the Holy Father’s historic visit to the Middle East, where over and over he turned men’s attention to Christ as the hope for peace. One of his themes was the need for honest, humble dialogue based upon respect for the dignity of every person. I submit that contrary to Mohler’s assertion that the pope is “without any clear understanding of what [respect] means,” the pope’s understanding of it surpasses that of Dr. Mohler. The pope understands that one of the first requirements of respectful conversation is to seek to clearly understand and then to fairly represent the position of another.