The thought that you would have to participate in something that you thought was immoral against your will is hard to imagine. That someone, somehow would be able to force you to kill someone seems unbearable. This is something strait out of a horror film. And though those who lie to themselves about abortion do not understand the horror involved, there are those of us who do understand.
The non-profit organization Priests for Life has asked the District of Columbia Circuit Court to reconsider an earlier ruling. The Washington Times reports:
Priests for Life, asked the court to reconsider a three-judge ruling that requires religious nonprofits to object, in writing, to regulations that require employer health care plans to insure contraceptives.
The organization’s concern was with the handing off of the coverage. In writing the letter, the non-profit is not providing contraception, but a third party provides it for them. The Washington Times explained it this way:
The administration twice has tried to accommodate religious nonprofits that object to the mandate. For now, the nonprofits must object in writing to an insurer or third-party administrator, or to the Department of Health and Human Services, so that other people can manage and pay for the coverage while the nonprofits themselves do nothing.
The administration then made its case for this not being the same type of circumstances as with Hobby Lobby. They argued that since Hobby Lobby does not have the option of opting out of these services, they were forced to provide services that violated their consciences. But since Priests for Life could opt out through a written request, they were not forced to do anything.
“On plaintiffs’ reasoning, a conscientious objector to the draft can not only refrain from serving himself, but can also allege that his religion is substantially burdened if the government drafts a replacement to serve instead,” the government wrote.
The issue comes down to the fact that the administration, and all who hold their view, fail to understand. These priests believe that contraception is equal to taking a life. To these lawyers and the administration, this means little. They claim it is not murder, so they are forcing no immoral act, but this is not true.
Even if these drugs did not cause an abortion or if the contraception is not murder, if the priests believe that it is, then it would be a sin for them to comply. I know that some might argue that something is either a sin or it is not, but it can be a bit more complicated.
In I Corinthians 8, Paul explains that to cause someone to act against their conscience is to cause them to stumble. So then, if we can lead someone to “ruin” as Paul puts it, by the eating of meat, how much more dangerous is it to tempt in this area. Is it not a sin to transgress what is thought to be a command? Is it not as bad as transgressing what is actually a command?
Let me finish with this example. If I think that my action will bring the death of another, and I take those actions, am I less guilty before God if none die? No, because the intentions of my heart were murder. I acted contrary to what I thought God would desire.
The ministry’s lawyer summed it up well: “It makes no difference whether plaintiffs must pay for the contraceptive coverage. What matters is that, in their religious judgment, it would be immoral for them to contract with a vendor that will provide the offending coverage to their plan beneficiaries.”
May God grant this ministry, and all ministries, the freedom to make these hard choices for themselves. If He does not, then these ministries will be at the mercy of the government’s morality.