The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
And Now Comes Judge Sykes Print E-mail
By Hadley Arkes   
Tuesday, 19 November 2013

In my last column I reported on a notable decision in the D.C Circuit of Appeals blocking the mandates of Obamare on abortion and contraception.  The opinion, written by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, had coincided in its main lines with the argument I had been pleading for in this space as part of a project of recasting the argument over religious freedom.  

But this fine outcome had little to do with me:  In her own sense of the logic of law, Judge Brown moves along a path of reasoning that just happens to accord with the reasoning that I would identify with natural rights.  And then only one week later, we had a similar, resounding decision by another accomplished woman in the federal courts, Judge Diane Sykes in Milwaukee (Seventh Circuit).  In the companion cases of Korte v. Department of Health & Human Services and Grote v. Sebelius, Judge Sykes dealt, once again, with the Catholic owners of private businesses.  And once again it was a matter of compelling Catholic owners to become accomplices in policies that were deeply at odds with the moral teaching they had absorbed as Catholics.

In the Gilardi case, Judge Brown had made it clear that the argument would not depend on the “sincerity. . .of religious beliefs.”   The appeal would be made instead to those constitutional principles that are bound up with the dignity of “the human person,” as that sense of dignity has been deepened and amplified by our religious tradition. 

In the Korte and Grote cases, Judge Sykes was willing to take as uncontested the sincerity of the plaintiffs in professing their beliefs.  The decisive argument would move then to another ground.  Both judges were dealing with cases arising under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and so they could insist that the law undergo a “strict scrutiny”:  the law would have to cite a “compelling interest” before it would force people to do something gravely at odds with the moral understanding cultivated in their religion. 

But that is to say, the judges would compel the government to justify its restrictions on freedom with the kinds of demanding tests that were once thought to be necessary in justifying the law when it would restrict any of our freedoms.  When the problem was viewed through that lens, Judge Sykes showed how readily the case for the mandates would come apart. As Judges Sykes observed, the government identified “two public interests – ‘public health’ and ‘gender equality.’” As the argument ran, the wider availability of contraceptives would be useful for public health and for “promoting the autonomy of women” by liberating women, no less than men, from the “risks” of pregnancy and childbirth.

But as Judge Sykes pointed out, contraceptives could be diffused to the population at large in many other ways. The government could provide “contraception insurance”; it could “give tax incentives to contraception suppliers to provide these medications and services at no cost to consumers; it can give tax incentives to consumers of contraception and sterilization services.”


      The accomplished Judge Diane Sykes

The government could also buy the contraceptives and give them away, but with funds it has to raise from the public by justifying taxes.  In other words, these ends of public policy can be accomplished quite readily without compelling any particular person to buy contraceptives for anyone else – and compelling him at the same time to violate the moral principles taught in his Church.

But Judge Sykes had to deal also with that other argument threading through these cases: that while the owners of these businesses may be Catholic and religious, the business itself is not. Judge Sykes brought into play here the example of the Kosher deli:  “On the government’s understanding of religious liberty,” she wrote, “a Jewish restaurant operating for profit could be denied the right to observe Kosher dietary restrictions.”  And in that way, “commonplace religious practices normally thought protected would fall outside the scope of the free-exercise right.” 

But what we have here is the curious claim that a business in a secular society must be detached from any moral definition, and therefore from any religious character.   Some of us would answer by repairing to the opening lines of Aristotle’s Politics:  Every action implies an understanding of a good to be attained. Whether we are seeking change or resisting change, whether we are going to school or going to work, every act implies a rough understanding of a state of affairs that is good or bad, better or worse. 

The standards of good or bad, right or wrong, are not in the clouds;  they are irreducibly practical, in forming the grounds of our acts.  In the same way, every association implies a good that provides the rationale for how and why people come together. 

The Kortes owned a construction company, the Grotes manufactured “vehicle safety systems.”  The businesses were directed to products and services thought useful and legitimate, including the good of attaining safety in vehicles.  And if a business – any  business or association – cannot be detached from an understanding of the “goods” it is constituted to seek;  if every association has then a moral definition; the question is now turned about. 

It would have to imply nothing less than a disability imposed on the religious alone if the only source of moral understanding barred from the character of a business is the understanding drawn from religious teaching.


Hadley Arkes
is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College. His most recent book is
Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

© 2013 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Catholic Thing
is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.


Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (4)Add Comment
0
...
written by Stanley Anderson, November 19, 2013
This reminds me of the reason Erwin Schrödinger proposed his famous "Schrödinger's Cat" thought experiment about the oddities of quantum physics. The tendency is to think that the effects of quantum physics are "observed" and apply only to particles and such at the very tiny atomic and sub-atomic scales, while events at the "macro" scale of everyday things that we observe and "work with" follow more traditional Newtonian billiard ball-like cause-and-effect paths. But his thought experiment was intended to demonstrate, in a fanciful, if grim setting, how the pervasive quantum rules can "filter up" willy-nilly into those macro objects and events.
0
...
written by Richard A, November 19, 2013
But, the immorality of contraception, abortion and sterilization are not particularly drawn from religious teaching. The obligation to obey moral preceptes drawn from reason is what may be particularly 'religious'. That, at least, seems to be the view of Diognetus in explaining Christianity, or Christians, to Mathetes.
0
...
written by Rich in MN, November 19, 2013
Well, I for one am elated. Thank you, Dr. Arkes, for keeping us up-to-date on this newest success. Hopefully, the judicial reasoning used in these two cases can be used widely as precedent to stop the hemorrhaging.
0
...
written by Bedarz Iliaci, November 19, 2013
"curious claim that a business in a secular society must be detached from any moral definition"

This curiosity follows from the 18C trans-valuation of morals, that found its conclusion in the hidden hand of Adam Smith. Ancients held that all action must be intended to the good of the City. Per Adam Smith, nobody ever sought the good of the City. It was impossible and the commendable actions are those motivated by rational self-interest.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner