When Christians and WWJD Conflict

Catholic Bishops have decreed that they do not accept the Obama Administration’s accommodation on the employee health care issue. The bishops have “serious moral concerns”. One casually wonders if moral concerns should ever be anything except serious especially for bishops, but this is only a passing thought. Of more substantial concern is whether the bishops and other Christian groups are following a religious or faith-based path, or a political power-based path. If through some extraordinary confluence of events and personalities the bishops and others have for the first time in the entire history of their religion floundered into an error in judgment or morality, we should all be charitable and forgiving since they have never before been on the wrong side of a moral, ethical or Christian issue.

The bishops’ moral issue is fundamentally that they should not be compelled to pay for an action that they sincerely believe is contrary to their beliefs and violates their principles. And if they were being forced to personally act against their own conscience then I would wholeheartedly support their position both as a Christian, as an American, and as a thinking human being. But here is where the issue divides not just those who see a political issue that they hope to leverage to advance their careers, position and power, but it is an issue that separates Christians from Christians. No bishop or Christian is being asked to engage in any action that is a violation of their faith. They are in fact being asked to adhere to and follow the one of the core principles of their faith(s), do good unto others.

Because this is an issue that quickly evokes emotional responses and programmatic responses, it does not lend itself to efforts to critically contemplate and analyze either the facts or the moral issue that should be the question and not the one that is grabs everyone’s attention but is as deceptive as the devil’s promise.

I am sure that many of the people on both sides of this issue will recognize the ‘WWJD’ acronym (or some equivalent variant applicable to other religious groups). In the context of this issue the WWJD question offers an interesting perspective that I am sure will not result in a singular and definitive answer acceptable to all combatants in the debate. But that fact is more telling and more relevant to the issue than the issue itself. Think of it. Members of the same faith group, even Catholics, do not see the issue or the answer in the same way. They do not reach the same answer to the WWJD question, even though they are all working from the same playbook. So is the admonition that Mark provides one of the teachings that we are not attending to, that a house divided cannot stand. Perhaps one of the reasons this issue is so divisive is that it pits one individual right against the individual right of another. Of course it should be a necessary condition that both rights are actually in contention. When this condition is not met, it seems irresponsible and immoral to threaten the rights of one group when another’s are not under attack.

WWJD then? I believe he would instruct the faithful to attend to their rights, but to honor and recognize the legitimacy of the rights of others. If you are to be the first to cast a stone, be without sin. The reaction of hatred and anger is not in that message. The judgment that you should feel anointed to determine the righteousness of another’s choices is not your to perform.

If the Catholic Church or any denomination doesn’t wish to offer health care benefits then don’t, if you believe they are not already a moral obligation. But if you think the church or any member of the church has the right to decide what another’s health care needs are, no that is not a moral obligation. In fact, it is a contradiction of our moral teachings, value and beliefs. WWJD? He would tell the church to treat every member and every employee with the respect, dignity, and compassion that he has shown us is the way. If you don’t want to serve the needs of your employees then offer them nothing. If you want to do what is right either offer them health benefits uncontaminated with a presumptive judgment of what is their personal and individual right. If you can’t provide that plan directly, then provide employees with appropriate compensation so they can rightfully and morally search out what their heart tells them is proper and that their society guarantees them is theirs and theirs alone, to live their lives with freedom, liberties and faith unabridged by the judgment of others.