Is it reasonable for the faithful of any religious orientation to seek government protection?

I don’t imagine anyone in the United States would answer in the affirmative; however, that is what the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and their allies, seek in the exemption from requiring coverage for contraceptives and other reproductive health services. Allowing this exemption is not compelling any practicing believer who opposes contraception to prevent pregnancy. In a society governed by the rule of the majority, with the protective rights of the minority, it strikes me that this governmental restriction in no way violates the practice of religion in our United States.

The opposite is not true, however. For our government to allow the exemption from this requirement does, tacitly, endorse the position of the Roman Catholic Church on birth control. Some Catholics, notably Rick Santorum, stress that birth control is immoral on its face, via Natural Law as my colleague Jacob Kohlhaas points out here, and Santorum advocates (seemingly) its ban.

This is exactly the situation our governmental founders anticipated. The First Amendment, a personal right, was created to deal with exactly this, by requiring the Government to remain on the sidelines and allowing the free exchange of religious ideas. No one is compelled to participate, no one is prohibited from participating. To have the government as an advocate, on this or any other moral and religious issue, strikes me as violating the First Amendment on its face.

One thing about my faith that I have to own is that I am (if I may borrow from LDS Mitt Romney for a moment) severely pro-life. Yet I, unlike some of my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, have no problem with birth control. I can justify this position, at least to myself, based on my understanding of both the science of reproduction, and theological discussion over the “ensouling” of an individual.

Conceptually (if you will excuse the pun), science does not support the idea of “life” beginning at any single moment, particularly not the moment of conception. The conditions necessary for the development and growth of the fetus are not met at fertilization. In fact, some studies indicate that between 60-80% of fertilized zygotes never implant in the uterus and are flushed from the woman’s body at the next menstrual cycle. Once the zygote implants in the uterine wall, it is safe to say the pregnancy has begun and the conditions for life are being met. Unless some abnormality occurs, the vast majority of zygotes that implant will become fully-formed human beings.

In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and other fertility treatment methods support this concept as well. The procedure fertilizes and forms the zygote outside of the body, but the target is for one or more of the zygotes to implant in the uterine wall.

On the theological points, is it reasonable to think that the “soul” or “God-image” is imparted to the fertilized zygote? On this issue, I think we have to return to the 60-80% of zygotes fertilized naturally that never implant. In an article published on reason.com on December 22, 2004, Ronald Bailey asks the question “Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?” While certainly possible, I have to conclude the answer is likely no.

The issue of government oversight of access to and safety of contraceptives is a question quite distinct from the morality or ethics involved in reproductive health. And thankfully so, because if the government were to abdicate that oversight responsibility, it would be tantamount to enforcing a particular religious tenet on an unwilling population.

In the 17th Chapter of the Gospel of St. John the Theologian, Christians are called to live in the world, but not of the world. It strikes me that this demands significant tolerance for the way other people choose to live, while simultaneously not compelling me to live in that manner. Additionally, in our society, the spread of the Gospel through the interchange of ideas and interaction with individual persons is unrestricted by government.

In St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 5, he reminds us that our responsibility is not the behavior of those outside our fellowship:

(From The Message): “I am saying that you shouldn’t act as if everything is just fine when one of your Christian companions is promiscuous or crooked, is flip with God or rude to friends, gets drunk or becomes greedy and predatory. You can’t just go along with this, treating it as acceptable behavior. I’m not responsible for what the outsiders do, but don’t we have some responsibility for those within our community of believers? God decides on the outsiders, but we need to decide when our brothers and sisters are out of line and, if necessary, clean house.”

Perhaps it is time believers revisit St. Paul’s words.