- The case for mercy
The leading proponent of relaxing the ban on Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics tells Christopher Lamb that the Church too often appears rule-bound
- Home News
- World News
- Parish Practice
- Letters Extra
- The living Spirit
- Kasper says Pope Francis would like to see an ‘opening’ on church teaching on divorced and remarried
- Pell adds voice to growing opposition to Kasper’s efforts to relax Communion ban for remarried divorcees
- Bishops call for Scots to 'co-operate for the good of the nation' after 55 per cent of voters reject independence
- Dublin's All Hallows College put on the market for £11m after withdrawing from sale of Jackie Kennedy letters
The US Supreme Court affirmed an injunction against the controversial contraception mandate, in a case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor.
The mandate requires employers to purchase insurance for employees that includes contraception cover, unless they are specifically exempted. The court stated that if the Little Sisters write to the Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), affirming that they object to the mandate, HHS cannot enforce the mandate or levy fines against them while the lawsuits proceed.
The court did not address the merits of the issue, and sent the case back to the Circuit Court of Appeals for adjudication.
The Little Sisters argue that the HHS self-certification form they had been asked to sign in order to avoid purchasing the contraception coverage is a “permission slip” to their insurer, triggering the coverage to which they object.
The US Department of Justice argued that, in the Sisters’ case, they were fully exempt because their insurance company is itself a religious organisation run by the Christian Brothers.
In March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding a challenge to the mandate filed by for-profit firms, and court observers expect the Little Sisters and similar non-profit cases to eventually make their way to the high court as well.