Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Thomas Jefferson, Catholic sisters, and Obamacare
Thomas Jefferson, Catholic sisters, and Obamacare
Oct 9, 2024 2:26 AM

It’s easy to read that headline and think, “Wha…?” What in the world do Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, Catholic Sisters and our present day health laws have to do with each other? I’m glad you asked.

More than 200 years ago, the Ursuline Sisters of France were fleeing the French Revolution and seeking a new home in New Orleans. They planned to open schools, hospitals and orphanages, but wanted to make sure that the U.S. government, now in control of New Orleans, would not meddle in their plans – separation of church and state, you see. They wrote to President Thomas Jefferson with their concerns; Jefferson’s response?

I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution by the former governments of Louisiana.

The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you, sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.

Whatever the diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under.

Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.

I salute you, holy sisters, with friendship and respect.

(By the way, you can see Jefferson’s original letter – kept in the Ursuline Museum – here.)

Why is this important? As blogger Joanne McPortland pointed out yesterday, some people (okay, columnist Jamie Stiehm at U.S. News) are trying to say that the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are currently seeking an exemption from the HHS mandate, are trying to finagle their way around the separation of church and state. Stiehm rolls out a diatribe against Justice Sotomayor, saying she “is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence.” Why? Because Sotomayor has temporarily blocked the Little Sisters of the Poor from having ply with the HHS mandate, which would force the Sisters to offer contraceptives and abortion coverage to their employees. Stiehm is not happy with Sotomayor:

Sotomayor’s blow brings us to confront an fortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if “you” are female. This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. But right now, the climate is so cold when es to defending our settled legal ground that Sotomayor’s stay is tantamount to selling out the sisterhood. And sisterhood is not as powerful as it used to be, ladies.

Okay, so the “sisterhood” (the feminists, not the “trouble-making” Catholic ones) have been sold out. But then Stiehm wants to make it clear that all of this has been worked out already, by none other than…Thomas Jefferson, since he’s the one who came up with the whole “separation of church and state” idea:

Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony.

You can disagree with Stiehm’s view of the Little Sisters of the Poor, her view about Obamacare and that of the “sisterhood” of women. But she’s flat-out wrong when es to Jefferson. And he himself proves that in the letter above. HotAir’s Ed Morrissey:

…using Jefferson as an argument for federal intervention in just about anything reveals a much deeper ignorance of Jefferson, the political winds of the era, and which side of the political divide Jefferson ended up representing. The effort to replace the Articles of Confederation produced peting camps, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the latter of which strongly opposed a strong national government that could impose dictates on the states and on individuals. While Jefferson may not have been explicitly a member of that movement, he certainly sympathized with them, which is why we have a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. When the Anti-Federalists lost the argument, they ended up migrating into Jefferson’s political party, the Democratic Republican Party, which was the forerunner of today’s Democratic Party.

Arguing that Jefferson would cheer federal dictates on the choices of health insurance for nuns is therefore either high ignorance or deliberate obtuseness.

Unlike Stiehm, I hesitate to speak on behalf of Thomas Jefferson. So I’ll just repeat what he said, “The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you, sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.” Perhaps Justice Sotomayor knows that these words apply not only to the Ursuline Sisters, but the “trouble-making” Little Sisters of the Poor as well.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
What Would Röpke Do?
As America and Europe continue to wrestle with the question of how best to address their respective economic crises, many are looking back to the lessons of history and how they might be applicable to today. Scholars, public intellectuals, and policy analysts are paying particular attention to the economic debates of the 1930s, during which much intellectual wrestling — not all of it pretty — occurred over the causes of the Great Depression and how to best alleviate its destructive...
Barack von Bismarck
Published today in Acton News & Commentary. Sign up for the free weekly email newsletter from the Acton Institute here. Barack von Bismarck By Anthony Bradley The November congressional elections are not so much a referendum on the Obama administration as a check on whether President Barack Obama’s implementation of a Bismarckian vision of government will continue. Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian prime minister/German chancellor from 1862 to 1890, is the father of the welfare state. He advanced the vision...
Oslington, Economics, and the Social Encyclicals
Dr. Paul Oslington, professor of economics at Australian Catholic University, has a piece up today that examines the scope of social encyclicals, beginning with Rerum Novarum in 1891 and focusing especially on the similarities and differences between John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus and Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate. Comparing this tradition with that of ecclesiastical statements from other church traditions, Oslington judges (and I think quite rightly), “On the whole, statements of the Roman Catholic Church since the landmark papal...
Make Work Your Favorite
Very often it is difficult to see in any concrete way how our work really means anything at all. The drudgery of the daily routine can be numbing, sometimes literally depending on your working conditions. What is the purpose, the end of our work? How can we properly value that aspect of our vocations that involve daily work? How can you and I, in the words of the manager in the movie Elf, “make work your favorite”? Lester DeKoster, in...
Acton Alumni: Changing the World
Over the last 20 years, Acton Institute has worked to discover, cultivate, and encourage current and future business leaders and cultural influencers. Last week’s 20th Anniversary Dinner gave testimony to two decades of great effort. It is often easy to recognize current leaders like Kate O’Beirne (MC for the evening) and Richard M. DeVos (recipient of the 2010 Faith and Freedom award) but the future leaders are often less obvious to the untrained eye. However, it was clear that the...
Russian students get a new, shorter Gulag Archipelago. What about Americans?
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, banned in the Soviet Union until 1989, has been published in a new shorter, Russian-language edition aimed at schools. The book was included in the list pulsory books in Russian schools only last year, according to a report in RIA Novosti. The widow of Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn presented on Thursday an abridged edition of The Gulag Archipelago that publishers hope will eventually be read by every Russian student. “It is necessary that people know...
‘Springfield’s Only Choice’
President Obama, Vice President Biden to Announce $8 Billion for High-Speed Rail Projects Across the Country DOT Awards $2.4 Billion to Continue Developing 21st Century High-speed Passenger Rail Corridors “You’ll be given cushy jobs!” ...
Juan Williams’ Firing Might Produce Desired Results
Published today in Acton News & Commentary. Sign up for the free weekly email newsletter from the Acton Institute here. Juan Williams’ Firing Might Produce Desired Results By Bruce Edward Walker It was a tough few days last week in Radio Wobegone. And it promises to get tougher in the days, weeks and months ahead. The base of operations for Prairie Home Companion and Car Talk is in serious hot water. National Public Radio dismissed newsman Juan Williams for an...
Acton on Tap: Putting Politics in its Place
Jordan Ballor and I are hosting an Acton on Tap on Thursday October 28 at Derby Station in East Grand Rapids. The event starts promptly at 6:30 p.m. If you are in the Grand Rapids area and like humor, politics, and fellowship, please plan on attending. Here is our description from the event page: On the eve of mid-term elections, Jordan J. Ballor and Ray Nothstine of the Acton Institute discuss the role of politics in contemporary American life, especially...
Freedom Rightly Cultivated and Rightly Construed
In response to backlash from China for awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, one of the Middle Kingdom’s best-known democracy activists, Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland penned a New York Times op-ed to defend mittee’s decision. He begins: “The Chinese authorities’ condemnation of the Nobel Committee’s selection of Liu Xiaobo, the jailed political activist, as the winner of the 2010 Peace Prize inadvertently illustrates why human rights are worth defending.” So far, so good. From scathing op-eds...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2024 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved