Washington D.C., Feb 7, 2012 / 06:05 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The archbishop who oversees global Catholic military chaplains claims the U.S. Army violated his rights by stifling a pastoral letter condemning the Obama administration's contraception mandate.

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio stands “firm in the belief, based on legal precedent,” that the Army defied his rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, according to a Feb. 3 statement from the military archdiocese.

U.S. Catholic military chaplains around the country were initially told to disobey their archbishop’s instruction to read a pastoral letter from the pulpit at all Sunday Masses on Jan. 28-29.

Although an agreement was eventually reached allowing the letter to be read, a key passage urging Catholics to avoid complying with the “unjust law” was removed.

On Jan. 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a new mandate that will soon require virtually all employers to purchase health insurance coverage that includes contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause abortion.

The announcement sparked protest around the country, as Catholic leaders and religious organizations argued that they were being coerced to violate their religious beliefs.

Although a religious exemption to the mandate exists, it does not apply to organizations that are willing to serve or employ members of other faiths. As the mandate stands, most Catholic schools, hospitals and charity organizations would be excluded from the exemption.

More than 150 Catholic bishops across the country have spoken out against the directive, saying that it violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. Several have called for civil disobedience in response to the new regulation.

On Jan. 26, Archbishop Broglio joined many of his fellow bishops around the country in issuing a pastoral letter on the mandate to be read from the pulpit at all Sunday Masses throughout the following weekend.

The pastoral letter argued that the mandate violated the religious freedom protected in the U.S. Constitution and called on Catholics to resist it.

However, according to the archdiocese’s statement, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out an email instructing that the letter “not be read from the pulpit.”

The email said that the letter could instead be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed at the back of the chapel, but that it had not been coordinated with the office and should not be read during Mass.

After a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and Secretary of the Army John McHugh, “it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading” of the letter.

However, the line, “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law” was removed from the letter by the archbishop at the prompting of Secretary McHugh, who believed that it “could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.”

According to the archdiocese, Archbishop Broglio believes the move violated both his rights and “those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.”

The archdiocese did not give any indication that it intends to pursue legal action over the incident. It said that it “did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio's statement from the other branches of service.”

Washington D.C., Feb 7, 2012 / 03:05 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The editorial board of USA Today disagreed with the Obama administration’s claim that its recent contraception mandate respects the religious freedom of groups who will be forced to comply with it. 

The board said that justifications offered by Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “sidestep the central issue” of religious freedom.

Sebelius penned a Feb. 5 article in USA Today arguing that the narrow religious exemption included in the recent contraception mandate is an attempt to “strike the right balance” between respecting religious beliefs and providing “preventive health services.”

USA Today ran an accompanying editorial article arguing that the Obama administration has “failed” to strike this balance and has instead devised a policy that is “contrary to both Catholic doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.”

The articles come amid growing controversy surrounding Sebelius’ Jan. 20 announcement that virtually all employers will soon be required to purchase health insurance plans that cover sterilization and contraception – including drugs that cause abortion – at no cost to their employees.

The move sparked massive displays of protest from religious organizations that have moral objections to the new requirements. 

Although the mandate includes a religious exemption it has been heavily criticized for its narrow scope. The exemption excludes the vast majority of religious groups because it applies only to organizations that primarily restrict their employment and services to members of their own faith.

In her article, Sebelius defended free coverage of “preventive services” as “one of the key benefits of the 2010 health care law.”

She argued that “virtually all American women use contraception at some point in their lives” and that contraception has health benefits but is often prohibitively expensive.

USA Today responded in its editorial that good medical intentions “are not sufficient grounds to override religious freedom.”

It noted that the government is free to – and in fact, already does – promote contraception in other ways that do not coerce religious organizations to violate their teachings.

Sebelius said that the administration recognized that “many religious organizations have deeply held beliefs” opposing the requirements of the mandate, and has provided an exemption for “religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith.”

The editorial acknowledged that an exemption exists for many “churches and other houses of worship,” but observed that this exemption does not extend to “organizations that employ or serve large numbers of people of different faiths,” which is a defining element “of many Catholic colleges, hospitals and charities.”

Sebelius also justified the mandate by arguing that 28 states already “require contraception to be covered by insurance,” and eight of these states do not allow for a religious exemption.

The editorial responded by pointing out that the majority of these states have even “broader exemptions” than that offered by the federal mandate, and several others that do not have an explicit exemption still provide ways for organizations with moral objections to “get around the mandate.”

“The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom deserves more weight than the administration allowed,” the editorial said.

It added that individuals freely choose employers and should therefore be able to choose to work for an institution that does not offer free contraception coverage.

The board argued that the government “should never try to force a religiously affiliated institution to violate a central tenet of its faith.”

USA Today editors urged the Obama administration to “reopen discussion with those affected” negatively by the mandate and seek a compromise that will “widen the exemption in a suitable way.”