Nicki Minaj, right, arrives at the 54th annual Grammy Awards on Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012 in Los Angeles. (Chris Pizzello - Associated Press)

Nicki Minaj was sending a religious message with her Catholic-themed “Roman Holiday” performance at Sunday night’s Grammy awards. But what was it?

First, the pop star arrived on the red carpet escorted by a man who appears to be playing the part of a pope or bishop.

Minaj’s performance contained it all: a Catholic confession scene, and apparent demonic possession, followed by a series of break dancing monks, chanting choir boys and one levitating songstress.

The Twittersphere was apparently unable to make spiritual heads or tails of her art, but in a statement, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League was sure that her Catholic collage of a performance was intended to insult Catholics.

None of this was by accident, and all of it was approved by The Recording Academy, which puts on the Grammys. Whether Minaj is possessed is surely an open question, but what is not in doubt is the irresponsibility of The Recording Academy. Never would they allow an artist to insult Judaism or Islam.

It’s bad enough that Catholics have to fight for their rights vis-à-vis a hostile administration in Washington without also having to fend off attacks in the entertainment industry. The net effect, however, will only embolden Catholics, as well as their friends in other faith communities.

Administration officials announced a new deal offering ‘accommodation’ to religious liberty concerns over birth control coverage in new HHS regulations. (Associated Press)

The leader of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the Obama administration’s announcement that it would shift the burden for covering birth control from religious institutions to insurance companies “a first step in the right direction.”

Other Catholic leaders expressed dissatisfaction on Friday with the policy change.

The full statement from the U.S. bishops expresses cautious optimism on the revision.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

Other Catholic leaders were less upbeat.

The Rev. Frank Pavone, president of the Catholic anti-abortion organization Priests for Life, said “A resolution to this issue cannot only cover ‘religious’ employers. Religious freedom, which includes freedom of conscience, does not belong only to religious entities but to every American. There are many non-religious reasons to object to the administration’s policy.”

(Take On Faith’s poll: Did the Obama administration strike the right balance between religious freedom and women’s rights?)

Writing at CatholicVote.org, Tom Crowe was not satisfied with the compromise: “If the religious institution is being required to pay for an insurance plan that subsidizes the insurance company’s efforts to proactively spread information about obtaining contraceptives, and then also pays for the contraceptives, that still means the church is being required to subsidize services and items it deems morally repugnant. The church’s money would still be used to support gravely immoral activity.”

Speaking on “Morning Joe” as news of a potential deal broke, Washington Archbishop Cardinal Donald Wuerl said: “It’s the administration who has redefined health care. It is the presumption that pregnancy is some sort of health care anomoly that to have, to be pregnant is some sort of illness. [That approach says] we must prevent that illness and so we’ve redefined health care. . . A pregnancy becomes the problem.”

In a statement, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is not affiliated with any particular religious tradition, raised several objections to the new regulations:

“Hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Second, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations. Third, money is fungible, and many religious organizations may still object to being forced to pay money to an insurance company which will turn around and provide contraception to its employees for free.”

Other religious groups embraced the administration’s announcement.

Carole Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association said in a statement that the compromise “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.”

“This decision shows the White House respects the Catholic community and concerns of diverse religious leaders,” said John Gehring, the Catholic outreach coordinator at Faith in Public Life. “It’s clear that the president worked very hard to protect both religious liberty and women’s health. Those two values should not be in conflict. Republicans leaders and others who have unfairly bashed this administration for being hostile to religion should stop perpetuating that absurd narrative.”

A diverse group of Catholics, from Chris Matthews to the U.S.Catholic Bishops, as well as a host of evangelical and nonreligious leaders criticized the initial HHS regulations requiring birth control coverage, framing it as a matter of freedom of conscience over any right to birth control.

An official with the bishops said that the administration did not consult with their group before announcing the compromise. The White House said that Obama later contacted Dolan and Keehan, a key White House ally in Obama’s health-care overhaul, to explain the new rules.

The Catholic Church rejects what it calls ‘artificial' methods of contraception, instead advocating a method of pregnancy prevention inspired by their theology, called Natural Family Planning. The method measures a woman’s temperature and fertile signs and, if pregnancy is to be avoided, prescribes abstinence during fertile periods. One NFP advocate, Janet Smith, estimates that no more than 4 percent of Catholics use the method, a fact that, according to Politico, Obama administration officials took into consideration in their initial decision to require religious institutions to cover contraceptives.

Senior administration officials said in a conference call Friday that insurance comparies, rather than the religious insititions themselves, “will be required to reach out directly and offer [women] contraceptive care free of charge.”

The announcement marked a change from the administration’s initial requirement that religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities provide insurance coverage of birth control, even those it finds immoral.

Officials also emphasized the financial benefit of birth control to insurance companies, calling contraceptive services ‘cost neutral’ for them and citing data indicating that preventing pregnancy saves insurance companies money.

President Barack Obama announces the revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (Susan Walsh - AP) Big news Friday on the religion and politics front. From the Washington Post’s report:

Seeking to allay concerns of Catholic leaders, President Obama announced Friday an adjustment to a rule requiring religious employers to provide birth control access.

Women still will be guaranteed coverage for contraceptive services without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds.

Did the administration strike the right balance between women’s rights and religious freedom?

Roma Downey, who played the Irish angel Monica on the hugely popular TV series “Touched by an Angel” said last week at a dinner preceding the National Prayer Breakfast, “Through much time in prayer I have realized that I want to spend the second act of my life doing projects that openly honor and glorify God.”

            The Obama health care plan’s showdown with Catholic institutions belongs in what my husband calls the “too hard file.”

            I’m usually clear on what I think about things, but in this case I can see both sides.

            The Obama administration, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has mandated that all employers, including certain religious institutions such as hospitals and universities, provide the whole health-care package for all employees, which includes access to contraception. It specifically says that abortion is not covered (According to the FDA, the morning after pill is not an abortifacient.) and churches and other places of worship do not have to provide for contraception coverage.

            The Catholic Church is up in arms. Its leaders maintain that having to provide coverage for contraception is against Catholic beliefs and say that, in good conscience, the church cannot agree to that provision. They point to religious freedom as the reason they should not have to comply.

            Let’s first consider the side of administration:

            It is true that 98% of Catholic women have at some point used birth control and Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as other women. That is not irrelevant. 

            The church talks about religious freedom, but what about women’s freedom? These are not CEOs who need to be insured. These are working women who often cannot afford birth control on their own. Contraception allows women to live their lives, stay in school, contribute to the work force, stay off welfare, and, most importantly, it reduces the number of abortions. It has been estimated that it would cost the institutions 15 to 17 percent more not to provide these benefits because of medical problems associated with pregnancy, miscarriages and lost work time.

            Would more people be hurt by not getting Catholic services (which they would not get only if the church refused to serve them because of the health care bill), or would more women (and therefore families) be hurt by not getting contraceptives?

If we are talking about the religious practices of 2% of women being the reason why 98% of women who are Catholic (or of other faiths) being denied the means to contraception, is that really right? Is it really in the best interest of women, families, the country or even the Catholic Church? 

            Those who disagree with the HHS plan say that if people want contraception, they shouldn’t work for religious institutions.  How realistic is that? Are they all supposed to quit their jobs? These institutions are serving and employing millions who may not have the same beliefs. Should those people be discriminated against?

            Plus, more than 28 states already have identical religious employer exemptions.

            More than 20 major religious leaders support the Obama administration on this issue, as does Catholics for Choice. In a statement issued Wednesday, these leaders wrote: “The administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to basic health care service.”

        While the HHS  rules cover all employers, not just those taking taxpayer money, many of the religious institutions objecting to the mandate do use public money in some way.  People with religious objections must watch while tax dollars are spent on executions and wars which violate their beliefs and their consciences. Yet executions and wars continue. And while churches may be vocal opponents of these actions, where is the public outcry from the faithful? 

            One of the most important arguments for the health care mandate is that so many opponents are from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which is male-dominated and celibate. This is a tiny minority of unmarried men making the decisions about the quality of life for millions of women. That makes no sense.

            All these arguments should easily move this issue from the “too hard file,” but the church position makes some good points, too: 

If some Catholics, and those of any faith, truly believe that contraception is a sin, we cannot ignore that despite the fact that we have a country in which separation of church and state is sacrosanct. One of the reasons for separation of church and state is to protect the church as well as the state. It is important to be respectful of all religious groups. To ask religious institutions to go against a core belief and their spiritual conscience in this fashion is unjust.

        So what is the answer?

        President Obama’s spiritual advisor, the Rev. Joel Hunter, has said, “this is fixable and we want to get into the conversation.”

            David Axelrod, a senior advisor to the president’s campaign, said this week on on MSNBC, “We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions.”

            The bottom line is that this issue has suddenly blown up into political crisis. Republicans are milking it, accusing Obama yet again of a “war on religion” and trying to turn America into a “secular” nation. This is ridiculous, of course, but is playing well. It’s not just strict Catholics who are disaffected. Those who are totally supportive of contraception are feeling unease about a perceived disrespect for matters of religious conscience. Evangelicals have joined the chorus, as have Hispanics, who are 16% of the population and a key voting bloc in the 2012 campaign. This has become a political issue and the White House understands that.  This has become about votes and it’s probably not worth losing the election over.

            Even the most fervent supporters of the White House ‘s position have reconciled themselves to a compromise.

The question is this: If the administration folds and the Catholics get an exemption, what are we to do about the women?

Lisa Miller: Whose conscience will win out?

Quote of the day: Santorum on his pro-life position