62% of Catholic Charities $ from US Gov't?

[epan]

People are better informed now. But people are subject to more incoming manipulation of ideas. It’s almost impossible to tell, much of the time, what is a fact and what is just something someone said.

About 10 years ago, “George Washington’s Vision” was making the rounds of the internet, unsubstantiated and unreferenced. People kept posting as if it were historical fact. The was before Snopes.com which has the vision and explanation here: snopes.com/history/american/vision.asp Years ago, I chased down every instance of it’s appearance and link back and ended up with … well… air. Cyber air? It’s like Padre Pio’s vision now: no substance can be found.

Interestingly, the Washington thing it was an attempt to influence public opinion at the time it was written. Now, we have people paid to post in comboxes and forums and write blogs. In any case, just because something looks like it might be dishonest or corrupt, doesn’t mean it is, anymore than some politician seeming honest makes him that.

I think this money going to these Catholic Charities has some interesting implication for the future of the work and the attachment of the charities to the Church. I don’t think it’s bad or good, just significant.

No doubt, Catholic Charities can figure out how to segment its operations, so that none of its charitable activities funded by the taxpayer violates religious freedom. Put those agencies under one umbrella which receives gov’t subsidy. Then put the adoption agencies and family planning under an umbrella which receives no tax assistance.

They will still have an issue, I suppose, with providing employee benefits, no matter what they do about funding. But that is a different mandate, and not related to funding.

 

[Marybeloved]

I dont get all the fuss about organizations being churches or not. Is freedom of religion intended only for “churches” or all people?

 

[iloveangels]

No doubt, Catholic Charities can figure out how to segment its operations, so that none of its charitable activities funded by the taxpayer violates religious freedom. Put those agencies under one umbrella which receives gov’t subsidy. Then put the adoption agencies and family planning under an umbrella which receives no tax assistance.

They will still have an issue, I suppose, with providing employee benefits, no matter what they do about funding. But that is a different mandate, and not related to funding.

It’s not going to be that simple because of the way the mandate is written. The only programs/services that do not have to cover abortion and such are the ones that employ “primarily Catholics,” serve “primarily Catholics” and have a strictly “religious purpose.” And no one has as yet legally defined what constitutes “primarily Catholics” although they’re hinting at what’s going to be considered strictly “religious purpose.”

Not only that but the way the mandate is written those two little definitions can be mandated too, by the HHS department of the federal government. And they can change them as often as they want when they want. Welcome to Obamacare.

 

[Julia_Mae]

It’s not going to be that simple because of the way the mandate is written. The only programs/services that do not have to cover abortion and such are the ones that employ “primarily Catholics,” serve “primarily Catholics” and have a strictly “religious purpose.” And no one has as yet legally defined what constitutes “primarily Catholics” although they’re hinting at what’s going to be considered strictly “religious purpose.”

Not only that but the way the mandate is written those two little definitions can be mandated too, by the HHS department of the federal government. And they can change them as often as they want when they want. Welcome to Obamacare.

I’m sorry, this is a lot of scare talk about changing the definition all the time. In the end, assuming it becomes law and what you say it correct, the courts will make a determination of what “primarily” means. Or may have done already and so that term is actually one having a legal definition.

Also, do you have any actual quotes from the law we can look at to see for ourselves how it’s written? The text must be online someplace, do you have a link?

 

[Julia_Mae]

I dont get all the fuss about organizations being churches or not. Is freedom of religion intended only for “churches” or all people?

I wasn’t fussed about it, I was just surprised. The issue is the implications for the operation of the charity if the government money disappears. Money, no matter who it comes from, is often accompanied by rules for it’s use. When you cannot abide the rules, then you don’t get the money.

 

[iloveangels]

I’m sorry, this is a lot of scare talk about changing the definition all the time. In the end, assuming it becomes law and what you say it correct, the courts will make a determination of what “primarily” means. Or may have done already and so that term is actually one having a legal definition.

Also, do you have any actual quotes from the law we can look at to see for ourselves how it’s written? The text must be online someplace, do you have a link?

No, if the individual mandate manages to make it through the Supreme Court, the agency that sets what these two definitions are is the HHS in cooperation with agencies that have been designated to carry it out (HRSA) & collect the fines for disobedience (aka the Internal Revenue Service).

See the exclusions already made on the very bottom of the following page: hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/

It’s a footnote with 2 stars.

There was a link at the HHS website to that page.

 

[iloveangels]

Group health plans with an exemption are “certain religious employers.”

By their definition, exempt religious employers:
a) have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose. (not one of their purposes, but their purpose)
b) primarily employ those who share religious tenets (which means primarily Catholics)
c) primarily serve those who share religious tenets (which means primarily Catholics)
d) have a certain non-profit status according to the IRS

I don’t know what “primarily” means yet, whether it means more than 51%, or 80% or 90% or what.

I also don’t know what “share religious tenets” might mean in an observable way, but I would expect that they’re going to use the very things they’re trying to push (birth control et al) to assess that. This could get strange and rough.

The Catholic church is less than 25% of the general population total, and in many parts of the country is much less than that. Most of the populations that are served by Catholic agencies are far less than that and readily & demonstrably so.

Offhand, my guess is that houses of religious orders would be exempt as long as they were careful to serve primarily Catholics & keep track of that (unacceptable!), retreat centers maybe as long as they take primarily Catholics as participants, and parish offices proper would be exempt as long as they outreach was primarily Catholics. Maybe a seminary could be exempt if it could prove that the teachers, administrators and students were primarily Catholic and THE purpose was inculcation of religious values.

 

[Julia_Mae]

No, if the individual mandate manages to make it through the Supreme Court, the agency that sets what these two definitions are is the HHS in cooperation with agencies that have been designated to carry it out (HRSA) & collect the fines for disobedience (aka the Internal Revenue Service).

See the exclusions already made on the very bottom of the following page: hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/

It’s a footnote with 2 stars.

There was a link at the HHS website to that page.

What an excellent link, thank you very much for taking the time. So this is the ** footnote:

** Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B). See the Federal Register Notice: Group Health Plans and Health
Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PDF - 201 KB)

So, I’m not a lawyer, but I grew up in a family of them and learned a few things when I was a cop in my youth and part of what is true is that certain words have meaning in terms of the body of law. The courts, when defining those terms, don’t use only some narrow set of recently-written laws or regulations, but consider the historical and constant definitions applied to those words. If any word is going to be used and have a different meaning, it must be redefined in context at the time of the promulgation of the law or regulation.

It is just not true that the government or the IRS or anyone can say, “Well, today we are defining ‘religious employer’ this way…” They can try, but the court will kick their upstart butts.

 

[iloveangels]

Except the court, in this case, is the Supreme Court, and it’s now politicized.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Except the court, in this case, is the Supreme Court, and it’s now politicized.

It has a Catholic majority, at least one of whom is Opus Dei and another at least in sympathy.

If the Court is weighted in any direction it’s toward the Church.

 

[iloveangels]

It has a Catholic majority, at least one of whom is Opus Dei and another at least in sympathy.

If the Court is weighted in any direction it’s toward the Church.

I’m not so sure about that. Just because a person is “catholic,” that doesn’t always mean much.

And the next president, whoever he is, is going to get to make at least one appointment anyway.

This is an interesting conversation, though, because rather few people are really talking about what actually might happen in very practical terms, if the individual mandate doesn’t get totally thrown out in the next couple of weeks.

In March or whenever it was that it went to the floor in the Supreme Court, it didn’t sound like it was going to remain intact, but no one outside those chambers really knows for sure, at least officially or in any way they can let on.

I’m not sure whether if part of it is struck down and some stands, what we’ll be stuck with. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that there’s a hidden stunt buried in it for that eventuality.