Archbishop: Obama Needs To Stop 'Intruding Into Internal Life Of Church'

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, I really need to get new glasses. I first thought the title of this post was “Archbishop Obama!”

I’d like to add that what Obama really needs to do is to retire!
 
from the article: “The federal government should do what it’s traditionally done since July 4, 1776, namely back out of intruding into the internal life of a church,” Dolan told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer."

The issue is not whether Catholics may or may not use contraception. Nobody in the Church is following them around to check up on them.

The issue is whether the government can force a Catholic institution, hospital, or charity, to violate its own religious beliefs.

Constitutionally, the answer is clear. It cannot.

That is why this mandate must be fought. If the government can force a Catholic institution to reject its own Catholicism, religious freedom is dead in this nation.
 
If it’s been law and just hasn’t been as widely known or enforced, it lends credence to the thought that conservatives as the story’s opening sentence says, have “freaked out” over the Obama Administration. But that’s more or less been the case since His Presidency began or before it seems to me.
 
The liberal spin starts in the first sentence of the article which states "MOST employers are required’. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. IMHO,this is nothing more than liberal spin and drivel. Obama is attacking our constitutional freedoms. You cannot spin that!
 
I don’t see DePaul University on the Cardinal Newman Society’s list of faithful Catholic colleges:

thenewmanguide.com/TheCatholicColleges/tabid/506/Default.aspx

Catholic colleges & other Catholic institutions should not be forced by the government to pay for something that our faith teaches us is gravely immoral. The motherjones article is actually just a new spin on the old argument that because the majority of Catholics use contraception, we don’t have a right to conscience protections. This is about religious freedom, not contraception. The left is really having a difficult time responding to this issue with authority because they still haven’t grasped what the issue is. It’s not about contraception people, it’s about freedom of conscience.
 
When an article starts with ‘The right…’ says… you know it is going to be biased.

The way it works right now, if you work for the Catholic Church or Catholic Institutions the federal government does not force birth control to paid for by the Church or Catholic institutions, there was a way for employers that were not willing to offer contraception, abortificants, sterilization in their health care package to not offer it.

But what HHS Mandate wants all health insurance providers to cover contraception, abortificants, and sterilization all free of charge and there is no religious exemption, while currently there is one.
 
_Abyssinia said:
When an article starts with ‘The right…’ says… you know it is going to be biased.

The way it works right now, if you work for the Catholic Church or Catholic Institutions the federal government does not force birth control to paid for by the Church or Catholic institutions, there was a way for employers that were not willing to offer contraception, abortificants, sterilization in their health care package to not offer it.

But what HHS Mandate wants all health insurance providers to cover contraception, abortificants, and sterilization all free of charge and there is no religious exemption, while currently there is one.
Click to expand...
However, this does not seem to be the case. The article states that Depaul University was forced to provide these things following an EEOC complaint.
 
CMatt25 said:
If it’s been law and just hasn’t been as widely known or enforced, it lends credence to the thought that conservatives as the story’s opening sentence says, have “freaked out” over the Obama Administration. But that’s more or less been the case since His Presidency began or before it seems to me.
Click to expand...
So you are cool with the mandate regardless if it old law or new?
 
I like the sentiment.

However, how do we answer the opposition when they simplly say that the Church interferes in politics all of the time and now is just getting upset when the tables are turned?
 
CatholicMedic said:
However, this does not seem to be the case. The article states that Depaul University was forced to provide these things following an EEOC complaint.
Click to expand...
They added it because of a complaint, but they were not forced to by the federal government - there is a difference.
 
I would like to repost this link to the passage in the Bible on spiritual warfare, as the other thread closed:

I have been thinking. I do not think President Obama is exercising his agenda here. I think the problem runs much deeper and as Christians we may be missing the point.

There is a strategy here that transcends politics. The president himself is being used by the forces of evil arrayed against the Kingdom of God. While political action is needed, I think it is far less important than spiritual action. Rather, we should heed the voice of St. Paul in Ephesians 6:101-20, and realize that this battle is not against flesh and blood. I encourage everyone to read this again in light of the current events, meditate upon the weapons we are to use, and join the real battle. I will link the chapter to make it easier.

usccb.org/bible/ephesians/6

Ephesians 6:10-20
 
Ok i still need some calarification:

From an article:

“California is one of 28 states that require institutions that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception. The law has been in place since 2001. The University of San Francisco and St. Mary’s College in Moraga are among the universities that comply with state law but are concerned with the federal changes.”

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/02/09/MNLD1N4UHO.DTL

So where was the outrage over CA’s law?

If hte Church has gotten around this law, how is it being done?

Just askin.
 
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like those in favor of this mandate are trying their hardest to frame the debate as though it is about “contraception”. They seldom mention sterilization and never mention that some of this “contraception” is actually potentially abortifacient.

I suppose it makes sense because they think that if people view this as a debate on contraception, they have the numbers on their side.

But the entire issue of contraception is really not the main issue. It really is about respecting an individual’s and an institution’s right to religious freedom.
 
Tbrightson said:
Ok i still need some calarification:

From an article:

“California is one of 28 states that require institutions that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception. The law has been in place since 2001. The University of San Francisco and St. Mary’s College in Moraga are among the universities that comply with state law but are concerned with the federal changes.”

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/02/09/MNLD1N4UHO.DTL

So where was the outrage over CA’s law?

If hte Church has gotten around this law, how is it being done?

Just askin.
Click to expand...
 
Tbrightson said:
Ok i still need some calarification:

From an article:

“California is one of 28 states that require institutions that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception. The law has been in place since 2001. The University of San Francisco and St. Mary’s College in Moraga are among the universities that comply with state law but are concerned with the federal changes.”

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/02/09/MNLD1N4UHO.DTL

So where was the outrage over CA’s law?

If hte Church has gotten around this law, how is it being done?

Just askin.
Click to expand...
See the following:

Claim: “Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”

Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false. All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA). None of these havens is available under the federal mandate. It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption. It is broader: It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion. Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.
Source: usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Response-to-WH-Blog-on-HHS-Mandate.pdf

White House Misrepresents it’s own Mandate
 
Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false. All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How does that work? If CA says you must provide it, what difference does self-insurance make?
by dropping that particular coverage altogether,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This wouldnt apply to CA…CA says you must provide it.
or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
??? ERISA deals with retirment accounts…???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top