Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty

  • Thread starter Thread starter zab
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Washington state legislature just OK’d same sex marriage.
And this good Archbishop showed up @ the Washington state March for Life last month.
This archdiocese desperately needs the likes of Archbishop Sartain.
Years ago when Rome sent then Bishop Weurl to Seattle to ‘correct course’ the Seattle newspapers ran headlines (for days) attacking Bishop Weurl and the bullies in the Vatican. The misguided Archbishop became a ‘victim’ of the mean spirited Neanderthals in Rome. Bishop Weurl retreated from Seattle, soon after.
Prayers for Archbishop Sartain.
 
[sign]Much is at stake here[/sign]
Much is at stake here,
both for our country and for
people of all religious faiths
who desire to live their faith
in freedom.
Threats against religious
freedom are current, real
and concrete, on both the
federal and state level. (See
my statement on page 1.)
Taken alone, any of these measures
strikes at our religious liberty. Taken together,
they represent a multi-pronged
attack on the First Amendment right to the practice of religion.
 
I think our new Archbishop is taking things slowly. I’m so happy he’s more visible and taking a stand on many issues. He also testified before the state congress about the same-sex marriage law. Not that our “catholic” Governor cared much.

I just wish he’d make a ruling and let us kneel again!
 
I think our new Archbishop is taking things slowly. I’m so happy he’s more visible and taking a stand on many issues. He also testified before the state congress about the same-sex marriage law. Not that our “catholic” Governor cared much.

I just wish he’d make a ruling and let us kneel again!
Kneel for what specifically?
 
More and more people @ my parish are kneeling after receiving Holy Communion. Seattle Archdiocese was one of just a few in the USA w/ that directive. Cardinal Arinze addressed this issue saying kneeling is always a legit. option.
 
Regulatory changes limited and unclear
Rescission of mandate only complete solution
Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act


WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the “preventive services” regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

Today, the President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

·It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider.

·Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

More…
 
Dang right! I signed the white house petition that the Bishops asked for. Today the WhiteHouse sent me a reply…made me see red! I dashed off a quick letter back!😦
 
Washington D.C., Feb 10, 2012 / 10:15 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. bishops released a new statement rejecting President Barack Obama’s attempted compromise over the Health and Human services contraception mandate, calling for its complete removal.

The bishops issued an initial statement of caution the afternoon of Feb. 10 after President Obama announced a new policy stating that religious employers will not have to directly purchase contraceptives, but will be required to pay for health care plans from insurance companies that offer them without cost.

Later in the day, however, the bishops released a comprehensive statement calling the mandate and its recent update unacceptable and urging Catholics across the nation “to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.”

Below is the U.S. bishops’ statement in full:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the “preventive services” regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans—nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

Today, the President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

· It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

· It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider.

· Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/CPU3ZG2O6EY

Full article…
 
Am I the only one who actually feels giddy about this fight? I’ve been longing for our leaders to speak boldly and the President has given them this opportunity. Perhaps God is using this whole situation for much good!
 
Am I the only one who actually feels giddy about this fight? I’ve been longing for our leaders to speak boldly and the President has given them this opportunity. Perhaps God is using this whole situation for much good!
Believe me, all the way from Africa and having no connection to the USA at all except the common faith I share with Catholics, I feel giddy too. I’m hopping this is a God-sent opportunity to refocus catholic identity lost in the last 50 years or so and give that push to people, young and old to try and understand Catholic faith, morality, tradition and culture. If I were the Bishops’ advisors- (Please advise them this, as you are their advisors being their proper ecclesiastical subjects)…I would quickly take advantage of this like this:
  1. Re-implement penance and fasting on all Fridays and at Lent, to pray for the church.
  2. Flood materials to all the parish, including asking every faithful catholic to get a copy of the Catechism (CCC) in order to read what church teaching for 2,000 years has been and why it cannot change. Make this almost mandatory by hammering it away through letters and ordering all priests to hammer home with it in all homilies. Hold teaching lessons on TV or DVD, especially during Lent and teach about Catholic Creed and morality step by step. Have a Bishop or two teach each one topic/class and broadcast it to the nation.
  3. Introduce a common prayer for all American Catholics- Say, ask every Catholic to participate in a particular hour of the Liturgy, Rosary, Angelus etc. Ask all Catholics to do it for solidarity. Ask ask all religious to invade the parishes and teach Catholics about prayer.
  4. Very colourful and bold public processions this year of 1) the way of the cross during lent; and corpus Christi (and the feasts of our Lady) this year. Send the message that the Church is not about to be pushed out of the public square. :nope:
By the time the fight is over, in a year or so (or more), through the Courts or Congress or the elections, the Church may find it has miraculously recaptured perhaps 10 or 20 percent of its flock that were very lax or CINOs. Opportunities like this show up once in a generation or two. Grab it, most reverend fathers of the American Church!
 
More and more people @ my parish are kneeling after receiving Holy Communion. Seattle Archdiocese was one of just a few in the USA w/ that directive. Cardinal Arinze addressed this issue saying kneeling is always a legit. option.
The CDWDS made the clarification regarding posture when coming back from Communion before our change went into effect and so, in our parish, we have always kneeled when coming back from Communion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top