Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty

  • Thread starter Thread starter zab
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dawnia said:
Only about 30% of currently sexually active Catholic women who aren’t pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant (14%) are currently using contraception. Another 30% are sterilized. Study doesn’t break out those using hormone therapy for a medical issue or those who are sterilized because of a medical issue (historectomy, etc). While I expect the number of medically necessary cases is small, it still inflates the numbers unrealistically.
Click to expand...
This is what I was wondering…how many of these women were using “birth control” for a purpose that the church approves; not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat a medical condition (heavy or irregular periods, etc.)?
 
It won’t matter much what occurs in the court of public opinion. If the administration does not come to realize it’s error (unlikely) and if the congress is unable to swiftly pass some legislation blocking the rule (also unlikely) then the matter will wind up being decided by the courts.
Now - in the first two obviously public opinion can play a fairly strong role - but in a court case not so much.
A court case is going to revolve around the constitutionality of the rule and, like the magisterium, the Supreme court must weigh things matters based on deeper issues and not opinion polls.

Peace
James
 
The U.S. bishops have issued a more extensive statement on President Obama’s suggested changes to the HHS contraception mandate. Here’s one snippet: 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…

catholictide.com/11/bishops-issue-new-statement-on-hhs-changes/?doing_wp_cron=1329063596

Read the official statement here:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/bishops-renew-call-to-legislative-action-on-religious-liberty.cfm
 
Leegal said:
I have several problems with this revised HHS mandate, so I was not surprised when the Bishops rejected the proposed compromise the other day; it was no compromise.

On the radio today, they are now saying this all benefits the administration – not the Church.

What has been accomplished is that it has further divided the Church against itself, and against those who supported religious freedom (Catholics and non who still believe the govenrment cannot set doctrine) and those who are “liberal” Catholics, but still believed in religious freedom. So, where the Church had support – the Church now stands alone – and the administration wins.

I don’t see it. I think it’s a win for the Church and a problem for the administration, for several reasons.

Anyone see the Bishops’ rejection of the compromise as a win for the HHS mandate and the administration?

If this should be moved, please move it. I did not know where to post.
Click to expand...
The problem with this “compromise” is it is an illusion. The Catholic Church considers it to be a sin to buy, use, or sell contraception. It is even sinful to hold a contraceptive mentality. The administration is attempting to placate the Church, by offering all people benefiting from insurance policies access to “free” contraception. There is no such thing as free. The premiums paid by Catholic institutions on behalf of their employees would still be paying for this immoral service, only now under a layer of obfuscation that isn’t fooling anyone.

What will work in the administrations favor is that the people promoting this issue seem to be purposefully dense. They are only going to attack the Church as an archaic institution, and not even acknowledging the actual grievances expressed by the Church or its affiliates. By rejecting this baseless “compromise”, they can blindly accuse the Church of being unreasonable, let the media die down, and quietly push this through.

I don’t think that anyone being intellectually honest can call this a true compromise, but we don’t seem to be dealing with such individuals. We must continue to make a lot of noise to show that we are not placated by fuzzy math with no substance.
 
the_7th_one said:
It will quiet some of the outcry the mandate caused, and that is why it was revised. But the media is not talking about the details of the “compromise” and that could swing it in Obama’s favor. It depends if the Bishops keep the heat turned up and we follow up with our objections.
Click to expand...
You may be right. They are not discussing the details, but how the Church is now losing support or “divided” instead. Surprising, because it was mainly a conservative radio station.

It seems, from this commentary, that they want us to believe (or maybe it’s true), that support is swinging to the administration’s favor now.

I can’t believe HHS (administration) gets a win here.
 
“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.”

Amen to the Bishops. I support them 100% even though I do not hail from the United States of America. Stand with them fellow Catholics and people of Good Will. You are in the prayers of many.

God Bless,
Anathama Sit

Growls why won’t this post?
 
runningdude said:
The problem with this “compromise” is it is an illusion. The Catholic Church considers it to be a sin to buy, use, or sell contraception. It is even sinful to hold a contraceptive mentality. The administration is attempting to placate the Church, by offering all people benefiting from insurance policies access to “free” contraception. There is no such thing as free. The premiums paid by Catholic institutions on behalf of their employees would still be paying for this immoral service, only now under a layer of obfuscation that isn’t fooling anyone.

What will work in the administrations favor is that the people promoting this issue seem to be purposefully dense. They are only going to attack the Church as an archaic institution, and not even acknowledging the actual grievances expressed by the Church or its affiliates. By rejecting this baseless “compromise”, they can blindly accuse the Church of being unreasonable, let the media die down, and quietly push this through.

I don’t think that anyone being intellectually honest can call this a true compromise, but we don’t seem to be dealing with such individuals. We must continue to make a lot of noise to show that we are not placated by fuzzy math with no substance.
Click to expand...
I realize that the issue is over doctrine and imposing govenment will upon doctrine. I saw the compromise as still an imposition upon Doctrine if the Church has to be viewed as in any way supporting contraception, etc. And now the federal government will tell insurance companies, which are businesses, regulated by their respective states how to write policy and what to charge – or not to charge. This is not the function of federal government. I see it as the administration has dug itself into a new and deeper hole. But, that’s not what is being reported.

Yes, the people are dense. It does not matter if the teaching is called archaic by some because it’s THE Teaching.

I think it’s open season on Catholics.
 
JRKH said:
It won’t matter much what occurs in the court of public opinion. If the administration does not come to realize it’s error (unlikely) and if the congress is unable to swiftly pass some legislation blocking the rule (also unlikely) then the matter will wind up being decided by the courts.
Now - in the first two obviously public opinion can play a fairly strong role - but in a court case not so much.
A court case is going to revolve around the constitutionality of the rule and, like the magisterium, the Supreme court must weigh things matters based on deeper issues and not opinion polls.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Then we can pray that it moves along to the courts. I see no compromise from this administration, and Congress, who really has the power to legislate does nothing anyway so they won’t take this on.
 
bellasbane said:
The U.S. bishops have issued a more extensive statement on President Obama’s suggested changes to the HHS contraception mandate. Here’s one snippet: 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…
​
Click to expand...

With respect to the bishops, the problem with this whole thing is that certain mandates like life-saying measures taken regardless of ability to pay may be affected. Make no mistake there had been plenty of mandates prior to Obamacare; otherwise Romney would have no problem defending the healthcare measures he himself enacted into law. However, the bishops are correct in pursuing and trying to work out a solution because the way it stands with all its moving parts is not acceptable.​
 
usccb.org/news/2012/12-026.cfm

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.
 
Post 23:
Nimzovik said:
To put it simply - Obama is violating your civil Liberties. Is it not most interesting that the ACLU is deafeningly silent on this issue? Hmmmmmmmm…:hmmm:
Click to expand...
When was the last time the ACLU came to the rescue of the Catholic Church or any Catholic institution? Hmmm?

I would not hold my breath waiting on them!

(I just edited my own post after finding this:)
hotair.com/archives/2012/02/08/the-aclu-jumps-the-shark/
Code: 
The American Civil Liberty Union announced today that President Obama’s decision to mandate coverage for birth control does not violate religious liberty.
Click to expand...
Code: 
The ACLU’s Alicia Gay warns that the “powerful lobbying arm of the Catholic Church” mistakenly claims that the HHS contraception mandate violates their religious liberty.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Individuals who choose not to pay for employees’ contraceptives, the ACLU counters, are forcing their beliefs on their employees.
Click to expand...
Code: 
“The fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a right to impose those views on others, including ignoring civil rights laws or denying critical health care,” Gay insists.
Click to expand...
Mimi

Pray and fast for our Church, our Freedom, and our Country
 
The Tablet and my parish says there’s a bill before Congress that will reverse the mandate that Catholic run non-profit organizations and universities must insure for contraceptives, etc.

**Please write to your Senators to vote “yes” on Senate Bill S1467. **

S1467

Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims and secularists should be concerned as well. The HHS mandates infringe on religious freedom of conscience antithetical to the intent of our founding fathers – it’s the Catholics now.

The EEOC tried to infringe on Lutheran Evangelicals and their right to hire and fire lay ministers. Who and what will be next?
 
The Obama “accommodation” is a shell game. We must keep the pressure on our elected officials. Having worked for a polititician, I can tell you that a personal letter is much more effective than a petition. A short paragraph is sufficient. Or, when writing to the president and your representatives in the Senate and House, send post cards. Make the message brief and clear – state your position and your signature. Include your address and zip code. I urge you to sign petitions against this unconstitutional action, but also to make it personal with a brief letter or post card to every politician in a position to change it who wants your vote. I protested the mandate; today I’m sending letter #2 (or post cards) against the “accommodation.”

A great petition to sign is the one offered by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (they are suing the government over this):

becketfund.org/ibelievepetition/

You can sign more than one petition.
 
There’s a bill stalled in Congress for 9 months that would have reversed this mandate.

Contact your Senators to vote “yes” and get this bill over to the House.

Link to bill S 1467. S 1467

Recommended by the Tablet.
 
Besides the “shell game” being played by the administration, as the USCCB letter on the “compromise” points out:

“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.”

Also, the letter points out the bigger picture:

“…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.” (emphasis mine)

I thought these were also good points.*
 
Also,

According to the Archdiocese of Detroit’s website:

“In Michigan, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron joined this afternoon with his brother bishops in the state in sending a letter to Congressman Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph), urging his support for H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.”

I’m assuming this is a similar bill to the one that you mentioned Leegal.🤷
 
LionHeart777 said:
Also,

According to the Archdiocese of Detroit’s website:

“In Michigan, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron joined this afternoon with his brother bishops in the state in sending a letter to Congressman Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph), urging his support for H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.”

I’m assuming this is a similar bill to the one that you mentioned Leegal.🤷
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s the House equivalent and stalled since March 2011 in committee.
 
Our church created letters to our 3 house of reps and to our 2 senators and placed them in the Narthex. After Mass we were all invited to sign and place our addresses at the bottom of all 5 individual letters to be sent. I was surprised how many foks chose not to participate. 😦

There were at least 100 of each letter that was signed, hopefully today after Massmore will be signed and sent.

I am so confused that the ACLU will be all over a municipality for putting up a nativity scene, or having a prayer before a football game, but when the President DICTATES policy to religious organizations we can hear pins dropping all over the place. Where is that super power when you need it!!! :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top