Bishops rip HHS mandate That Forces Coverage of Birth Control, Abortion Drugs

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rence said:
Lisa, first you ask me questions, and I answer them in earnest; but then you insult me because you don’t like my answers. Now you’re asking me questions again. If I answer you, and you don’t like like the answers, will you continue to insult me or do you really wish a meaningful dialog and just lost your temper?
Click to expand...
👍
 
Rence said:
the mandate was introduced because the majority of people want the benefits. Not everyone in the U.S. is Catholic and the government and the HHS is responsible for representing everyone, not just Catholics. It’s part of living in a multicultural society. I
Click to expand...
As a Catholic your first moral duty is to your faith. If the government makes laws and decisions to support the immoral majority, then you and I have a moral duty to protest. Catholic moral law is very clear. Democracy is never a end in itself. It is a means to ensure that people are free to live the Gospel.

It does not say that Democracy is a means to making everyone happy. That is not Catholic teaching. Go back and read Evangelium Vitae. Pope John Paul was very clear. The duty of the Catholic is not to protect the rights of immoral majority. The duty of the Catholic is to ensure freedom to live according to the Truth. In Caritas et Veritate, Pope Benedict makes it clear that no government has the right to protect or support that which is immoral, regardless of the number of people who want it.

This was the issue that Pope Pius IX had with freedom of religion. Contrary to many people’s thinking, he was not for persecuting Muslims for being Muslims and Jews for being Jews. He was concerned that in the name of said freedom, immoral choices would be made, not by the citizen, but by the state. He was afraid that Catholic citizens would uphold those choices believing them to be true freedoms.

The Church’s position on this has never changed, contrary to what Traditionalists and Liberals say. Freedom of religion means freedom from persecution. It does not mean freedom from the moral law.

You say that this does not affect you. Life is not about us as individuals. It’s about Truth. The Truth is that these endorsements are immoral. No one has the right to ask anyone to pay for what is immoral. My Catholic grandma who owns business, should not have to purchase an insurance policy for her employees that provides something immoral. If her employees want that, they can work for someone who has that kind of benefit. They don’t have to work for my grandma’.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t have a grandma’ 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
CMatt25 said:
It’s not like pulling teeth. Just refer to what you asked me.
Click to expand...
Edit: This is like pulling wisdom teeth. Impacted wisdom teeth.

Just say it Matt. I notice you don’t have a denomination listed in your upper right hand corner anyway. You’re probably an animist. Am I right? Do I win the grand prize game today?
 
iloveangels said:
Edit: This is like pulling wisdom teeth. Impacted wisdom teeth.

Just say it Matt. I notice you don’t have a denomination listed in your upper right hand corner anyway. You’re probably an animist. Am I right? Do I win the grand prize game today?
Click to expand...
No
 
ReturningToRome said:
I would like to put a succinct, thought-provoking statement on my facebook page as to why contraception coverage should not be mandated in a health care plan. Something not too religious, but that honors the gift of life. Anything you’ve read, or would like to offer, that says it in a nutshell?
Click to expand...
RTR,

First be clear that this is NOT simply contraception coverage but also sterilization, abortion inducing drugs such as RU486. By focusing on ABC the Left has made this seem like a tempest in a teapot. They trot out irrelevant comments like the percentage of Catholics who use ABC thus deflecting the real issue.

The issue is freedom of religion that is something even atheists can support.

Further go to biology. Contraception is not preventing an illness although it is “covered” under “Preventative Services.” THis is not the same as providing lifesaving medications to prevent heart disease or providing mammograms or PSA tests. Pregnancy is the function of a healthy, not a diseased body.

Further why is this particular medical product not only mandated but to be provided FREE? That is patently unfair as it foists the burden for those who could afford to pay for this coverage onto those who may not have such resources. As someone noted, why is Mrs Smith from Peoria paying for Melinda Gates’ birth control pills?

Also many “contraception” products are simply after the fact abortion inducing drugs. Are we for providing free abortions for all?

I realize this isn’t succinct but thought there were a few issues that could be brought up to make a non-Catholic understand the objections to this mandate.

Lisa
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I don’t claim to be an expert but from what I know, Obamacare, like most laws, empowers the administration to fill in certain details, among them the definition of “preventive care” and who qualifies for what exemption. (Sort of like defining marriage to be whatever is fashionable at the moment.)

I agree that it will require a long and deep reevaluation.

But more importantly, I must take issue with the very idea that the state will ever listen to the Church in the way that you expect. If anything, states are less inclined to listen to the Church than ever, not only in America but also in Europe. Nothing better demonstrates this than the current predicament which, really, is just the state crossing yet another line, this time one that the bishops cannot tolerate.

On the other hand, as you yourself documented, the Church has proven very capable of providing health care and other services for the poor for far longer than it has viewed health care as a right to be guaranteed by the state.

So the Church can either commit it’s energies toward trying to tell the state how to regulate health care or it can lend it’s energies to providing that health care more directly in the way that it should be provided while guaranteeing itself the freedom to do so.

You know where I stand on that choice.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the religious and charitable organizations cannot provide services as they once did, when the State keeps piling on regulations that they can’t afford. They have no choice but to engage the state in a dialogue. I understand that the state resists that dialogue. Citizens have to push the state to open the doors to it.

I’ll give you three examples: Franciscans, Alexians and Daughters of Charity. They ran the largest Catholic healthcare networks in the USA, followed by the Adventists and then the Jews. None of them can do it anymore.

The congregation cannot afford to donate more than it already donates. Patients can’t afford to pay more than they already pay. However, the costs keep rising, not only because technology, salaries and medicines are more expensive, but also the number of regulations require big investments that are beyond the budgets of these providers.

It comes down to us, the voters, telling the state, to back off or pick up the tab. Personally, I’d rather see them back off. This regulation is just one more obstacle.

As people of faith, we have to ensure that the public officials who represent us, remember that we are people of faith. We’re not just political pawns in their squabbles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
As a Catholic your first moral duty is to your faith.
Click to expand...
Thank you Br. JR. I appreciate what you’r saying. As a Catholic I try to be a living example of my faith. That means living with the confines of my religion, regardless of whether or not I actually agree with the rules. This also means that I counsel my peers according to the rules of the Church when I have the opportunity. I try to live my life as a good Catholic and hope that my living example will speak for itself. I believe that you can make more of a difference from where one stands for the world to see, rather than by constantly fighting the world. But that’s just me. Everyone is called a different way.
 
Rence said:
Thank you Br. JR. I appreciate what you’r saying. As a Catholic I try to be a living example of my faith. That means living with the confines of my religion, regardless of whether or not I actually agree with the rules. This also means that I counsel my peers according to the rules of the Church when I have the opportunity. I try to live my life as a good Catholic and hope that my living example will speak for itself. I believe that you can make more of a difference from where one stands for the world to see, rather than by constantly fighting the world. But that’s just me. Everyone is called a different way.
Click to expand...
But what if more than 90% of the bishops say that we can’t go along with a particular ruling? What is your moral duty then?
 
iloveangels said:
Edit: This is like pulling wisdom teeth. Impacted wisdom teeth.

Just say it Matt. I notice you don’t have a denomination listed in your upper right hand corner anyway. You’re probably an animist. Am I right? Do I win the grand prize game today?
Click to expand...
You know, I don’t mean to be rude or insultive, but this thread isn’t about Matt or his religious affiliation. There is a place on members’ profiles for that, and if it’s empty it’s because they don’t have one or don’t wish to devulge it. Guessing what his religious affiliation is worthless because we’re not required by forum rules to list our religious affiliation anyway. Please discuss the thread topic, not Matt. And please, not me 🙂 We are not the topics of this thread 🙂
 
iloveangels said:
But what if more than 90% of the bishops say that we can’t go along with a particular ruling? What is your moral duty then?
Click to expand...
My moral duty is to not use the benefits that are reprehensible to the Catholic Church. Like any other Catholic.
 
Rence said:
My moral duty is to not use the benefits that are reprehensible to the Catholic Church. Like any other Catholic.
Click to expand...
But what if the federal government requires you to pay for them against your will? Should you go along with that without protest?
 
JReducation said:
The problem is that the religious and charitable organizations cannot provide services as they once did, when the State keeps piling on regulations that they can’t afford. They have no choice but to engage the state in a dialogue. I understand that the state resists that dialogue. Citizens have to push the state to open the doors to it.

I’ll give you three examples: Franciscans, Alexians and Daughters of Charity. They ran the largest Catholic healthcare networks in the USA, followed by the Adventists and then the Jews. None of them can do it anymore.

The congregation cannot afford to donate more than it already donates. Patients can’t afford to pay more than they already pay. However, the costs keep rising, not only because technology, salaries and medicines are more expensive, but also the number of regulations require big investments that are beyond the budgets of these providers.

It comes down to us, the voters, telling the state, to back off or pick up the tab. Personally, I’d rather see them back off. This regulation is just one more obstacle.

As people of faith, we have to ensure that the public officials who represent us, remember that we are people of faith. We’re not just political pawns in their squabbles.
Click to expand...
You seem to begin here with the standard approach that I am criticizing but end with at least a hat tip toward where I am headed. I would rather see the state back waaaay off and let the Church resume it’s traditional role as the primary care giving organization, not just the largest (non-state) charity.

What will it take for that alternative to be taken seriously? Perhaps the bankruptcy of the state as we are seeing unfold in Europe?

There was an article recently about woman whose father died in a hospital after running up $300,000 dollar bill over the course of about ten days. Who can afford that?! It’s not just regulation, its also a lack of judgement about when and how to allocate expensive resources. Treating health care as a right only obscures those decisions.
 
Rence said:
My moral duty is to not use the benefits that are reprehensible to the Catholic Church. Like any other Catholic.
Click to expand...
Yes but what about your moral duty not to PAY for these benefits, to assist in their distribution, to assist by your support of this rule in abortions? We are the Body of Christ and it’s not just about us as individuals.

We must together support our Church and its teachings not look the other way because it’s not directly impacting you. You wouldn’t say “Well I won’t have an abortion but it’s fine if you do and hey I’d like to support this with my tax dollars” would you? Same thing.

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top