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.
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
I don’t have a moral duty to not pay for my insurance coverage. I’ve always had these benefits included in my benefits package and I have no duty to drop my insurance. The Bishops are not calling people to drop their insurance.
 
I don’t have a moral duty to not pay for my insurance coverage. I’ve always had these benefits included in my benefits package and I have no duty to drop my insurance. The Bishops are not calling people to drop their insurance.
For church employees it might come to this point. I don’t think the church is going to comply with this directive by HHS. I think they’re probably going drop the insurance coverage on church employees and pay the fine to the government instead. That’s how it’s sounding right now, at least, as long as nothing changes before August 1st of this year. (I think that’s the date.)

For me, as a Catholic, I have to care about what happens to the Church, not just to me. I owe the Church that as a Catholic. I’m a practicing member of the Church. I will back them up if they refuse to comply and choose to pay the fine. I think that’s what they have to do under the circumstances.
 
For church employees it might come to this point. I don’t think the church is going to comply with this directive by HHS. I think they’re probably going drop the insurance coverage on church employees and pay the fine to the government instead. That’s how it’s sounding right now, at least.

For me, as a Catholic, I have to care about what happens to the Church, not just to me. I owe the Church that as a Catholic.
Well, if the mandate does stick, and no one is sure it will, then Catholic employers will have just as much “remote cooperation” as employees who already have that coverage. There’s a difference between volunteering to offer the coverage, and being forced to by a mandate. The culpability is on the shoulders of those who made the mandate, not the employers. I certainly don’t feel any culpability with it being in my package. I simply don’t use those benefits.
 
I don’t have a moral duty to not pay for my insurance coverage. I’ve always had these benefits included in my benefits package and I have no duty to drop my insurance. The Bishops are not calling people to drop their insurance.
Wow you have an interesting perspective. Do you really think this is only about you and your particular insurance policy? I don’t know if you simply do not want to address the real issue or just have a very introspective approach to all things in life.

Do you just think it’s about you and your personal issues or is there a larger issue to be considered?

Lisa
 
For church employees it might come to this point. I don’t think the church is going to comply with this directive by HHS. I think they’re probably going drop the insurance coverage on church employees and pay the fine to the government instead. That’s how it’s sounding right now, at least, as long as nothing changes before August 1st of this year. (I think that’s the date.)

For me, as a Catholic, I have to care about what happens to the Church, not just to me. I owe the Church that as a Catholic. I’m a practicing member of the Church. I will back them up if they refuse to comply and choose to pay the fine. I think that’s what they have to do under the circumstances.
So places like hospitals are not going to be covering their employees with healthcare?
 
Well, if the mandate does stick, and no one is sure it will, then Catholic employers will have just as much “remote cooperation” as employees who already have that coverage. There’s a difference between volunteering to offer the coverage, and being forced to by a mandate. The culpability is on the shoulders of those who made the mandate, not the employers. I certainly don’t feel any culpability with it being in my package. I simply don’t use those benefits.
I posted a link addressing this point of view. And Catholic theologians disagree.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8910837&postcount=569

catholicmoraltheology.com/hhs-roundtable-cooperation-with-evil/

From that roundtable discussion:
But let’s focus on those who would agree that Catholic institutions shouldn’t participate in providing contraception. I think that if someone wants to make a case that participation in this system is justified because it is mediate material cooperation, then they have to be able to show four things. First, they would need to show that the good sought (health care for the employees at Catholic institutions) is proportionate to the evil being cooperated with. I honestly don’t know exactly how to quantify this. How do you measure the great good of health care for the employees of Catholic institutions against the evil of abortifacient contraceptives? Secondly, they would have to show that the good (health care) cannot be attained without cooperating with the evil. (We need a legal scholar to show us what the implications of non-compliance would be.) Third, given the great evil involved, they would have to be able to show that the Catholic institutions’ involvement is as remote as it can possibly be. And fourth, they would have to show that it could be done without scandal, that is, without leading anyone into evil, error, or confusion.

** I have my doubts that the first three can be done. But when I think about what it would mean for the Catholic Church in the U.S. to,* en masse*, submit to this mandate, I find it impossible to imagine that it can be done without scandal.**
 
UPDATED: Sure enough, Obama NOT looking to compromise
Sure enough, in a press conference this afternoon, press secretary Jay Carney reaffirmed Obama’s commitment to the HHS mandate as it stands, though he declined to comment on whether the president would override a veto promised by Republican leadership.
We are committed, the president is committed, to ensuring that woman have access to contraception without any extra cost, regardless of where they work.
So, there you have it. When Axelrod says “we need to lower our voices,” he doesn’t mean “both sides,” It’s a soft version of “Shut up, he explained.”

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/no-obama-compromise#ixzz1lp7HQpVG

ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/no-obama-compromise
At Press Club, HHS Secretary Dodges Press–And Questions About Contraception Mandate

cnsnews.com/news/article/press-club-hhs-secretary-dodges-press-and-questions-about-contraception-mandate
** Christendom College Stands with Bishops Against HHS Mandate**

christendom.edu/news/2012/02-08-mandate.php
 
Well, if the mandate does stick, and no one is sure it will, then Catholic employers will have just as much “remote cooperation” as employees who already have that coverage. There’s a difference between volunteering to offer the coverage, and being forced to by a mandate. The culpability is on the shoulders of those who made the mandate, not the employers. I certainly don’t feel any culpability with it being in my package. I simply don’t use those benefits.
Rence, are you basically saying Catholic employees like yourself who are already covered now with these benefits don’t have a choice of what is in their benefit pkgs? So it would be no different for Catholic employers as it is for Catholic employees now?
 
Rence, are you basically saying Catholic employees like yourself who are already covered now with these benefits don’t have a choice of what is in their benefit pkgs? So it would be no different for Catholic employers?
That’s what the Health and Human Services department of the Federal Government is trying to do, yes.

Many private companies have no problem buying abortion, birth control and sterilization coverage for their employees because they don’t want to take a stance on that stuff for political reasons. BUT: The Catholic Church has a problem with buying that kind of coverage for its employees because those things are immoral. It would mean that the Catholic church is condoning these immoral things and paying for them. It can’t do that.
 
Rence, are you basically saying Catholic employees like yourself who are already covered now with these benefits don’t have a choice of what is in their benefit pkgs? So it would be no different for Catholic employers?
No, generally people don’t have a choice in exactly what coverage they will get. Sometimes they can choose a lesser costly one, or can choose between an HMO and a PPO, etc. But ABCs were always covered in all of my packages wherever I worked, as well as for all of my fellow employees, wherever I worked, even at a Catholic hospital. So, if Catholic employers are mandated to cover ABCs I don’t see how it’s different. We pay taxes on things that are not compatible with our faith, and that’s very remote cooperation, and we are not encouraged to not pay taxes. So again, I don’t see how this would be any different. It’s different when you volunteer than when it’s mandated.
 
So places like hospitals are not going to be covering their employees with healthcare?
I think that will be response if this is not reversed. Obama is a political animal and he will weigh the potential consequences of backing down vis a vis sticking to his story. In the long run I think there will be a REAL religious exemption or Congress will enact legislation to force his hand. Would he veto the bill? I doubt it. I think this like the Keystone Pipeline and other decisions made by Obama are designed so he can look like the champion of his base (abortionists, environmentalists and socialists) but those mean old guys in Congress or the mean old courts won’t let him “force his issues” as he said on Mat Lauer.

The other issue is does this mandate mean Catholic hospitals, clinics etc must PROVIDE the services to their patients. I work in a Catholic hospital and we are under the Directive for Catholic Hospitals which says that even if you are an employee, you cannot have a sterilization procedure or an abortion. Does the mandate mean our hospitals must now provide such services? I think so and this means it’s beyond just providing health insurance.

Lisa
 
No, generally people don’t have a choice in exactly what coverage they will get. Sometimes they can choose a lesser costly one, or can choose between an HMO and a PPO, etc. But ABCs were always covered in all of my packages wherever I worked, as well as for all of my fellow employees, wherever I worked, even at a Catholic hospital. So, if Catholic employers are mandated to cover ABCs I don’t see how it’s different. We pay taxes on things that are not compatible with our faith, and that’s very remote cooperation, and we are not encouraged to not pay taxes. So again, I don’t see how this would be any different. It’s different when you volunteer than when it’s mandated.
Rence, we’re not talking about your insurance coverage where you work. We’re talking about the coverage that the Catholic Church provides for its employees.
 
Why parish employees if the parish hires mostly Catholics and can get an exemption?
Because sometimes they serve populations that aren’t Catholic. And not all Catholic school teachers are Catholic. All Catholic school students aren’t Catholic either. I used to work in a Catholic school and I know this first hand.

The church secretary couldn’t even answer a question on the phone from a non-Catholic.

Our outreaches to the community would cease. Catholic Family Services and all of that.
 
Why parish employees if the parish hires mostly Catholics and can get an exemption?
They must employ ONLY Catholics and SERVE only Catholics to get the exemption. Jesus and his Disciples would not qualify for this exemption!

Lisa
 
Why parish employees if the parish hires mostly Catholics and can get an exemption?
I don’t see parishes not qualifying for the exemption. They usually only hire Catholics and they serve specifically Catholics, unlike hospitals and schools that really serve all.
 
Rence, we’re not talking about your insurance coverage where you work. We’re talking about the coverage that the Catholic Church provides for its employees.
I am speaking in general. Most people don’t have a choice as to their benefits package aside from choosing between two or three of different cost, maybe between a PPO, HMO and POS. And Matt was asking about Catholic employees in general.
 
I don’t see parishes not qualifying for the exemption. They usually only hire Catholics and they serve specifically Catholics, unlike hospitals and schools that really serve all.
That’s not uniformly true. We hire musicians on occasion that aren’t Catholic. And if they were to play for non-Catholics, even non-Catholics sitting in Mass or at a retreat, they could be in trouble if the government wanted to be nasty, and they’re being nasty.
 
The big question is deeper. It’s really about how far can citizens allow government to go before you have wiped out all semblance of morality and rights.

At what point do citizens say to governments, “That is immoral; therefore, we will not comply until you fix it.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top