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.
Back to the original topic, what troubles me about this situation is that as a practicing Catholic who has never worked for a Catholic agency I’ve been paying premiums for health care plans which cover these right-to-life hot topic treatments for over 30 years. Had NO idea that was in violation of my Catholic conscience or obligations. Knew that I was not to utilize these treatments for myself, and adhered to that. Now I have lots of questions:

I was not aware that Notre Dame or Catholic Hospitals and Charities had health insurance package options for their employees available that did NOT cover these targeted treatments. Perhaps the items were available - but at a cost only to the consumer (employee)?

If so, then the difference here is the HHS is mandating these treatments which were available for a cost previously now have to be available at no cost to the consumer?

And the bishops are saying that there is no free lunch, so the cost is really being carried by the University, Hospital, and the non-consumers because premiums alone have these costs embedded in them?

And it is THAT change which is forcing Catholics to go against their religious beliefs?

If the Catholic institutions were to shut down over this, what % of the U.S. job market would that represent? I ask because if it’s less than 25% I could see why the government would consider that collateral damage.

If the bishops are asking Catholics to fight to stop this mandate, are they asking me to quit my state job as well? I’ve never had an option to choose a health care plan that didn’t cover these treatments so I’ve always been forced to participate. What’s the difference?? Employee paid premiums and the premiums the institutions pay will cover the cost of the disputed treatments regardless of whether or not the services are available to the consumer for free. Our general tax dollars regardless of how they are earned and paid already support these treatments.

I don’t see how Notre Dame complying with the new mandate would result in the administration of that institution, its trustees, its employees to be at risk for their souls. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. We’re talking about money here in the end. How it’s collected, how it’s redistributed. As someone pointed earlier, if the institution opts for the fine, the money from that serves the same purpose.

The employee’s premium is used by an organization outside control of the institution. If the Catholic employee continues NOT to use contraception, NOT to use IVF, NOT to use the abortion pill or any other controversial treatments then why wouldn’t that person’s soul remain in good standing (clear conscience) just because the non-catholic insurance company uses the employee and employer premiums to offer the services??
 
I should note I can see how this would mess up the insurance industry and the idea of a free market though. I don’t believe the government should be able to force a Catholic insurance company to offer services which do not adhere to Catholic beliefs. By forcing these issues those companies will have to shut down and the Catholic consumer loses a conscionable choice. They effectively change the insurance market.
 
I confess I was not aware of any of this prior to tonight’s mass when our priest read Bishop Dolan’s letter. Came home to look up as much as I could on the topic since then. Have seen the EWTN Arroyo segment which covered the topic well. Read various articles posted in the Catholic News subforum. Still have questions:

First and foremost, as a practicing Catholic who has never worked for a Catholic agency and never had a Catholic insurance policy choice available, I’ve been paying premiums for health care plans which cover these treatments for over 30 years. Granted the abortifacients weren’t available all that time, but contraception and sterilization was. Does this uproar over MANDATED coverage mean I’ve been in violation of Catholic requirements? I thought my obligation was to not utilize those services myself. Did not know indirectly paying for them to be available throughout the US was putting my catholic conscience at risk.

I was not aware that Notre Dame or Catholic Hospitals and Charities had health insurance package options for their employees available that did NOT cover these targeted treatments. Perhaps the items were available - but at a cost only to the consumer (employee)? Were they classified ‘essential’ by the HHS previously? Is that the big issue?

Or is the issue the HHS is mandating these treatments which were available for a cost previously to be available now at no cost to the consumer?

Am I understanding the bishops to say there is no free lunch, so the cost is really being carried by the University, Hospital, and the non-consumers because premiums alone have these costs embedded in them?

Is it THAT change which is forcing U.S. Catholics to go against their religious beliefs? If so, then I point back to my opening paragraph and wonder if I’ve been messing up all along.

If the Catholic institutions were to shut down over this, what % of the U.S. job market would that represent? I ask because if it’s less than 25% I could see why the government would consider that collateral damage.

If the bishops are asking Catholics to fight to stop this mandate, are they asking me to quit my state job as well since I have no choice with regard to health insurance, I have to contribute, and the plans cover many non-Catholic treatments? What’s the difference??

Employee paid premiums and the premiums the institutions pay will cover the cost of the disputed treatments regardless of whether or not the services are available to the consumer for free. Our general tax dollars regardless of how they are earned and paid already support these treatments. I don’t see how Notre Dame complying with the new mandate would result in the administration of that institution, its trustees, its employees to be at risk for their souls. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Are we talking about money here in the end? How it’s collected, how it’s redistributed? If the institution opts for the fine, those funds support the same treatments. If the institution complies, the funds go to the same treatments but not of their free will so why would that be held against them? If the institution closes, the Catholic employees will still be paying into those treatments in the secular job market should they be fortunate enough to fine other employment.

The employee’s premium is used by an organization outside control of the institution. If the Catholic employee continues NOT to use contraception, NOT to elect sterilization, NOT to use the abortion pill then why wouldn’t that person’s soul remain in good standing (clear conscience) just because the non-catholic insurance company uses the employee and employer premiums to offer the services??

I can see how this would mess up the insurance industry and the concept of a free market though. The government should not be able to force a Catholic insurance company to offer services which do not adhere to Catholic beliefs. By forcing these issues those companies will have to shut down and the Catholic consumer loses a conscionable choice. They effectively manipulate the insurance market. Big no-no for a democracy.

I will continue to read up on all this because it does have me concerned about those of us who’ve been paying insurance premiums for policies which offer these objectionable services. I’m confused.
 
jwinch2 said:
I wrote both of my state senators today and have signed several petitions on the subject. All of us should do the same. If enough people raise their voices, it can be changed. I am, as others have mentioned, glad to see our Bishops standing up. Too many of them have made their bed with the Democratic party for decades now in an attempt to promote social justice, albeit in violation of Church teaching on Subsidiarity, and we are reaping what we/they have sewn.

Hopefully this issue can serve as a clarion call for our bishops, priests, religious, and faithful to stand up and start fighting for the faith and to teach it, even on social issues, with clarity.

Peace,
Click to expand...
That is great.
 
Our pastor spoke at all the Masses on this issue, drawing from the Gospel reading about Jesus casting out devils and using also the Bishop’s letter as well as the EWTN article with more specifics … including freedom of religion … our First Amendment rights and our right to not have the Federal government dictate that our behavior go against the central teaching of the Church about the prohibition of abortion.

I don’t know where they are going to go with this or how far they are willing to go.

Are they willing to engage in Civil Disobedience, which is a time-honored tradition, although mostly of the left.

Are they willing to risk being arrested for breaking the law … keeping in mind that there are many places in the ObamaCare law that have been left open and to the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Would they be arrested for contempt of court? Are the bishops to personally risk martyrdom? [Which is why they wear scarlet robes.]

Are they willing to lead the people of the United States to bring impeachment articles against the Secretary of Health and Human Services? … and perhaps also against the President of the United States?

This is a big deal, to paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden.

Will they try to finesse the issue … by putting all employees to work as “leased employees” or “temps” with the temp agency taking care of the legal niceties?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Our pastor spoke at all the Masses on this issue, drawing from the Gospel reading about Jesus casting out devils and using also the Bishop’s letter as well as the EWTN article with more specifics …
Click to expand...
Our spoke on it as well, albeit a bit differently. His homily was geared towards the authority with which Christ spoke and the passing on of that authority to Peter and the rest of the Apostles. From there he took it to the level of the authority of the Church today through the legitimate successors to Peter and the Apostles. It was a very well put together homily and something that we all needed to hear.

After Mass before the dismissal, he spoke about the letter that the Bishop of Fort Worth and the Bishop of Dallas put out together and the implications for Catholics of the HHS ruling. It seemed like he was using the homily to remind people who exactly the Bishops are before handing out the letter and discussing the situation at the end of the Mass.

Peace.
 
hancaquam.blogspot.com/2012/01/bishop-raises-alarm-too-late.html

This is an important set of questions and its nice to see someone within the priesthood say it. Have we waited too long? Where were the outrage in the past on the part of the Bishops? Fr. Powell, OP has been strong on the moral compass of our government and particularly this administration for some time now. We are lucky to have him.
 
Teelynn said:
We do…one of the problems however is finding enough lay soldiers to stand behind the Bishops. I heard a few interesting perspectives on the subject this past week. One Congressman on Relevant Radio said that the pro abortion lobbying in Washington was organized and relentless. Not so with the pro life side, and this does make a difference…good point! Another was the fact that a good number of Bishops in the recent past were giving the go ahead to contraception through their relative theology. And now, when they’re being asked to put their money where their mouth is, they are trying to rally the troops against it. I hate to say that I can see this logic as well. True, the tide is turning in the Church, thank you Lord! But some of the damage has been done. This point is well taken as I have seen first hand in my own diocese the very blatant acceptance of contraception (among other things) among the clergy. And so now, some people are saying…“what’s the big deal?” The relativism is coming back to bite them in the _ _ _ _.
Click to expand...
Bold Lettering Mine

:eek::eek::eek::mad:
 
jwinch2 said:
hancaquam.blogspot.com/2012/01/bishop-raises-alarm-too-late.html

This is an important set of questions and its nice to see someone within the priesthood say it. Have we waited too long? Where were the outrage in the past on the part of the Bishops? Fr. Powell, OP has been strong on the moral compass of our government and particularly this administration for some time now. We are lucky to have him.
Click to expand...
This is what caught my eye from the blog you posted:

“It is well beyond time for our bishops and pastors to stop inviting these political leeches to public celebrations of Catholic cultural events. Whether or not individuals should be denied communion is a much more delicate and complicated matter. However, declining invitations to fundraising events, parades, etc. is not. The Bernadin Experiment in secular engagement has been a failure, a horrible failure, and our shepherds need to repudiate it before we all find ourselves under judgment”

Excellent point. When anti-catholic politicians are invited to archdiocesan events, or invited to speak at catholic-sponsored conferences, or when election events such as the pro-labor event held at the L.A. archdiocese conference center feature Barbara Boxer of all people, then the anti-catholic positions those politicians hold are given a legitimacy they wouldn’t have had otherwise. I personally wrote to our archbishop to ask why certain pro-abortion politicians were given a legitimacy and respect they didn’t deserve. The answer the archbishop gave was not unlike the rationalizations we encounter from Democrat catholics on these forums: " *but so & so is not speaking on the issue of abortion but on the immigration issue" * or " while we regret her position on abortion, candidate X is nonetheless an expert on the poverty issues she’ll be speaking on." etc. etc.

The mixed messages resulting from the actions of the leadership of the Church in America has contributed to the confusion on the issue and possibly contributed to so many catholics voting for Obama in 2008.

Ishii

Ishii
 
Hello friends.

The link below is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ site, and provides contact info. for you to call your representatives and ask them to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179), which has already arisen in response to this outrageous mandate. At the site you can also find a pre-composed email (which you can edit) which will go automatically to your representative and senators. You can also call the Department of Health and Human Services at 1-877-696-6775 to voice your displeasure. Let’s pray that some good comes out of this – could it be a catalyst for mobilizing Catholics to ensure The Abortion President’s defeat in November?

Here’s the link I mentioned:

nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292
 
ishii said:
The mixed messages resulting from the actions of the leadership of the Church in America has contributed to the confusion on the issue and possibly contributed to so many catholics voting for Obama in 2008.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more completely with your analysis of this sad situation.
 
Hello friends.

The link below is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ site, and provides contact info. for you to call your representatives and ask them to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179), which has already arisen in response to this outrageous mandate. At the site you can also find a pre-composed email (which you can edit) which will go automatically to your representative and senators. You can also call the Department of Health and Human Services at 1-877-696-6775 to voice your displeasure. Let’s pray that some good comes out of this – could it be a catalyst for mobilizing Catholics to oppose The Abortion President’s re-election?

Here’s the link I mentioned:

nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292
 
Hello friends.

The link below is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ site, and provides contact info. for you to call your representatives and ask them to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179), which has already arisen in response to this outrageous mandate. At the site you can also find a pre-composed email (which you can edit) which will go automatically to your representative and senators. You can also call the Department of Health and Human Services at 1-877-696-6775 to voice your displeasure. Let’s pray that some good comes out of this – could it be a catalyst for mobilizing Catholics to oppose The Abortion President’s re-election?

Here’s the link I mentioned:

nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292
 
GAHere said:
I confess I was not aware of any of this prior to tonight’s mass when our priest read Bishop Dolan’s letter. Came home to look up as much as I could on the topic since then. Have seen the EWTN Arroyo segment which covered the topic well. Read various articles posted in the Catholic News subforum. Still have questions:

First and foremost, as a practicing Catholic who has never worked for a Catholic agency and never had a Catholic insurance policy choice available, I’ve been paying premiums for health care plans which cover these treatments for over 30 years. Granted the abortifacients weren’t available all that time, but contraception and sterilization was. Does this uproar over MANDATED coverage mean I’ve been in violation of Catholic requirements? I thought my obligation was to not utilize those services myself. Did not know indirectly paying for them to be available throughout the US was putting my catholic conscience at risk.

I was not aware that Notre Dame or Catholic Hospitals and Charities had health insurance package options for their employees available that did NOT cover these targeted treatments. Perhaps the items were available - but at a cost only to the consumer (employee)? Were they classified ‘essential’ by the HHS previously? Is that the big issue?

Or is the issue the HHS is mandating these treatments which were available for a cost previously to be available now at no cost to the consumer?

Am I understanding the bishops to say there is no free lunch, so the cost is really being carried by the University, Hospital, and the non-consumers because premiums alone have these costs embedded in them?

Is it THAT change which is forcing U.S. Catholics to go against their religious beliefs? If so, then I point back to my opening paragraph and wonder if I’ve been messing up all along.

If the Catholic institutions were to shut down over this, what % of the U.S. job market would that represent? I ask because if it’s less than 25% I could see why the government would consider that collateral damage.

If the bishops are asking Catholics to fight to stop this mandate, are they asking me to quit my state job as well since I have no choice with regard to health insurance, I have to contribute, and the plans cover many non-Catholic treatments? What’s the difference??

Employee paid premiums and the premiums the institutions pay will cover the cost of the disputed treatments regardless of whether or not the services are available to the consumer for free. Our general tax dollars regardless of how they are earned and paid already support these treatments. I don’t see how Notre Dame complying with the new mandate would result in the administration of that institution, its trustees, its employees to be at risk for their souls. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Are we talking about money here in the end? How it’s collected, how it’s redistributed? If the institution opts for the fine, those funds support the same treatments. If the institution complies, the funds go to the same treatments but not of their free will so why would that be held against them? If the institution closes, the Catholic employees will still be paying into those treatments in the secular job market should they be fortunate enough to fine other employment.

The employee’s premium is used by an organization outside control of the institution. If the Catholic employee continues NOT to use contraception, NOT to elect sterilization, NOT to use the abortion pill then why wouldn’t that person’s soul remain in good standing (clear conscience) just because the non-catholic insurance company uses the employee and employer premiums to offer the services??

I can see how this would mess up the insurance industry and the concept of a free market though. The government should not be able to force a Catholic insurance company to offer services which do not adhere to Catholic beliefs. By forcing these issues those companies will have to shut down and the Catholic consumer loses a conscionable choice. They effectively manipulate the insurance market. Big no-no for a democracy.

I will continue to read up on all this because it does have me concerned about those of us who’ve been paying insurance premiums for policies which offer these objectionable services. I’m confused.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to answer all of this (and you say you’re looking into it anyway, so you’ll probably find the answers) but here’s the problem: the Church is against contraception, abortion, sterilization. Catholic organizations generally don’t pay for their employees to do these things, they negotiate with insurance companies to exclude these features. (I’m sure there are a few Catholic organizations who offer those things, but there shouldn’t be any.) Now the government wants to force them to offer what we consider instruments of grave sine. We are now to be directly part of this sin. That is why everyone is objecting.

And it’s not just us. Many denominations who have no problem think this ruling is wrong, and I suspect they’re worried about what comes next, when will they be forced into something that violates their conscience.

Even the Washington Post thinks it’s wrong.

There are plenty of places where you can get a good understanding of why this is a basic freedom issue.
 
B79 said:
Hello friends.

The link below is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ site, and provides contact info. for you to call your representatives and ask them to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179), which has already arisen in response to this outrageous mandate. At the site you can also find a pre-composed email (which you can edit) which will go automatically to your representative and senators. You can also call the Department of Health and Human Services at 1-877-696-6775 to voice your displeasure. Let’s pray that some good comes out of this – could it be a catalyst for mobilizing Catholics to oppose The Abortion President’s re-election?

Here’s the link I mentioned:

nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292
Click to expand...
Thank you for this…I have already sent in a few petitions and letters, but others might need this. We need to stand firmly behind our Bishops and speak out for the faith.
 
Teelynn said:
Yes, I saw the article yesterday evening. A. Dolan does not mince words. But I believe you are correct in that I believe they are waking up to the fact that “we’re not in Kansas anymore.” Aptly put…now if we can just jolt awake the rest of the Christian world…:slapfight:
Click to expand...
The “rest” of the Christian world thinks we’re cultists. The “rest” of the Christian world could give a flip over artificial birth control and most of the mainline denominations are OK with abortion.

We’re alone in this deal, don’t count on anybody to support us.
 
Its time for the USCCB to officially endorse the Republican candidate. I’m tired of them saying they are neutral when its is clear that no matter who the Republican nominee is that he will be much more of a pro-life and Christain candidate than Obama, who is the most Anti-Christain President ever.
 
In my diocese paper I read that there are religious exemptions. The only problem is that some Catholic universities/ other places that cater to a sizable portion of non-catholics must provide contraceptive services with their health care. I fail to see a problem. If these institutions believe in respecting the beliefs of people of different faiths enough to allow them participate and attend school (in the case of the university) then they should provide these health care services to them. The religious institutions are in the wrong here and need to comply with this law, which is completely Constitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top