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

[JimG]

I got roundly knocked down by dozens of members here when a few weeks ago I gave it as personal opinion the Catholic Church in America would be well advised to surrender their tax exempt status. So which is it? Let the government call the shots, or cut the cord?

That may be a good idea, but it isn’t a way out of this mandate. The mandate applies to all employers, whether tax exempt or not, including religious employers. They can only be exempt from the mandate if they hire and serve no one but Catholics. That doesn’t apply to most Catholic institutions. The HHS mandate will still require Catholic institutions to violate Catholic moral principles or cease to exist.

I don’t think merely canceling insurance is an option for most employers, because under the labor standards most employers are required to provide health insurance, and if they do, the HHS mandate will require them to provide this coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization.

 

[Incomplete]

I don’t think merely canceling insurance is an option for most employers, because under the labor standards most employers are required to provide health insurance, and if they do, the HHS mandate will require them to provide this coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization.

My understanding (which could be incorrect; I haven’t read the documents) is that they yes, they are required to provide insurance, and that the fine is very steep if they don’t. I am wondering what would happen if they don’t provide it and refuse to pay the fine. I imagine that is when they might end up in jail.

Or for those dioceses who are self-insured, what will happen when they refuse to add contraception coverage.

 

[jenkiedad]

The Archbishop of San Antonio and his Auxiliary have finally issued the “HHS Letter” to be read at all Masses this upcoming weekend, Feb 4-5.

archsa.org/UserContent/file/ArchbishopHHSLetterToArchdiocese.pdf

 

[_Abyssinia]

STATEMENT OF CARDINAL EGAN REGARDING HEALTH-CARE MANDATE

The decision of the Administration in Washington, D.C., to force religious institutions to provide sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to their staffs and employees is nothing short of a national disgrace. To treat the consciences of millions of American citizens as a matter of no consequence is an attack on all the best in the history and traditions of our beloved country. The decision needs to be reversed immediately and definitively.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop-emeritus of New York

archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=23259

 

[buffalo]

stopHHS.com



President Obama, in your speech at Notre Dame and elsewhere, you promised that you would provide conscience exemptions for those whose faith forbade their participation in evil.
You have broken that promise by forcing our Church to provide insurance coverage for sterilization, contraception, and various abortifacient drugs. These are practices that for 2,000 years we have taught are intrinsically evil.
You disagree. We understand. But you refuse to respect our right to live out our faith. You have decided to use the coercive power of the state to force your fellow citizens to commit what they believe are evil acts. You have asked the impossible. We cannot be good Americans by being bad Christians.
Turn from your intolerance. Leave in place the conscience exemptions that have served us well since 1973 (42 USC 300a-7 (d)). Vacate the proposed HHS mandate

 

[Nimzovik]

One must note that one should work to inform the Protestant believers that this is not just a ‘Catholic’ issue. I have informed several of our seperated bretheren already. Often they are shocked when they learn of it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obama vs. Religious Liberty: Important Neglected Thoughts and Mentions

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25944

 

[Tsuwano]

I’ve signed this petition to stop the HHS mandate attempting to force Catholic institutions to violate deeply held religious beliefs. I’ve also shared it on my facebook page. I hope others will do the same.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In case anyone is wondering what the other side is thinking:

SARAH LIPTON-LUBET: Taking a job at a hospital simply isn’t the same thing as joining a church. When you operate in the public sphere, you need to play by the public rules.

HAGERTY: Sarah Lipton-Lubet is an attorney at the ACLU.

LIPTON-LUBET: What they’re asking to do is to impose their religious beliefs on people who don’t share them - the nurses, the social workers, the support staff who work at these hospitals, social service agencies and universities. And when a hospital wants to deny their employees contraceptive coverage, what they’re really asking for is the ability to use religion to discriminate.

npr.org/2012/02/02/146265425/u-s-catholic-bishops-take-stand-against-birth-control-rules

She is an ACLU attorney but I think it’s safe to say that this is how the Obama administration sees the issue.

 

[JReducation]

Well, didn’t they actually provide healthcare, primitive though it may seem to us now, almost immediately following Christ’s death via charity? Or are you just referring to a more organized systemic type of healthcare?

I was thinking of organized healthcare, which began with the monks and was expanded by the mendicants. Later, Secular Orders picked up the baton and ran hospitals for the poor. That’s how we ended up with hospitals run by sisters and lay brothers such as the Alexians. These men and women were originally secular Catholics who belonged to these orders. They gradually congregated to run these hospitals and other services. Hence the term “religious congregation”.

You are comparing a pool with a foundation by (essentially) one person. (The claim that Catholic charities is the largest charity suffers the same problem.)

I was not making the comparison. Someone else made the allegation that Catholics have not done as much for the poor. I was simply saying that the allegation was incorrect. You’re right, an individual cannot possibly do what an organism can do. But this organism happens to be Catholic and it deserves credit.

And you have yet to explain to us why you are holding secular institutions to a higher moral standard than Catholic institutions.

I’m not. If you have read my posts, I have consistently said that no one has the authority to command something immoral. The State is not exempt from this moral rule.

Where we disagree is whether you are an innocent victim in this.

The bishops, who are now pleading for a religious exemption, do not come to us with clean hands.

Obamacare passed by the barest margin and Catholic support was crucial to its passage.

The bishops are not innocent victims of it but are co-conspirators who were betrayed by untrustworthy partners in crime.

Notice your own words.“were betrayed”. The administration publicly promised something and did not deliver. It promised a conscience clause. Such a clause would not only apply to Catholic institutions, to to any American.

Even if the bishops get their religious exemption, what of Catholic businessmen who will still be forced to provide abortion pills for their employees?

The Holy Father has not commanded that we ask for exemptions for Catholic institutions, but that we demand the same freedom for all citizens. This would cover a Jew, Muslim, Catholic, atheist or any other person who has a moral problem with this services and products. When the bishops say “us” they don’t mean “Catholic institutions”. They mean “us” as in citizens who find these services immoral.

It is the media and the White House that has turned it into a Catholic issue. They have failed to report that the Federal Government is being sued by another organization comprised of Jews, Muslims and Protestants. They have failed to mention that even very liberal individuals have raised an eyebrow at this move, because it affects an entire nation.

Hindsight is always 20/20. We can say that religious leaders (not just Catholics) were too trusting when the President said that he would create a reasonable conscience clause. We can certainly give them an earful for the future so that they won’t be so naive. But to call them conspirators is over the top and very disrespectful toward an Apostle. I will not engage in deliberately offending the successors of the Apostles. Such actions are immoral, unnecessary, and inappropriate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

I am writing you in response to the alarming issues in Washington regarding Healthcare Mandates. A peaceful and legal form of protest is “tax resistance” which its’ use and purpose dates back to the first century. I included the message that I sent out via social media and emails.

The means of tax resistance dates back to 1st century AD and has been used for conscientious objection. The legal and peaceful means of tax resistance in this protest is simply filing for extension. The overwhelming number of extensions filed will highlight the grave importance of this issue.
God Bless

The governments of the 1st century AD didn’t have the capability of garnishing people’s wages like today’s governments do. I don’t think an overwhelming aboout of extensions will be filed. Being late on your taxes will only get people in more trouble and ends up costing them more money…

 

[estesbob]

The governments of the 1st century AD didn’t have the capability of garnishing people’s wages like today’s governments do. I don’t think an overwhelming aboout of extensions will be filed. Being late on your taxes will only get people in more trouble and ends up costing them more money…

And is great for my business!

 

[Rence]

And is great for my business!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was not making the comparison. Someone else made the allegation that Catholics have not done as much for the poor. I was simply saying that the allegation was incorrect. You’re right, an individual cannot possibly do what an organism can do. But this organism happens to be Catholic and it deserves credit.

Here is the moral standard that you assigned to secular governments:

Governments have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of their citizens.

And here is the moral standard that you assigned to Catholic institutions:

The Catholic Church has been providing healthcare and healthcare related services to people around the world since the erection of the first monasteries in the 6th century. We have been doing our moral duty. We have never stopped providing for the needs of citizens. Catholics form the largest charitable organization in the world, including the USA. In some states, they are the largest charitable organization.

Catholics, you claim, are doing their moral duty merely by having “never stopped providing for the needs of citizens” even though, of course, such provision its limited to the resources available. But that’s ok, you say, because “Catholics form the largest charitable organization”.

But your demands on secular government are in such way limited. When will the welfare of citizens ever be satisfied? There simply is no end to it.

I’m not. If you have read my posts, I have consistently said that no one has the authority to command something immoral. The State is not exempt from this moral rule.

We are not disagreeing here.

Notice your own words.“were betrayed”. The administration publicly promised something and did not deliver…Hindsight is always 20/20. We can say that religious leaders (not just Catholics) were too trusting when the President said that he would create a reasonable conscience clause. We can certainly give them an earful for the future so that they won’t be so naive. But to call them conspirators is over the top and very disrespectful toward an Apostle. I will not engage in deliberately offending the successors of the Apostles. Such actions are immoral, unnecessary, and inappropriate.

Yes, “we” were betrayed. (I say “we” because I do not include myself among those who naively believed the administration’s promises.) But as I said before, I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit led the bishops into this moral swamp. They do deserve and earful and they owe an explanation and some assurance that they have learned something from this even as we form ranks and deal with the problem together.

But this is not merely 20/20 hindsight. Your double standard above is what is driving this. You demand that secular government criminalize lack of health care provision and then you are shocked, shocked when they implement health care policy that is secular and anti-Catholic.

There is a larger lesson to learn here than simply not to trust this administration.

In 63BC, the Roman general Pompey was invited to settle a succession dispute between Macabees. As you recall from history, they did not leave until Israel was destroyed.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, that’s correct. Making benefits available doesn’t mean one is required to use them. If one doesn’t want to use them, one doesn’t have to use them.

Here’s a good discussion on the moral problems with this mandate. And not being required to use the new benefits is immaterial. You seem to be arguing the point that this is some species of remote cooperation.

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.**

 

[JReducation]

As I read back on some of this thread, I believe that we have to be very careful. Almost everyone who has participated on this thread claims to be Catholic. Yet the key person has been mentioned once or twice . . . that is Pope Benedict XVI.

The brothers asked me what we were going to do. I said very simply. We will do what the pope said we should do. We will rally against this law, because the repression of religious freedom is a grave offense against the law of God. When a pope speaks on a moral issue, he’s not commenting on the upcoming Super Bowl. He’s talking about a subject where he has authority given to him by Christ himself.

Instead of trying to start a ball or a prom on the head of a pin just to see how many angels can dance on it, as Catholics we should keep this simple. The Pontiff has told the bishops that they must rally Catholics against the regulation, because it violates God’s will for man. He was not referring to contraceptives. He was referring to tampering with freedom of religion.

If the Holy Father says to the bishops, “Rally the troops,” he does not mean the Swiss Guard. He means the American Catholics. It behooves American Catholics to step back from analyzing this thing to death and debating who is at fault here or there. We have been given a directive by the Pontiff himself.

The letters that are being read were written by the bishops. But they were at the command of the Pontiff. The bishops were not left with an option. He did not tell them to sit down and analyze who’s at fault, what there is to be gained or lost. He simply said (and I’m paraphrasing) American Catholics have no choice but to fight this.

It’s very interesting, because there have been only two times when the Vatican has explicitly told American Catholics to stand up against the government, abortion and now freedom of religion.

In the 200 year plus history of the USA, the Vatican has never directly mandated anything of American Catholics. All mandates have been universal, for all Catholics. Twice now the Vatican has spoken directly to the Catholics in the USA through the bishops.

This was not a secret. It was in the news. Before it was in the news, many of us who are religious saw it in the daily bulletin that comes out of the Vatican. We were hold our breadth waiting to see what everyone would say when the bishops made their statement.

I’m kind of amazed that we’re analyzing this thing so much that we may be losing sight of what we’ve been told to do. Analysis is good, but it can also be a distraction that Satan uses to stop the action. We have to be very careful not to fall into that.

It’s time to go to my bridge with my homeless brethren and hear what interesting stories they have for me tonight. I will catch all of you tomorrow. Those are awesome people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CMatt25]

Yeah, I realize that you agree with pnewton and that I’m in the minority It’s okay, we aren’t going to agree on everything. But I would hope we’d come out of a discussion thread at least trying to understand each other. Perhaps my perspective, as I’ve said many times, stems from the fact that I’ve worked in a Catholic hospital and ABCs were covered so that the employs only paid a $10 copay at their pharmacy. In addition, I’ve always had such coverage and I’ve never been tempted to use any of the coverage, so it really hasn’t made a difference at all.

Indeed Rence. I think life is often about compromise and at least tryng to understand another perspective. And your perspective on this has been invaluable to me trying to see both sides. Catholic hospitals are not the same as parishes. A parish has as a chief role the spreading of religious doctrine. Hospitals focus on healthcare and they employ non Catholics and employee healthcare needs should be considered beyond their employer’s religious beliefs. As you have stated Catholics need not use the benefits and are free to continue the practice of their faith. I feel you’ve done an awesome job with your posts here and I can add no more. Peace.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Indeed Rence. I think life is often about compromise and at least tryng to understand another perspective. And your perspective on this has been invaluable to me trying to see both sides. Catholic hospitals are not the same as parishes. A parish has as a chief role the spreading of religious doctrine. Hospitals focus on healthcare and they employ non Catholics and employee healthcare needs should be considered beyond their employer’s religious beliefs. As you have stated Catholics need not use the benefits and are free to continue the practice of their faith. I feel you’ve done an awesome job with your posts here and I can add no more. Peace.

Catholic teaching extends too all employees of a hospital or other institution whether they are Catholic or not, the same teaching that contraception is an intrinsic evil extends to non Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

LIPTON-LUBET: What they’re asking to do is to impose their religious beliefs on people who don’t share them - the nurses, the social workers, the support staff who work at these hospitals, social service agencies and universities. And when a hospital wants to deny their employees contraceptive coverage, what they’re really asking for is the ability to use religion to discriminate.

She has this backwards, as to who is imposint their views on whom. A person still has the right to contraceptices, or any insurance they want to get. What is being imposed is the will of secular government on Churches that they pony up the money or insurance for these immoral acts. I find a great irony that it is the ACLU that stands in opposition to the First Amendment on this issue.

The charge of discrimination is absurd. No one is suggesting the coverage differ from person to person. The speaker here used the word “discrimnation” just as empty rhetoric. In this issue, we see the true hypocricy of modern liberalism. They rail against intolerance, yet they themselves are the most intolerant of all when it comes to people of faith.

 

[_Abyssinia]

HHS mandate a ‘slap in the face,’ Catholic Latino group says

The HHS contraception mandate is an insult to the Catholic community and shows that President Obama needs prayer, according to a national group of Latino leaders.

“President Barack Obama has not just given the Catholic community a slap in the face, he is telling Hispanic Catholics to limit our families and forget our religious beliefs,” Robert Aguirre, president of the Catholic Association of Latino Leaders, said Jan. 31.

He cited President Obama’s May 2009 speech at the University of Notre Dame in which the president said “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause.”

catolicosdefenews.blogspot.com/2012/02/hhs-mandate-slap-in-face-catholic.html