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

[Joe_5859]

Not exactly. They are actually showing tolerance of people of faith. But in showing tolerance one must first recognize there are other faiths besides the Catholic faith. So they’ve attempted to reach a compromise. As Rence has repeatedly said time and time again and I will echo her comment. Catholics can still practice their faith and not use the benefits.

But non Catholic employees in a hospital, maybe perhaps even a poor soul sweeping the floors, should not have their benefits dictated based on their employer’s religious beliefs. In the end it’s really as simple as that.

This mandate is not just about Catholic hopsitals, but it is about everyone. A Catholic small business owner who employs a half dozen people will be forced to pay for abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraception out of his own pocket. If he tried to hire only practicing Catholics who wouldn’t use those services, then he opens himself up to liability for discriminatory hiring practices.

This mandate would make it impossible for a Catholic to ever operate their own business in good conscience.

Whatever spin one tries to put on it, this mandate is an unparallelled assault on religious liberty.

 

[pnewton]

Not exactly. They are actually showing tolerance of people of faith. But in showing tolerance one must first recognize there are other faiths besides the Catholic faith. So they’ve attempted to reach a compromise. As Rence has repeatedly said time and time again and I will echo her comment. Catholics can still practice their faith and not use the benefits.

But non Catholic employees in a hospital, maybe perhaps even a poor soul sweeping the floors, should not have their benefits dictated based on their employer’s religious beliefs. In the end it’s really as simple as that.

I could not agree less and you can repeat the same thing as long as you want. Catholic moral teaching is much more than either of you acknowledge. Even cooperation with evil is not allowed. Not only is using ABC or some abortifacient evil, so is providing it, passing it on are participating in it being obtained.

No one is denying the right to an employee from having these things, or having them provided. They can (1) get a job in a non-religious organization, or (2) pay for any benefit not provided by their employer out of their own pockets. Therefore, there is no intolerance for their faith, only intolerance when their faith, or better yet, political expediency of their faith, mandates that another commit or participate in mortal sin.

I ask you and Rence, can any of you find a single bishop that agrees with you? I can show you a whole boatload that are up in arms over it. So who do you think know Catholic moral theology better, all the bishops, or you guys?

 

[Rence]

I ask you and Rence, can any of you find a single bishop that agrees with you? I can show you a whole boatload that are up in arms over it. So who do you think know Catholic moral theology better, all the bishops, or you guys?

Unfortunately, the Bishops (who should all be opposed to it, being Catholic Bishops) aren’t the ones who will determine the outcome. They can lobby for the outcome that would favor the Church, but in the end, they won’t make the final decision. Of course the Bishops know moral theology better than any of us. No one is contesting that. Whether or not the Bishops know moral theology better than the laity is not under contention. So to answer you question Pnewton, I don’t expect to find a single Bishop who would not only be against the mandate, but who wouldn’t be lobbying against it as well. The problem here is that the government has a responsibility to represent all citizens, not just one demographic. And the HHS is trying to make sure that all employees, no matter what culture or creed, are represented.

I don’t know if you read my post about this before, it was pages and pages ago. But I just wish they would offer the religious employers an opt out without a discount, and just give employees of those religous employers a voucher/rider so that they could get the services they want and completely leave those employers oppposed to it out of the picture completely. In that way, those employers wouldn’t feel they have a part what their employees’ healthcare decisions make, and therefore no culpability.

 

[_Abyssinia]

President Obama versus religious liberty By: Mitt Romney
Excerpt:

My own view is clear. I stand with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation. I am committed to overturning Obamacare root and branch. If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states. And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith. Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in.

The America I believe in is governed by the U.S. Constitution and I will not hesitate to use the powers of the presidency to protect religious liberty.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/02/president-obama-versus-religious-liberty/2165911#ixzz1lLjbGp00

 

[JMJSHJ]

Not exactly. They are actually showing tolerance of people of faith. But in showing tolerance one must first recognize there are other faiths besides the Catholic faith. So they’ve attempted to reach a compromise. As Rence has repeatedly said time and time again and I will echo her comment. Catholics can still practice their faith and not use the benefits.

But non Catholic employees in a hospital, maybe perhaps even a poor soul sweeping the floors, should not have their benefits dictated based on their employer’s religious beliefs. In the end it’s really as simple as that.

No employee can demand what health care benefits an employer MUST have. They are called Benefits for a reason. But since you are pro choice and pro birth control, its really easy to see your motivations.

 

[Rence]

No employee can demand what health care benefits an employer MUST have. They are called Benefits for a reason.

The HHS is the one who is mandating it. Though, I agree that it was the employees who lobbied for the benefits…

And I’m quite sure that since the majority of people are using ABCs, including the majority of Catholics, that the majority of people are monitoring the outcome of this one…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Unfortunately, the Bishops (who should all be opposed to it, being Catholic Bishops) aren’t the ones who will determine the outcome. They can lobby for the outcome that would favor the Church, but in the end, they won’t make the final decision. Of course the Bishops know moral theology better than any of us. No one is contesting that. Whether or not the Bishops know moral theology better than the laity is not under contention. So to answer you question Pnewton, I don’t expect to find a single Bishop who would not only be against the mandate, but who wouldn’t be lobbying against it as well. The problem here is that the government has a responsibility to represent all citizens, not just one demographic. And the HHS is trying to make sure that all employees, no matter what culture or creed, are represented.

I don’t know if you read my post about this before, it was pages and pages ago. But I just wish they would offer the religious employers an opt out without a discount, and just give employees of those religous employers a voucher/rider so that they could get the services they want and completely leave those employers oppposed to it out of the picture completely. In that way, those employers wouldn’t feel they have a part what their employees’ healthcare decisions make, and therefore no culpability.

This is inaccurate on both sides. On the government side, their first duty is to uphold the constitution and, only secondarily, to represent their constituents insofar as it is consistent with the constitution that empowers them to be representatives. (One could add that they have a duty to avoid evil.)

On the bishops side, they are not limited to exhortation and lobbying. They have the option to ignore the law and by all accounts they seem prepared to do just that. It remains to be seen whether the law will be enforced or even whether it will pass constitutional muster.

 

[Joe_5859]

No one is denying the right to an employee from having these things, or having them provided. They can (1) get a job in a non-religious organization, or (2) pay for any benefit not provided by their employer out of their own pockets.

Or even (3) go to some secular health services agency that provides these things at little to no cost to many people.

That’s what baffles me about this mandate. The amount of people who will have increased access to these “services” because of this mandate is practically non-existent. But the number of people who would have to violate their conscience is in the millions.

There is no way around it: this is simply bad policy. It will not stand. When it gets to the Supreme Court (if it doesn’t get overturned before then), it will get struck down. I have no doubt.

It’s a good thing there’s an election between now and when this mandate supposedly goes into effect.

 

[Suudy]

Wayyyyyyy back in the thread Rence already addressed how benefits are pd for now.

That post wayyyyy back in the thread said nothing about the moral responsibility of Catholic organizations. That’s why I posted the link to the roundtable discussion.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Fundamentally. Why is the federal government dictating to private businesses a requirement to provide something to their employees at all? Shouldn’t that be between an employer/employee? The conditions/benefits of employment? I mantain that’s not within the constitutional powers granted to the federal government (yeah, courts have decided otherwise…).

This is a significant factor in the increased costs to medical care to begin with in a couple of ways. First, it hides the actual costs from the people receiving the services de-incentivizing considering costs when choosing medical treatment options. Secondarily, increasing the costs of policies by setting mandatory coverage requirements that many people don’t want, need or would opt out of given a cost savings.

It would be nice if the Bishops would also emphasize the teachings of the Church by publicly denouncing and serious consideration for excommunication of those avowed Catholics pushing/promoting/encouraging policies contrary to the Church teachings. Especially when a politician commits scandal by portraying a policy as consistent with Church teaching when it is not. I understand a Bishop first trying to counsel a member in private, but when their actions are misleading others, particularly children, I believe stronger action is warranted. I teach CCD, and I have had to address this very issue in class when a student has brought up a politicians comments. Just my .02.

 

[CMatt25]

This mandate is not just about Catholic hopsitals, but it is about everyone. A Catholic small business owner who employs a half dozen people will be forced to pay for abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraception out of his own pocket. If he tried to hire only practicing Catholics who wouldn’t use those services, then he opens himself up to liability for discriminatory hiring practices.

Yes that’s how I understand it too. Employers not subject to an exemption such as a Catholic parish where primarily doctrine is being espoused and where employees tend to be nearly, if not exclusively entirely of a particular faith, will otherwise be required in their health care benefit pkgs to include certain health care services to their employees regardless of religion. The employees can then decide based on their consciences and practice of their particular faith whether or not to use such benefits.

Rence said it far better than I ever could when she said, “the problem here is that the government has a responsibility to represent all citizens, not just one demographic. And the HHS is trying to make sure that all employees, no matter what culture or creed, are represented.”

This entire issue simply reflects the need sometimes for people to attempt compromise in such a pluralistic society.

But then on 2nd thought I suppose the entire situation could be avoided if we went the route of many other industrialized countries and did not rely primarily on a system of employer based health care. But then something tells me most of us here would be opposed to that as well.

 

[CMatt25]

No employee can demand what health care benefits an employer MUST have. They are called Benefits for a reason. But since you are pro choice and pro birth control, its really easy to see your motivations.

My motivation has nothing to do with anything other than various entities, the individual, the Church, and governnent, each joining in roles to help Christ serve and provide health care for His people. I simply don’t believe Christ would turn down any such help He could get in caring for the sick which is something He asks for in Matt 25. He goes on to talk about how those who provide this care, serve Him, and about righteousness and eternal life in the same chapter.

 

[Psalm_51]

Bottom line:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[CMatt25]

Bottom line:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Yes that works for the bottom line if only that were the interpretation of all people of faith. It might be in a Catholic theocracy. But the problem with making it the bottom line in the US, is the US isn’t one.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Will Catholics Flee Obama over HHS Mandate?

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25543

 

[The_Rock]

Rence said it far better than I ever could when she said, “the problem here is that the government has a responsibility to represent all citizens, not just one demographic. And the HHS is trying to make sure that all employees, no matter what culture or creed, are represented.”

This entire issue simply reflects the need sometimes for people to attempt compromise in such a pluralistic society.

Evangelium vitae; Pope John Paul II:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Finally, **the more radical views go so far as to maintain that in a modern and pluralistic society **people should be allowed complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as of the lives of the unborn: it is asserted that it is not the task of the law to choose between different moral opinions, and still less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the detriment of others…

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people’s freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one’s duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere.

1. **At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism **which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democ- racy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.

It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of “truth”. But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of “ethical relativism”. When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a “tyrannical” decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone’s conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus? …

The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way” (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, 92 it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom…

“Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience…; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse”.95 This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that “human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence”.96 And again: “Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law”.97

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law.

 

[Tigg]

That’s what baffles me about this mandate. The amount of people who will have increased access to these “services” because of this mandate is practically non-existent. But the number of people who would have to violate their conscience is in the millions.

Exactly! Almost sounds like there’s another agenda on the table, huh? An anti-Christian corrupted government wanting to punish those who refuse to bow to political pressure.

 

[PTL]

What’s more, few of my pewmates are talking about the marriage issue or Obama’s mandate. Most local Catholics I know, and most Catholics I’ve met who supported Obama in 2008, are more concerned with the struggles of everyday life than they are about issues of conscience protection or the legal definition of marriage, which can seem removed or academic. Much more tangible to them are basic questions of survival — how am I going to feed my family if the shop closes, how am I going to keep my home, pay the doctor bills, what am I going to do when unemployment benefits run out next month, or what am I going to do now that my 401(k) is gone?

What’s said above is very very true. But if people care about all these practical things, they ought to desert Obama. Obama is leading this country to poverty and paralysis. If he continues to be President, stock market will collapse, 401 K will be gone, we won’t be able to pay our bills, and the next meal will be a problem. Wake up, America!!

 

[pnewton]

We can’t force people to comply with the rules of the Church. That’s something people have to agree to do on their own…

This statement does not address what is really happening. No one is suggestintg that we force anyone to comply with ABC. Rather the force is being applied to the Catholic Church to provide and pay for sin. That is the only force of law that is being used or even suggested. I may have the legal right to Playboy magazine. I have no right to force Christians to pay for it.

I posted this response from the Komen thread because this thread topic got shifted over there. It happens. I have frequently crossed my wires while posting here.

 

[Incomplete]

My motivation has nothing to do with anything other than various entities, the individual, the Church, and governnent, each joining in roles to help Christ serve and provide health care for His people. I simply don’t believe Christ would turn down any such help He could get in caring for the sick which is something He asks for in Matt 25. He goes on to talk about how those who provide this care, serve Him, and about righteousness and eternal life in the same chapter.

He would not do evil because some good might come from it.

It is good for us to provide health care. It is not good to be forced to supply contraceptives. We are not trying to make them illegal, we just can’t be a party to them.