A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Updated: 164 Bishops (Almost 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate:
catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591
catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591
Bishops rip HHS mandate That Forces Coverage of Birth Control, Abortion Drugs
- Status
J
JackQ
Guest
It may not be. The standard is whether the government has a compelling state interest in what it is doing, and can’t accomplish its goals any other way. If the court decides that it does and that it can’t, then it can infringe on religious freedom. That’s a judgment call, obviously. So, I don’t think we can say with confidence that the Supreme Court will strike it down.
C
cerad2
Guest
Given that something like 98% of all sexually active Catholic couples in the United States use artificial birth control, the odds of it being reversed is effectively 0.
I
incense
Guest
The Bishops don’t have to close the hospitals, all they have to do is…
- Fire all non-Catholic employees (ruling says employees must all be Catholic)
- Refuse services to all non-Catholic clients. (ruling says all customers must be Catholic)
- Require a sermon or religion class and prayer before admission into the hospital and before every medical service. (ruling says primary purpose is promotion of religion)
- Train nurses in sermons and prayers they can give to the clients. (ruling says primary purpose is promotion of religion)
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
It’s not just hospitals. Even a diocese office has a challenge meeting the terms of the mandate.
And what about Catholic small businesses? According to JREducation, the Pope has commanded the bishops to fight for them too.
I’m all for Catholic institutions being more Catholic but this is not so easily solved.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Where did you get that statistic?
I
Incomplete
Guest
Beyond what Bubba said, it’s also Catholic Charities and other Catholic institutions.
Turning down someone in need of medical care who is not Catholic would still violate our conscience. For Catholic Charities to only aid Catholics is also a violation of conscience.
J
johnnykins
Guest
I’m hardly sanguine that this will be struck down on the basis of religious freedom. I hope I’m wrong, but…
The problem as I see it, is that the administration has taken the position that “Catholic” hospitals, etc., are not part of the Church qua Church.
That is they are not entitled to the 1st Amendment constitutional protections. Given my own experience with “Catholic” healthcare, the Catholic Health West recent action to say it was not “Catholic” and the whole debacle in Arizona, etc., the administration has a strong argument: There is no real difference between a putative Catholic hospital and any other. Apply the same analysis to schools, etc. Frankly, I think the Church has an uphill battle.
This whole thing does not surprise me at all. In fact, it was most foreseeable. C’mon, how many hospitals are now run by orders, let alone have any significant number of vowed religious doing anything in them? Mere ownership is never going to get over the religion hump, and the Church has done a most amazing job ridding its hospitals and school of anything clearly Catholic beyond a superficial title.
What you sow, …
2
2cats
Guest
Do any of you who are following this issue and who are employed by a nonreligious employer subscribe to a group health care plan through your employer, and if so, have you checked to see if it covers contraceptives? Most group plans cover them, and if you subscribe to the plan, you have coverage for those services. Whether you choose to use them is where your conscience rights come into play. Are you suggesting that I have to drop my blue cross coverage simply because it covers contraceptives for other people? Isn’t the logical extension of the bishops’ position here that I should? If so, I think that’s a complete overreach by the Church. If that’s not what the bishops are suggesting, then please explain the difference! Thanks.
If this president wins re-election, he will have the opportunity to appoint at least one, at least one new justice. When or if that happens, all bets on the court protecting the first amendment are off, and freedom of religion as a protected right will be effectively nullified.
Jon
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Most of our Bishops supported the expansion of the federal government three years ago, I pray their change of heart in these matters has not come too late to do any good.
The problem is, many people want equality of result for everyone because that seems fair, it seems so pleasant and just–yet the truth is, we simply cannot have equality of result without losing many of our freedoms (a lesson many people ignored three years ago, but are perhaps beginning to see the truth of now).
It is just a fact that in this life we must choose which has the higher priority: Liberty, or equality of result. We cannot ever have both here on earth.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
That’s an interesting question. But I have not heard of any such demand by the bishops on individuals.
But just to be clear, I was referring the decision by Catholic small business owners who have probably not included ABC in their health care coverage.
Now it is an interesting question whether Catholic business owners are required abstain from buying health care plans that include ABC but, from what I understand, the bishops are supposed to be fighting for their freedom to choose not to support that.
That seems to be lost in all the discussion of Catholic institutions.
T
The_Rock
Guest
Only 9 have not spoken out according to catholic vote. The list below of 11 Bishops who have not spoken out is incorrect. I know 2 of these Bishops have statements on their websites against the mandate that are listed as part of the 11 who have not “spoken out” publicly. I have not checked the other 9, it is posible they have released statements also. Did the Pope order them to issue statements?
catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26170&cpage=3#comment-65924
D
Dawnia
Guest
The statistic actually says that 98% of those women currently identifying as Catholic have used at least one form of contraception at least once in their entire lifetime, regardless of why or when they used it. This info comes from the Guttenmacher Institute.
The % of Catholics in the study was 20%.
Actual figures are around 68%, 32% of whom are sterilized, leaving about 34% who currently use any form BC, including 2% who use NFP
Study is here - guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I think many of us are struggling with the temptation to blame the bishops for this debacle. They certainly played an instrumental role, contrary to the denials of some here. I would love to see a mea culpa from them, acknowledgement of their critics (including, of course, those bishops who opposed Obamacare as a solution to health care availability), but I’m not holding my breath. At least the bishops do seem to recognize the danger of the situation, that’s a start.
In the mean time, the Church now faces a crisis, regardless of who is to blame, and we need to stand together against a common enemy.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You should write in the comments section on CatholicVote of the two you know have spoken out against the HHS mandate.
I do not think the Pope has told any of the the Bishops to make specific statements.
C
cerad2
Guest
Searching will bring up a dozen sites or so. Here is one:
uscatholic.org/blog/2011/04/department-no-duh-catholic-women-use-birth-control
J
jenkiedad
Guest
Here’s an interesting article that appeared in this weekend’s San Antonio newspaper:
mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/Archdiocese-joins-protest-against-Obama-3006505.php
What I thought interesting was an admission that Catholic institutions here in San Antonio (and probably nationwide
) already offer contraceptives on their insurance plans:
“*Santa Rosa Health System and the three major Catholic universities in San Antonio already have insurance plans that make contraceptives available to employees with co-pays.”
““This is the first we have heard of the possibility of that situation existing… We can’t fully understand the detail of their insurance coverage,” García-Siller said by email Friday.”
““This does afford us an opportunity to begin dialogue on this issue with them.”*”
mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/Archdiocese-joins-protest-against-Obama-3006505.php
What I thought interesting was an admission that Catholic institutions here in San Antonio (and probably nationwide
) already offer contraceptives on their insurance plans:“*Santa Rosa Health System and the three major Catholic universities in San Antonio already have insurance plans that make contraceptives available to employees with co-pays.”
““This is the first we have heard of the possibility of that situation existing… We can’t fully understand the detail of their insurance coverage,” García-Siller said by email Friday.”
““This does afford us an opportunity to begin dialogue on this issue with them.”*”
J
JReducation
Guest
There are so many interesting points being made here that I wish that I could comment on them all. As Formation Director, I have spend that last 10 days answer all of these and more questions for our postulants and novices. But there is not enough room here for 10 days of instruction. So, I’ll just touch on some interesting and simple points to explain.
In addition, a bishop may not order a diocesan priest to preach on anything. If the bishop objects to the content of a homily, that is legitimate. If the bishop wishes that Father had said X but did not, there is not much that he can do about it.
Priests who are religious have a vow of obedience to their superiors. The superior can order one of two things:
a) Read the letter
or
b) Do whatever the bishop asks you to do
At the end of the day, a religious is not in the Army to serve the system, but to serve the souls in that system. There has to be cooperation between the chaplains and the system. This is logical. However, there also has to be a protection of the rights both of the chaplains and the enlisted personnel. They have a right to hear their spiritual leaders. Does this mean that a confessor cannot tell a soldier that he cannot comply with this or that order because it violates the moral law? Are we gong to regulate that next?
Medicaid is not Federal Money. It is State money. Though the Federal Government subsidizes more in some states and less in others. Medicaid also works like insurance. You go to whomever accepts Medicaid. The state cannot force anyone to accept medicaid. Medicaid sets limits on whom they cover and what they cover just like any other carrier.
There is a civil law that an emergency room must treat every patient, regardless of his ability to pay and even keep the patient, until the person is out of danger. They don’t have to cure you, but they can’t send you home if you have chest pains.
Morally and legally, this is not an option. The option has always been that healthcare systems and workers did not have to provide anything that is elective or any service contrary to conscience. Birth control, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs fall under both umbrellas, elective and immoral.
This is a very serious problem for anyone who owns his business and employs others. If you’re Orthodox Jew, faithful Catholic or Muslim and you own a department store, you will have to purchase a healthcare policy that you normally would not offer your employees.
Finally, the employees in the USA have not been asked if they want to pay higher premiums in order to add these “benefits” to their healthcare package. If I’m reading the regulation correctly, it says that the employer must purchase the healthcare package and must offer it to his employees. It does not say that the employer has to absorb the rise in premium or are the insurance companies not allowed to raise the premium for the added coverage?
There seems to be more than ample reason for people of faith to see this as an assault on their rights than as an effort to expand healthcare benefits.
If I am wrong, I would gladly admit it. But I don’t find answers to these questions.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The clergy (deacons and priests) were not ordered to preach on the letter. They were directed to read the letter or at best, to put it into the bulletin. The preference was that they read it If the pastor believes that there will be a riot in the church as he reads it, he can simply make it an insert in the bulletin. The pastors often know their parishes well. You may want to suggest this idea to Father.Our bishop is on the 80% list, but our pastor said nothing, like nothing has happened.
Many of the parishioners are still clueless about HHS. What can we do? Our pastor is always known to be politically correct, never takes any side.
Some our parishioners attended Mass in another church within the same diocese, and the pastor gave a serious talk on HHS, urged all congregation to oppose HHS and got a standing ovation. I know it is useless to talk to our pastor, he will not budge, and he will keep silent, very silent…
In addition, a bishop may not order a diocesan priest to preach on anything. If the bishop objects to the content of a homily, that is legitimate. If the bishop wishes that Father had said X but did not, there is not much that he can do about it.
Priests who are religious have a vow of obedience to their superiors. The superior can order one of two things:
a) Read the letter
or
b) Do whatever the bishop asks you to do
At the end of the day, a religious is not in the Army to serve the system, but to serve the souls in that system. There has to be cooperation between the chaplains and the system. This is logical. However, there also has to be a protection of the rights both of the chaplains and the enlisted personnel. They have a right to hear their spiritual leaders. Does this mean that a confessor cannot tell a soldier that he cannot comply with this or that order because it violates the moral law? Are we gong to regulate that next?
The federal money excuse is just that, an excuse. Let’s take Medicare. Medicare is an insurance program like any other insurance, for which the employee has paid for through FICA. This is not a benefit to the healthcare provider. This is an healthcare plan that the individual paid for with his money. We all pay Society Security Taxes. The individual can take his Medicare card and go to any provider on the list of the company that manages his Medicare. It works like an HMO. The Government is paying a private insurance carrier to manage it. It’s not paying the doctor or hospital. The agreements between the providers and the carrier are decided by them, not the Government. Doctors even have to get permission to prescribe certain medications that are not on the carriers formulary. If this was so federally controlled,why is there not uniformity?
Medicaid is not Federal Money. It is State money. Though the Federal Government subsidizes more in some states and less in others. Medicaid also works like insurance. You go to whomever accepts Medicaid. The state cannot force anyone to accept medicaid. Medicaid sets limits on whom they cover and what they cover just like any other carrier.
There is a moral law that you may not turn down any sick person. This is a universal law, not a Catholic law. Generally, Jewish, Protestant and Catholic hospitals follow it.
There is a civil law that an emergency room must treat every patient, regardless of his ability to pay and even keep the patient, until the person is out of danger. They don’t have to cure you, but they can’t send you home if you have chest pains.
Morally and legally, this is not an option. The option has always been that healthcare systems and workers did not have to provide anything that is elective or any service contrary to conscience. Birth control, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs fall under both umbrellas, elective and immoral.
This is a very serious problem for anyone who owns his business and employs others. If you’re Orthodox Jew, faithful Catholic or Muslim and you own a department store, you will have to purchase a healthcare policy that you normally would not offer your employees.
Finally, the employees in the USA have not been asked if they want to pay higher premiums in order to add these “benefits” to their healthcare package. If I’m reading the regulation correctly, it says that the employer must purchase the healthcare package and must offer it to his employees. It does not say that the employer has to absorb the rise in premium or are the insurance companies not allowed to raise the premium for the added coverage?
There seems to be more than ample reason for people of faith to see this as an assault on their rights than as an effort to expand healthcare benefits.
If I am wrong, I would gladly admit it. But I don’t find answers to these questions.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Have you, or any attorneys that you work with, done an analysis of the law and how this will play out?
Let us suppose that a Catholic institution (or business) declines to purchase the insurance and refuses to pay the fine. What happens next?
And, from the Church’s viewpoint, is it accurate to say that paying the fine is morally equivalent to purchasing the insurance in the first place?
- Status