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.
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.
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
) already offer contraceptives on their insurance plans:
