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.
Yeah, make sure you really, really enjoy those 30 little pieces of silver.

Because if they can get you that cheaply, that’s all you’ll ever get, and what did you give up for it?
 
Polls by major polling agencies don’t mean anything at all when applied to Catholics.

For starters, people claim to be Catholic who never see the inside of a Church. We have an absolutely enormous number of hangers-on who aren’t really Catholic, may no longer be Catholic, or may not have ever been Catholic. You can call it the “Sister Act” effect–you remember that movie, right?
Actually if someone is baptized/confirmed, it’s the Church who claims them to be Catholic, albeit perhaps non practicing/lapsed.
 
Gosh Rence, I guess it’s all about you right? Hey the guy next door is molesting children but since it doesn’t impact ME, I shouldn’t care right? That’s an odd thought process.
You don’t need to be rude to me just because I don’t agree with you. Do you treat everyone who disagrees with you in this way? I assure you, it’s not going to get me to think your opinion is better or more worthy than mine. Of course it’s not all about me. And neither is this thread.

This mandate is about everyone. The fact of the matter is, if everyone didn’t want the coverage and thought it was unfair, it would have changed something already. The fact of the matter is, the mandate was introduced because the majority of people want the benefits. Not everyone in the U.S. is Catholic and the government and the HHS is responsible for representing everyone, not just Catholics. It’s part of living in a multicultural society. I just don’t see all this “persecution” by the HHS mandating additional benefits that may or may not be used to the descretion of the employee.
As to the military kerfluffle, the letter indicated that Catholic Chaplains would not obey the order. Does this sound like a call to riot or to treason? I don’t but in any case the sentence was struck so the Obama Administration could save face.
What did the letter call people to do? What is “civil disobedience”?
 
This is a dangerously short-sited view. In fact, I seriously doubt that you really hold the view that anything that does not directly and immediately affect you is of no concern to you.

Tyrants always offer benefits in exchange for liberty.

Spend your 30 pieces of silver carefully.
Again, really rude. This thread isn’t about me. I am thinking of others besides me.
 
Actually if someone is baptized/confirmed, it’s the Church who claims them to be Catholic, albeit perhaps non practicing/lapsed.
They do that just to be kind, and in hopes that they’ll straighten up and fly right. Surely you know that.

On the other hand, at the end of each life, there’s an appointment to discuss it all with God. That doesn’t change.
 
This mandate is about everyone. The fact of the matter is, if everyone didn’t want the coverage and thought it was unfair, it would have changed something already. The fact of the matter is, the mandate was introduced because the majority of people want the benefits. Not everyone in the U.S. is Catholic and the government and the HHS is responsible for representing everyone, not just Catholics. It’s part of living in a multicultural society. I just don’t see all this “persecution” by the HHS mandating additional benefits that may or may not be used to the descretion of the employee.
Well said.
 
No. Absolutely not. The Bishops definitely know more about Catholic teaching than I do, or ever will. That’s a given.
Well, there is your link then. This is about birth control, morning after pills, abortion on demand and voluntary sterilization.
 
I think you raise a valid point but, in the interest of helping everyone to decide where we stand on this point, i.e. what do we do, let me offer some counterpoints:

There are three groups of Catholics:
  1. Those who are outraged by the HHS policy on ABC and are doing what they can to reverse it.
  2. Those who are outraged by Obamacare (and angry with the bishops for supporting it, in principle).
  3. Those who are sitting on their hands.
I claim that group 2 is entirely contained within group 1. I challenge you find any member of group 2 who is also a member of group 3.

In other words, I think you are worrying about the wrong people.

So, what do we do? Much of what you suggest falls under the category of seeking a policy change from HHS. Suppose this is successful, suppose that HHS reverses this policy.

What would lead you to believe that this policy reversal would not be reversed again after the election or by a future administration of similar ideology?

It is prudent to conclude that this administration is untrustworthy on this issue. The root problem is Obamacare and the power that it gives to HHS. The correct solution is to uproot Obamacare.

That is a very different task than lobbying the administration to change it’s mind. And implicit in this is that the bishops need to come to terms with the inherent problem of viewing health care as a right.
Not being a politician, I don’t know enough to say how the healthcare plan and what HHS are interrelated. I imagine that they have to be, because HHS is the agency that has to make it work.

If this kind of regulation is a direct product of the healthcare plan, then the plan needs to be either reworked, if it can be salvaged or scrapped and go back to square one.

As for the Church viewing health care differently, I don’t see how differently she can view it. For centuries she has viewed healthcare as a human right. States exist to protect those rights. As to the mechanics of how we provide for the sick, that is something that has to be worked on by everyone, not just the State or the Church. The Church has a great deal of experience to contribute, if the State would listen, instead of piling on regulation after regulation to the point that faith communities can no longer afford to provide healthcare as we once did.

This is not a slam on this administration, because it’s been going on for years, long before this administration came to power. If one stops to think the number of good hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, home health services, and nursing homes run by Catholics, Adventists and Jews for years and years in this country, you would think that different levels of health departments, (federal and state) would find it less expensive to leave these hospitals alone and deal with the insurance companies and frivolous law suits, which is the bigger part of the problem around the world. Some insurance companies micromanage healthcare and some have priced themselves out of reach.

The other problem is that some states have horrible medicaid and medicare services. Instead of competing with insurance companies, a better proposal would be to make Medicaid and Medicare better. When you stop to think that you pay Social Security tax all of your life and then you have to pay a premium to get certain benefits from Medicare or that Medicare is managed by HMOs that don’t always provide good service, it would make more sense for healthcare reform to fix those problems than create additional programs.

I know one state where an unemployed person is not eligible for Medicaid unless he has minor children. If he has college age dependent children, they can only get Medicaid if the child works 20 hours per week. I have always wondered how do these regulations help those families that have lost their jobs in this economy, especially those who are putting kids through college? I don’t see the proposed healthcare plan helping these families. This is what the Church is talking about when she speaks of the right to healthcare. A person who loses his job, because the economy is bad, does not cease to need healthcare for him and his family. Either the government must provide or make regulations that allow for private non profit, such as religious groups, provide for these people.

Regulations such as the one that’s staring at us in the face, make it more difficult, not easier, for charitable organizations to provide healthcare for the poor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Actually if someone is baptized/confirmed, it’s the Church who claims them to be Catholic, albeit perhaps non practicing.
Red Herring alert. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans do not understand such subtleties and thus anyone who claims to be Catholic is considered an authority on the subject…Nancy Pelosi anyone? When a poll is done and the respondents state they are Catholic yet it comes down against the teachings of the Church, the Left and MSM (one and the same) can crow “CATHOLICS AGREE!”

There is little we can do about this but at the very least let’s not help them promote their deception. One of my favorite radio hosts when confronted by the number of self identified Catholics who voted for Obama asked that the survey be re-done and the poll be of practicing, devout Catholics. While I know that some of them voted for Obama and still may support him, once you weed out the CINOs, the poll changes completely. Ditto with Jews, most of whom are ethnic Jews but do not practice their faith. Were you to take a poll of Orthodox Jews or even the more conservative sects who’ve actually seen the inside of Temple in the last year, a completely different profile emerges.

Don’t let them manipulate the data. Speak against, do not support such conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out.
Lisa
 
Rence:

Abortion or not, when a government forces us to buy a product they assign, it is violation of our freedom. According to poll, majority of religious groups as well as non religious groups all think HHS violates the freedom of religion and violates people’s Constitutional right. Even USA Today blames HHS on their editorial column. And you insist this does not violate people’s Constitutional right???
 
Well said.
Well that might have been the case, except the most recent ruling said it also applied to Catholic institutions, not just public ones that are owned by the general population…

WE’re past that part. Catch up for Pete’s sakes.
 
Again, really rude. This thread isn’t about me. I am thinking of others besides me.
Frankly, I can’t think of a better reply than to simply quote your own words right back at you:
I would care if I felt my constitutional rights are being threatened. The fact is, being offered more benefits is not a threat to me.
 
Okay, Rence. We know what matters to you. You’ve made it pretty clear. I don’t have anything else to say about that. Explain it to God, now or later.

The rest of us are worried about this infringement on our constitutional rights, and what that could do to the Church and our lives.
 
Frankly, I can’t think of a better reply than to simply quote your own words right back at you:
Just like anything else in life, you can’t just take one sentence out of the air as representative. My comment was true: I would care if I felt my constitutional rights are being threatened. The fact is, being offered more benefits is not a threat to me. It’s also true that I don’t believe anyone else’s constitutional rights are being threatened.
 
Just like anything else in life, you can’t just take one sentence out of the air as representative. My comment was true: I would care if I felt my constitutional rights are being threatened. The fact is, being offered more benefits is not a threat to me. It’s also true that I don’t believe anyone else’s constitutional rights are being threatened.
We don’t agree Rence. You’ve made it clear what’s important to you.
 
Interesting that TEC, UMC, PCUSA, and UCC don’t think it infringes upon religious liberty and they’re each a religion. Obviously then all religions don’t see religious liberties as being under attack.
They allow their members to get abortions, use birth control and get voluntary sterilizations. They don’t have strong moral stands on these things. It is no issue for them… yet.

Are you an Episcopalian, a Methodist, or a member of the United Church of Christ? Then this doesn’t affect you yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top