Because the Church does not pay for them, CMatt25. It’s just as simple as that.I disagree with your opinion that it’s not about benefits. But here’s what I don’t quite get. If Catholic employees already pay for these benefits through co pays and deductibles on the insurance coverage they get through their private or govt employers, how is that all that much different than a Catholic employer having to pay towards such a policy? Catholics are already paying. So you would require the Catholic employee who has such insurance now through their private or govt employer, not to pay towards their health coverage, drop it, and go without health care?
I said I disagree with your opinion that it’s not about benefits. I believe it is. But oh well I’ll find it sad if a hospital or school chooses to drop healthcare coverage for their employees, nurses, teachers, the poor fellow who might be sweeping the floors, over this. But I guess that’s me.Because the Church does not pay for them, CMatt25. It’s just as simple as that.
Private companies buy all kind of things, and some of them aren’t moral. The Church can’t control that. It can and will control what it buys.
You are right about one thing. It’s not really about benefits. It’s about coming after the Catholic church politically with a dagger in your hand.
You should be a lot more sad that your Constitutional rights are being violated. Right now it doesn’t affect you so you don’t care about the consequences of this mandate. But if nothing else, look at the precedent it sets. If Obama thinks he can get away with violating our most fundamental rights, he will become increasingly emboldened. He has already admitted wanting to “force” his ideas down the unwilling throats of Congress and being frustrated that he was unable to function as a tin pot dictator.I said I disagree with your opinion that it’s not about benefits. I believe it is. But oh well I’ll find it sad if a hospital or school chooses to drop healthcare coverage for their employees, nurses, teachers, the poor fellow who might be sweeping the floors, over this. But I guess that’s me.
So is abortion but that doesn’t mean we participate in evil does it?I think that the new insurance coverages are like a “Law of the Land” deal, and the Catholic Church is not above the law.
Yes, and neither is Kathleen Sebelius or Pres. Obama.I think that the new insurance coverages are like a “Law of the Land” deal, and the Catholic Church is not above the law.
Do you believe that the “law of the land” is subject to anything other than itself?I think that the new insurance coverages are like a “Law of the Land” deal, and the Catholic Church is not above the law.
It’s about choice, and the government forcing us to make a choice that goes against our freedom to practice our religion.But here’s what I don’t quite get. If Catholic employees already pay for these benefits to be included through co pays and deductibles on the insurance coverage they get through their private or govt employers, besides the fact that you just don’t like the mandate, how is that all that much different than a Catholic employer having to pay towards such a policy? Catholics are already paying. So you would require the Catholic employee who has such insurance now through their private or govt employer, not to pay towards their health coverage, drop it, and go without health care?
The “Law of the Land” is in our constitution, where we are given the freedom to practice our religion, which precludes purchasing contraception.I think that the new insurance coverages are like a “Law of the Land” deal, and the Catholic Church is not above the law.
Your last point is absolutely correct (though I am tempted to ask why you would not include Catholic run businesses). The critical question that the Obama apologists here are putting forward is whether Catholic voters, in general, ought to care. They, of course, argue no.The point is forcing Catholic institutions to violate Catholic morals by paying for immoral things.
Individual Catholics can buy contraceptives if they want; the Church is not following them around. Unlike HHS, the Church does force Catholics in this way.
The point is that the HHS is now going to force Catholic institutions to do something that violates their conscience, their principles, and Catholic morality. If HHS can force Catholic institutions to do this, there is nothing to prevent it from mandating abortion coverage.
The administration gives Catholic institutions a choice: cease to be Catholic, or go out of business.
Do you believe that the constitution is subject to anything other than itself?The “Law of the Land” is in our constitution, where we are given the freedom to practice our religion, which precludes purchasing contraception.
I’m struggling with a bad head cold, and my comprehension isn’t the best today. I’m not sure what you’re asking. An example might be helpful.Do you believe that the constitution is subject to anything other than itself?
But our religous rights are not being violated. Everyone can still practice their faith. In the case of Catholics, they can practice by not using the benefits even if they have to pay towards them. Catholic employees already pay if such benefits are in their employer health care coverage now with co pays, deductibles, for instance going toward the cost of providing coverage. I understand a big thing is you don’t want Catholic affilliated employers such as hospitals to be mandated. But there are already all sorts of mandates which someone might not like but nevertheless must follow to live in a democracy of plural beliefs under some sort of rule of law for the land. For instance as Rence pointed out, taxes. Or if the Church is going to hold an abortion protest for instance, there are civil laws that must be followed as to how to go about it. You just can’t for instance stand out on a public street and hold up traffic. Or an abortion protester of another faith can not blow up an abortion clinic or murder an abortion provider under the guise of religious liberty, can they? Of course not. There are rules to be followed and laws to be obeyed living in society.You should be a lot more sad that your Constitutional rights are being violated. Right now it doesn’t affect you so you don’t care about the consequences of this mandate. But if nothing else, look at the precedent it sets. If Obama thinks he can get away with violating our most fundamental rights, he will become increasingly emboldened. He has already admitted wanting to “force” his ideas down the unwilling throats of Congress and being frustrated that he was unable to function as a tin pot dictator.
You know the saying about the only thing it takes for evil to prevail is for good men (and women!) to do nothing. Yours and Rence’s attitude that well hey no skin of my nose so why should I care is the very thing that has allowed a deterioration of rights throughout the world. If that attitude had prevailed we’d still have Jim Crow if not slavery as it certainly didn’t hurt the white majority if blacks had to drink at separate fountains or attend separate schools.
When it comes to our fundamental rights, it’s really not about us is it?
Lisa
rebeccanew is appealing to legislation as the “law of the land” and therefore, she claims, binding on us all, Catholic institutions included. You nominated the constitution, with its guarantee of rights.I’m struggling with a bad head cold, and my comprehension isn’t the best today. I’m not sure what you’re asking. An example might be helpful.
There was a sharp rebuke Wednesday from Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan that put even more pressure on the president to calm a widening election year uproar over his insistence that Catholic institutions provide free birth control to their employees.
Dolan came to the South Bronx to bless a library, but he had no blessings — just harsh words — for President Barack Obama, who wants Catholic institutions to pay for birth control, the morning after pill and other services for people who work for them.
“The federal government should do what it’s traditionally done since July 4, 1776, namely back out of intruding into the internal life of a church,” Dolan told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.
It has been suggested that one avenue of compromise could include granting leeway for a church-related organization not to cover birth control, but refer employees to another insurer that will provide the coverage.
Dolan would not comment on that proposal but said, “I would welcome the fact that officials of the government are saying we need to rethink that.”
newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/08/cardinal-designate-dolan-president-obama-needs-to-stop-intruding-into-internal-life-of-a-church/The Catholic Church is still developing its strategy on how to deal with the issue. Dolan met Wednesday with members of the Catholic League and other organizations. Sources told Kramer a massive march on Washington is one of the possibilities.
Personally, God always trumps anything else! But even Thomas Jefferson would limit “pursuit of happiness”, I think. Obviously we can’t just pursue happiness at all costs. If we could, no law could stand because it could violate somebody else’s happiness.rebeccanew is appealing to legislation as the “law of the land” and therefore, she claims, binding on us all, Catholic institutions included. You nominated the constitution, with its guarantee of rights.
Thomas Jefferson answered this by an appeal to God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which precede any law or constitution or government.
Why should a Catholic employer be forced to violate their conscience? It should not be the responsibility of a Catholic employer or school to cover something which they consider immoral. By the way this is not just a Catholic issue, this is religious freedom issue.Hi - First time poster here. I’m wondering what would be the difference if the Jehovah’s Witnesses ran hospitals and refused to cover their employees for blood transfusions or use of products like antibiotics which might use blood components or organ transplants because it was against their religious beliefs? Not everyone who works for a Catholic organization is Catholic. And even if they are, isn’t it a privacy matter? I don’t see how including the option in a health plan violates anyone’s religious beliefs. It’s more like forcing beliefs on people who may not agree.