I
iloveangels
Guest
Good - we shouldn’t have been taking government money in the first place.
Good - we shouldn’t have been taking government money in the first place.
I don’t get it either. If the nuns are the only ones participating in the plan, I don’t see a problem — unless there is a fear some of the nuns will take advantage of those benefits.You lost me. If it covers OC’s and they are the only ones who would (not) be using these services, then what is the problem? What am I missing?![]()
The problem is in requiring the religious order to purchase a policy that violates their religious beliefs. The problem remains regardless of who uses or does not use the benefits. And they are required to purchase an immoral policy at the expense of paying heavy fines if they refuse.I don’t get it either. If the nuns are the only ones participating in the plan, I don’t see a problem — unless there is a fear some of the nuns will take advantage of those benefits.![]()
Isn’t it possible to get medical treatment through other than a pagan corporate entity?Possibly I misunderstand what you mean by the “real issues”. The most significant issue here is the religious oppression of these sisters and all Catholic employers and all but a handful of Catholic institutions by a government that demands a sharia-like tribute from all who do not adhere to its pagan religion.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/pope-benedict-tightens-control-catholic-charities_n_2234662.html
"VATICAN CITY (RNS) Bishops must exercise closer supervision over Catholic charities and ensure that their activities do not contradict church doctrine, according to new rules issued by Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday (Dec. 1).
The new guidelines state that charities with links to the church must “follow Catholic principles in their activity” and may not “accept commitments” that could undermine those principles in any way."
huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/pope-benedict-tightens-control-catholic-charities_n_2234662.html
"VATICAN CITY (RNS) Bishops must exercise closer supervision over Catholic charities and ensure that their activities do not contradict church doctrine, according to new rules issued by Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday (Dec. 1).
The new guidelines state that charities with links to the church must “follow Catholic principles in their activity” and may not “accept commitments” that could undermine those principles in any way."
That’s right. This is because if you can’t get an exemption as a religious organization you have to buy the coverage the government wants. In order to get an exemption as a religious organization, there are 4 rules and you have to qualify under all of these 4. One of the rules says you have to serve primarily people of the same faith; you can’t serve the general population and get an exemption – unless you get granted one in court or follow the 4 rules.The problem is in requiring the religious order to purchase a policy that violates their religious beliefs. The problem remains regardless of who uses or does not use the benefits. And they are required to purchase an immoral policy at the expense of paying heavy fines if they refuse.
Relying solely on private donations will not save a Catholic charity from losing its religious liberty. The HHS mandate will apply to them regardless of their funding source. And the HHS mandate requires them to violate their religious principles.
Also, as to government funding–where does that money come from? It comes from the people–including Catholics, who ought to have a say in how it is spent. I agree with charities relying on self-funding. But in that case, let the government get out of the charity business and leave it to the private charities, who do it better anyway. And let them operate their charities in accord with their principles, not the government’s principles.
Catholic employees have not been called on to drop their insurance coverage if it covers ABCs. They pay for a portion of their insurance as well. I still don’t see the difference. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care whether the nuns keep or refuse their insurance coverage, it’s their choice. I just don’t get the point.The problem is in requiring the religious order to purchase a policy that violates their religious beliefs. The problem remains regardless of who uses or does not use the benefits. And they are required to purchase an immoral policy at the expense of paying heavy fines if they refuse…
Rejecting government funding definitely eliminates certain government controls over how that funding is spent. However, as others have pointed out, government, as in the HHS mandate, is vigorously extending its powers over private charitable activities. This government wants to control all charitable activities. It wants people to be dependent on it for their needs, and thereby eager to support it in elections. It wants to define the ethos under which aid is given and to have the power to decide who receives aid and who does not. Private charities, especially those of the Catholic Church, by far the largest single private charitable organization in the country, are competition to be suppressed. Avoiding dependence on government funds is a step in the right direction. But, until Catholics understand that charity through the Church is far preferable to “charity” from government and stop supporting the anti-God Democratic agenda, all Catholic charities are at risk.
Exactly. The issue isn’t usually over money, but over legal things like licensing or compliance with regulations like the insurance mandates.The article is missing a profoundly important point. The changes in Illinois law forced Catholic Charities out of providing adoption services by pulling their license for refusing to place with gay couples. Private funding does nothing to help the situation when you need a license to operate an adoption agency and the state won’t grant a license to anyone who won’t toe the line. It’s like proposing that we buy a sturdy pair of gloves so that we won’t cut our feet up on the streets littered with broken glass…![]()
I agreeAbout time. Now we are on the right track.