Church does not oppose health care

[horazy]

The letter below was signed by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan and many other religious leaders. No where does it say that the Catholic Church is opposed to Health care, only the elimination of the HSS mandate spelled out below. If the provisions in the Health care law remain then those religious institutions opposed to abortion will be persecuted in what ever means our government deems necessary. Persecution is not new to us. We will remain true to our beliefs and face the hardships if they occur.

An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans

June 21, 2012 Dear Friends,
Religious institutions are established because of religious beliefs and convictions. Such institutions include not only churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, but also schools and colleges, shelters and community kitchens, adoption agencies and hospitals, organizations that provide care and services during natural disasters, and countless other organizations that exist to put specific religious beliefs into practice. Many such organizations have provided services and care to both members and non-members of their religious communities since before the Revolutionary War, saving and improving the lives of countless American citizens.
As religious leaders from a variety of perspectives and communities, we are compelled to make known our protest against the incursion of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious liberty. HHS has mandated that religious institutions, with only a narrow religious exception, must provide access to certain contraceptive benefits, even if the covered medications or procedures are contradictory to their beliefs. We who oppose the application of this mandate to religious institutions include not only the leaders of religious groups morally opposed to contraception, but also leaders of other religious groups that do not share that particular moral conviction.
That we share an opposition to the mandate to religious institutions while disagreeing about specific moral teachings is a crucial fact. Religious freedom is the principle on which we stand. Because of differing understandings of moral and religious authority, people of good will can and often do come to different conclusions about moral questions. Yet, even we who hold differing convictions on specific moral issues are united in the conviction that no religious institution should be penalized for refusing to go against its beliefs. The issue is the First Amendment, not specific moral teachings or specific products or services.
The HHS mandate implicitly acknowledged that an incursion into religion is involved in the mandate. However, the narrowness of the proposed exemption is revealing for it applies only to religious organizations that serve or support their own members. In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption. The so-called accommodation and the subsequent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) do little or nothing to alleviate the problem.
No government should tell religious organizations either what to believe or how to put their beliefs into practice. We indeed hold this to be an unalienable, constitutional right. If freedom of religion is a constitutional value to be protected, then institutions developed by religious groups to implement their core beliefs in education, in care for the sick or suffering, and in other tasks must also be protected. Only by doing so can the free exercise of religion have any meaning. The HHS mandate prevents this free exercise. For the well-being of our country, we oppose the application of the contraceptive mandate to religious institutions and plead for its retraction.
Sincerely yours,

 

[meltzerboy]

The HHS mandate must be removed from the health care law. This simple yet eloquent affirmation makes it clear that the matter before us is one of religious freedom, which the government has absolutely no right to infringe upon. All religious leaders, as well as anyone who values freedom, should support this cause in whatever way they can.

 

[manualman]

In short, the catholic church is not at all opposed to government efforts intended to give more people more access to health care. We just oppose the cynical use of health care legislation as a Trojan Horse (pun intended) to force people of faith to violate their convictions.

 

[mercytruth]

The letter below was signed by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan and many other religious leaders. No where does it say that the Catholic Church is opposed to Health care, only the elimination of the HSS mandate spelled out below. If the provisions in the Health care law remain then those religious institutions opposed to abortion will be persecuted in what ever means our government deems necessary. Persecution is not new to us. We will remain true to our beliefs and face the hardships if they occur.

An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans

June 21, 2012 Dear Friends,
Religious institutions are established because of religious beliefs and convictions. Such institutions include not only churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, but also schools and colleges, shelters and community kitchens, adoption agencies and hospitals, organizations that provide care and services during natural disasters, and countless other organizations that exist to put specific religious beliefs into practice. Many such organizations have provided services and care to both members and non-members of their religious communities since before the Revolutionary War, saving and improving the lives of countless American citizens.
As religious leaders from a variety of perspectives and communities, we are compelled to make known our protest against the incursion of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious liberty. HHS has mandated that religious institutions, with only a narrow religious exception, must provide access to certain contraceptive benefits, even if the covered medications or procedures are contradictory to their beliefs. We who oppose the application of this mandate to religious institutions include not only the leaders of religious groups morally opposed to contraception, but also leaders of other religious groups that do not share that particular moral conviction.
That we share an opposition to the mandate to religious institutions while disagreeing about specific moral teachings is a crucial fact. Religious freedom is the principle on which we stand. Because of differing understandings of moral and religious authority, people of good will can and often do come to different conclusions about moral questions. Yet, even we who hold differing convictions on specific moral issues are united in the conviction that no religious institution should be penalized for refusing to go against its beliefs. The issue is the First Amendment, not specific moral teachings or specific products or services.
The HHS mandate implicitly acknowledged that an incursion into religion is involved in the mandate. However, the narrowness of the proposed exemption is revealing for it applies only to religious organizations that serve or support their own members. In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption. The so-called accommodation and the subsequent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) do little or nothing to alleviate the problem.
No government should tell religious organizations either what to believe or how to put their beliefs into practice. We indeed hold this to be an unalienable, constitutional right. If freedom of religion is a constitutional value to be protected, then institutions developed by religious groups to implement their core beliefs in education, in care for the sick or suffering, and in other tasks must also be protected. Only by doing so can the free exercise of religion have any meaning. The HHS mandate prevents this free exercise. For the well-being of our country, we oppose the application of the contraceptive mandate to religious institutions and plead for its retraction.
Sincerely yours,

We have come a long way since the resignation of auxillary Bishop James Shannon in the 1960"s over his opposition to advising all Catholic couples that it is immoral and sinful to practice artificial birth control. Bishop Shannon did not think all Catholic couples had the moral faith to abide by this church teaching. Regardless, he resigned as Bishop.

Now we have a situation, where Catholic institutions which are receiving Federal tax dollars are required to offer health insurance which includes contraceptive coverage to their non-Catholic employees. Is that unreasonable? I don’t think so.

If the Federal tax dollars were not granted to such Catholic institutions, of course, then it would be an infringement of religious liberty to Catholic institutions in requiring this mandate of contraceptive coverage.

Catholic institutions could refuse all Federal tax dollars, and ask for all the campaign money that is being spent to overturn this ruling to be given to them. I am sure there are many fiscal conservative, and non-intrusive goverment tax lobbies that would love to support this effort.

 

[meltzerboy]

We have come a long way since the resignation of auxillary Bishop James Shannon in the 1960"s over his opposition to advising all Catholic couples that it is immoral and sinful to practice artificial birth control. Bishop Shannon did not think all Catholic couples had the moral faith to abide by this church teaching. Regardless, he resigned as Bishop.

Now we have a situation, where Catholic institutions which are receiving Federal tax dollars are required to offer health insurance which includes contraceptive coverage to their non-Catholic employees. Is that unreasonable? I don’t think so.

If the Federal tax dollars were not granted to such Catholic institutions, of course, then it would be an infringement of religious liberty to Catholic institutions in requiring this mandate of contraceptive coverage.

Catholic institutions could refuse all Federal tax dollars, and ask for all the campaign money that is being spent to overturn this ruling to be given to them. I am sure there are many fiscal conservative, and non-intrusive goverment tax lobbies that would love to support this effort.

The argument here is that receiving federal tax dollars means that an institution must serve all its members equitably and according to federal law. However, from a legal perspective, does federal law include an abridgment of one’s religious principles, which is not exactly the same as promoting one’s religious views? If so, then this is yet another reason why the separation of Church and State is so important.

 

[mercytruth]

The argument here is that receiving federal tax dollars means that an institution must serve all its members equitably and according to federal law. However, from a legal perspective, does federal law include an abridgment of one’s religious principles, which is not exactly the same as promoting one’s religious views? If so, then this is yet another reason why the separation of Church and State is so important.

Yes, the waters do get a bit murky in sorting out the conflicts between personal liberty and religious liberty. That is, in cases where religious institutions are receiving Federal tax dollars as the employer of individuals, or giving assistance to individuals who do not share the faith of the particular religious institution.

 

[manualman]

Now we have a situation, where Catholic institutions which are receiving Federal tax dollars are required to offer health insurance which includes contraceptive coverage to their non-Catholic employees. Is that unreasonable? I don’t think so.

This DISinformation is repeated so often I have to wonder who is the source of it.

The HHS mandate is NOT limited to institutions receiving tax money. My kids catholic school receives ZERO dollars from any government source. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Clear yet?

Yet when the HHS mandate becomes effective, the parish/diocese will either have to provide any teachers there that want contraception. sterilization or early chemical abortions with it FREE under their health care insurance or pay a fine so large it will result in the closure of the school.

PLEASE stop muddying the waters with false information and get educated.

 

[Captain_America]

The HHS mandate must be removed from the health care law. This simple yet eloquent affirmation makes it clear that the matter before us is one of religious freedom, which the government has absolutely no right to infringe upon. All religious leaders, as well as anyone who values freedom, should support this cause in whatever way they can.

Agree entirely. I want to see national health care of some kind (I don’t know what configuration is the right flavor I’d pick; haven’t studied the options). But it’s long overdue. Jeez, Harry Truman called for it in the early 50s.

 

[HelenRose]

This DISinformation is repeated so often I have to wonder who is the source of it.

The HHS mandate is NOT limited to institutions receiving tax money. My kids catholic school receives ZERO dollars from any government source. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Clear yet?

Yet when the HHS mandate becomes effective, the parish/diocese will either have to provide any teachers there that want contraception. sterilization or early chemical abortions with it FREE under their health care insurance or pay a fine so large it will result in the closure of the school.

PLEASE stop muddying the waters with false information and get educated.

 

[mercytruth]

This DISinformation is repeated so often I have to wonder who is the source of it.

The HHS mandate is NOT limited to institutions receiving tax money. My kids catholic school receives ZERO dollars from any government source. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Clear yet?

Yet when the HHS mandate becomes effective, the parish/diocese will either have to provide any teachers there that want contraception. sterilization or early chemical abortions with it FREE under their health care insurance or pay a fine so large it will result in the closure of the school.

PLEASE stop muddying the waters with false information and get educated.

I stand corrected if this is true, and like I said, if such a religious institution is not receiving federal tax dollars, then this mandate would be against religious freedom as in the case of your school. It is never my intention to muddy the waters.
.
President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative brought Federal tax monies into faith based ministries along with federal regulations:
answers.hhs.gov/questions/3523

Thus, the implication is that religious institutions which serve the public, and are receiving Federal tax dollars are differentiated from those institutions who soley serve their own members, as the quotation of the article indicates:

In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption.

Frankly, whenever there is a lot of heat without a calm discussion of the implications of Federal grants toward religious institutions, or the lack thereof, how can anyone really know what is what? I am always skeptical of emotional issues that the media preys upon, knowing that they make for good ratings and advertising revenue. Rarely, will we get a calm discussion of all the facts from the media. Facts, and calm reasoning to not sell products. Emotional arguments are good for compulsive buying behaviors.

By the way, I never heard anyone say there was a tax, or a penalty for not having health insurance according to the health insurance bill that was passed under President Obama **until **the Supreme Court ruling. This is personally fine with me, since I can not afford, nor care to have medical insurance. Paying a penalty, or tax is something I already have done for unwarranted invasions of other countries, and God knows what else that is morally, and ethically repugnant to me.

God’s peace.

 

[manualman]

What you may be confused about are OTHER injustices that are harder to follow, but equally as unjust once you follow the thread all the way through.

For example, it has been routine for generations (NOT a Bush innovation) for Catholic Charities to car for orphans and seek to place them with adoptive families. Heck, we’ve been doing that far longer than governments have. In recent decades, the state has (with taxpayer moneys) increasingly gotten involved via regulation and oversight which significantly increased the costs. Partially to offset those cost increases, the state usually partnered with existing adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities out of recognition that these were the experts and could do it more effectively and efficiently than a new bureacracy could. The goal was the care for children in foster and adoptive families and as long as that goal was met, nobody objected if it was done in a way that also honored a particular faith and included the child being raised in that faith.

Along comes the Illinois Democratic machine (with it’s DC spinoff following a similar course) and, breaking with all past precedent, rules that if Catholic Charities won’t place kids with gay couples, then they will have their state license revoked. They not only lose the funding, but lose the license!

How is this NOT establishment of a state religion? The principle that there ARE no preferred moral standards of behavior for prospective parents is itself an establishment of a religious/moral principle and is just as ‘intolerant’ as the principle guiding catholic charities.

The real problem here is that there is no such thing as “public money.” The only money they have is what they take from US. The government is increasingly assigning to itself the role of dealing with all social problems and is confiscating so much money as to make it impractical for the faith based organizations that used to provide these services and care (and often in a far more effective manner). The tax man and regulatory man are being used as clubs to beat religious charitable works into oblivion under the guise of “not discriminating” against non-believers. There are only two option to fight this trend: 1. Argue for less government efforts to help the needy. 2. Argue that faith based organizations able to meet the state goals should be eligible for state funding without having to check their religious identity at the door.

The bishops have long opted for #2 above, for better or for worse. It’s not surprising to me when the atheists attempt to shut us out of participating so that they can dominate the agenda of these state services themselves. What is surprising to me is when catholics agree with them.

 

[mercytruth]

You write very eloquently and passionately on behalf of the Illinois chapter of Catholic charities in stating how political ideology has quarantined Catholic Charities in Illinois from assisting couples in the adoption process.

There is a third option. The Dorothy Day Centers, for example, have opted from the very beginning not to apply for tax exempt status.

Admittedly, this would effectively close down many Catholic charities and institutions.

We are at a crossroads in America and in traditional Christian Western Civilization. We have attempted to serve both God and mammon, and of course it does not work.

The root of all of America’s ills (including the eroding of conservative moral values) can be traced to the love of money. It is my conviction that this is a greater threat to ‘religious liberty’ than anything else.

For all of you who have lived lives in service to the poor, the needy and the orphans with or without government assistance, we do thank you.

 

[Zosimus41]

In short, the catholic church is not at all opposed to government efforts intended to give more people more access to health care. We just oppose the cynical use of health care legislation as a Trojan Horse (pun intended) to force people of faith to violate their convictions.

I am not sure of what you just stated LOL. but what about the flip side of the coin?

Taking away our right not to have to have health care. Haveing to pay a tax penalty those of us who do not qualify for free health care and cant afford traditional healthcare. Yet make too much money to qualify for anything the goverment offers to the less unfortunate.

For some of us its a financual burden.

Seems if you dont work and sit back to take in goverment aid your better off. Free health insurance a monthly income and reduced housing.

What about the middle man that just wants to survive by the fruits of his labor?

Ahhh the middleman not rich enough to bypass the laws and not poor enough to qualify for goverment aid makes just enough to finance goverment endeavours.

 

[manualman]

Taking away our right not to have to have health care.

The problem with this is that this person is FICTIONAL. The only people like this that exist are healthy people that end up not NEEDING any health care. The moment that ANY of these people are diagnosed with a serious (i.e. expensive) illness, 100% of them jump on the public dole when their own money runs out. That’s reality and it has to be dealt with in public policy. The stoic tough guy who drops dead of cancer at his work station without ever telling anybody he had it and never seeking care because he was broke doesn’t exist. They ALL ask for help when the poo hits the fan. We need a way of addressing this fact instead of allowing people who can afford to make SOME provision for health care costs blow it off and dump their costs on the rest of us suckers (who are paying all along) when the worst comes for them.

 

[manualman]

There is a third option. The Dorothy Day Centers, for example, have opted from the very beginning not to apply for tax exempt status.

Admittedly, this would effectively close down many Catholic charities and institutions.

We are at a crossroads in America and in traditional Christian Western Civilization. We have attempted to serve both God and mammon, and of course it does not work.

This is NOT good logic or public policy. Do not submit to second class citizenship so meekly. The purpose of taxation is to provide for the good of the populace. It is patently absurd for religious people to consider themselves ‘unclean’ or ‘worshipping mammon’ if they partner with the state to meet mutual goals.

There is utterly no reason to accept taxation on an institution founded for charitable works just because our motivation and operational principles are religious. We must NOT allow the bureaucrats to segregate us into some sort of American Dhimmi class because of our faith. We have 100% as much right to participate in public charitable funding as the secular materialists do. We’re just honest enough to call our convictions ‘religion’ while they pretend theirs aren’t.

 

[Zosimus41]

The problem with this is that this person is FICTIONAL. The only people like this that exist are healthy people that end up not NEEDING any health care. The moment that ANY of these people are diagnosed with a serious (i.e. expensive) illness, 100% of them jump on the public dole when their own money runs out. That’s reality and it has to be dealt with in public policy. The stoic tough guy who drops dead of cancer at his work station without ever telling anybody he had it and never seeking care because he was broke doesn’t exist. They ALL ask for help when the poo hits the fan. We need a way of addressing this fact instead of allowing people who can afford to make SOME provision for health care costs blow it off and dump their costs on the rest of us suckers (who are paying all along) when the worst comes for them.

So the goverment know whats best for us then?
Theres nothing free.

Whether its from the “fictional guy” that has no health care and now needs it or we are all mandated to have it.

Theres a lot of self employed folks who dont have health care and cant afford it. Id rather pay cash for a doctors visit than an extra 1100 a year to support those who cant.

We cant afford free health care for everyone nor can we give little pink houses out to everyone.

Pay back China 2 & 1/2 trillion dollars first then we can talk about adding more debt.

Maybe another cash for clunkers deal will help pay for free health care. We all know how well that goverment plan went.

 

[mercytruth]

This is NOT good logic or public policy. Do not submit to second class citizenship so meekly. The purpose of taxation is to provide for the good of the populace. It is patently absurd for religious people to consider themselves ‘unclean’ or ‘worshipping mammon’ if they partner with the state to meet mutual goals.

There is utterly no reason to accept taxation on an institution founded for charitable works just because our motivation and operational principles are religious. We must NOT allow the bureaucrats to segregate us into some sort of American Dhimmi class because of our faith. We have 100% as much right to participate in public charitable funding as the secular materialists do. We’re just honest enough to call our convictions ‘religion’ while they pretend theirs aren’t.

 

[mercytruth]

This is NOT good logic or public policy. Do not submit to second class citizenship so meekly. The purpose of taxation is to provide for the good of the populace. It is patently absurd for religious people to consider themselves ‘unclean’ or ‘worshipping mammon’ if they partner with the state to meet mutual goals.

There is utterly no reason to accept taxation on an institution founded for charitable works just because our motivation and operational principles are religious. We must NOT allow the bureaucrats to segregate us into some sort of American Dhimmi class because of our faith. We have 100% as much right to participate in public charitable funding as the secular materialists do. We’re just honest enough to call our convictions ‘religion’ while they pretend theirs aren’t.

It is my assumption that religious institutions and charities which do not seek tax exempt status will not be bothered by beureaucratic red tape and political maneuvering.

As it is, our system is broken. Mammon serving banks and corporations run this country and its economy. All of us are in peril of compromising our faith in order to survive in this corporate driven economic system. According to Milton Friedman, this is an economic system ‘whose sole purpose is to generate profits to the shareholder’.

Since returning to the Catholic church I have yet to hear a homily, or sermon on the perils of attempting to serve both God and mammon. I am still waiting. As much as the Catholic bishops of the U.S. may have a grievance over the perils of losing religious liberty, as a nation and as a church I do not think we are spiritually free anyway.

Frankly, I do not mind being a ‘meek citizen’ of the U.S. Jesus and his disciples were meek to the rulers of the pagan Roman Empire. As it is, we may have a different perspective on what is to be a Catholic, or Christian in a culture of profit and death. St. John of the Cross and St. John of Revelation say, ‘get out of her my people, lest you partake of her plagues’.

Perhaps, working within the system to provide for the greater good is your calling, even as Daniel the prophet was called to serve within the kingdom of Babylon, and as Joseph was called to serve in the kingdom of Egypt.

Yet, I think we would be remiss if we did not say with the apostle Paul, our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also, we look for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"

God’s peace.

 

[horazy]

In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption.

Yes, groups like the Amish.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Shalom : )

.