S
Sirach14
Guest
Being made to pay for something “we teach is sinful.”
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18304
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18304
- Status
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Why not drop health insurance and give every employee a monthly stipend to go out and purchase their own?
That way the choice is on each person’s conscience.
That way the choice is on each person’s conscience.
O
Ortho
Guest
In a California case brought by Catholic Charities the California SC found:
- Most employees of Catholic Charities were not Catholic.
- Most recipients of aid from Catholic Charities were not Catholic.
- The Catholic religion was not being taught by Catholic Charities.
P
ProudArmyWife
Guest
Unfortunately I can see the logic in that
C
CatholicSam
Guest
Since when can the government tell someone which benefits to give employees? It seems to me that benefits are just that–“extras” to attract and/or keep employees, and keep them happy. There probably have been many laws about this, but I believe a person should have the right to run his or her company as he or she sees fit. If the employees don’t like their benefits, they are free to get a different job and leave the company! :banghead:
Personally, I do not believe it is any company’s job to provide health insurance for employees. If they do so, they’re going above and beyond.
Personally, I do not believe it is any company’s job to provide health insurance for employees. If they do so, they’re going above and beyond.
D
dafalax
Guest
Yeah, if they really wanted to do something for the world, they’d target multi-million dollar corporations like McDonald’s and Disney and force them to give their employees any benefits at all. This isn’t about protecting health either. Nobody on the planet would die without contraceptives or abortion. Except babies. And some women DO die as a result of using contraceptives and abortion because of increased risk of cancer, stroke, high blod pressure, toxic shock from the abortion pill, etc. The fact that these products and services continue to be listed as women’s health items is so stupid and nobody questions it. The very same people that go around with Question Authority bumper stickers are the same ones that blindly follow along with secular thinking, knowing they are doing the intellectual thing because they’re following the “rebels” and not the “man”. Perpetual teenagers. How tragic. 
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Yes. Culture of Perversion logic. As Catholics, we have the duty to reject this type of ruling even if it means going to jail.Unfortunately I can see the logic in that
PF
U
urbana
Guest
While at first glance the ruling appears somewhat logical, upon further examination it makes no sense.Unfortunately I can see the logic in that
This point is completely irrelevant, and the least sensible point. Logically, if this were the basis for the ruling, then all Catholic Charities would have to do to qualify for a religious exemption would be to turn away all those in need who are not Catholic. Doing so would be uncharitable, treating non-Catholics as having less human dignity than Catholics. If this were a valid point, than what would be necessary to qualify for the religious exemption would be to violate religious teachings, which clearly does not make sense.
This point makes some sense to me, but only in the sense that if religion was being taught, then obviously this should qualify for a religious exemption. However, the contrary statement is not true. Was Catholic Charities engaging in religious activity? Of course! We can all find numerous Biblical precepts and Church teachings regarding charity. Finally, I would argue that the Catholic Religion was being taught and spread by Catholic Charities, and an examination of many successful missionaries would reveal this. Simply, they were following the model of St. Francis… “Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words.”
This one also makes some sense. Again, though, when the method Catholic Charities would have to use to qualify for the religious exemption (in the Court’s opinion) is examined, the apparent logic falls apart. Obviously, all Catholic Charities would need to do would be to be selective in their hiring, and hire only Catholics. How does the religion of the employees alter whether this is a religious activity or not? If I run a Catholic school, where Catholic teachings are faithfully taught, does the religious character of the school cease to exist if half the teachers (though faithfully teaching the faith) aren’t Catholic? (For anybody who said yes… If I run a public school, does the public school become a religious expression if half the teachers are Christian?) Does the nature of this religious activity require restricting employment to Catholics? A more appropriate question would be whether employees knew they were working for a Catholic organization, and whether their job descriptions were in line with Catholic teaching. What could be appropriate would be to examine the mission of the organization, and the leadership of the organization, and determine whether these are governed by Catholic thought and Catholic individuals.
To my mind, then, none of the judgements revealed that Catholic Charities should not qualify for a religious exemption. Instead, the questions I would ask in determining whether a charity qualifies for a religious exemption…
- Does the organization’s claim of religious character appear to be primarily for tax/financial purposes, or does religion play an active role in the charity’s funding, direction, and policies?
- Are the actions of the charity in line with the stated religious beliefs of the charity?
- Does the average recipient of charity from this organization (when they are aware of the source of the aid) recognize the assistance they receive as coming from a religious organization?
- Are people contributing to this charity doing so as a religious expression? Do those who are not contributing as a religious expression recognize the religious basis of this charity?
- Would denying religious exemption in this case amount to suppression of religious belief?
- Does this particular law prevent a religion from going about activities essential to their religion without violating their religious beliefs? (without extremely good cause such as prohibiting human sacrifice) Would this law violate the first Amendment rights of the church if it were a federal law?
O
Ortho
Guest
I think they may be free to give no benefits, but if they do, then they must follow state law. This is a function of the different states, and I’m not sure of New York.
O
Ortho
Guest
Disney has an exceptional benefits program. Most McDonalds employees are part time and get no benefits. Full time people do.Yeah, if they really wanted to do something for the world, they’d target multi-million dollar corporations like McDonald’s and Disney and force them to give their employees any benefits at all. This isn’t about protecting health either. Nobody on the planet would die without contraceptives or abortion. Except babies. And some women DO die as a result of using contraceptives and abortion because of increased risk of cancer, stroke, high blod pressure, toxic shock from the abortion pill, etc. The fact that these products and services continue to be listed as women’s health items is so stupid and nobody questions it. The very same people that go around with Question Authority bumper stickers are the same ones that blindly follow along with secular thinking, knowing they are doing the intellectual thing because they’re following the “rebels” and not the “man”. Perpetual teenagers. How tragic.
O
Ortho
Guest
Go ahead. I doubt anyone will notice. Keep in mind that 90% of Catholics use artificial birth control.
O
Ortho
Guest
The first question one must ask is how does the statute define an exempt organization. Then the organization in question is compared to this standard.
C
cathologos
Guest
The solution is straightforward. Catholic organizations in jurisdictions that require prescription drug plans to cover contraceptives must simply stop offering prescription drug plans. Period.
This action will reduce the cost of fringe benefits for these Catholic employers. If they’re sincere and honest, they should immediately invoke across-the-board wage increases to all employees, in a way that offsets the money they save from abandoning prescription-drug plans.
Now, this will still have pernicious effects. The basic reason for a prescription drug insurance plan is to spread the risk of illness across large groups of people. In any given period, some will need expensive drugs, others will not. Without the insurance plan, those who need expensive drugs will recover only a part of the cost of those medicines through higher wages – but it’s better than nothing.
Look at the bright side. This is one more blow against the current health-care system in America. The system is badly broken, fundamentally unfair. Eventually, we will have to fix it. But it is the nature of American democracy that we don’t fix social problems until they really don’t allow us to ignore them any more. The health care crisis is still growing toward that point, but we’re evidently not there yet. More people will have to suffer before we collectively come to our senses and bite the bullet. This current injustice is just one more straw on the camel’s back…
This action will reduce the cost of fringe benefits for these Catholic employers. If they’re sincere and honest, they should immediately invoke across-the-board wage increases to all employees, in a way that offsets the money they save from abandoning prescription-drug plans.
Now, this will still have pernicious effects. The basic reason for a prescription drug insurance plan is to spread the risk of illness across large groups of people. In any given period, some will need expensive drugs, others will not. Without the insurance plan, those who need expensive drugs will recover only a part of the cost of those medicines through higher wages – but it’s better than nothing.
Look at the bright side. This is one more blow against the current health-care system in America. The system is badly broken, fundamentally unfair. Eventually, we will have to fix it. But it is the nature of American democracy that we don’t fix social problems until they really don’t allow us to ignore them any more. The health care crisis is still growing toward that point, but we’re evidently not there yet. More people will have to suffer before we collectively come to our senses and bite the bullet. This current injustice is just one more straw on the camel’s back…
D
David_Zampino
Guest
What troubles me here is the notion that the State believes that it actually has authority over the Church. It’s a slippery slope. Next, health insurance which pays for abortion will be mandated.
Historical reminder: This is the principle that Sts. Thomas Becket and Thomas More died for.
Blessings,
- Status