If the HHS mandate on contraception isn't overturned, what will the Catholic church do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pamm said:
I believe the Bishops and the Church in general has politicized this issue as much as the politicians have. When the president showed willingness to accept that all religious-based organizations (anyone with a tax exemption for this purpose) may opt out of this mandate, all of a sudden the Bishops and the Church broadened this issue and suggested it should apply to ALL employers, insurance plans, etc.

I have three problems with the Bishops movement into the political arena –
  1. This is a public relations campaign put in place to try and persuade the millions of Catholics to change their acceptance of birth control. Since I do not know a single Catholic (and nearly all my friends and colleages are Catholic) who can say they do not now or never have used artificial contraception, then I think this is going to be a miserable failure for the Bishops. Worst case scenario, there will be more non-practicing Catholics and/or an exodus from an already struggling faith community.
  2. This is one more way for Church leadership to assault personal freedoms of Americans by expecting government to impose what the Bishops can’t and haven’t been able to accomplish – even with their own flock.
  3. After thousands of years of being second class citizens, women’s futures are at risk because a group of males who have never had a child, never been forced into a second class status and never suffered the health issues females deal with every day, want to deny us the right to follow our own conscious. If Jesus allows us to choose, then why do the Bishops not follow his lead?
You can attack me if you wish here – sadly the most conservative among Catholics think it is their jobs to judge the rest of us and to tell us how to think and what to do as if we do not have the ability to discern this for ourselves. I love my faith. I believe in all things that I know are fundamental truths of the Church. However, nowhere does the Bible say we can’t use artificial forms of birth control. So many of the controversial stands by the Church have changed many times over the Church’s history – one should understand why some of us are confused about knowing when something is truth and when it is fallable. I do believe that the Pope has the authority and infallability on issues of faith. I just don’t believe whether or not a person uses contraceptives is a matter of faith.

These are painful times in our beloved Church. So much division and so much politicizing of our faith. I am very sad about it all.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Pamm, you have drunk the Kool-Aid in abundance. This issue has never been about contraception. That is between those who practice it and God. What it is about is a mandate that seeks to determine what Catholics may believe. That is in strict violation of the principles in the Constitution. This issue has been politicized solely by the radical left who have seen an opportunity to garner votes from women who apparently do not know the precepts of the Church and the Constitution, who women who are not Catholics and choose to attack the Church for their own reasons. You say you believe that the Holy Father has the authority on issues of faith. He has spoken definitively on contraception. You have chosen to ignore this. Again, that is between you and God, but do not expect us to buy into this falllacy. God bless.
 
I have a strong suspicion that PAMM is not really a Catholic. The anonymity of the Internet allows one to be whatever they want to be.
 
Pamm said:
I believe the Bishops and the Church in general has politicized this issue as much as the politicians have. When the president showed willingness to accept that all religious-based organizations (anyone with a tax exemption for this purpose) may opt out of this mandate, all of a sudden the Bishops and the Church broadened this issue and suggested it should apply to ALL employers, insurance plans, etc.
Click to expand...
It is not true that “anyone with a tax exemption may opt out of the mandate.” Not true.Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, Catholic institutions would not be exempt.

The mandate changes past exemptions and offers very limited exemptions which would not apply to most Catholic institutions.
 
I would hope that all actual Catholic are willing to commit reasoned acts of civil disobedience.

It’s the least we can do. I’m ready and willing to bail out my bishop: no joke.
 
Rence said:
what kind of acts of civil disobedience?
Click to expand...
Governments are impotent. Governments can do nothing without the hands of its citizens. If government breaks divine and natural laws, its citizens have the right to amend government, change the government or revolt against the government.

Pope Benedict has ordered citizens of Spain who work in adoption agencies to defy Spain’s new laws of illicit marriages and adoptions. Workers in adoption agencies are to refuse to fill out any paperwork or grant adoption of children to illicit and unnatural marriage unions. Spain’s new law disobeys natural law. NO HUMAN LAW AGAINST NATURAL LAW IS VALID!
 
Abortion and Men

Other slogans of the pro-abortionists are, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament,” and “The prohibition of abortion discriminates against women.” Are you aware that the pro-abortionists took this line of argument to the Supreme Court and lost?

It is the pro-abortion forces that have framed abortion as a “woman’s issue.” Women, as a class, are not discriminated against by the pro-life movement. I am a human being, and as a man I have the right to stand up and say “no” to the killing of my fellow human beings.
 
The Catholic Church and Politics

The Catholic Church does not tell us for whom we should vote. However, the Catholic Church would be negligent if it did not teach, particularly in moral matters. The mission of the Church is "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics."

The Church is obligated by the teachings of Our Lord to communicate without compromise the truth in the area of morals, especially as they impact the common good of society. The taking of innocent life (abortion) is never justifiable, and an invalid law that permits this is flawed because it violates the common good.

A church that permits abortion betrays the Gospel. Individuals who fail to do their part to correct the injustice of abortion betray the very essence of being human. Abortion is not the issue. Abortion is about people and it affects all of us. Abortion requires a response from all of us, and it is a measure by which God will judge us individually and as a nation.
 
^^^^

The thing is, the clergy had better be going back to the beginning and catechizing those who have forgotten, exactly who we are in relation to the Creator. In our secularization we now listen to the very enemy of life, contracepting and pursuing only pleasure instead of realizing that our bodies cooperate with God’s desire to give His greatest gift of all. Instead of delighting in our dignity and inherent value, the human person now grovels in the dirt with mere animals, forgetting that we have dominion over them with both a body and soul. So we stymie God’s plan and embrace death and demand that the Church change her teaching. Anyone who does not understand the reason why contraceptives are so morally wrong will be lost to the corruption, and ultimately, I believe, will leave the Church. Because the (true) Church is not EVER going to change her teaching on this.
 
TMC said:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that facially neutral laws of general application are constitutional, even if they create some burden on religious practice. It is sometimes call the Smith Principle which is a reference to the SC case Employment Division v Smith. That is why Rastafarians aren’t allowed to smoke marijuana, Sikh fireman have to wear fire helmets, Muslim women have to allow their faces to be shown in ID pictures, etc, etc. The Hosana Tabernacle case did not deal with this issue at all, it dealt with a completely different issue - the ministerial exception, which has nothing to do with the mandate at all. The Smith decision was written by Scalia, and conservatives on the Court have generally been on that side of this issue - they tend to find that citizens are required to follow laws of general application despite any religious objections. I would expect that a large majority of the court would uphold the mandate, especially given that it does not apply to Churches at all, and that Church-affiliated institutions are not actually required to pay for contraception coverage.
Click to expand...
Wrong, and for a host of reasons. To take just some of the most prominent: First, the “Smith principle” doesn’t apply because this is a federal, not a state provision, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law, requires a “strict scrutiny” standard to apply, which the HHS mandate cannot survive. Second, even if Smith were applied, the HHS mandate is not a law of “general application” as that term has been defined by the Courts because, among other things, of the thousands of waivers and exemptions that have and continue to be granted by the administration. The Supreme Court’s City of Hialeah case, which followed Smith, requires courts to look at the facts; those facts are overwhelmingly against the mandate’s constitutionality: The mandate discriminates among religious groups, as the administration offers waivers to those who confine themselves to employing and serving their own members and denies it to those who follow our Lord’s command (by asking only “Are you hungry” before serving soup instead of asking (as the HHS mandate requires) “Are you Catholic?”) Moreover, administration grants waivers and exemptions for secular reasons, but not for religious ones. It forces religious gerrymandering. If I were a betting person, my money would be with the Becket Fund, the Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the many other organizations (all with a track record of victory up and down the federal court system, including the Supreme Court). Indeed, the administration has effectively conceded as much: It has not even attempted to defend the mandate on the merits in ANY of the pending lawsuits, seeking instead to have the cases dismissed on “ripeness” grounds based on its non-binding promise to consider some tweak to the mandate at some unspecified time in the future. This argument is directly at odds with the overwhelming weight of case law and will be shot down.
 
joclucsylv said:
One has to wonder if closing of CC hospitals and schools isn’t the ulterior motive of the Obama administration. Perhaps they want less presence of the Church in the US.

I got into a heated argument with a friend over the HHS mandate last night with a friend who is Catholic. She used all the points liberals are using. What costs more…contraception or a baby? Name me one woman who hasn’t used contraception? Argh!!
Click to expand...
if Jesus wanted us to decide right and wrong from cost, then he would have recomended we steal. Second, it is cheaper, by gosh, it is actually free if one abstains from sex.
abstinance, is the answer…
 
I have heard of Bishops and Priests willing to go to jail rather than abide by the HHS mandate. No Catholic should abide by it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top