Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

[Miriam1947]

I think it would be nice if the bishop of Rome chimed in.

I think that might make things even more difficult. After all, our dear Holy Father is not an American.

 

[Mickey]

I think that might make things even more difficult. After all, our dear Holy Father is not an American.

I think it would support the conference of bishops and give a world wide voice to the evils of abotion causing drugs that are being mandated on a nation.

 

[Marie5890]

I think that might make things even more difficult. After all, our dear Holy Father is not an American.

Not speaking specifically to the HHS mandate, but he did talk very clearly a few weeks ago about the importance of religious liberty.

 

[Miriam1947]

Miriam,
I absolutely agree. And it isn’t just Catholic leaders who allied themselves with progressives. There are plenty of Lutheran leaders who have, too. The question now is, what do we do to stop it, and I applaud the efforts of the USCCB to stem the tide.

Jon

I called Catholic Charities today and told them that I would never donate to them again.

I truly did not know about their support of un-Catholic beliefs. I was so (fill in the blank) when I found out that it was all I could do to not say really unkind things.

 

[Mickey]

I called Catholic Charities today and told them that I would never donate to them again.

I truly did not know about their support of un-Catholic beliefs. I was so (fill in the blank) when I found out that it was all I could do to not say really unkind things.

Catholic charities just came out and said they were misrepresented by the media and the administration… and that they support the bishops.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

The Law, as interpreted by our great Rabbi, is that we must give to anyone who asks. Now, our government is asking us to pay into an insurance fund that covers two medical services that we believe are morally wrong. I think that it is the same situation as in ancient Israel where Jews were forced to pay for a pagan occupation of their sacred homeland, something that they certainly believed was wrong. When asked about the morality of giving up money to finance the hated occupation, we all know what our Rabbii’s answer was.

 

[Miriam1947]

Catholic charities just came out and said they were misrepresented by the media and the administration… and that they support the bishops.

Do you have a link? Because I have absolutely no problem with calling them back and apologizing.

 

[Mickey]

Do you have a link? Because I have absolutely no problem with calling them back and apologizing.

foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/15/catholic-charity-group-denies-endorsement-contraceptive-coverage-policy/

 

[SonCatcher]

Hi Son Catcher;

Highlighting more information to Jeffrey Erwin in his original post:

In Biblical law, life and property are incommensurable; taking of life can not be made up for by any amount of property, nor can any property offense be considered as amounting to the value of a life.” Although other near-Eastern societies permitted the family of the murdered to accept monetary settlement from the murderer, the Torah code strictly forbids such payments.

No matter how important, no matter how noble, no one may buy their way out of punishment.

and in the other article,

the tenth plague was the enactment of retributive justice, as if heaven was saying to the Egyptians: You committed, or supported, or passively accepted the murder of innocent children.

Then my response applies equally to Jeffrey Erwin’s post. The old law had many statutes founded in incomplete human understanding of the time. The new one is based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Miriam1947]

Thank you Mickey.

 

[iloveangels]

Then my response applies equally to Jeffrey Erwin’s post. The old law had many statutes founded in incomplete human understanding of the time. The new one is based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The old one was based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit too, unless you want to claim that the Old Testament isn’t inspired.

If it were me, I’d be real careful about trying to constrain God’s hand. He can do as He sees fit and He always has.

 

[Marybeloved]

I think it would be nice if the bishop of Rome chimed in.

I think that would be disastrous. Remember many conservatives in the U.S. are evangelicals, and many of them do not look too kindly on the papacy. You don’t want the issue being spun into a matter of America preserving its independence from a meddlesome foreign institution. That might possibly unite liberals and conservatives against the cause. The Obama group would be very happy about this .

Right now, the question is very, very American. It’s a matter of fundamental rights, protected and enshrined in the US Constitution and an abuse of power way above that given the executive and even congress by the people via the American constitution. Keep the issue that way and the matter becomes clear, as well as its gravity to the entire issue of protection of individual liberties vs An excessively powerful government. Let it not be a question of the papacy and its meddling into American affairs.

I think the Pope has been very wise to stay out of any direct involvement in this, and the American Bishops have been very wise not to involve him too. It’s their own dioceses after-all, and it does not directly involve all the church outside the American Church.

 

[SonCatcher]

The old one was based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit too, unless you want to claim that the Old Testament isn’t inspired.

If it were me, I’d be real careful about trying to constrain God’s hand. He can do as He sees fit and He always has.

Of course the old law was inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, it contained concessions due to their hardness of hearts. In light of what the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, teaches and has taught throughout her history, it seems that financial payment for the caused death of an unborn child was another such concession.

 

[iloveangels]

Of course the old law was inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, it contained concessions due to their hardness of hearts. In light of what the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, teaches and has taught throughout her history, it seems that financial payment for the caused death of an unborn child was another such concession.

Um, I don’t think God is going to be appeased by a cash payment, just between you and me. He really has all the money he wants.

 

[iloveangels]

@ JimG: "Many dioceses self insure. Now here is their dillema.

The Church teaches that these things are wrong. At the same time, it tells its employees, here is your insurance coverage which will cover these morally wrong things.

The local Catholic diocese can stop being Catholic, which is an impossibility, or it can simply drop all insurance coverage, for which it will be fined. It will be fined for remaining Catholic.

Not a violation of religious liberty? Give me a break."

Why would the Catholic diocese be fined if it dropped insurance coverage? It can do as other organizations have done, give their employees a stipend and let them purchase their own coverage. Speaking from experience, providing health insurance for our employees has been extremely difficult in this economic climate. We have investigated alternatives, but if we had to drop insurance benefits we would not be fined. Am I missing something here? I may be. Again I will say as I have previously, if an organization employs those of different beliefs and/or use public funds to operate, then yes, they should be held to the mandate. Let the people follow their own conscience.

No. That’s not what the law says. If the employer drops the insurance, whether it gives the employee money to buy other insurance or not, the employer will be fined. The employer MUST contract for the insurance. That’s the whole point of this mess.

SonCatcher, I’m not seeing your point. I wouldn’t count on God being particularly appeased with a cash payment, however. He has all the money he wants, I think.

 

[JimG]

@ JimG: "Many dioceses self insure. Now here is their dillema.

The Church teaches that these things are wrong. At the same time, it tells its employees, here is your insurance coverage which will cover these morally wrong things.

The local Catholic diocese can stop being Catholic, which is an impossibility, or it can simply drop all insurance coverage, for which it will be fined. It will be fined for remaining Catholic.

Not a violation of religious liberty? Give me a break."

Why would the Catholic diocese be fined if it dropped insurance coverage? It can do as other organizations have done, give their employees a stipend and let them purchase their own coverage. Speaking from experience, providing health insurance for our employees has been extremely difficult in this economic climate. We have investigated alternatives, but if we had to drop insurance benefits we would not be fined. Am I missing something here? I may be. Again I will say as I have previously, if an organization employs those of different beliefs and/or use public funds to operate, then yes, they should be held to the mandate. Let the people follow their own conscience.

Under the health care law, most employers will be required to provide health insurance coverage. Under the HHS mandate, that health insurance coverage must include contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs with no copays.

And of course, complying with the mandate will require Catholic employers to cease to be Catholic. Or they can pay the fine for dropping the insurance. That’s a violation of religious freedom.

 

[JimG]

The Law, as interpreted by our great Rabbi, is that we must give to anyone who asks. Now, our government is asking us to pay into an insurance fund that covers two medical services that we believe are morally wrong. I think that it is the same situation as in ancient Israel where Jews were forced to pay for a pagan occupation of their sacred homeland, something that they certainly believed was wrong. When asked about the morality of giving up money to finance the hated occupation, we all know what our Rabbii’s answer was.

He refused to answer the question. It was a trick question, by which either a “yes” or a “no” would entrap him. He sidestepped the question.

I don’t recall that he ever said you must agree to cooperate in the killing of unborn children, or in contraception, or in sterilization, or in providing abortion inducing drugs.

 

[iloveangels]

I think that would be disastrous. Remember many conservatives in the U.S. are evangelicals, and many of them do not look too kindly on the papacy. You don’t want the issue being spun into a matter of America preserving its independence from a meddlesome foreign institution. That might possibly unite liberals and conservatives against the cause. The Obama group would be very happy about this .

Right now, the question is very, very American. It’s a matter of fundamental rights, protected and enshrined in the US Constitution and an abuse of power way above that given the executive and even congress by the people via the American constitution. Keep the issue that way and the matter becomes clear, as well as its gravity to the entire issue of protection of individual liberties vs An excessively powerful government. Let it not be a question of the papacy and its meddling into American affairs.

I think the Pope has been very wise to stay out of any direct involvement in this, and the American Bishops have been very wise not to involve him too. It’s their own dioceses after-all, and it does not directly involve all the church outside the American Church.

The pope’s probably not going to get involved directly, for the reason Mary states, but also because the American church is only 5% of the whole Catholic Church. 5%. I also think that Rome may figure that we know what we’re doing better culturally than they would, managing the bills in Congress & lawsuits and all that. And at this stage of the game, I think they might be thinking privately that it won’t do any good to intervene until we learn our lesson.
Mary, I think you over-estimate the animosity that Protestants have for us. Catholics actually have more animosity on average toward Protestants. True. I’m a convert.*

 

[MorningSong51]

The Law, as interpreted by our great Rabbi, is that we must give to anyone who asks. Now, our government is asking us to pay into an insurance fund that covers two medical services that we believe are morally wrong. I think that it is the same situation as in ancient Israel where Jews were forced to pay for a pagan occupation of their sacred homeland, something that they certainly believed was wrong. When asked about the morality of giving up money to finance the hated occupation, we all know what our Rabbii’s answer was.

And what are we giving to those who ask? Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” which was a monetary value to pay taxes - rendering,as to give for payment, “the palace belongs to the emperor, the churches to the bishops” In God’s causes (causa Dei, causa fidei, causa religionis) the bishops are the judges and are directly responsible to God.

 

[Marybeloved]

Mary, I think you over-estimate the animosity that Protestants have for us. Catholics actually have more animosity on average toward Protestants. True. I’m a convert.

I was actually not referring to Protestant animosity towards Catholics, but how many of them, evangelicals, feel about the institution of the papacy. They may love Catholics, but there are a lot of misunderstandings and disagreements regarding the place of the Pope in Christendom.

I wouldn’t want this important (and holy) cause and its potentially unifying power amongst Christians who are orthodox with a small “o”, (or those generally unwilling to decide truth based on the winds of modernism) to be buried under debates about the Pope and his right or lack thereof, to interfere with matters of Sovereign countries like the U.S, even when it involves church matters.