Plea to Catholics of a Liberal Persuasion

[georgetowngrad]

The HHS mandate would force Catholic employers and Catholic insurors to violate their conscience by providing coverage which they find morally objectionable. Employers who self insure do not get an exemption from providing morally objectionable coverage. Small business owners who object to covering contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs will be forced to violate their conscience by providing such coverage.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. The HHS should not impose its religious beliefs on everyone else.

Contraception, sterilization, abortion inducing drugs–those are elective matters. They should not be mandated coverage for everyone including those who have religious objections to them. If people want those things, there are plenty of places to obtain them. Just don’t force employers and insurors and businesses to act in violation of their religion. That’s not only governmental overreach. It violates the First Amendment.

If nothing else, the government has no right to force anyone to violate their conscience.

HHS is a bill it has no religious beliefs. Nor is contraception a religious belief. It is a secular practice that developed from science. Oral contraception for women is obtained from a health care provider usually an OB/Gyn. You can’t get it without a prescription, so it has to come from a doctor. Prescription plans are part of the medical plan.

If employers are allowed to pick and choose what is covered it opens the door to things like blood transfusions not being covered by Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Scientists.

If religious groups are allowed to tailor their coverage based on belief they will have to disclose their religion. A applicant would need full disclosure of the medical plan before accepting the job. Someone who is or that had a hemophiliac in the family would need to know if their treatments were covered.

Being forced to publicly declare one’s faith smacks of fascism to me. For example the Gold Star of David worn by Jews in the Third Reich.

 

[iloveangels]

I have not read the entire bill, but I don’t see how my religious freedom would be impacted. And I don’t see how the agenda of a minority, or even a majority of voters can erode the foundations of my faith. If these concerns were real the foundations of faith would have been washed away long, long ago. Look at Poland’s history in the twentieth century. At midcentury it was ruled by a secular, communist, government of immense power, yet the foundations of the faith remained rock solid; Look at Russia, in spite of Lenin, Stalin and others, the Russian Orthodox Church is back in strength. Foundations of faith are not obliterated by the stroke of a legislative pen. Nothing I have read about the HHS bill requires any Catholic to use contraception, or do anything else that violates his or her beliefs.

It’s not about moral issues like birth control etc at all. They want you to think that. It’s a violation of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. No matter what your religious feelings are, if the 1st Amendment can be violated, then they could tell you what to believe and run over you. Think of whatever you believe and then imagine that the government is violating it in the most graphic way. If they can violate the 1st amendment, they can do that to you. It’s a constitutional issue and it affects everyone in the country.

 

[iloveangels]

HHS is a bill it has no religious beliefs. Nor is contraception a religious belief. It is a secular practice that developed from science. Oral contraception for women is obtained from a health care provider usually an OB/Gyn. You can’t get it without a prescription, so it has to come from a doctor. Prescription plans are part of the medical plan.

If employers are allowed to pick and choose what is covered it opens the door to things like blood transfusions not being covered by Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Scientists.

If religious groups are allowed to tailor their coverage based on belief they will have to disclose their religion. A applicant would need full disclosure of the medical plan before accepting the job. Someone who is or that had a hemophiliac in the family would need to know if their treatments were covered.

Being forced to publicly declare one’s faith smacks of fascism to me. For example the Gold Star of David worn by Jews in the Third Reich.

Exactly. If this mandate sticks, the same thing would happen to us that happened to the Jews early on in the Third Reich. Jewish doctors and dentists in Germany could only treat Jews. They could be fined and even arrested for treating someone who was not Jewish. The use of fines is exactly the same penalty as the HHS mandate has, BTW. As time when on in Germany, the penalties got more and more dramatic, until they were sending Jewish doctors and dentists to the concentration camps on what were often trumped up charges.

Your point about Jehovah’s witnesses, and so on, is a good one. We are being backed up by a huge number of protestant churches and Jewish congregations. The pastor of the largest Protestant congregation in the USA, Pastor Warren of Saddleback, has said that he will go to jail before he complies with this mandate. We also have the support of the Evangelical Association of the USA, the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of the USA and also the Othodox dioceses of the USA- All 65 of them!!!

All religions have something they regard as sacred. Governments don’t have the right to discard these things. These are basic rights. This is what our Constitution was written to protect.

BTW, the HHS mandate is NOT a bill. Bills come from Congress. Rather, it is a mandate, a decision handed down by the Obama administration and it is unconstitutional. Presidents in the United States do not have this kind of power, nor do they have the ability to pass bills. We have 3 departments in our government, sources of authority–legislative, executive and judicial. Presidents can’t pass bills; that’s not what they do.

 

[JimG]

The “compromise” doesn’t solve anything–numerous religious organizations still forced to violate their conscience: Becket Fund represents EWTN, Belmont Abbey, Colorado Christian University. They will still be required to violate their conscience or pay for the privilege of exercising their First Amendment rights to religious liberty:

“Religious employers still have to choose between providing health benefits that help employees get abortion drugs, and paying annual fines. Second, thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will be forced to pay directly for these services in violation of their religious beliefs.”

becketfund.org/obama-administration-offers-false-%e2%80%9ccompromise%e2%80%9d-on-abortion-drug-mandate/

 

[Tonks40]

I was once regarded as a liberal. I haven’t changed my thinking to speak of, but the whole notion of liberalism has changed.

Back when I was a Democrat officeholder, I was a “true believer” in the “liberalism” of the time, and not without some justification. My particular focus was on the truly poor, particularly those who could not help themselves; the disabled needy. Long ago, the Dem party really did stand for that. That, of course, was back when things could be done at the “grass roots” and not everything came out of Washington in broad policy moves.

But, not since Ronald Reagan’s Earned Income Credit has either party done anything for the truly poor. Both parties, but the Dem party more than the Repub party, has spent a lot of money on middle class and uber-upper class welfare. But what did the disabled needy get? Nothing.

So here we are in a system in which Warren Buffet and his like can get Social Security and Medicare, when a disabled person with nothing has to get by on $600/month. This administration has increased the Medicaid recipients and emphasized the 'well care" mostly utilized by the middle and upper classes, which crowds out the most needy Medicaid recipients and makes it increasingly difficult to get care for the chronically ill, most especially the disabled.

This government has loaned $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company in which George Soros has a major stake. Nancy Pelosi’s nephew gets a multimillion loan guarantee and worthless Solyndra gets tax credits and government loan guarantees.

None of that squares with the “liberalism” of my earlier days. What “liberalism” stands for now is abortion, homosexual marriage, middle class welfare and “pay to play”. Nothing else.

My sentiments exactly…which is why I switched political parties.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I was once regarded as a liberal. I haven’t changed my thinking to speak of, but the whole notion of liberalism has changed.

Back when I was a Democrat officeholder, I was a “true believer” in the “liberalism” of the time, and not without some justification. My particular focus was on the truly poor, particularly those who could not help themselves; the disabled needy. Long ago, the Dem party really did stand for that. That, of course, was back when things could be done at the “grass roots” and not everything came out of Washington in broad policy moves.

But, not since Ronald Reagan’s Earned Income Credit has either party done anything for the truly poor. Both parties, but the Dem party more than the Repub party, has spent a lot of money on middle class and uber-upper class welfare. But what did the disabled needy get? Nothing.

So here we are in a system in which Warren Buffet and his like can get Social Security and Medicare, when a disabled person with nothing has to get by on $600/month. This administration has increased the Medicaid recipients and emphasized the 'well care" mostly utilized by the middle and upper classes, which crowds out the most needy Medicaid recipients and makes it increasingly difficult to get care for the chronically ill, most especially the disabled.

This government has loaned $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company in which George Soros has a major stake. Nancy Pelosi’s nephew gets a multimillion loan guarantee and worthless Solyndra gets tax credits and government loan guarantees.

None of that squares with the “liberalism” of my earlier days. What “liberalism” stands for now is abortion, homosexual marriage, middle class welfare and “pay to play”. Nothing else.

Exactly.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, we must do so for the sake of the argument which will go something like this: Someone will say a person baptized Catholic remains a Catholic even if they dissent from all that the Church stands for and have no sacramental participation. (true) Then someone will chime in and say, “Oh, that person is only C-I-N-O.” But this is important because one cannot be un-baptized.

Now why would it be so important for lapsed Catholics to identify with the word “Catholic?” (and there are a lot of them, no doubt.) I know if I did not believe in the tenets of a religion, I’d be out of there in a flash, and engage myself with others of a like-minded persuasion, shaking the dust from my feet as I go. But these “Catholics” who have lost their faith and refuse to submit to any ecclesiastical authority (after all, they are ruled by their conscience and their own brand of truth under the dogma of moral relativism,) remain for a different reason. Their ministry is to sound the message to other weak Catholics that the Church is wrong in all that she teaches and oppressive to women. They hope that their “Catholic” numbers will be large enough to lend credibility to their cause and make the Church capitulate by changing the fundamental truth entrusted to her by God. Their mission is to effect change from within the institution and bring down the patriarchal hierarchy, among other things.

You see, the Catholic Church is the biggest hurdle the liberals have in instituting their radical secularism by placing the State above God. So to the author of this thread, I’m afraid your plea will go unheard.

Wow that’s jumping to conclusions. On the otherhand perhaps it is important to the lapsed to identify as a Catholic because the Church identifies them as such and where they are on their journey they’re not 100% certain the religion is not true. So they hang on as long as they can until they no longer feel welcomed instead of “being out of there in a flash”.

 

[SouthCatholic]

Nothing I have read about the HHS bill requires any Catholic to use contraception, or do anything else that violates his or her beliefs.

And this… in essence… is exactly my thought on this matter. Catholic rights are not being infringed on because no Catholic is required to take advantage of this provision in insurance plans. Perhaps the bishops’ time would be better spent encouraging Catholics to not use artificial birth control.

 

[Rence]

I have not read the entire bill, but I don’t see how my religious freedom would be impacted. And I don’t see how the agenda of a minority, or even a majority of voters can erode the foundations of my faith. If these concerns were real the foundations of faith would have been washed away long, long ago. Look at Poland’s history in the twentieth century. At midcentury it was ruled by a secular, communist, government of immense power, yet the foundations of the faith remained rock solid; Look at Russia, in spite of Lenin, Stalin and others, the Russian Orthodox Church is back in strength. Foundations of faith are not obliterated by the stroke of a legislative pen. Nothing I have read about the HHS bill requires any Catholic to use contraception, or do anything else that violates his or her beliefs.

It doesn’t impact religious freedom at all. The Administration took the employers completely out of the situation so that the employees who want the “objectionable” coverage go directly to the insurance companies and get a rider added on to their employer-provided policy. The employers are not offering the extra coverage. It’s no different than it is now when you want to add a rider, except that the insurance companies are required to give it for free. It has nothing to do with the employers. It’s between the employee and the insurance company directly. The Administration couldn’t be more flexible and accomodating, and couldn’t make it any easier on religious employers.

 

[saraih]

And this… in essence… is exactly my thought on this matter. Catholic rights are not being infringed on because no Catholic is required to take advantage of this provision in insurance plans. Perhaps the bishops’ time would be better spent encouraging Catholics to not use artificial birth control.

Thank you for saying this. It almost feels like Catholics are requiring the government to enforce their own rules with their employees. It is up to us to encourage Catholics to be Catholic, not the government. There is another thread about the number of Catholic women that have used contraception - the problem is here, in education and support to be Catholic in a secular world.

I’m pleased to be part of a Catholic counterculture that no matter how sexualised and violent the world is, it will never alter its stance on moral issues. Why get the government involved in a church issue?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Thank you for saying this. It almost feels like Catholics are requiring the government to enforce their own rules with their employees. It is up to us to encourage Catholics to be Catholic, not the government. There is another thread about the number of Catholic women that have used contraception - the problem is here, in education and support to be Catholic in a secular world.

I’m pleased to be part of a Catholic counterculture that no matter how sexualised and violent the world is, it will never alter its stance on moral issues. Why get the government involved in a church issue?

I don’t know. But Obama has his reasons.

 

[saraih]

Condoms are available for sale in my local grocery shops. That is not the government interfering in my bedroom. Sex education is available to my children. This is not the government forcing my children to have sex. The world is not Catholic - that alone is not oppression of Catholics.

Catholics need to be Catholic. We need to find ways to encourage this without needing special exceptions for everything.

 

[familyof4]

I used to be liberal, probably would be classified as moderate these days (which means I annoy liberals and conservatives, I guess).

I decided a while back that I would put my faith first, and politics second. That means sometimes that I will not vote for either of the two presumptive winners because I don’t think that I can support them from a moral standpoint.

So, to refer back to the OP-- my time reading and thinking as I have made my journey home to the RCC has tempered my politics, so keep praying, I think it works!

 

[CMatt25]

It doesn’t impact religious freedom at all. The Administration took the employers completely out of the situation so that the employees who want the “objectionable” coverage go directly to the insurance companies and get a rider added on to their employer-provided policy. The employers are not offering the extra coverage. It’s no different than it is now when you want to add a rider, except that the insurance companies are required to give it for free. It has nothing to do with the employers. It’s between the employee and the insurance company directly. The Administration couldn’t be more flexible and accomodating, and couldn’t make it any easier on religious employers.

 

[Mike2010]

Exactly. If this mandate sticks, the same thing would happen to us that happened to the Jews early on in the Third Reich. Jewish doctors and dentists in Germany could only treat Jews. They could be fined and even arrested for treating someone who was not Jewish. The use of fines is exactly the same penalty as the HHS mandate has, BTW. As time when on in Germany, the penalties got more and more dramatic, until they were sending Jewish doctors and dentists to the concentration camps on what were often trumped up charges.

Your point about Jehovah’s witnesses, and so on, is a good one. We are being backed up by a huge number of protestant churches and Jewish congregations. The pastor of the largest Protestant congregation in the USA, Pastor Warren of Saddleback, has said that he will go to jail before he complies with this mandate. We also have the support of the Evangelical Association of the USA, the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of the USA and also the Othodox dioceses of the USA- All 65 of them!!!

All religions have something they regard as sacred. Governments don’t have the right to discard these things. These are basic rights. This is what our Constitution was written to protect.

BTW, the HHS mandate is NOT a bill. Bills come from Congress. Rather, it is a mandate, a decision handed down by the Obama administration and it is unconstitutional. Presidents in the United States do not have this kind of power, nor do they have the ability to pass bills. We have 3 departments in our government, sources of authority–legislative, executive and judicial. Presidents can’t pass bills; that’s not what they do.

Amen!!

 

[Mike2010]

It doesn’t impact religious freedom at all. The Administration took the employers completely out of the situation so that the employees who want the “objectionable” coverage go directly to the insurance companies and get a rider added on to their employer-provided policy. The employers are not offering the extra coverage. It’s no different than it is now when you want to add a rider, except that the insurance companies are required to give it for free. It has nothing to do with the employers. It’s between the employee and the insurance company directly. The Administration couldn’t be more flexible and accomodating, and couldn’t make it any easier on religious employers.

Rence, who do you think will end up paying in the end? Insurance is never free, never has been. There are no free lunches.

The Religious organizations will indirectly have to pay for this. It is extremely naive to believe that this won’t get put on the religious organizations.

If you don’t think this is an issue, just wait. This is the crack in the door. Once Obama or those that share his ideologies get there foot in, the first ammendment will rapidly get kicked to the curb. The full on assault on religious freedom doesn’t happen all at once, it is a process that doesn’t seem so bad at first, and then 20-40 years later, we are all wondering, “how did this happen? How did we not see this coming?”

Why would we want someone as president who doesn’t care about people’s conciences and doesn’t obide by the constitution? How can we trust them?

 

[Rence]

Rence, who do you think will end up paying in the end? Insurance is never free, never has been. There are no free lunches.

You’re right, there are no free lunches. The costs will be made up and factored into premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts across the board. Everyone from subscribers, to employers, to providers will be paying a portion of it, whether they use all of the available benefits or not.

The Religious organizations will indirectly have to pay for this. It is extremely naive to believe that this won’t get put on the religious organizations.

Employers, subscribers and providers will be paying for it. If the insurance companies are mandated to provider riders for those who work for religious based employers, it’s no different than another rider added on to a policy, except that the insurance company is mandated to eat the cost. Of course, all the benefits will be made more affordable by factoring them into the premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts – just like other benefits.

If you don’t think this is an issue, just wait.

This is not an issue.

Why would we want someone as president who doesn’t care about people’s conciences and doesn’t obide by the constitution? How can we trust them?

I want a president who will represent everyone, not only one demographic.

 

[Mike2010]

You’re right, there are no free lunches. The costs will be made up and factored into premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts across the board. Everyone from subscribers, to employers, to providers will be paying a portion of it, whether they use all of the available benefits or not.

Bingo, so the revision still violates the first ammendment. All Obama did was take his first rediculous plan and dress it up with different words to seem different…to decieve

Employers, subscribers and providers will be paying for it. If the insurance companies are mandated to provider riders for those who work for religious based employers, it’s no different than another rider added on to a policy, except that the insurance company is mandated to eat the cost. Of course, all the benefits will be made more affordable by factoring them into the premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts – just like other benefits.

This is not an issue.

I want a president who will represent everyone, not only one demographic

If you want a president who will represent everyone, than Obama isn’t your guy. Because most people of faith (many religions) are not siding with Obama and his view that the first Amendment doesn’t matter. This isn’t just a Catholic issue, its a precedent that affects all people of religion. If you think its only about contraception, than you don’t get it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And this… in essence… is exactly my thought on this matter. Catholic rights are not being infringed on because no Catholic is required to take advantage of this provision in insurance plans. Perhaps the bishops’ time would be better spent encouraging Catholics to not use artificial birth control.

It simply amazes me that anyone could take this argument seriously. Do they not teach logic in Catholic school anymore?

While the bishops certainly have a job to do to persuade Catholics (and non-Catholics) not to use birth control, have abortions, etc., it remains the case that they will be forced to pay for these.

The fact that no Catholic is forced to take advantage of these does not in any way remove the fact that Catholics will be forced to provide these to any employee (Catholic or not) who does.

The fact that Catholics rights are not being violated in one way does not mean that they are not being violated in another way. If you don’t care that Catholic institutions are going to be forced to violate Catholic teaching then just say so.

Perhaps those who are trying rationalizing Obamacare should spent a moment or two thinking through the logic of their arguments instead of just repeating what they hear from the administration.

 

[Cursilista]

Isn’t taking birth control and having abortions a conscience issue. Its a choice one makes. Why is it that their conscience rights are more important than the moral conscience rights of those who choose not to participate in those activities. These supposed medical issues are elective. they are a moral choice a person makes based on their current life situation. Yes a lot of Catholic women may have used contraception at one time in their life. at least most may have known that there is something inherently wrong with these procedures and struggled with the issue. Without the Catholic church holding firm on basic rights and wrongs in this society, one day, if not already, having an abortion will have no more moral consequences in ones mind than having a tooth pulled.

My plea to liberal catholics was for them to take a look at the “me” society we have created today with the liberal, secular, governing of our basic morals. It has eroded our society to where we are today. It seems that today we dont want to feel guilt about anything we want to do. We dont want to have any consequences for whatever we want to do. We dont want to be responsible for what we what to do. The secular world is right there with you and legislating any and all lifestyles. I hope though that somewhere deep in the back of most liberals minds, they are glad that their is still a force that has stood the test of time for holding onto basic human morals. A force that knows God’s will and how he expects us humans to behave. A force that dosent waver. A force they can blame and rail against as unfair because they say their lifestyle is immoral. Without such a force trying to hold back mans ability to rationalize its wanton needs , man surely would become degenerate.