R
Rence
Guest
There always has to be a drama, about something, and no concessions or exceptions are ever satisfying
- Status
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I’d think that he has a vivid imagination.
T
Tigg
Guest
Interview with AB Dolan and Fr. Groseshel:
According to this, three federal departments will be involved in implementation and enforcement, HHS, DOL and IRS. I’m certain it will be quite unpleasant.
wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/hugh-hewitt-on-pres-obamas-anti-catholic-card/
J
JimG
Guest
Under the HHS mandate, a Catholic employer who does not wish to obtain morally objectionable insurance coverage has no option except to drop all insurance coverage for his employees. Then he will have to pay a fine for each employee not covered. It’s a fine for exercising his religion.
The same would apply to a Catholic diocesan office which self-insures. There are many of them. They will either need to provide morally objectionable coverage which violates the Catholic Faith, or provide the coverage and cease to be Catholic, or not provide any insurance coverage at all, and then pay a fine for each employee not covered. Again a fine for the exercise of the Catholic Faith. The fine could run into the millions for large Catholic employers, or the hundreds for smaller employers. The net result: Catholics must either reject their moral principles or pay a fine. I’m sure the government will figure out how to collect it.
As for Catholic insurance companies, they have no options whatever, except to cease to be Catholic or go out of business.
C
Cursilista
Guest
First understand that Government, the new world order, has no place for organized religion. Instead, government wants to replace religion as a refuge for people. The way they accomplish this is little by little challenge tenants of the church. Once challenged, the topic becomes part of the dialogue and people will rationalize the arguments to fit their current lifestyle thereby marginalizing the church’s authority and teachings.
Together with the state run media, religion has been challenged and ridiculed. I believe it was in an east coast state. The state government challenged the authority of the Bishops to be able to appoint priest for each Parish. State government tried to pass a law that would have made the Catholic Church function like many of the Protestant Churches do with a local layman governing board for each individual church parish. They werent successful but the issue was brought up and becomes part of the dialouge. By so doing, now you have put in the minds of some Catholics that system would be better and in their minds it the authority of the Bishop is questionable.
The same sort of thing has occurred with sex. While the church has held on to the original meaning of marriage and purpose of sex, our secular world wants to deviate from that long held belief. The invention of the pill made it so easy to have sex without the fear of pregnancy. The secular world, gradually over time has change our perceptions of premarital sex, marriage, pregnancy, abortion. They do this with legislation and the media. What stands in their way, religion. What has all this effort accomplished? Well its not what you stated, no churches were closed down by the state or christian books takened off the shelf. Instead a steady erosion of peoples faith was accomplished. People were given a secular way of thinking instead of a christian way of thinking. Attendance started dropping off in church. People started picking and choosing which tenants of the church they liked and didnt like. They lived their life as they wanted to. Some reached a part where they rationalized their personal lifestyles right out of the church. So, as you see, we havent gotten to the point yet where the government has started using Nazi tactics but it is in the realm of possibilites.
The interesting part of all this is the fictious seperation of church and state. Those words are not in the constitution by the way, those words were coined in a supreme court case. The constitution simply states that the government shall not form its own religion. Where are all the ACLU attorneys helping out religious organizations from this intrusion by the federal government? Hypocrites . The interesting thing is where is the seperation of church and state argument in the latest attempt by the secular governenment to undermine religion in the health care mandate. You see how the media can shape the argument. The only thing you here about is the religious freedom of choice. The bigger argument should be the seperation of church and state. If they can send armies of atty’s to some high school for saying a prayer at a football game, claiming that the church has intruded on secular grounds, couldnt they protect the religious from an intrusion from the secular government?
J
JimG
Guest
Fines for the exercise of our Faith, yes. They are built into the HHS mandate. See posts 223 and 224.There always has to be a drama, about something, and no concessions or exceptions are ever satisfying
I never thought our country would come to this, but it has. Fines for the exercise of our Faith.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Jim, you said, “charge US a fine for exercising our faith.” Now you’ve changed your tune and are talking about an EMPLOYER who might have to pay a fine.
US to me means each one of us individually, and “exercising OUR faith” would refer to us individually. Well, what is it? A company or us as individuals? Also, how would that keep me from Mass or from reception of the Sacraments, that is, “exercising my faith”?? Sheesh!
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
Your faith is more than Mass attendance. We are to keep the commandments and not cooperate in sin. Catholic hospitals will close down because of this. Adoption agencies have closed down, because the Church would not cooperate in evil.
Even if it were only the EMPLOYER; there are lots of Catholic employers. What about your brothers?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Which Commandments are you speaking of in connection with this issue?
They’re already closing down because of a lack of funds with which to operate.
They would seem to be in the best position to fend for themselves, just as I similarly have to shift for myself.
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
Thou shalt not kill. This includes cooperation in the killing of the innocent, which would be the case if I directly funded coverage for abortifacients.
Why represent yourself as Catholic if you do not hold those beliefs? We ARE our brother’s keeper.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I was talking about Catholic employers. Catholic employers will have to pay a fine for continuing to exercise their Faith.
The rest of us who are not employers, will not have to pay a fine. We will, however, be forced to accept morally objectionable health insurance coverage whether we want it or not. And as I mentioned before, Catholic health insurance companies will simply be forced to act against their faith or go out of business.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Who gave you the perogative to judge the degree of my fidelity to the Catholic Faith based on my not being “my brother’s keeper” to Catholic owned business entities? What kind of a Catholic are you and what sort of charity are you demonstrating based on such remarks?
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
When you tell someone to “shift for themselves” you are NOT speaking the Gospel and I admonished you as was my duty. That is true charity. Take it to heart. Please don’t act like I slapped you. You said something wicked and I called you on it.Who gave you the perogative to judge the degree of my fidelity to the Catholic Faith based on my not being “my brother’s keeper” to Catholic owned business entities? What kind of a Catholic are you and what sort of charity are you demonstrating based on such remarks?
T
Tigg
Guest
WARNING:
I see now the beginning of the big DIS-connect for those of a liberal persuasion who live in two different worlds, one of their politics and another of their faith, poor segregated souls.
If the policy of government would oppress our religious freedom, the king is inviolable, but God - NOT! Like Pilate, they would wash their hands of evil.
I see now the beginning of the big DIS-connect for those of a liberal persuasion who live in two different worlds, one of their politics and another of their faith, poor segregated souls.
If the policy of government would oppress our religious freedom, the king is inviolable, but God - NOT! Like Pilate, they would wash their hands of evil.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
You call me wicked, a synonym for evil. That is not charity. It is an insult pure and simple, and I take it exactly as such…
As to “shifting for one’s self,” most businessmen do exactly that, rising or failing on their own merits and that of the products or services they provide. They don’t rely on handouts in their quest to succeed. Though I now work for a major state agency, when I practiced law independently, I had to shift for myself - it was my talents as a litigator and not those of anyone else that won or lost cases for me.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
The same truth applies to some of those of a conservative bent. Please don’t be so quick to paint liberals with that brush. As has been said, when one points one’s finger at someone else, three fingers are pointing back at the person pointing.
R
Rence
Guest
How does this differ from people (including Catholics) financing ABCs by way of paying their taxes? How does this differ from people who subscribe to insurance provided by their non-Catholic (or Catholic depending on where you work) employers who provide ABCs to their employees. I’m having a hard time understanding how the situations are different. Government mandates, by their nature, do not give people a choice in the matter and are in the realm of 'give to Caesar". I understand the Bishops trying to fight it, and they should fight it if they think it’s a matter of conscience. But if it passes, and the mandate sticks, I see no reason why employers would choose to go to jail by breaking the law, while taxpayors and other subrscribers are not culpable to the same extent. To me, that’s a personal choice leading to civil ramifications. You don’t pay your taxes, you get in trouble with the government. You don’t obey the laws, you get in trouble with the government. Again, this mandate does not prevent Catholics from being Catholic and following Catholicism, anymore than paying taxes that directly finance ABCs.
As to the government firguring out how to collect fines, they’ll probably get a court order enforcing garnishing money from the business account on a periodic basis (monthly perhaps), or force them to close.
C
CMatt25
Guest
President Barack Obama often has said those same words. Also he will add our sisters’ keeper too.
C
CMatt25
Guest
It’s probably a lost cause here but excellent points, Rence. And what if an employer’s religion forbid paying taxes? They would not get away with breaking the law under the guise of their religious liberty being taken away.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
The most obvious difference is that the bishops can only avoid financing tax funded abortions, etc. by refusing to pay their taxes.
But they can avoid financing abortions, etc, in Obamacare simply by ignoring the mandate, a much more practical and specific protest.
It’s like the choice between arresting a criminal and nuking his neighborhood.
- Status