Plea to Catholics of a Liberal Persuasion

[ROESHAMBOW]

Obama believes he can roll over the Holy Roman Catholic Church, because there are so many, who say they are Catholic but do not follow the Teachings of our Church.
We have a choice this coming election to vote in, one of two Catholics running. Thanks be to God. Naturally I have preference of the two, but I submit, this issue to prayer, that God’s will
be done

 

[seekerz]

Back after a long while and finding these discussions very revealing. I do lean liberal, not because of their emphasis on women’s ‘choice’ but because I became disenchanted with the values of ‘value’ politics, which I would naturally expect to be of a higher standard than the run-of-the-mill variety.

As a Catholic, there are moral aspects of widespread liberal beliefs that I just cannot share - on the other hand, I increasingly find that the right is no less a comfortable place to be. I’d much rather simply be Catholic, while weighing in on specific issues according to my faith, and understanding. I resist the idea that political ideology has to be a take-it or leave-it package and I think insisting that it be so is simply isolating from the Church, people who want to live by conscience and not necessarily simply by consensus.

Obama was wrong to mandate something which Catholic doctrine clearly opposes; I think his attempt at a compromise acknowledges that fact. Does this disqualify him as a presidential candidate? In my mind, not necessarily. I could only tell for sure by weighing his actions and his words (in that order) against those of the people running against him, using the greatest commandment (and, of course, the big 10) as my guide.

The way I see it, the greatest threat to religious freedom at the present time, are the cobwebs growing in those areas of faith, including reproductive and marital issues, which suffer from a widespread neglect in terms of actual practice in real life. I have never seen any political figure as a threat to religious freedom because I have long learnt that the real threats to faith come from failure to actually live it. Politicians can be handled: by public pressure, by lobbying, by skillful use of our creative faculties, by voting them out…by the hand of God. The real urgent need of the hour for Catholics is to figure out a way to actually live - individually and collectively - in the manner we claim the right to do.

 

[iloveangels]

Back after a long while and finding these discussions very revealing. I do lean liberal, not because of their emphasis on women’s ‘choice’ but because I became disenchanted with the values of ‘value’ politics, which I would naturally expect to be of a higher standard than the run-of-the-mill variety.

As a Catholic, there are moral aspects of widespread liberal beliefs that I just cannot share - on the other hand, I increasingly find that the right is no less a comfortable place to be. I’d much rather simply be Catholic, while weighing in on specific issues according to my faith, and understanding. I resist the idea that political ideology has to be a take-it or leave-it package and I think insisting that it be so is simply isolating from the Church, people who want to live by conscience and not necessarily simply by consensus.

Obama was wrong to mandate something which Catholic doctrine clearly opposes; I think his attempt at a compromise acknowledges that fact. Does this disqualify him as a presidential candidate? In my mind, not necessarily. I could only tell for sure by weighing his actions and his words (in that order) against those of the people running against him, using the greatest commandment (and, of course, the big 10) as my guide.

The way I see it, the greatest threat to religious freedom at the present time, are the cobwebs growing in those areas of faith, including reproductive and marital issues, which suffer from a widespread neglect in terms of actual practice in real life. I have never seen any political figure as a threat to religious freedom because I have long learnt that the real threats to faith come from failure to actually live it. Politicians can be handled: by public pressure, by lobbying, by skillful use of our creative faculties, by voting them out…by the hand of God. The real urgent need of the hour for Catholics is to figure out a way to actually live - individually and collectively - in the manner we claim the right to do.

You must live in America. You’ve never been jailed for your beliefs, and that’s clear. People from other parts of the world, where martyrdom still happens would not say these things about the benign nature of political tyrrany, because they would know them to be false.

That said, yes, it’s ALSO true that Catholics are full of all kinds of big talk but many of them don’t live their faith at all. This is a good part of the reason that we’re in this mess. Catholics asked for this treatment with their behavior and now they’ve got it. I hope they learn something, but I’m not real optimistic on that right now. I think they’d learn better if they suffered for this a little bit.

 

[JimG]

Back after a long while and finding these discussions very revealing. I do lean liberal, not because of their emphasis on women’s ‘choice’ but because I became disenchanted with the values of ‘value’ politics, which I would naturally expect to be of a higher standard than the run-of-the-mill variety.

As a Catholic, there are moral aspects of widespread liberal beliefs that I just cannot share - on the other hand, I increasingly find that the right is no less a comfortable place to be. I’d much rather simply be Catholic, while weighing in on specific issues according to my faith, and understanding. I resist the idea that political ideology has to be a take-it or leave-it package and I think insisting that it be so is simply isolating from the Church, people who want to live by conscience and not necessarily simply by consensus.

Obama was wrong to mandate something which Catholic doctrine clearly opposes; I think his attempt at a compromise acknowledges that fact. Does this disqualify him as a presidential candidate? In my mind, not necessarily. I could only tell for sure by weighing his actions and his words (in that order) against those of the people running against him, using the greatest commandment (and, of course, the big 10) as my guide.

The way I see it, the greatest threat to religious freedom at the present time, are the cobwebs growing in those areas of faith, including reproductive and marital issues, which suffer from a widespread neglect in terms of actual practice in real life. I have never seen any political figure as a threat to religious freedom because I have long learnt that the real threats to faith come from failure to actually live it. Politicians can be handled: by public pressure, by lobbying, by skillful use of our creative faculties, by voting them out…by the hand of God. The real urgent need of the hour for Catholics is to figure out a way to actually live - individually and collectively - in the manner we claim the right to do.

I agree in part. Failure to live the Faith weakens the Faith not only on a personal level but hurts the culture and the society, as well as the politics of the culture. Still sometimes the real threat to the Faith really is external. Henry VIII was a politician, but he wasn’t able to be “handled” by public pressure or lobbying, except at the threat of one’s head. Most Catholics simply caved in to the Act of Supremacy, and unfortunately, the same thing could happen here. Certainly a part of that would be a result of failure to live the Faith, but external threats are also all too real. How many Catholic employers will be willing to resist Obama’s own Act of Supremacy in the form of the HHS mandate at the risk of being subject to fines for doing so?

 

[iloveangels]

I agree in part. Failure to live the Faith weakens the Faith not only on a personal level but hurts the culture and the society, as well as the politics of the culture. Still sometimes the real threat to the Faith really is external. Henry VIII was a politician, but he wasn’t able to be “handled” by public pressure or lobbying, except at the threat of one’s head. Most Catholics simply caved in to the Act of Supremacy, and unfortunately, the same thing could happen here. Certainly a part of that would be a result of failure to live the Faith, but external threats are also all too real. How many Catholic employers will be willing to resist Obama’s own Act of Supremacy in the form of the HHS mandate at the risk of being subject to fines for doing so?

The Church itself, meaning dioceses and parishes and Catholic schools, will resist. A few Catholic organizations, I can tell you right now, will resist. EWTN, Priests for Life, Franciscan University and the like. Religious orders with international headquarters will resist–ie. OFMs, OPs and so on. They will not practice formal cooperation with evil, because rather obviously it would interfere with their mission and fidelity to the gospel. The USA is only about 5% of the international church anyway. The big religious orders may withdraw some folks from here, and then again, not sure.

All Catholic organizations, I don’t know. Perhaps the USCCB will take a tougher line on the use of the word “Catholic” in the names of some organizations. I CERTAINLY HOPE IT DOES. Perhaps some organizations of diocesan right (SSJ, DC etc) need to be shut down anyway. I certainly think that is the case, and has been for a long time. They no longer pursue their original stated apostolates and have drifted into things their founders never imagined and never would have wanted. Vatican II dealt with this cleaning up of charism and purpose, asking religious to recover their rules, constitutions and statutes and actually live by them, but some of these outfits have been dragging their feet, becoming instead the new age wing of the democratic party at prayer. Perhaps this issue is “where the rubber hits the road,” as they say.

Some little die cast companies, grocery stores and so on, run by Catholics may resist. Not sure. That’s where all this stuff really gets brutal.

PS both SSJ and DC, the order that Sr. Keehan belongs to, are of diocesan right. A bishop could shut them down by his own authority.

 

[seekerz]

I agree in part. Failure to live the Faith weakens the Faith not only on a personal level but hurts the culture and the society, as well as the politics of the culture. Still sometimes the real threat to the Faith really is external. Henry VIII was a politician, but he wasn’t able to be “handled” by public pressure or lobbying, except at the threat of one’s head. Most Catholics simply caved in to the Act of Supremacy, and unfortunately, the same thing could happen here. Certainly a part of that would be a result of failure to live the Faith, but external threats are also all too real. How many Catholic employers will be willing to resist Obama’s own Act of Supremacy in the form of the HHS mandate at the risk of being subject to fines for doing so?

I don’t claim to know great details about running a business but I do know that one can be employed on a contract basis and be self-insured, with no obligation on the part of the employer to be involved in health insurance coverage. Just one example of a work-around - I do believe that with creativity others can be found for those who do not find the compromise morally acceptable.

As for Henry the VIII, he went the way of all men and we are hardly in a monarchy where that takes decades. So we get back to the real - and growing - threat to faith which is being handed on from generation to generation…

 

[JimG]

I don’t claim to know great details about running a business but I do know that one can be employed on a contract basis and be self-insured, with no obligation on the part of the employer to be involved in health insurance coverage. Just one example of a work-around - I do believe that with creativity others can be found for those who do not find the compromise morally acceptable.

As for Henry the VIII, he went the way of all men and we are hardly in a monarchy where that takes decades. So we get back to the real - and growing - threat to faith which is being handed on from generation to generation…

I don’t believe that mandate exempts those who self insure. If they insure at all–even Catholic dioceses–they must provide the contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient coverage. And Obamacare requires most employers to carry insurance. If they drop the coverage on moral grounds, they will be subject to a fine for each employee not covered.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t believe that mandate exempts those who self insure. If they insure at all–even Catholic dioceses–they must provide the contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient coverage. And Obamacare requires most employers to carry insurance. If they drop the coverage on moral grounds, they will be subject to a fine for each employee not covered.

It would not be a question of dropping coverage but a question of laying off a full-time worker and taking her back on a contract basis - not sure if that would contravene labor laws. I’m self-insured and I get to choose what coverage I want.

 

[iloveangels]

continued.

in his own diocese. This is part of the picture that many Catholics are not aware of. Some things can be managed by the bishop; some cannot. Bishops have been loathe to mess with some of these groups that are out of bounds. Maybe this will help to fix that if they give dioceses enough trouble about this business.

 

[iloveangels]

It would not be a question of dropping coverage but a question of laying off a full-time worker and taking her back on a contract basis - not sure if that would contravene labor laws. I’m self-insured and I get to choose what coverage I want.

Or simply laying house workers off, waiting a period, and then hiring someone else on a contract or self-employed basis. That is, the employee would be regarded as a jobber, someone contracted (not hired) as a self-employed vendor of their own services.

 

[estesbob]

It would not be a question of dropping coverage but a question of laying off a full-time worker and taking her back on a contract basis - not sure if that would contravene labor laws. I’m self-insured and I get to choose what coverage I want.

It would contravene labor laws. in my case I am dropping their coverage and will pay any fines thethe govt levies. i am hopeful that either the USSC overturns this law of Obama is defeated in the fall. It is unbelievable that any catholic would vote for this man in light of what he has done to catholic orgainzations and catholic employers.

 

[Marianna_Mills]

I consider myself to be liberal. I think the USA should be for everyone not just Christians. But I do not agree with forcing the Catholic Church into things the way Liberalism currently is.

 

[iloveangels]

I consider myself to be liberal. I think the USA should be for everyone not just Christians. But I do not agree with forcing the Catholic Church into things the way Liberalism currently is.

Thank you Marianna. I agree. People shouldn’t be carrying on like this with each other, persecuting each other and so on. There is room enough for everybody, and freedom of conscience is a very important thing.

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t believe that mandate exempts those who self insure. If they insure at all–even Catholic dioceses–they must provide the contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient coverage. And Obamacare requires most employers to carry insurance. If they drop the coverage on moral grounds, they will be subject to a fine for each employee not covered.

No, it doesn’t exempt those who self-insure. Self-insured individuals would still have to buy the insurance or pay the fee. Interestingly, there is little being said about the authority that the federal government has to levy the fee under the legal arrangements that Obamacare sets out. I think that’s also being contested in the courts, in fact I know it is. It’s part of the commerce clause, I believe.

Employers could cease to be employers and have blocks of work bid out to the lowest bidder. Rotating through jobbers/bidders to get the jobs done. That would also be a solution.

I mean, it’s not a great thing, because obviously the evil still exists and of course this isn’t the best way to run a business, but it’s a makeshift solution for a small business owner–independent grocery store, die cast shop, farm, etc, until something better can be worked out - bill to modify, Supreme Court decision, etc.

If I was currently running a small business, I’d certainly be talking to legal counsel about these possibilities and likelihoods.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

An apt parable:

For those of you who will lower yourself to listen to a man, never mind a bishop, speak on the HHS mandate, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, offered a useful political parable this morning about a fictional law that requires all businesses to serve pork, including kosher delis.

“But pork is good for you.”

“So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”

“Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

These were the responses to Orthodox Jews who expressed outrage about the hypothetical law.

Mercifully, in Bishop Lori’s parable, there was a recognition that “it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich,” “it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state,” and “it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.”

“The question before the United States government — right now — is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too,” Lori told the oversight committee. “Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes.”

nationalreview.com/corner/291283/hhs-mandate-simply-not-kosher-kathryn-jean-lopez

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here is liberal Catholicism in a nutshell:

For some reason, Michelle Fields of the Daily Caller sought the views of the NASCAR driver and Sports Illustrated swimwear model about “the Obama administration’s dictate that religious employers provide health-care plans that cover contraceptives.” Miss Patrick, a practicing Catholic, gave the perfect citizen’s response for the Age of Obama:

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”

nationalreview.com/articles/291919/perversion-rights-mark-steyn

Who do the bishops think they are to disagree with Government on any moral issue?!