Sinful by buying things

[Wellok]

There is a difference. The HHS mandate is a Constitutional issue over religious doctrine and the freedom of the Catholic Church to not support ABC, sterilization, etc. in any way by providing it to employees of their faith-based institutions.

In the case of your job, your secular employer has provided this coverage. You, as a Catholic, must not avail yourself of using that coverage. However, the union or the employer is required by contract not to provide different coverage – unless by rider that had an “opt out” feature. Usually not the case.

I’m sure the priest can explain it.

Why should the Church have more rights then me an individual Catholic. Isn’t the Church made up of individuals?

 

[Leegal]

Why should the Church have more rights then me an individual Catholic. Isn’t the Church made up of individuals?

This is a first amendment problem. As I said, the government is trying to regulate the Church into passing on this part of the coverage to the employees of Catholic universities and Catholic run organizations. None of this was in Obamacare but was recently “added” to the regs. The Church was promised an exemption, but only parishes are exempted and not Universities and Catholic Charities.

It’s a bigger fight issue – government entanglement in religion. Government against a religious institution.

At the individual level, I suspect that most non-religious institutions and jobs have people of all different faiths and those who do not believe. If this were to be imposed in reverse, no coverage for sterilization, ABC etc., then the reverse would happen – the Catholic Church would be attempting to impose it’s will on this country, through law or regulation, where government and Church are then one and the same.

Remember, our forefathers wrote the first Amend. to avoid exactly what happened when the King became head of the Church of England.

On a personal level, if your employer sponsored coverage provides coverage for ABC and sterilization you can and must avoid using the coverage unless there’s a real medical necessity.

The Catholic Church allows for ABC to be used when used to control a condition. The Catholic Church would not prohibit sterilization for a female when her reproductive system has a condition that may affect her life – such as cancerous fibroids and or segmented cysts (usually indicative of cancer or pre-cancer) on the ovaries.

At the individual level there must be discretion to allow for medical urgency and for those who do not Catholic. At the government level, it’s a matter of the government interpreting doctrine for the Church.

 

[Wellok]

This is a first amendment problem. As I said, the government is trying to regulate the Church into passing on this part of the coverage to the employees of Catholic universities and Catholic run organizations. None of this was in Obamacare but was recently “added” to the regs. The Church was promised an exemption, but only parishes are exempted and not Universities and Catholic Charities.

It’s a bigger fight issue – government entanglement in religion. Government against a religious institution.

At the individual level, I suspect that most non-religious institutions and jobs have people of all different faiths and those who do not believe. If this were to be imposed in reverse, no coverage for sterilization, ABC etc., then the reverse would happen – the Catholic Church would be attempting to impose it’s will on this country, through law or regulation, where government and Church are then one and the same.

Remember, our forefathers wrote the first Amend. to avoid exactly what happened when the King became head of the Church of England.

On a personal level, if your employer sponsored coverage provides coverage for ABC and sterilization you can and must avoid using the coverage unless there’s a real medical necessity.

The Catholic Church allows for ABC to be used when used to control a condition. The Catholic Church would not prohibit sterilization for a female when her reproductive system has a condition that may affect her life – such as cancerous fibroids and or segmented cysts (usually indicative of cancer or pre-cancer) on the ovaries.

At the individual level there must be discretion to allow for medical urgency and for those who do not Catholic. At the government level, it’s a matter of the government interpreting doctrine for the Church.

This is more confusing. As an individual I need to be covered for ABC in case of an emergency but the Catholic institutions can’t cover it as a religious freedom issue.

How is me having it and not using it different from Catholic organizations having it and not using it?

What happens to a catholic that needs this procedure as a emergency measure and we’ve fought not to cover it? Isn’t this kind of shooting ourselves in the foot?

 

[Leegal]

This is more confusing. As an individual I need to be covered for ABC in case of an emergency but the Catholic institutions can’t cover it as a religious freedom issue.

How is me having it and not using it different from Catholic organizations having it and not using it?

What happens to a catholic that needs this procedure as a emergency measure and we’ve fought not to cover it? Isn’t this kind of shooting ourselves in the foot?

If the government imposes this mandate the Church will be appearing to support those things that are contrary to what the Church teaches.

You seem to be unable to separate the secular from the religious institution – and to separate the use of ABC or sterilization for others. And ABC or sterilization has more than one objective. Our objection is when the objective is to prevent procreation – not to prevent the cure or control of a primary existing condition.

You must make your choice, if your secular employer provides this coverage because it’s provided for ALL – including non Catholics. If your wife comes up with ammenorrhea, then ABC may be warranted because the object is to cure or control the condition. However, you may not use ABC for another objective – to prevent procreation – as a Catholic. You and I cannot impose that restriction on the remaining 75% of the country who may not believe as we do – that contraception to prevent pregnancy is okay.

However, the government has no right by virtue of the First Amend. to FORCE the Catholic Church to say one thing and then do another, contrary to it’s teaching.

If we are to win this fight, and we will, it’s about government infringement upon Church dogma and doctrine – not merely about ABC or fertilization and individual usage by others. The Church does not want to, by law, impose it’s will upon others. We don’t want the government imposing it’s will on us and using an illegal regulation to do an end run around the U.S. Constitution.

Sterilization by removing an ovary or uterus for cancer would be covered. The cancer is the covered condition – the removal of the reproductive organs affected is necessary and sterilization is the secondary consequence of the cancer. The objective is not to prevent pregnancy, thought it’s one consequence The objective is to prevent the spread of the cancer that has invaded the reproductive organs, with a secondary and legit consequence. You are covered and women can avail themselves if treatment warrants surgery.

The Catholic Church is NOT trying to eliminate coverage for conditions that affect the reproductive system. Where is it said or written that if you work for a Catholic university or Catholic charities and cancer devlops that the Church already does not provide coverage to treat the underlying cancer by removal of reproductive organs? They are trying to prevent the government from imposing contraceptive doctrine upon the Church.

We are talking about the government FORCING the Church to provide contraceptives, abortificants and sterilization for a different objective – the objective to prevent contraception alone.

Simply put the government cannot tell the Church that they must provide ABC to prevent pregnancy, provide coverage for vasectomies to prevent pregnancy, and to provide coverge for abortificants in the form of medication or IUDs – and that’s what the government wants to FORCE the Church to do.

 

[Wellok]

If the government imposes this mandate the Church will be appearing to support those things that are contrary to what the Church teaches.

You seem to be unable to separate the secular from the religious institution – and to separate the use of ABC or sterilization for others. And ABC or sterilization has more than one objective. Our objection is when the objective is to prevent procreation – not to prevent the cure or control of a primary existing condition.

You must make your choice, if your secular employer provides this coverage because it’s provided for ALL – including non Catholics. If your wife comes up with ammenorrhea, then ABC may be warranted because the object is to cure or control the condition. However, you may not use ABC for another objective – to prevent procreation – as a Catholic. You and I cannot impose that restriction on the remaining 75% of the country who may not believe as we do – that contraception to prevent pregnancy is okay.

However, the government has no right by virtue of the First Amend. to FORCE the Catholic Church to say one thing and then do another, contrary to it’s teaching.

If we are to win this fight, and we will, it’s about government infringement upon Church dogma and doctrine – not merely about ABC or fertilization and individual usage by others. The Church does not want to, by law, impose it’s will upon others. We don’t want the government imposing it’s will on us and using an illegal regulation to do an end run around the U.S. Constitution.

Sterilization by removing an ovary or uterus for cancer would be covered. The cancer is the covered condition – the removal of the reproductive organs affected is necessary and sterilization is the secondary consequence of the cancer. The objective is not to prevent pregnancy, thought it’s one consequence The objective is to prevent the spread of the cancer that has invaded the reproductive organs, with a secondary and legit consequence. You are covered and women can avail themselves if treatment warrants surgery.

The Catholic Church is NOT trying to eliminate coverage for conditions that affect the reproductive system. Where is it said or written that if you work for a Catholic university or Catholic charities and cancer devlops that the Church already does not provide coverage to treat the underlying cancer by removal of reproductive organs? They are trying to prevent the government from imposing contraceptive doctrine upon the Church.

We are talking about the government FORCING the Church to provide contraceptives, abortificants and sterilization for a different objective – the objective to prevent contraception alone.

Simply put the government cannot tell the Church that they must provide ABC to prevent pregnancy, provide coverage for vasectomies to prevent pregnancy, and to provide coverge for abortificants in the form of medication or IUDs – and that’s what the government wants to FORCE the Church to do.

What I’m having trouble separating is the Church from the people that are the Church.

If they are forcing the Church they are forcing Catholics. We are the Church.

I should be able to opt out into a catholic only insurance program with in my plan.

 

[Leegal]

What I’m having trouble separating is the Church from the people that are the Church.

If they are forcing the Church they are forcing Catholics. We are the Church.

I should be able to opt out into a catholic only insurance program with in my plan.

Sorry I could not help you – I truly am.

My biggest fear is that the rest of America does not see this as a violation of the First Amendment – the very tyranny our forefathers tried to avoid. Our Constitution is being dismantled by regulations? We need Protestants, Jews, Mormons to also fear these regs. whether they allow contraception or not. They need to fear that they will be “next.”

Last month a decision came down by the USSC. The EEOC, a federal agency, tried to tell the Lutheran Evangelical Church who and what is a “minister.” The government lost big time in a 9-0 decision that went IN FAVOR of the Lutheran Evangelical Church to decide who is a minister – not the government. Now it’s our turn at bat. The issue is not who is a minister and who is not – it’s that the Lutheran Evangelical Church gets to make the call – not the government.

I fear that if this is seen as a contraception issue alone – Catholicism will be viewed as an antiquated religion that holds on to ridiculous, outdated doctrine. This is not so. But if allowed to be viewed as and disintegrated into a fight over contraception coverage, the real issue will be lost – which is a federal government power grab and infringement upon religous organizations where government must not go.

Besides this, I feel these regs. (which were only now written, and were not in the original law) violate the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well. Insurance companies are state regulated – not federally regulated. For Obamacare to tell the insurance companies, businesses with stockholders, that they must provide this coverge free is more federal interference than I can take.

I pray that everyone can see the bigger picture here – the attempt by government to entangle itself in ANY religious institution for any reason.

 

[Wellok]

Sorry I could not help you – I truly am.

My biggest fear is that the rest of America does not see this as a violation of the First Amendment – the very tyranny our forefathers tried to avoid. Our Constitution is being dismantled by regulations? We need Protestants, Jews, Mormons to also fear these regs. whether they allow contraception or not. They need to fear that they will be “next.”

Last month a decision came down by the USSC. The EEOC, a federal agency, tried to tell the Lutheran Evangelical Church who and what is a “minister.” The government lost big time in a 9-0 decision that went IN FAVOR of the Lutheran Evangelical Church to decide who is a minister – not the government. Now it’s our turn at bat. The issue is not who is a minister and who is not – it’s that the Lutheran Evangelical Church gets to make the call – not the government.

I fear that if this is seen as a contraception issue alone – Catholicism will be viewed as an antiquated religion that holds on to ridiculous, outdated doctrine. This is not so. But if allowed to be viewed as and disintegrated into a fight over contraception coverage, the real issue will be lost – which is a federal government power grab and infringement upon religous organizations where government must not go.

Besides this, I feel these regs. (which were only now written, and were not in the original law) violate the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well. Insurance companies are state regulated – not federally regulated. For Obamacare to tell the insurance companies, businesses with stockholders, that they must provide this coverge free is more federal interference than I can take.

I pray that everyone can see the bigger picture here – the attempt by government to entangle itself in ANY religious institution for any reason.

It’s still is an infringement at a personal level. We are the Church. Or are you saying we are not the Church?