Why God allows the evil of the HHS mandate

[iloveangels]

How would that solve the HHS mandate problems? The HHS mandate says nothing about funding. Institutions and employers are all subject to it regardless of funding.

Yes, the the institutions with the biggest exposure to the HHS mandate are really what the USCCB is concerned about, not so much the soup kitchens and such. If you don’t believe me, read their press releases.

It’s not the employees that will be the problem; it’s the fact that it serves, most likely, primarily non-Catholics. Because of that, it won’t be ‘religious’ enough for HHS to grant a waiver. But—the HHS mandate has NOTHING to do with government money or grants!

IN this limited case, no. But in the largest and most involved cases, both disobedience to the Church and lots of federal money are involved.

Forgoing government grants only solves the problem if the institution also rejects the Catholic religion.
In fact, rejecting their religion solves the problem even if they keep the government funding.

NO. It doesn’t. We’ve had problems with these universities and hospitals for years over this. Recall where the loudest and most obnoxious proponent of birth control came from this very spring. Did you enjoy watching a Catholic university put its disobedience on public display? We go through a giant disaster over commencement speakers every single year.

 

[JimG]

No, I don’t like having Catholic universities who reject parts of Catholic teaching.

I also don’t like the government telling them that they must formally reject their religion.
If they are going to be kicked out of the Church for disobedience, that’s the Church’s business, not the government’s.

 

[Sarcelle]

I also don’t think it’s a punishment but a wake-up call to both serious and cafeteria catholics.

“Choose on this day whom you shall serve.”

 

[JimG]

I also don’t think it’s a punishment but a wake-up call to both serious and cafeteria catholics.

“Choose on this day whom you shall serve.”

Oh, it could be both a punishment and a wake-up call. Catholics may end up closing thousands of educational, charitable, and relief organizations. When that happens, though, it will be a direct result of persecution, not because it’s a good thing.

 

[iloveangels]

No, I don’t like having Catholic universities who reject parts of Catholic teaching.

I also don’t like the government telling them that they must formally reject their religion.
If they are going to be kicked out of the Church for disobedience, that’s the Church’s business, not the government’s.

Apparently many of the esteemed faculty at our largest “Catholic universities” don’t agree with you.

campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4529

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16433

blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2012/12/04/pro-obama-election-bias-among-catholic-college-employees/

They don’t look particularly threatened by any of this, do they?

 

[iloveangels]

Oh, it could be both a punishment and a wake-up call. Catholics may end up closing thousands of educational, charitable, and relief organizations. When that happens, though, it will be a direct result of persecution, not because it’s a good thing.

We’re back here again: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10121356&postcount=215

Most of the Catholic population doesn’t feel particularly persecuted, including apparently, the staffs of “our” universities.

 

[iloveangels]

I also don’t think it’s a punishment but a wake-up call to both serious and cafeteria catholics.

“Choose on this day whom you shall serve.”

I think you’re right. It’s a wake-up call, a reality check. And if this one doesn’t do it, and it probably won’t…the next one will be louder.

 

[JimG]

Apparently many of the esteemed faculty at our largest “Catholic universities” don’t agree with you.

campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4529

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16433

blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2012/12/04/pro-obama-election-bias-among-catholic-college-employees/

They don’t look particularly threatened by any of this, do they?

“President of the Cardinal Newman Society, Patrick J. Reilly, said he believes staff and faculty at Catholic Universities are now “out of touch” with what most Catholics believe.”

No doubt that Catholic universities are often hotbeds of heterodoxy. Why should that give the government the ability to force them to formally reject their religion? Again, it’s a Church matter—not the government’s business. They may reject their religion anyway. But they shouldn’t be required to do so the government!

 

[JimG]

We’re back here again: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10121356&postcount=215

Most of the Catholic population doesn’t feel particularly persecuted, including apparently, the staffs of “our” universities.

No, they will remain blissfully unaware of persecution until the oil is well past the boiling point.

 

[iloveangels]

“President of the Cardinal Newman Society, Patrick J. Reilly, said he believes staff and faculty at Catholic Universities are now “out of touch” with what most Catholics believe.”

OH he does, does he? How does he explain the voting behavior of Catholics one short month ago? And how does he explain that our voting patterns are almost identical to the voting patterns of the general public?

No doubt that Catholic universities are often hotbeds of heterodoxy. Why should that give the government the ability to force them to formally reject their religion? Again, it’s a Church matter—not the government’s business. They may reject their religion anyway. But they shouldn’t be required to do so the government!

We haven’t dealt with it, even though we’ve had many years to do so. And it’s a public disgrace that everyone can see, and everyone has seen it. The Democrats were looking for a scapegoat to distract everyone’s attention and we were the perfect candidate. It worked very well. It worked so well that now, we are probably PLAN A in the politics playbook. So if we don’t want it to happen again, we’d better finally clean up our act.

 

[Rence]

Most of the Catholic population doesn’t feel particularly persecuted, including apparently, the staffs of “our” universities.

Well of course they don’t. First of all, most people already have coverage for ABCs already. We either choose to use those benefits, or we don’t. But the coverage is still there. Note that the Bishops aren’t demanding we drop our insurance policeis because they include ABCs coverage. So the same goes for the new mandate, which requires all insurance companies to incude ABCs coverage: the benefits are there: use them or don’t use them at your discretion. There’s nothing discriminatory about it. No one is forcing anyone to use benefits they don’t wish to use.

 

[iloveangels]

No, they will remain blissfully unaware of persecution until the oil is well past the boiling point.

No, they won’t. They’re not being persecuted.

 

[iloveangels]

No, they will remain blissfully unaware of persecution until the oil is well past the boiling point.

Well of course they don’t. First of all, most people already have coverage for ABCs already. We either choose to use those benefits, or we don’t. But the coverage is still there. Note that the Bishops aren’t demanding we drop our insurance policeis because they include ABCs coverage. So the same goes for the new mandate, which requires all insurance companies to incude ABCs coverage: the benefits are there: use them or don’t use them at your discretion. There’s nothing discriminatory about it. No one is forcing anyone to use benefits they don’t wish to use.

JimG, Rence answered your point very well. They’re not being persecuted. For them, it’s a non-issue.

 

[Rence]

JimG, Rence answered your point very well. They’re not being persecuted. For them, it’s a non-issue.

Exactly. People living in countries in which they can’t attend Church, wear a crucifix in public or even admit they are Catholic: now those people are being persecuted. Here in the US, we can practice every aspect of our religion. The only thing we can’t do, is dictate our religious rules and laws to others.

 

[Stephen168]

JimG, Rence answered your point very well. They’re not being persecuted. For them, it’s a non-issue.

Yes, it is a non-issue because they agree with or do not understand the mandate.

Do you think the mandate requires employees to use birth control -or-
does the mandate require employers to purchase birth control?

 

[JimG]

Well of course they don’t. First of all, most people already have coverage for ABCs already. We either choose to use those benefits, or we don’t. But the coverage is still there. Note that the Bishops aren’t demanding we drop our insurance policeis because they include ABCs coverage. So the same goes for the new mandate, which requires all insurance companies to incude ABCs coverage: the benefits are there: use them or don’t use them at your discretion. There’s nothing discriminatory about it. No one is forcing anyone to use benefits they don’t wish to use.

No, the mandate would merely require employers to violate their religion or pay a fine.
(If I am mandated to provide coverage for you to hire a hit man, there is obviously no requirement that you actually do hire a hit man, so what’s the problem.)

Six Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate.
usccb.org/news/2012/12-021.cfm

Six More Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate
usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/six-more-things-everyone-should-know.html

But I’ll have to bow out now. The convesation is getting too political and politics belongs in a different forum.

 

[JimG]

OH he does, does he? How does he explain the voting behavior of Catholics one short month ago? And how does he explain that our voting patterns are almost identical to the voting patterns of the general public?

I was only quoting from one of the links you posted. And yes, it goes without saying, that Catholics in general voted like university professors.

And I still don’t see why that should give the government permission to force religious apostasy. But individual Catholics needn’t be complacent just because they are not institutions. Anti-Catholic regulations will hit them soon enough.

 

[Rence]

No, the mandate would merely require employers to violate their religion or pay a fine.

The mandate requires insurance companies to provide ABCs coverage across the board, to everyone. That takes the decision out of the hands of all employers. This is no different than the requirement to pay taxes, which also pays for ABCs. It’s also no different than everyone paying premiums to a group insurance that also covers ABCs. There is nothing different about this mandate that we don’t already do. This is partly what makes this a non-issue to many Catholics.

 

[iloveangels]

The mandate requires insurance companies to provide ABCs coverage across the board, to everyone. That takes the decision out of the hands of all employers. This is no different than the requirement to pay taxes, which also pays for ABCs. It’s also no different than everyone paying premiums to a group insurance that also covers ABCs. There is nothing different about this mandate that we don’t already do. This is partly what makes this a non-issue to many Catholics.

This isn’t the case, but this is how many Catholics see it. This is a big problem.

The Church cannot both teach moral behavior and deny it at the same time. Dioceses and parishes cannot do this. However, many of our other institutions have been doing it, and we’ve let it slide too long, and now people don’t comprehend the difference. Time to clean up our act. And divest ourselves of institutions that will not comply with our teaching, something we should have done long ago.

Directly applicable: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10121356&postcount=215

 

[JimG]

The mandate requires insurance companies to provide ABCs coverage across the board, to everyone. That takes the decision out of the hands of all employers. This is no different than the requirement to pay taxes, which also pays for ABCs. It’s also no different than everyone paying premiums to a group insurance that also covers ABCs. There is nothing different about this mandate that we don’t already do. This is partly what makes this a non-issue to many Catholics.

It doesn’t take the issue out of the hands of employers. It forces employers to provide coverage which violates their religion. Some employers self insure or have been able to find insurance that does not violate their conscience.

To use my previous example, if I provide coverage for my employees to hire hit men, am I thereby absolved from responsibility? Am I absolved if the law places the requirement on insurance companies rather than me directly? (And if I self insure?) Am I absolved just because most of my employees are already in the habit of hiring hit men? I don’t think so. The USCCB agrees with me.