Why God allows the evil of the HHS mandate

[iloveangels]

But from what I understand, Obama took care to make sure that every employer must offer at least one if not more plan choices for the employee that that will NOT include the above.
So that if a Catholic wants to choose the health care plan without birth control, etc, they can, and they will be covered with health care but not go against what their religion teaches.
Is this not the case?

Yes? Then what is this all about, DaddyGirl? Why are all these institutions suing the HHS Dept? You tell me.

PS, if you have some proof of that, I’d like to see it.

 

[iloveangels]

…

You won’t be able to give me proof because proof doesn’t exist. There is no such thing, unfortunately.

 

[iloveangels]

But from what I understand, Obama took care to make sure that every employer must offer at least one if not more plan choices for the employee that that will NOT include the above.
So that if a Catholic wants to choose the health care plan without birth control, etc, they can, and they will be covered with health care but not go against what their religion teaches.
Is this not the case?

I think you’re probably referring to this:

Requirements for obtaining a religious exemption to Obamacare:
A religious employer is one who:
“(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and
(4) is a nonprofit organization” under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
All 4 conditions must be met to get the exemption.

Maybe you haven’t thought this through. How many so-called Catholic institutions comply with all of these conditions? Hospitals, no. Universities, no. Catholic schools, not many of them. Soup kitchens, no. Food banks, no. The list goes on and on.

 

[JimG]

This isn’t going to work that way. If this doesn’t get settled in court before August, they’re going to take whatever fines are triggered out of withholding and they will pay it in addition to income tax. Period. I do not expect bishops to be going to jail over this. At. All. Catholics would do wise to take care that they do not trigger the maximum fine which is $100 per day per employee because the bill for even a small institution at that rate will be millions of dollars.

We’ve talked about this a lot in the posts leading up to this. There are really several classes of people that will be affected.

1. the big public universities & hospitals, many of whom are already offering these services in their insurance plans. Many of these are operated by lay boards. They do NOT belong to the Catholic Church, but call themselves Catholic because of history. Some of them, maybe a great many of them, will cave in to Obamacare. Whether the ones who offer birth control & abortion routinely to their employees, students and clients will be called to admit this and dissociate from the Church no one knows. If they do not, it will be an even greater scandal than it already is.
2. small institutions run by religious orders or lay boards who are obedient to Church teaching and do not offer these things in their insurance policies and have not been doing so. The Catholic Church does NOT own these either. Many of these have sued the federal government. They stand to lose a lot and I"m not sure what they will do if they lose their suits. EWTN is one of these, for example.
3. diocesan institutions. The Catholic Church does own these. Some of these will be able to get an exemption, some will not depending on who they employ and who they serve. Expect that some of them will be shut down, some will be pared back to part-timers and volunteers. Actual Catholic parishes, the Church part, will be able to get an exemption, as long as they employ primarily Catholics, serve primarily Catholics, have religious inculcation as their purpose, and have been non-profit all along. Parish programs will be pared back so that parishes are within this definition if they aren’t now.
4. small private businesses whose owners are Catholic. The Catholic Church does NOT own these either. Most of them will not be able to get an exemption. Some of them have sued the government. These are companies like Hobby Lobby. Maybe they’ll win and maybe not. I’m not sure what they’ll do it they lose.

What you have–correctly–described here is persecution of religion on a grand scale.

People will be required to reject their religion or pay huge fines or go out of business, The fines may force them out of business in any case.

If this stands, get ready for more persecution. Catholics and Evangelicals are only the first in line.

 

[JimG]

Maybe the Church should do what it takes to qualify for the exemption. Kick out all the Protestants and other non-Catholics from all our schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc. and make everyone sign a statement of faith (that would also weed out the cafeteria Catholics). But let everyone know that it’s because of Obama’s law. But I wonder if it’s a damned if we do and damned if we don’t situation where we would then be charged with discrimination for following the law and doing what it says we have to do to qualify for the exemption.

This administration would indeed like to confine religionists to their ghettos.

But Christ’s command to do the corporal works of mercy did not contain a proviso to do them only for fellow Catholics. Indeed, the parable of the good Samaritan made that very point. And in the account of the last judgment given in Matthew, Jesus makes the performance of the corporal works of mercy the sole determinant of entry into heaven.

The Church has taken its responsibility to the poor and disipossessed very seriously from the outset. Now, we are to be confined to our ghettos. I can’t imagine any parish food bank turning away a non-Catholic.

 

[JimG]

I think you’re probably referring to this:

Requirements for obtaining a religious exemption to Obamacare:
A religious employer is one who:
“(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and
(4) is a nonprofit organization” under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
All 4 conditions must be met to get the exemption.

Maybe you haven’t thought this through. How many so-called Catholic institutions comply with all of these conditions? Hospitals, no. Universities, no. Catholic schools, not many of them. Soup kitchens, no. Food banks, no. The list goes on and on.

Exactly right. The four conditions allow for Christians to be exempt from the immoral mandate only if they do not practice their Christianity!

 

[JimG]

But from what I understand, Obama took care to make sure that every employer must offer at least one if not more plan choices for the employee that that will NOT include the above.
So that if a Catholic wants to choose the health care plan without birth control, etc, they can, and they will be covered with health care but not go against what their religion teaches.
Is this not the case?

No, I am afraid that is not the case. If an employer is large enough to be covered by Obamacare, then it must provide the coverages stated in the mandate, which are immoral according to Catholic teaching. A ‘religious’ employer can get an exemption from the mandate, but the HHS (which has no business defining religion at all) defines religion quite narrowly. (See the 4 conditions previously mentioned.)

 

[livingwordunity]

What you have–correctly–described here is persecution of religion on a grand scale.

People will be required to reject their religion or pay huge fines or go out of business, The fines may force them out of business in any case.

If this stands, get ready for more persecution. Catholics and Evangelicals are only the first in line.

There’s no question that the fines will put people out of business. That’s what those fines were designed for. Then the government can step in and confiscate all assets. It’s the very same tactic Hitler did to the Jews to set them up for the Holocaust.

 

[iloveangels]

What you have–correctly–described here is persecution of religion on a grand scale.

People will be required to reject their religion or pay huge fines or go out of business, The fines may force them out of business in any case.

If this stands, get ready for more persecution. Catholics and Evangelicals are only the first in line.

That depends on how you define your religion, Jim.

 

[iloveangels]

What you have–correctly–described here is persecution of religion on a grand scale.
People will be required to reject their religion or pay huge fines or go out of business, The fines may force them out of business in any case.
If this stands, get ready for more persecution. Catholics and Evangelicals are only the first in line.

That depends on how you define your religion, JimG.

This administration would indeed like to confine religionists to their ghettos.
But Christ’s command to do the corporal works of mercy did not contain a proviso to do them only for fellow Catholics. Indeed, the parable of the good Samaritan made that very point. And in the account of the last judgment given in Matthew, Jesus makes the performance of the corporal works of mercy the sole determinant of entry into heaven.
The Church has taken its responsibility to the poor and disipossessed very seriously from the outset. Now, we are to be confined to our ghettos. I can’t imagine any parish food bank turning away a non-Catholic.

May I remind you that most Catholics have no problem with birth control and a shocking number have no problem with abortion. Our birth control and abortion statistics are almost identical to the general population. The administration is not trying to persecute Catholics because they don’t have to, if what they want is some kind of mainstream behavior. They’ve already got that. They’ve even got catholic voters supporting them. PS, no parish food bank will refuse anyone. They will be shut down.

Exactly right. The four conditions allow for Christians to be exempt from the immoral mandate only if they do not practice their Christianity!

Again, it depends on how you define Christianity.

 

[iloveangels]

I think you’re probably referring to this:

Requirements for obtaining a religious exemption to Obamacare:
A religious employer is one who:
“(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and
(4) is a nonprofit organization” under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
All 4 conditions must be met to get the exemption.

Maybe you haven’t thought this through. How many so-called Catholic institutions comply with all of these conditions? Hospitals, no. Universities, no. Catholic schools, not many of them. Soup kitchens, no. Food banks, no. The list goes on and on.

Do these shock you, JimG? Haven’t you seen these before?

I’m fairly certain that there are a large number of Catholics who haven’t seen these – or are not taking them seriously.

 

[JimG]

Do these shock you, JimG? Haven’t you seen these before?

I’m fairly certain that there are a large number of Catholics who haven’t seen these – or are not taking them seriously.

Of course I’ve seen them before. So has Cardinal Dolan. So has the USCCB. I think the bishops may have been a little shocked at the attempt to redefine religion, made by the state, because they didn’t expect it. I did.

And defining Catholicism is not up to me or to the state. It’s up to the Church. But I do define Catholicism to include the practice of Catholicism, and that does and always has included, the practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

 

[iloveangels]

Of course I’ve seen them before. So has Cardinal Dolan. So has the USCCB. I think the bishops may have been a little shocked at the attempt to redefine marriage, made by the state, because they didn’t expect it. I did.

And defining Catholicism is not up to me or to the state. It’s up to the Church. But I do define Catholicism to include the practice of Catholicism, and that does and always has included, the practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

Yes, but it doesn’t consist ONLY of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. One of the things I’ve been pointing out on this board is that other things that are also required are going completely begging. Focusing on this one thing, and this one thing only, hoping that it will save people who don’t get anything else right because they choose not to get it right, is not Christian nor is it Catholic.

Scripture & tradition doesn’t say anywhere that the corporal and spiritual works of mercy aren’t needed by Catholics, because they are. It doesn’t even say we have to seek out non-Catholics to perform them on. If that were the case, then there would have been a big problem before the Protestant Reformation, no? You will find everything you find outside the Church inside the Church–poverty, ignorance, sickness, incarceration, abortion, birth control, immigrants, strangers, the outcast, lack of faith, etc etc etc.

It also doesn’t say anywhere that we have to perform our works of mercy using big institutions, or institutions that take government money or grant money. We do not.

 

[JimG]

Yes, but it doesn’t consist ONLY of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. And it doesn’t say anywhere that the corporal and spiritual works of mercy aren’t needed by Catholics, because they are. It doesn’t even say we have to seek out non-Catholics to perform them on. If that were the case, then there would have been a big problem before the Protestant Reformation, no?

Sorry, my previous post said “marriage” where I meant to say “religion.” I edited and corrected it.

Before the Protestant Reformation the Church practiced the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. It established hospitals, universities, monasteries. Are you suggesting that just because there were no Protestants around in need, that the Church would have or should have refused to aid a non-Catholic in need?

I don’t think that’s true. Even in the earliest days of the Church, Christian communities saved babies left out to die as was the custom of the time. They didn’t check for baptismal papers first.

It’s simply outrageous for the State to say, “help whomever you want–but if you help non-Catholics, you can’t be a religion.”

 

[JimG]

PS–taking government or grant money has nothing whatever to do with the HHS mandate.
All Catholic institutions could forgo government money tomorrow, and the HHS mandate would still apply to them. Reject your religion or pay a fine.

 

[iloveangels]

Sorry, my previous post said “marriage” where I meant to say “religion.” I edited and corrected it.

Before the Protestant Reformation the Church practiced the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. It established hospitals, universities, monasteries. Are you suggesting that just because there were no Protestants around in need, that the Church would have or should have refused to aid a non-Catholic in need?

I don’t think that’s true. Even in the earliest days of the Church, Christian communities saved babies left out to die as was the custom of the time. They didn’t check for baptismal papers first.

I find this example amazing. The reason for that is that I know that Catholic abortion rates are almost identical to the general population. We not only don’t take children into our houses out of the goodness of our hearts, we are involved in this first hand, just like the rest of the population is, no matter how much verbiage to the contrary we emit.

BTW, don’t tell me that these wonderful Christians in your example went and got a government grant from the Romans to do this, and when the grant expired they gave up and wandered away whining that they were being discriminated against. I know better.

It’s simply outrageous for the State to say, “help whomever you want–but if you help non-Catholics, you can’t be a religion.”

They’re not saying you can’t be a religion. They’re saying, “if you want to be a religion, act like one.”

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

 

[iloveangels]

PS–taking government or grant money has nothing whatever to do with the HHS mandate.
All Catholic institutions could forgo government money tomorrow, and the HHS mandate would still apply to them. Reject your religion or pay a fine.

As a matter of fact, I recommend that we forgo all the federal grant, subsidy or loan money immediately, and cut off any institution that won’t do that, making it secular, effective immediately. This would solve most of our HHS mandate problems overnight.

 

[JimG]

I find this example amazing. The reason for that is that I know that Catholic abortion rates are almost identical to the general population. We not only don’t take children into our houses out of the goodness of our hearts, we are involved in this first hand, just like the rest of the population is, no matter how much verbiage to the contrary we emit.

BTW, don’t tell me that these wonderful Christians in your example went and got a government grant from the Romans to do this, and when the grant expired they gave up and wandered away whining that they were being discriminated against. I know better.

They’re not saying you can’t be a religion. They’re saying, “if you want to be a religion, act like one.”

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

Refusing to help non-Catholics is acting like a religion?

I think the Missionaries of Charity—Mother Teresa’s order which started in India-- is still active in the United States. MOST of the people they help are not Catholic. They don’t ask for religious ID before taking them off the streets. But the mandate would shut them down as not being ‘religious’ under HHS rules. How will that help the AIDS patients and others that they serve?

My own diocese operates a diner which serves one free meal a day to anyone—anyone–who comes in. No religious ID required. How will it help the homeless or the needy for them to shut down? Will the state take over that function? Not at all. That operation receives no public funding, but it doesn’t matter. The HHS mandate doesn’t care about funding sources. They would have to shut down regardless of funding source.

 

[iloveangels]

Refusing to help non-Catholics is acting like a religion?
I think the Missionaries of Charity—Mother Teresa’s order which started in India-- is still active in the United States. MOST of the people they help are not Catholic. They don’t ask for religious ID before taking them off the streets. But the mandate would shut them down as not being ‘religious’ under HHS rules. How will that help the AIDS patients and others that they serve?

IS this solely what religion consists of? What do you think they will do?

My own diocese operates a diner which serves one free meal a day to anyone—anyone–who comes in. No religious ID required. How will it help the homeless or the needy for them to shut down? Will the state take over that function? Not at all. That operation receives no public funding, but it doesn’t matter. The HHS mandate doesn’t care about funding sources. They would have to shut down regardless of funding source.

Yes, you’re going to have problems with that soup kitchen if it has employees or is tied to a parish or diocese that has employees. It’s not going to get an exemption, and it might keep the parish or diocese from getting an exemption, as well, if you keep it open under those conditions. Closing it isn’t going to get rid of the Catholic faith in your diocese however, far from it.

When it comes to grant money, the little soup kitchens aren’t most of the issue though. The really big users of government money are the ground zero of the HHS mandate. These are the universities & hospitals and other big programs.

 

[JimG]

As a matter of fact, I recommend that we forgo all the federal grant, subsidy or loan money immediately, and cut off any institution that won’t do that, making it secular, effective immediately. This would solve most of our HHS mandate problems overnight.

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, you’re going to have problems with that soup kitchen if it has employees or is tied to a parish or diocese that has employees. It’s not going to get an exemption, and it might keep the parish or diocese from getting an exemption, as well, if you keep it open under those conditions. Closing it isn’t going to get rid of the Catholic faith in your diocese however, far from it.

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

When it comes to grant money, the little soup kitchens aren’t most of the issue though. The really big users of government money are the ground zero of the HHS mandate. These are the universities & hospitals and other big programs.

But—the HHS mandate has NOTHING to do with government money or grants!

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.