A request for my brothers and sisters in Christ....

[JRKH]

Please stand with us in opposing the Government's attempt to force religious affiliated institutions to provide free contraceptive and abortive services as part of their health care coverage when providing such coverage is clearly against the moral teachings of the organization. 

This is a clear violation of the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion and all people of faith need to let the government know that such intrusions are unacceptable. 

(Letter from Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati on the subject.)

Thank you for reading this and for standing with us.

Peace

James

[Jack]

Well, first question: Do these religious institutions receive government aid (Money)?

 Second question: Does a fisherman ever tie a  worm on his line without a hook?

[JRKH]

Well Jack those questions do point up a certain danger...BUT...Since the government edict does not differentiate between those organizations who receive government support and those who don't - everyone group who believes that abortion is wrong are in the same boat. 

AND

Just as your questions intimate the dangers of becoming tangled up with the government in money matters, so to does this fight point to the danger of allowing the government this intrusion on our freedom to practice, rights. 

Peace

James

[Michael Ballai]

Simply by the mandate of Obamacare, unless believers are allowed to opt out of such a system, and thereby giving the government the easiest way to get a free registration of believers to be used for persecution or extermination (and you thought it was about healthcare), the smart money is on prayer to overturn the teleprompter-in-chief and his weasel minions. 

The best way to deal with abortion is to promote adoption. But the church is being pushed out of that venue thanks to the gays.

[Harry]

You can sign the petition at http://wh.gov/kl3 requesting that Obama resind his order.

[David Jensen]

How about a compromise measure? All organizations also need to provide treatment for the mental disorder of homosexuality. Think the gay rights groups would have a problem paying for something they don't believe in?  

[Daniel]

Just curious, but do Catholic hospitals allow patients to stop some kind of treatment that is keeping them alive and thus commit suicide?  And how is forcing someone coming to a Catholic hospital (or working at one) to uphold certain Catholic beliefs (like no contraception) any different from a Protestant organization that requires that everyone that enters to already be/act Protestant before ministering to them?  I know the RCC is framing this debate as one of religious liberty.  But I wonder if it would not be more accurately framed as a balance between freedom to worship and "freedom" to discriminate or "freedom of association".  As such, it seems to be an extension of the big debate at Vanderbilt University re: only allowing people to hold club leadership positions if they meet some belief test of the club.  I can understand that you would not want an atheist running the Baptist Student Union or a YEC running the biology club, but this extends past leadership and goes to participation or even attendance.  I have no problem with the RCC requiring that their leadership strictly follow RCC teaching.  But if you are going to open up a ministry (like a hospital) to reach out to the community, requiring that the huddled masses that you are trying to reach all act Catholic in order to participate just seems a bit odd to me.  Requiring those that come to a soup kitchen to listen to a sermon is one thing.  Requiring that they already PRACTICE the sermon before you care to their needs is another.  Just a thought....

[JRKH]

Daniel,

You have so much in that post above, I'm not sure I understand the question(s)....But let me try to address at least some of what you ask.

do Catholic hospitals allow patients to stop some kind of treatment that is keeping them alive and thus commit suicide?

This has multiple levels of course but basically if a patient is able to leave...well they can do so, or they can choose not to come to a Catholic hospital.  In regards to more serious items like life support....I really don't know just what the criteria are.  It probably varies somewhat from place to place.

As to the rest of it...The problem with the Governments edict is that it would require that the Catholic Church provide and pay for insurance that includes things that are against Church doctrine.  Failure to do so means fines. 

Now - it is one thing for an employee of one of these institutions to go out on their own and purchase artificial birth control (ABC) items or for the individual to procure an abortion.  It is something quite different to have those items paid for by the Church.  In the one case, the Church has no culpability in th esin.  In the other the Church has culpability. 

These institutions do employ people regardless of faith, but people who apply need to be aware that they this is an institution with religious ties and their expectations need to reflect that knowledge.  Thus a female staff member would not expect that the employee insurance would cover ABC, sterilization, or abortion.  If that person wishes to make use of such things they would need to pay for them on their own.  Their employer will not cover such things. 

To me - the thing that really fries me about this thing is that there is no way this controversy could be a surprise to the Administration. 

Every year in January, there is a huge march in Washington and also on the West Coast trying to get the government and the courts to recognize that a human is a human from conception to natural death.  It attracts huge numbers of people...And every year...every major news outlet, carefully and studiously ignores it....

BUT the politicians know it's there.  The President knows it's there and he knows the Church's position on these matters.  He had to know that this is going to force a showdown....

It is a deliberate attack on the religious rights of every American citizen. 

Peace

James

[karl kleinpaste]

On the one hand, I stand firmly with the RC as a whole on refusing to act against conscience, legal requirement be damned.

On the other hand, I learned today that the USCCB (US Catholic Conference of Bishops) stood firmly in favor of Obamacare throughout the effort to pass it.  The HHS requirement regarding contraception and abortion is an element of Obamacare.

These two facts leave me in a state of some conflict.  Something about "Be careful what you wish for."

As for Nancy Pelosi's garbled mental processes, regarding what she is being quoted to have said about this issue...  I have some choice words about her, but they're extremely colorful, mostly blue, and Jack would have a fit if he saw them.

[Daniel]

If my religion believes that addiction is a matter of sin and not a health issue, should I force my employees and patrons to believe the same and not offer them the option to get that coverage?  I don't think so.  This goes beyond saying that the Catholic Church can require beliefs of priests.  If I worked for a Catholic Hospital, it doesn't mean I'm a Catholic.  I may just be really good at what I do and was recruited for my job performance and not my religious affiliation.  My wife would be even one step more removed from Catholic doctrine and teaching.  Yet if she wanted some medical procedure that the Pope didn't like - even if she wanted to get it done at some other hospital with no religious affiliation whatsoever - there would be no coverage for it in our family insurance.  So the Pope's teaching (and I'd go so far as to say it is from the Pope and NOT from the Apostle Paul) doesn't just impact his priests, but stretches to even include possibly non-christian family members of some janitor at some hospital.  As such, I do see some of the point of the administrations position.  He isn't telling the Pope what he can preach, but, as the old saying goes, this crosses the line from preaching and into meddling.  It is basically forcing family members of employees of a hospital associated with a religious group to follow that religion.  I think that goes too far.  And, as the Supremes have already said that a religious organization (like a Christian university) can loose their tax-free status if they illegally discriminate against certain groups on religious grounds, I don't think a challenge to this would hold.  If they want to do this as a purely private organization with NO tax money or tax benefits at all, I have no problem with it.  But if you are going to accommodate the public in a public way, certain accommodations are going to be required.

[Daniel]

karl kleinpaste said:

As for Nancy Pelosi's garbled mental processes, regarding what she is being quoted to have said about this issue...  I have some choice words about her, but they're extremely colorful, mostly blue, and Jack would have a fit if he saw them.

But knowing Jack, he'd probably AGREE with them! LOL

[JRKH]

Daniel said:

If my religion believes that addiction is a matter of sin and not a health issue, should I force my employees and patrons to believe the same and not offer them the option to get that coverage?

Two separate things here my friend. No you should not force your employees and patrons to believe as you do, and the Catholic church does not do that.
On the other hand, should you be required to pay for insurance that enables the addict to feed his addiction?

This goes beyond saying that the Catholic Church can require beliefs of priests.  If I worked for a Catholic Hospital, it doesn't mean I'm a Catholic.  I may just be really good at what I do and was recruited for my job performance and not my religious affiliation.  My wife would be even one step more removed from Catholic doctrine and teaching.  Yet if she wanted some medical procedure that the Pope didn't like - even if she wanted to get it done at some other hospital with no religious affiliation whatsoever - there would be no coverage for it in our family insurance.

Even without Obama-care, If you or your wife wanted what amounted to elective surgery (as defined by the insurance company) the insurance would not pay for it. That is the big contention here. By and large, these things are not medical necessities, they are elective surgeries AND they violate the rights of the unborn.
AND - as I mentioned in an earlier post, a person who elects to work for a Catholic affiliated organization should not expect said organization to pay for things that go against their beliefs.

So the Pope's teaching (and I'd go so far as to say it is from the Pope and NOT from the Apostle Paul) doesn't just impact his priests, but stretches to even include possibly non-christian family members of some janitor at some hospital.  
As such, I do see some of the point of the administrations position.  He isn't telling the Pope what he can preach, but, as the old saying goes, this crosses the line from preaching and into meddling.  It is basically forcing family members of employees of a hospital associated with a religious group to follow that religion.  I think that goes too far.

It is NOT forcing these people to follow that religion. All it is doing is saying that, if you want this product or that elective surgery the hospital (or whatever) won't pay for it. It is not covered in our insurance policy. The same for every employee of the firm...No discrimination. It's not about what the employees can do - it's about who is going to pay for it.

 And, as the Supremes have already said that a religious organization (like a Christian university) can loose their tax-free status if they illegally discriminate against certain groups on religious grounds, I don't think a challenge to this would hold.  If they want to do this as a purely private organization with NO tax money or tax benefits at all, I have no problem with it.  But if you are going to accommodate the public in a public way, certain accommodations are going to be required.

Well the government does have leverage where they are supplying funds...But this rule doesn't just apply to employers who get government monies. As I understand it, it applies to virtually ALL employers. So it wouldn't matter if the affiliated hospital or university or whatever told Obama to keep his money. They would still be obligated under the rule to pay for abortions....

Do you want YOUR church's monies to go to supporting abortions?

Peace
James

[JRKH]

karl kleinpaste said:

On the one hand, I stand firmly with the RC as a whole on refusing to act against conscience, legal requirement be damned.

On the other hand, I learned today that the USCCB (US Catholic Conference of Bishops) stood firmly in favor of Obamacare throughout the effort to pass it.  The HHS requirement regarding contraception and abortion is an element of Obamacare.

These two facts leave me in a state of some conflict.  Something about "Be careful what you wish for."

Yes - I worried that the USCCB was so supportive of the health-care drive. Yet - even at that, if this were something brought up before congress, then the people could weigh in and likely defeat it. As it stands now, this is an executive fiat.
I don't think that Obama realizes the backlash that this is going to engender.

As for Nancy Pelosi's garbled mental processes, regarding what she is being quoted to have said about this issue...  I have some choice words about her, but they're extremely colorful, mostly blue, and Jack would have a fit if he saw them.

The less said about that pretend Catholic the better.

Peace
James