The bill is a massive boondogle that serves only one purpose well–more power to the federal governemnt. That is all it was intended to do. The rest of the demogogic rhetoric was simply to stir up the unwashed masses, the naive and the ideological statists (regardless of party).

The contraception mandate is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the intrusions this bill allows. It is illogical and stupid to only oppose a particular part of the bill when one’s own ox is gored. Unless all of it is opposed and defeated, worse is yet to come.

Anyone who honestly thinks that actual health care will improve and be available to more people under this bill is deluded. The rest of its supporters are simply lying to gain the power.

Why is the insurance mandate being interpreted as a major imposition? Because it would force the Catholic Church to conform to policies inimical to its teachings. It really is as simple as that.

Fr. Jacobse, I don’t follow your logic here regarding Dr. King. Dr. King protested unjust laws and was put in jail as a result. His protests led eventually to a changing of law. I don’t see how that relates to Stan’s comments.

I once worked at a Catholic hospital, and it employed Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and people of no religious affiliation. For the most part, no effort was made to insist that employees of other faiths followed Catholic doctrine (with the exception of omission of contraception from health plans). Employees simply were asked to respect the hospital’s mission to carry out the healing work of Christ. If institutions choose to enter into an employer/employee arrangements with people of all faiths, perhaps it is not such a bad idea to offer health plans that mirror American society as a whole. Certainly the Bible frequently cautions about wealth and greed, but the hospital paid its CEO $650,000 in one year with the justification that it was necessary to be in line with other hospitals in the region. Perhaps the health plans for the rank and file employees should also be allowed to be in line with those of other employers in the area. My main point here is that many Catholic institutions act much like any other community employer.

The concept of asking Catholic institutions to pay the for health coverage from insurance companies that are required to offer contraception benefits does not seem to be a direct infringement of freedom of religion. Tax dollars paid by Catholics that are used to pay for state and federal executions would seem to be as much or more of an imposition, but I do not hear Catholic clergy complaining anywhere near as loudly about that. Why?

I just don’t see the government trying to injure the Catholic church. First, as I understand it, there was always an exemption for churches themselves, and if we are just looking at institutions like hospitals or charities, the government is often providing funding. As I understand it, Catholic Charities receives 65% of its funding from government sources. Why is this rule governing health insurance being interpreted as such a major imposition?

You can bet the leaders of the OC-Gay are pressuring their enabling hierarchs to put a stop to this sort of thing in the future. Pray for them.

Andrew, the lack of specificity may also be due to the fact it was written quickly.

More bothersome to me was that no explanatory paper has been issued subsequently. This is a significant lapse. It may be necessary to appoint someone more adept at public communication in the long run.

Stan, the Catholic Church does play by the rules. They won’t however, enforce dictates that violate the conscience. They have the constitutional right to do this. It is called freedom of religion.

I’m glad that freedom exists. If we followed your directive, Martin Luther King should have remained in jail.

Where is this all going? The persecution of Christianity. All Christianity. Of course the time-servers and Obama-grovellers will get to keep their cushy jobs in new, “reformed” Christian Church.

Chris, I believe the EA statement was intentionally vague so as to have plausible deniability in some circles especially 79th Street. Notice no bishop is quoted. This is not accidental.

The Assembly of Orthodox Bishops issued a simple statement made up of 3 whole paragraphs. It was posted on their website and no attempt was made to spread the word in all Orthodox parishes or have it printed in parish bulletins.
Record of Protest Against the Infringement of Religious Liberty by the Department of Health and Human Services
http://assemblyofbishops.org/news/releases/protest-against-hhs

177* Bishops (Almost 100% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591
We’re talking about 177 Catholic Bishops (almost ALL of them) who EACH issued a Full Statement. Most of them read their statements at all diocesan Masses or included them in parish bulletins on Sunday.

“You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

I do wonder where this is all leading, especially since it seems the president’s administration seems fairly set, despite disagreement on the part of the Catholic bishops and others.

Those demanding such an exemption initially worked themselves into a lather with the false claim that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved–except perhaps for an employer who really desires not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather wants to retain control of his employees’ health plans, limit their choices to conform to the employer’s religious beliefs, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.

Indeed, some continued clamoring for just such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments they would be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to most taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of their tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for a war, health care, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral?

In any event, they put up enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required. Problem solved–again, even more.

Nonetheless, some continue to complain. They fret that somehow religious employers ultimately will pay for the services they oppose. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They counter what they call the government’s “accounting gimmick” with one of their own: the “Catholic dollar.” These dollars remain Catholic, it seems, even when paid by a religious employer to others, e.g., insurers or employees, in the sense that they can be used only for things the religious employer would approve. The religious employers’ aim, we are assured, is not to thereby control the actions of others, oh no, but rather is merely to assure that the employers themselves do not somehow act contrary to their own beliefs by loosing “their” dollars into hands that would use them for things no self-respecting religious employer would himself buy. Their religious liberty, they say, requires not only that they be exempted from the law, but further that anyone to whom they pay money also be exempted and thus “free” to act according to their desires.

I wonder what they would think of their follow-the-dollar theory if they realized they had some of my “atheist dollars” in their wallets that can be used only for ungodly purposes, lest I suffer the indignity of paying for things I disbelieve.