The Obama administration has chosen to ignore the First Amendment and add insult to injury for Catholics whose schools, hospitals and charities help make this nation great. Now the real fight begins.Read the rest here.
Religious leaders had feared the worst from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her Department of Health and Human Services, which since September has been considering whether to exempt Catholic and other religious employers from a regulation mandating insurance coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that cause abortion.
But on Friday afternoon, Sebelius announced the bad news in the most offensive way possible. Refusing even the smallest compromise with religious employers, she simply gave them an extra year to comply with the law.
“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Sebelius wrote in a brief statement from HHS. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”
Her attempt to appear compromising is absurd. What “balance” could Sebelius possibly mean? The HHS regulations include the narrowest exemption for religious employers ever proposed by the federal government, and even more restrictive than such exemptions in most states.
Being a Disciple of Christ
9 hours ago
13 comments:
Actually the headline should read "Obama Administration Picks Fight With Catholic Hiearchy".
The vast majority of Catholics have no problem with contraception obviously using it witness the birth rate.
Sadly, I have to agree with you anonymous. This is what 53% of Catholics voted for in the last election.
Kelly
capsela,
Would you argue the same thing if it concerned icons?
If I remember rightly, the hiearchy opposed icons at one time, the people obviously didn't.
Who had a better understanding of icons and the Incarnation?
Now, sexuality, contraception etc; is a different kettle of fish. But who is more aware of its meaning, both good and bad, in actual, concrete daily life, the hiearchy, ( which of course is well known for its love of children), or the people?
The issue is not how many people use birth control.
The issue is that, this is forcing Catholic institutions to violate their conscience by providing contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization, whether they like it or not.
This is extreme even for the average liberal.
Why is it that only contraception and abortion get a free break and not other medical services that people need?
This really shows where Obama's priority lies.
Savvy
This is great news. Maybe the Catholics will start waking up from their social democratic delusions.
Anti-Gnostic,
It seems it's waking up even the Catholic Democrats.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html?mod=djemITP_h
Obviously, you don't mean these guys;
http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/news/2012/01/patrick_whelan_md_phd_on_new_h.php
Notice the end statement;
"Ultimately, the HHS regulations put the decision of whether or not to use contraceptives at the discretion of each individual woman and her informed conscience, and this is the ultimate test of religious liberty and the protection of conscience."
Of course, given the Vatican's definition of "informed conscience" as complete obedience to the decisions of the Vatican, this paragraph is meaningless.
Anon@9:05 a.m.
Informed conscience does not mean blind obedience, but that a person's conscience needs to be formed in a way that is not entirely subjective and in accordance with the natural moral law.
Please look up the Catechism on this issue.
On the other hand, this is about literally forcing religious institutions to violate their principles, not telling them to rely on any kind of conscience.
So, Patrick is wrong here.
It could be said, that Liberal Catholics place an emphasis on things that are optional such as private devotions, but don't really care about the teachings that are not.
There are also other places that offer these services and since the law exempts Amish and Christian Scientists and Muslims are not forced to serve pork to their employees.
Why are Catholics only be targeted?
This is an attack, plain and simple.
Anon@5:20p.m.
All NFP teachers are married couples. The purchase of every contraceptive is also not automatically wrong such as those used to treat hormonal imbalances, or condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS.
It's the intention behind using contraceptives that determines something.
From what I understand, the law just requires insurance coverage as part of compensation. It certainly does not require that employees actually use contraception etc;. It's not the same as requiring a Moslem or Jewish intitution to serve pork.
Anonymous,
What the law requires is for the Catholic Church to pay for something it considers a sin. Your argument doesn't fly. It is exactly the same thing as requiring a Muslim or Jew to serve pork. After all no one is being forced to eat it... right?
Post a Comment