From Catholic Charities in Denver:
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver stands with Bishop Conley, Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their opposition to the February 10th“accommodation” proposed by the Obama administration regarding the recent Health and Human Services mandate.
We agree that the proposal “continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.” This mandate shows disrespect toward religious organizations and toward the Constitutional right of every American to religious liberty.
The Constitution of the United States ensures that the government may not force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental pillars of their faith. Nevertheless, the federal Department of Health and Human Services has mandated that all institutions that provide health insurance provide free, unfettered access to contraception – despite the religious objections of Catholic institutions and individual employers.
The federal mandate and the February 10th “accommodation” attack the rights of all Americans: people of all religions and people of no religion because the free exercise of religion is a fundamental, inviolable Constitutional right. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver, and the entire Catholic Church, is committed to serving the poor and those in need; we are committed to providing compassionate care for everyone, regardless of religion, gender, economic situation, or ethnic background. We spend $35 million annually on services to the communities of Colorado, from affordable housing to homeless shelters, and programs for our senior neighbors and our children. Public money funds many of these ministries, and the reason for this is that we are trusted because we provide excellent service. This relationship has been mutually beneficial, allowing people in our community to receive the highest quality of care without compromising the integrity of either the government or the Catholic Church.
The HHS mandate would make it morally compromising for us to provide health care and hinder our ability to serve our communities.
We hope that all Catholic institutions, including Catholic hospitals, universities, and social service agencies will join the Catholic Bishops in their urgent and vigorous defense of conscience and the freedom of religion.
Yes, in theory i see why some are getting wound up about this issue- but the reality shows why this will never get traction outside of the bishops (whose job it is to argue about thing slike this) and republican commentators (whose job it is to attack Obama). Why?
" to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions"
I don't think the almost 100% of Catholic women of reproductive age who currently use contraception are being coerced...so the whole discussion is rather academic .
Regarding public funding, the Catholic church is one of the richest institutions in the world- i dont know why conservatives, who are normally fiscally aware, are suddenly all a ok to be handing out tax payer money to institutions who have plenty of their own.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEx, I think you're, probably deliberately, missing the point. It's not whether or not some Catholics (I suspect the 98% number thrown around a lot substantially overstates the number) ignore Church teaching on contraceptives, it's whether or not the government has the right to force the Church, or anybody else for that matter, to fund things they find morally objectionable without a compelling reason.
I also think you're support is rather short sighted. What's happens when a Mullah Santorum-type gets elected President and decides to use Obamacare to enact his preferences. I suspect you won't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseheh, heh...Love this post. We get to endure all these bizarre posts that claim it is perfectly okay to violate people's rights as long as some other people choose not to exercise them.
Won't it be fun to watch a GOP President, BY EXECUTIVE FIAT, declare the Hyde Amendment to be in full force of law, and to aggressively, simultaneously, implement Obama's Executive Order banning tax dollars for abortions. AND, requiring that Planned Parenthood hang posters in their entryways of aborted fetuses. AND, requiring that Planned Parenthood provide health insurance that specifically requires counseling for abortion-alternatives "for free", and requires Planned Parenthood to give that counseling whether they like it or not. And if they don't do it, we get to fine them. (great way to get all those wasted tax dollars back!) In fact, how about an HHS regulation that dictates Planned Parenthood to specifically provide abortions for free and to forgo federal funding of any sort?
Gosh, this "screw the Constitution" stuff is fun. Think of how enjoyable it'll be when Obama loses to completely screw over Liberals' constitutional rights because, hey, I'm not a pregnant gay minority college student. It doesn't affect me, so anything goes!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" I don't think the almost 100% of Catholic women of reproductive age who currently use contraception are being coerced...so the whole discussion is rather academic ."
So your supposed point is that if SOME Catholics don't feel coerced to provide plans including contraception and abortifacients and/or also use contraception themselves against church teaching, that somehow means that NO catholics are being coerced to provide plans that include contraception and abortifacients and that various church run institutions aren't also being coerced?
Are you perhaps laboring under the assumption that church teachings are up for revision via a quick laity vote and that teachings that the laity don't always follow or disagree with will just sort of drop out and stop mattering?
I suppose that we can apply this unusual logic to other things. If some Wisconsin union members and democrats weren't angry at Governor Scott Walker that the Wisconsin unions have nothing to complain about and no union members can complain about Walker or oppose him in various political, legal, and public forums?
And if the police in some town start pulling people over and detaining them without cause it's okay if it can be established that SOME of those people didn't mind being detained with cause?
You are honestly suggesting that all is well with the Obamacare HHS requirement because some of the sloppy, lapsed, nominal, uninvolved, ignorant, or disobedient/rebellious catholics are either on Obama's side or just don't care? Really?
Good lord.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExpat: You'll likely hear from some who point out that the catholic church's assets are divided between separate legal entities, so not all dioceses have surplus assets. This is one of the things the catholic church has learned in 2000 years--claim universal power over all catholics (and all christians before the reformation) but divide worldly assets to be sure the holy see in Rome can maintain its wealth using "overreaching" secular laws. Wouldn't want the pope et al. to suffer any inconvenience from the pedophilia lawsuits against its foot soldiers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou think wrong, Catholic women would be coerced under this rule. Consider:
You are talking about women who call themselves Catholic -- meaning they voluntarily belong to an entity organized around certain principles. You would (probably?) admit they have a right to belong to such an entity.
You would (probably?) also agree that entity has the right to arrange its affairs according to its own principles. And women who call themselves Catholic would be aware of that -- if they didn't like it they would call themselves Methodist or Unitarian or anything else. Because they have a right to belong or not belong.
By meddling in the internal affairs of the organization these women belong to you are most certainly abridging their rights. To assert otherwise is incorrect and considering how extensively the issue has been parsed here, also dishonest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExpat: I expect someone to take issue with the richest institution in the world part of your comment, citing the organization of the catholic church in the US into separate nonprofit corporations that don't have access to the Vatican treasury.
The church has had 2000 years to organize itself to limit fiscal exposure in this manner. It enabled Rome to disclaim any monetary liability for the pedophilia claims against its US dioceses. That terrible, freedom-hating secular law does come in handy when it comes to protecting the wealth of the church.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom their 2011 report, one third of their income, or $7,000,000.00 comes from government grants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter all the experience the Catholic Church has had dealing with the likes of Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, et al, you would think that they would have nothing to do with government contracts. "It serves them right." When you get in bed with the Progressives don't expect to keep your innocence through the night.
As a private citizen, will the Church fight for me (pay my legal fees) when I decline to sign up for insurance that includes sterilization?
The Supremes, Lord-willing, will make the ACA moot. But the Catholic Church should know by now not to play with fire. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Take care of the sick. Visit the prisoners. That is all. Anything more is pernicious. Did the Campaign for Human Development ever recover from the ACORN funding scandal? I, for one, will never give another nickel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeanwhile, NARAL is blanketing the airwaves in Colorado with ads thanking Obama for "giving" women "free" access to healthcare. It's disgusting.
The Bishops should be calling on their flock to immediately change their W4 withholding to the max exemptions. The IRS can still force you to lower your exemptions, but I think that would take a long time to sort out millions of these, and it would be painful for the IRS. Employers would have a cow too. The only way to fight this kind of tyranny is with the only thing politicians care about: money.
Stay within the law, but give 'em hell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure. And maybe the citizens should withhold the $7,000,000.00 in public tax dollars that goes to this particular Catholic Charity alone (according to their published 2011 annual report) which represents 1/3 of their income. Another outrage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say that like I think it's good that the church is in bed with Big Government. I've been posting here for a loooong time about how left-wing the Catholic Church has become. The Catholic Church (to which I actively belong) would have fully supported Obamacare were it not for abortion. The church (from the pope on down) teaches that healthcare is a universal human right.
Far as I'm concerned, send the grant money back. I don't accept 3rd party government payment in my business because it opens up my business to death-by-bureaucrats.
Btw, if you have a home and refinanced it since 2008, then you are effectively on the dole too. Most mortgages since then have been underwritten by HARP (government loans). Therefore, using your principle of anyone who takes a dollar of gov't money gives up all their constitutional rights, then tens of millions of Americans (perhaps you) HAVE NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.
That means if I get elected President, I can take away your internet connection, your 401K, your house, your first amendment rights, whatever...on the grounds that you took gov't money, and in doing so you gave up all your rights. Way to go dude!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy rights are being violated? Nope, don't think so.
And until I see these guys being punished for trying to persuade American women not to use contraception (rather than being ignored), I won't agree that theirs are, either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd your naively silly decision to punitively withhold your own personal imprimatur from the Catholic opposition to the HHS requirements would matter to other people because...?
And why would trying to persuade someone not to use birth control deserve punishment and from who would such punishment come ? What form would it take and on what idiotic pseudo-legal basis would it be justifiable? Are you implying that telling someone that they ought not to use birth control for religious or conscientious or philosophical reasons is somehow illegal merely because you dislike it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do realize that forcing someone to pay for something they find abhorrent is a deprivation of their conscience and free exercise of religion rights, yes?
Unless you think that the Penal Laws were a great idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find the death penalty in its current form abhorrent. I found the war in Iraq abhorrent. I find torture abhorrent.
Can I stop paying taxes now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, to even remotely resemble the assault on First Amendment religious liberty, the government would have to require a privte left wing .org (eg Amnesty International) to pay for military action in Iraq, and not only use our dues to finance it, but also post fliers in Amnesty Intl HQ directing employees to their "free" national security services...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCareful, I might decide to laugh at you when you whine about your rights being violated in some other area that doesn't affect me. Rights are not defined by whether or not you choose to exercise them. But if that's your criteria, then it is equally morally correct for the government to censor your political observations on the grounds that the main stream media has not been "punished" for one-sided news reporting. Somehow I think you would react differently were the tables turned.
But otherwise, I get your point: as long as your rights aren't being violated, it is perfectly ok to violate other people's individual rights.
It's not a long trip from a government that requires people to pay for other's abortions to a government that can force people to have abortions. It is, after all, "safer" than childbirth...so the groundwork is already being laid. Nancy Pelosi endorses eugenics, and China did it for years.
Totalitarianism has always had accomplices.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI totally agree. While some people may feel their "rights" are being violated, to claim that "all American's rights" are being violated is pure hyperbole and political double speak.
Furthermore, I don't see their "right" to practice their religious beliefs are being violated. No one is making them use contraceptives, no one is making them use any of the services at all. It's like claiming you're made to drink alcohol when no one is forcing you to go in a bar. Don't want to use the contraceptives? Then don't! I may not believe in war but I don't get to decide whether or not I want my taxes to go to defense.
The whole subject is like "the war on Christmas" - a fabricated issue created to divide people along cultural and class lines.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut you are not using my tax dollars to pay for "free" abortion services. You are using the money I donate to the church for charitable activities, and you are forcing the church, and me, to use that money for things I object to on religious grounds or face a legal penalty. Your president is a bald faced liar...not only are taxpayer dollars going to be used to pay for Nancy Pelosi's population control program, but religious charitable contributions too! Yay for the party of death.
Obama's actions do not violate "your" rights today. But what about tomorrow if you find religion and realize that your Hobbesian worldview is deeply flawed? Just because you currently choose not to exercise those rights doesn't mean you lack them. That's like saying a ban on handguns doesn't violate your Constitutional rights if you don't already own a gun.
As for your silly National Defense argument, that particular duty of government is actually written into the Constitution. Last I checked, forcing people to use their charitable contributions to buy the pill and give abortions was not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse