So Obama care will force Catholic churches who employ people

[The Rabbi]

Really, that comment is pathetic and irrelevant.

The accusation is - yet again - that the Catholic Church has some major problem with pedophiles within its priesthood. That clearly is not true. The statistic of 0.03% comes from a legitimate, academic, non-Catholic source and is accepted by anyone with a brain as accurate.

The Catholic Church has spent literally billions of dollars paying out settlements for pedophilia in the US and Europe. The Church hierarchy has a demonstrated history of averting their eyes to the problem and reshuffling priests to different parishes. The percentage here is irrelevant. The corruption is deep and systemic.
That isn't reason to support the administration's moves here. But one cannot dismiss such abuse.

It prefers to settle rather than fight to clear the names of its priests. I disagree with their approach but the research into this shows that vast numbers of those claims were false.

I'll agree - in the past - the Church has tried to 'protect' its reputation... and I think they were wrong... that's not 'corruption', it's just the way the Church reacted - badly. However, they no longer do that. Like any organization, it is flawed.... but on this whole 'pedophile' bullshit... the numbers don't add up to support the idiocy about the Church.

Imagine the social programs that could be funded with all the money paid out.
It settled because it failed to take reasonable steps when the issues came to light. That is a severe moral failing for any institution.
The numbers that count is the amount of money involved. How many parishes have gone bankrupt over this? All of it avoidable had they done the right thing.
I dont mean to pile on here. I respect anybody who professes a faith. But dismissing it as insignificant is wrong. It has probably turned off many people to Catholicism as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Catholics have traditionally been for the 'poor' and thus solidly for Democrat vote. I don't know the reaction this will have, if any.

While forcing employers to take coverages for employees they find morally repugnant, how long before they decide to force the Catholic hospitals to provide the procedures? This has come up before and the Church has always held that they'd close the hospitals rather than provide the procedures, with the given exceptions of the life of the mother.

Slippery slope for the Church.

My understanding is that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's. This is rational given Catholic belief (Jewish belief is different btw).
It would be a sad day if the gov't pushed the issue to this point.

 

[Annie]

Catholics have traditionally been for the 'poor' and thus solidly for Democrat vote. I don't know the reaction this will have, if any.

While forcing employers to take coverages for employees they find morally repugnant, how long before they decide to force the Catholic hospitals to provide the procedures? This has come up before and the Church has always held that they'd close the hospitals rather than provide the procedures, with the given exceptions of the life of the mother.

Slippery slope for the Church.

My understanding is that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's. This is rational given Catholic belief (Jewish belief is different btw).
It would be a sad day if the gov't pushed the issue to this point.

Not my understanding from what I was taught in Catholic schools. When the life of the mother is in jeopardy, it's up to her to decide between the baby and herself. In many cases, the mother has other children to care for. In others it's because she wants the chance to fulfill God's plan for her.

I'm not saying I have the answers, just what I was taught.

 

[francoHFW]

as if a whole lot of CATHOLIC women won't be very happy to have birth control paid for. Fuque RW Catholics and all other a-holes against choice...And they gave them a waiver for a year...HAHA.

 

[Annie]

as if a whole lot of CATHOLIC women won't be very happy to have birth control paid for. Fuque RW Catholics and all other a-holes against choice...And they gave them a waiver for a year...HAHA.

The 'pill'? Certainly, well documented. The 'morning after' or abortion? Nope. Also well documented. D & C's have been accepted by many Catholic hospitals and physicians in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. Christianity and abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ed Spacer]

Say what now?

There is no such thing as Separation of church and state... the Constitution forbids the 'establishment" of a state sanctioned religion. Two different concepts.

It also forbids congress from passing laws either for or against religion.
So forcing Catholic institutions to pay for things that go against their religous tenets would be unconstitutional. Would it not?

Completely unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe this will be overturned at every court level as it is a clear violation of the "court created" seperation of church and state.

On what grounds?

No religious expression is being preempted, the Church isn’t paying for birth control pills, it’s paying for health coverage for employees – and what treatment the employee/patient receives is a private matter between the doctor and employee/patient; it’s idiocy to disallow certain types of necessary treatment because of an employer’s religious affiliation.

It also forbids congress from passing laws either for or against religion.
So forcing Catholic institutions to pay for things that go against their religous tenets would be unconstitutional. Would it not?

It would not. The hospitals and universities function as secular employers, and are subject to the law accordingly, including providing appropriate, comprehensive coverage for their employees.

As I said... piss off the Church.... see how the Catholic voters like that. That's a lot of votes to put up for grab.

Unlikely, only social conservatives who are Catholic will pay any attention, and none would be voting for Obama anyway.

Besides, you’d have no respect for an administration that abandoned its principles to garner votes.

 

[Annie]

Question for those in favor of the enforcement. If I'm correct and the outcome of this enforcement would be to require Catholic/religious hospitals/doctors to provide care per insurance, are you cool with the possible shut down of these hospitals?

How many are in 'poor areas'? Hint, more than the public ones.

We'll see what the Church rules, seriously I've not a clue. They may well cave, but if they choose to close them, it's the poor that will pay the price of Obama's principles.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Calif NitWit

...the number of priests accused of pedophilia is 0.03%...

Who cares?

Its the number of children whose lives they destroyed that matters.

...the Church has tried to 'protect' its reputation... and I think they were wrong... that's not 'corruption', it's just the way the Church reacted - badly. However, they no longer do that. Like any organization, it is flawed.... but on this whole 'pedophile' bullshit... the numbers don't add up to support the idiocy about the Church...

"badly"? Shipping pedophile priests to different parishes where they could prey on new victims is called "reacting badly"??

Exactly how many ruined lives would make the "numbers add up" for you?

Sick. Just plain sick.

How DARE you make excuses for those vermin.

Actually, accused priests were moved into roles where they had no contact with children, therefore your accusation about new victims is bullshit.

You're getting very hysterical about it. Calm down. The Church has and continues to deal with this issue directly with those affected. It does not concern you.

Interesting that you ignore the thousands of teachers - in this country alone - that are accused... and the way the US government has paid people off - but you're all butthurt about the Catholics. You demonstrate a lack of logic and show no ability to reason. In short, you're a fool.

I think you're trying to belittle how serious the molestations were. I've been a life-long Catholic and went to Catholic school for a few years instead of a public elementary school. There was one father there who would always play with the boys, and was very involved with the students, and we all looked up to him, and trusted him, and he was a lot of kid's role model. When I was in high school it came out that he was sexually molesting some of the boys at school. I don't know if you have any personal experience with fathers who turn out to be molesters or not-but to simply say that they moved them to positions where they don't interact with children-and that that's somehow OK is absurd.

That pedophile, low-life predator was protected by the church and is still a "father" to this day. I've never wavered from the church-but yes I do think it's absolutely ridiculous when people shrug it off, or try to make it not a bad deal. The man should be in jail (or should have been put in jail)-and thrown out of the church.

 

[California Girl]

The Catholic Church has spent literally billions of dollars paying out settlements for pedophilia in the US and Europe. The Church hierarchy has a demonstrated history of averting their eyes to the problem and reshuffling priests to different parishes. The percentage here is irrelevant. The corruption is deep and systemic.
That isn't reason to support the administration's moves here. But one cannot dismiss such abuse.

It prefers to settle rather than fight to clear the names of its priests. I disagree with their approach but the research into this shows that vast numbers of those claims were false.

I'll agree - in the past - the Church has tried to 'protect' its reputation... and I think they were wrong... that's not 'corruption', it's just the way the Church reacted - badly. However, they no longer do that. Like any organization, it is flawed.... but on this whole 'pedophile' bullshit... the numbers don't add up to support the idiocy about the Church.

Imagine the social programs that could be funded with all the money paid out.
It settled because it failed to take reasonable steps when the issues came to light. That is a severe moral failing for any institution.
The numbers that count is the amount of money involved. How many parishes have gone bankrupt over this? All of it avoidable had they done the right thing.
I dont mean to pile on here. I respect anybody who professes a faith. But dismissing it as insignificant is wrong. It has probably turned off many people to Catholicism as well.

The Church is already funding - out of its own resources - huge social programs in the US, and around the world. In the US, it is the second largest (other than the actual government) provider of social programs. America should be grateful to the Catholic Church - if it wasn't for us, y'all would be paying a lot more in taxes to fund those programs.

I don't dismiss it. I put in proportion. People bitch about the Catholic Church, and remain silent on the vast numbers of other professions that are far more likely to attract pedophiles. Simple.

 

[California Girl]

Calif NitWit

Who cares?

Its the number of children whose lives they destroyed that matters.



"badly"? Shipping pedophile priests to different parishes where they could prey on new victims is called "reacting badly"??

Exactly how many ruined lives would make the "numbers add up" for you?

Sick. Just plain sick.

How DARE you make excuses for those vermin.

Actually, accused priests were moved into roles where they had no contact with children, therefore your accusation about new victims is bullshit.

You're getting very hysterical about it. Calm down. The Church has and continues to deal with this issue directly with those affected. It does not concern you.

Interesting that you ignore the thousands of teachers - in this country alone - that are accused... and the way the US government has paid people off - but you're all butthurt about the Catholics. You demonstrate a lack of logic and show no ability to reason. In short, you're a fool.

I think you're trying to belittle how serious the molestations were. I've been a life-long Catholic and went to Catholic school for a few years instead of a public elementary school. There was one father there who would always play with the boys, and was very involved with the students, and we all looked up to him, and trusted him, and he was a lot of kid's role model. When I was in high school it came out that he was sexually molesting some of the boys at school. I don't know if you have any personal experience with fathers who turn out to be molesters or not-but to simply say that they moved them to positions where they don't interact with children-and that that's somehow OK is absurd.

That pedophile, low-life predator was protected by the church and is still a "father" to this day. I've never wavered from the church-but yes I do think it's absolutely ridiculous when people shrug it off, or try to make it not a bad deal. The man should be in jail (or should have been put in jail)-and thrown out of the church.

I'm not 'belittling' it, I'm putting it in proportion. I grew up a Catholic, so did my brothers... all of us hung out with our priest.... he ran a baseball team. Were any of us abused? No. Has he ever been accused of molesting kids? No.

Fact remains: 400,000 priests - 0.03% have ever been accused. That's considerably less than many other professions that have access to children. And yet, we are the ones who are hammered. I find that to be disingenuous.

 

[California Girl]

Question for those in favor of the enforcement. If I'm correct and the outcome of this enforcement would be to require Catholic/religious hospitals/doctors to provide care per insurance, are you cool with the possible shut down of these hospitals?

How many are in 'poor areas'? Hint, more than the public ones.

We'll see what the Church rules, seriously I've not a clue. They may well cave, but if they choose to close them, it's the poor that will pay the price of Obama's principles.

The Church is unlikely to 'cave'. Same thing happened with adoption in Britain. The law changed to force all adoption agencies to allow gay adoptions. That's against the Church's doctrine. They shut their adoption services throughout Britain.

They will do exactly the same here.

 

[The Rabbi]

It prefers to settle rather than fight to clear the names of its priests. I disagree with their approach but the research into this shows that vast numbers of those claims were false.

I'll agree - in the past - the Church has tried to 'protect' its reputation... and I think they were wrong... that's not 'corruption', it's just the way the Church reacted - badly. However, they no longer do that. Like any organization, it is flawed.... but on this whole 'pedophile' bullshit... the numbers don't add up to support the idiocy about the Church.

Imagine the social programs that could be funded with all the money paid out.
It settled because it failed to take reasonable steps when the issues came to light. That is a severe moral failing for any institution.
The numbers that count is the amount of money involved. How many parishes have gone bankrupt over this? All of it avoidable had they done the right thing.
I dont mean to pile on here. I respect anybody who professes a faith. But dismissing it as insignificant is wrong. It has probably turned off many people to Catholicism as well.

The Church is already funding - out of its own resources - huge social programs in the US, and around the world. In the US, it is the second largest (other than the actual government) provider of social programs. America should be grateful to the Catholic Church - if it wasn't for us, y'all would be paying a lot more in taxes to fund those programs.

I don't dismiss it. I put in proportion. People bitch about the Catholic Church, and remain silent on the vast numbers of other professions that are far more likely to attract pedophiles. Simple.

I didt ask whether they were or not. I commented on how much they could do with an extra billion dollars. That's big money, even for the church.
The issue is not that the Catholic Church has pedophiles. Many orgs do. The issue is that they covered it up, obfuscated, and did everything except what they should have done.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

pay for this even though the morning after pill and other birth control is on this plan. Why is the catholic church allow to get waivers but so many others can. This is against their religion. And why is the morning after pill on this. That is the same as covering an abortion so the people on public assistance we are paying for this with our tax dollars /

Once, again.....to avoid making your screed sound like more "conservative"-bullshit.....

.....where do you find that?????

​

 

[Annie]

Back to the insurance requirements set by the government:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/o...and-its-rivals.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share

Government and Its Rivals
By ROSS DOUTHAT

WHEN liberals are in a philosophical mood, they like to cast debates over the role of government not as a clash between the individual and the state, but as a conflict between the individual and the community. Liberals are for cooperation and joint effort; conservatives are for self-interest and selfishness. Liberals build the Hoover Dam and the interstate highways; conservatives sit home and dog-ear copies of “The Fountainhead.” Liberals know that it takes a village; conservatives pretend that all it takes is John Wayne.

In this worldview, the government is just the natural expression of our national community, and the place where we all join hands to pursue the common good. Or to borrow a line attributed to Representative Barney Frank, “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”

Many conservatives would go this far with Frank: Government is one way we choose to work together, and there are certain things we need to do collectively that only government can do.

But there are trade-offs as well, which liberal communitarians don’t always like to acknowledge. When government expands, it’s often at the expense of alternative expressions of community, alternative groups that seek to serve the common good. Unlike most communal organizations, the government has coercive power — the power to regulate, to mandate and to tax. These advantages make it all too easy for the state to gradually crowd out its rivals. The more things we “do together” as a government, in many cases, the fewer things we’re allowed to do together in other spheres. ...

This is exactly the choice that the White House has decided to offer a host of religious institutions — hospitals, schools and charities — in the era of Obamacare. The new health care law requires that all employer-provided insurance plans cover contraception, sterilization and the morning-after (or week-after) pill known as ella, which can work as an abortifacient. A number of religious groups, led by the American Catholic bishops, had requested an exemption for plans purchased by their institutions. Instead, the White House has settled on an exemption that only covers religious institutions that primarily serve members of their own faith. A parish would be exempt from the mandate, in other words, but a Catholic hospital would not.

Ponder that for a moment. In effect, the Department of Health and Human Services is telling religious groups that if they don’t want to pay for practices they consider immoral, they should stick to serving their own co-religionists rather than the wider public. Sectarian self-segregation is O.K., but good Samaritanism is not. The rule suggests a preposterous scenario in which a Catholic hospital avoids paying for sterilizations and the morning-after pill by closing its doors to atheists and Muslims, and hanging out a sign saying “no Protestants need apply.”

The regulations are a particularly cruel betrayal of Catholic Democrats, many of whom had defended the health care law as an admirable fulfillment of Catholicism’s emphasis on social justice. Now they find that their government’s communitarianism leaves no room for their church’s communitarianism, and threatens to regulate it out of existence.

Critics of the administration’s policy are framing this as a religious liberty issue, and rightly so. But what’s at stake here is bigger even than religious freedom. The Obama White House’s decision is a threat to any kind of voluntary community that doesn’t share the moral sensibilities of whichever party controls the health care bureaucracy.

The Catholic Church’s position on contraception is not widely appreciated, to put it mildly, and many liberals are inclined to see the White House’s decision as a blow for the progressive cause. They should think again. Once claimed, such powers tend to be used in ways that nobody quite anticipated, and the logic behind these regulations could be applied in equally punitive ways by administrations with very different values from this one.

The more the federal government becomes an instrument of culture war, the greater the incentive for both conservatives and liberals to expand its powers and turn them to ideological ends. It is Catholics hospitals today; it will be someone else tomorrow.

The White House attack on conscience is a vindication of health care reform’s critics, who saw exactly this kind of overreach coming. But it’s also an intimation of a darker American future, in which our voluntary communities wither away and government becomes the only word we have for the things we do together.

 

[California Girl]

Imagine the social programs that could be funded with all the money paid out.
It settled because it failed to take reasonable steps when the issues came to light. That is a severe moral failing for any institution.
The numbers that count is the amount of money involved. How many parishes have gone bankrupt over this? All of it avoidable had they done the right thing.
I dont mean to pile on here. I respect anybody who professes a faith. But dismissing it as insignificant is wrong. It has probably turned off many people to Catholicism as well.

The Church is already funding - out of its own resources - huge social programs in the US, and around the world. In the US, it is the second largest (other than the actual government) provider of social programs. America should be grateful to the Catholic Church - if it wasn't for us, y'all would be paying a lot more in taxes to fund those programs.

I don't dismiss it. I put in proportion. People bitch about the Catholic Church, and remain silent on the vast numbers of other professions that are far more likely to attract pedophiles. Simple.

I didt ask whether they were or not. I commented on how much they could do with an extra billion dollars. That's big money, even for the church.
The issue is not that the Catholic Church has pedophiles. Many orgs do. The issue is that they covered it up, obfuscated, and did everything except what they should have done.

I don't disagree about the cover up. I have - more than once - criticized the way the Church handled the issue. I'm comfortable that the Church has now taken a very different approach.

Again, as the second largest provider of social programs in the United States, if the Catholic Church decides to pull out of those services, which it has done in other countries rather than compromise on its core beliefs (and rightly so in my opinion), the impact on those who need help the most are those who will pay the price of the Government's stupid 'do as we say' attitude.

The longer this goes on, and the more Catholics hear about the details and understand what's at stake, the less Catholics will support Obama in November. Which, frankly, works for me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Or else people who had been receiving services will curse the church as being political (and racist of course) for opposing Obama's policies.
That isnt the truth. That is just how it might be spun.
Hard call to make. I think you never do well by compromising on basic principles.

 

[Greenbeard]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth:

But while some insist that the rules, which spring from last year's health law, break new ground, many states as well as federal civil rights law already require most religious employers to cover prescription contraceptives if they provide coverage of other prescription drugs.

While some religious employers take advantage of loopholes or religious exemptions, the fact remains that dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities currently offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance packages.

"We've always had contraceptive birth control included in our health care benefits," said Michelle Michaud, a labor and delivery nurse at Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, Calif. "It's something that we've come to expect for ourselves and our family."

Dominican is part of the Catholic Healthcare West System. A spokeswoman for the 40-hospital chain confirmed that it has offered the benefits since 1997.

Michaud, who was raised Catholic but doesn't practice now, says she doesn't see any problem for a Catholic hospital to provide a benefit that conflicts with the religion's teachings.

"Oh no, because they don't just employ Catholics," she said. "They may be Catholic, but who they employ are not necessarily Catholic." At the same time, said Michaud, "even practicing Catholics would want to have birth control options."

Indeed, studies have shown that the vast majority of Catholic women in the U.S. use artificial birth control.

But while Catholic Healthcare West began offering coverage before it was legally required, today the landscape is quite different. According to the National Women's Law Center, 28 states currently require contraceptives to be offered in health plans that also cover other prescription drugs; eight of those laws include no exemption for religious organizations.

Now some religious employers have been able to skirt state requirements by becoming "self-insured," rather than buying insurance from a company. That makes them subject to federal, rather than state regulation. But they are wrong if they think that gets them out of having to offer contraceptive coverage, says Sarah Lipton-Lubet of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Institutions like hospitals and universities ... you're required to include contraception coverage in your insurance plan where you include coverage for other prescription drugs, as a matter of basic gender equality," she says.

That's the result of a ruling in 2000 by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It found that employers whose health plans offer prescription drugs and other preventive services but not contraceptives violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 1978 civil rights law that amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is why mass graves follow the establishment of every Progressive Utopia as surely as the Sun rises in the East

 

[rightwinger]

Where in Obamacare do they force you to take any plan?