Skip to comments.Contraception mandate tramples religious freedom, US bishops say
Posted on 08/01/2011 8:21:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Frogjerk
Washington D.C., Aug 1, 2011 / 05:45 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. bishops spoke out on August 1 against federal rules requiring nearly all new health plans, including those of most religious agencies, to cover all government-approved methods of contraception as well as surgical sterilization.
Under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics, said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops' pro-life committee.
Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a religious exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social service agencies and healthcare providers, the cardinal noted.
The guidelines, announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on August 1, offer the exemption only if a religious employer has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets, and primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
Cardinal DiNardo wondered whether the federal government may actually intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public, by forcing the institutions to choose between following Catholic principles on the one hand, and serving non-Catholics on the other.
In a July 22 letter to Congress, the cardinal stated that those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families or their employees.
To force such an unacceptable choice, he wrote,would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Either that or is is merely a pro forma declaration. The bishops haven't exactly been fervent in upholding Humanae Vitae from the pulpit.
Help yourself to an Understatement Award, Mr. Chandler.
Mrs. Don-o, is it possible the bishop you mentioned earlier is actually just fine with contraception, sterilization, and other-than-surgical abortion? A lot of people are just anti-babies, when it comes down to it. Don't want anyone "punished" for their "mistakes," after all ...
You think every Catholic institution should hire only Catholics? A hospital should refuse to hire the very best surgeon cause he’s Presbyterian or a charity the best accountant cause he’s Jewish?
If it’s a religious institution, I think it’s worth considering. Otherwise, as we’ve found, you end up with people within the institution who are not just neutral, but actively opposed to the religious values of the organization. Some are willing to destroy the institution in order to get their birth control pills paid for or insurance for their homosexual lover. Some teach students in Catholic schools to reject the teaching of the church, and sue if they’re asked to leave.
Others bring their pro-death agenda to work in a hospital and perform abortions, sterilizations, and euthanasia contrary to Christian morality.
If not by having employees who believe in the Faith, how would you suggest avoiding these problems?
Nominal Catholics are often worse than professed non-Catholics, so I’m not sure that such a policy would really solve anything.
>>> Either that or is is merely a pro forma declaration. The bishops haven’t exactly been fervent in upholding Humanae Vitae from the pulpit.” <<<<
I hear you. Either our shepherds will wake up with a start, or perhaps, just perhaps, they will see the Remnant being formed before their very eyes. We must pray and have great pity if they have been blinded, and pray for ourselves also, that we who are sinners among the sheep shall be graced to stand. God be with us all. Mary, pray for us, and our beloved families. Lord, have Mercy.
The policy would have to include eliminating employees who teach, speak, or act contrary to the Faith they’ve professed. (My original post specified “without dissent.”) People who say they believe something, but don’t, are dishonest, and should not be in positions where they can harm others.
I’m not saying this is a great answer. However, I do not see how one can have a functioning religious institution - grade school, college, hospital, charity - under the current conditions.
How much staff would the USCCB have?
And how many bishop members?
A lot less than they currently have, which would probably be good.
And how many bishop members?
We'll find out when the laws insisting on reporting what's heard in confession are passed.
I forgot to use the relevant tagline.
Fertility is not a disease. Insurance companies should not have to cover this because someone chooses to alter their natural state of being. Insurance doesn’t cover cosmetic surgery either because it is not a medical necessity. Why should contraception be any different?
I still like my earlier one ;-).
The bishops have brought this on themselves. They (as a group) have been in de facto schism on this issue for 40 years. In the end, the vast majority of them will find a way to justify going along with the government.
The USCCB’s official position is that Canon 915 does not mean what it says.
Well, that’s good to hear. At least I got some good news today.
What is their position on it? I have to admit that I’m not always up to speed on this stuff.