Posted on 06/29/2012 3:15:28 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
The bishops released a statement a short time ago:
Today the United States Supreme Court issued a decision upholding as a tax the provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires individuals to purchase a health plan—the so-called “individual mandate.”For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have been and continue to be consistent advocates for comprehensive health care reform to ensure access to life-affirming health care for all, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable. Although the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) did not participate in these cases and took no position on the specific questions presented to the Court, USCCB’s position on health care reform generally and on ACA particularly is a matter of public record. The bishops ultimately opposed final passage of ACA for several reasons.
First, ACA allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions, contradicting longstanding federal policy.The risk we identified in this area has already materialized, particularly in the initial approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of “high risk” insurance pools that would have covered abortion.
Second, the Act fails to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context.We have provided extensive analyses of ACA’s defects with respect to both abortion and conscience.The lack of statutory conscience protections applicable to ACA’s new mandates has been illustrated in dramatic fashion by HHS’s “preventive services” mandate, which forces religious and other employers to cover sterilization and contraception, including abortifacient drugs.
Third, ACA fails to treat immigrant workers and their families fairly.ACA leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money.This undermines the Act’s stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need.
Following enactment of ACA, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has not joined in efforts to repeal the law in its entirety, and we do not do so today. The decision of the Supreme Court neither diminishes the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all, nor eliminates the need to correct the fundamental flaws described above.We therefore continue to urge Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, legislation to fix those flaws.
See my previous post, 122.
That in recent times the Evangelical Protestant vote is far more conservative than the Catholic, I agree.
But you understand my point, don’t you: it is Protestantism’s defection from the pro-life cause earlier in the 20c, by ceding the issues of contraception, then remarriage after divorce, and now, gradually, abortion, that put the Church in the unfortunate position to fight these battles in isolation against the prevailing Left.
Further, the very idea that right and wrong is determined by the ballot box, and not by existing moral authority of the Church, is itself Protestant. You guys created liberalism by your so-called reformation and now you see the evil of it. About time.
are the Bishops poorly represented legally?Do the Bishops put’other’ issues ahead of abortion and euthanasia?Have the Bishops been linked to the Democratic Party for too long?
Yes on all; whether they are working on a deal with Obama I don't know, but that deal better have a solid conscious objector protection for any Catholic, and not just for some institutions.
My point in all this is that first, the Evangelical Protestants are welcome with their conservatism, but in a majority-Protestant country they did a horrible job in 20c. seeing the moral disintegration that occurred. Second, it is not the bishops' job to formulate civil laws. If the US electorate wants to have a socialized medicine, it is not the job of the bishops to teach against that. Their job is to protect against laws that violate human conscience, not against stupid laws.
My wife and I have included the defeat of Obama in our daily rosary for many months.
Our prayer is for the preservation of American freedom and freedom of religion in particular. Obama is a symptom, not the cause of our peril. It is obvious, I think that Romney, should he win, will be only a marginal improvement over Obama, and least of all an improvement on social issues, where it really matters. This is why it is important to defeat not just Obama, but the left-wing mentality in our neighbor.
No what happened was importing European liberals who vote liberal and have European attitudes and sensitivities and loyalties.
The Catholics vote has Always been liberal, they vote for abortion, big government, liberal causes of all types, Europe did not used to be a place of freedom and conservatism but America did.
Catholics are more pro-abortion than Protestants and they vote accordingly, but it goes much farther than that, as this exposure of Catholic efforts of 100 years to socialize medicine shows.
Catholics move America left, and have since they started arriving in large numbers 160 years ago.
You can see an example of their corrosive liberal effect on America in post 124.
Receiving more Catholics from immigration will only feed our moral decay.
If conservatives care, then we have to unite to fix this Catholic leftist influence.
Protestants only voted democrat three times in history, 1932, 1936, and 1964.
Protestants were not even voting for Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, Catholics were always not only voting democrat but they were pushing for unions, socialism, and were strongly involved in radical leftism as this thread topic proves, and as the Catholic voices on this thread keep defending and supporting over and over, and this is at FREEREPUBLIC!!
Polls show this, that even "conservative" Catholics tend to lean liberal when compared to real conservatives and the proof is this thread at a conservative site.
The Catholic vote has been Democrat, yes, and now it is less Democrat than ever. The trend is good for American Catholics, their votes in late 2000’s notwithstanding. The association of Catholics with working class ethnics, and the association of working class with the Democrats are both things rapidly fading away.
I agree that the Catholic Church needs better leadership.
The point remains that liberalism is a product of the Reformation. America of the Founding Fathers, most Protestant of all nations in late 18c., was also most liberal of all Europe of that time, excluding only the Jacobine France, that only survived for a couple of decades anyway.
The war on Catholicism that some Protestants want to fight has been raging in Europe for over two centuries. The result was secularization of France and later all Europe, two world wars, the Cold War, and hundreds of millions killed by various forms of the murderous secular Left, mostly in Europe. To think that the Catholics gave you the left wing is, forgive my bluntness, ignorant of history.
Yes, Catholic voter in America was left wing prior to late 20c — early 21c. and that has to do with the immigrant sentiment prevailing among them then.
If Protestants are so conservative in this majority Protestant country, where was conservative Protestant governance in the same period?
Obama getting 54% of their vote isn't so different from past elections. There have been many, many times when Catholics did not give 80% of their vote to the democrats.
No one expects the Catholic vote to become republican, within a few years it will return to purely democrat.
There is no war against Catholics, but as we learn from the article, Rome over in Europe, is at war with conservatism in America and wants to make it European socialist.
As Americans, and as conservatives we need to fight that.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
"Catholics are socialists" is not making it personal. "You are a socialist" is making it personal.
"The Inmans hate that" is not making it personal. "You hate that" is making it personal.
Catholics are socialists, I am a Catholic, I am a Freeper, I am a socialist (apparently).
Protestants are heretics, I am not a Protestant, I am a Freeper, I am not a heretic.
What we're doing here is playing games with the English language and reason, I think we should admit it at long last. Allow me to illustrate:
Americans are ignorant hicks.
Who here would not take that personally? I wrote it and even I take it personally. It's an offensive and bigoted thing to say and if I actually meant it I would expect people to take it personally.
The game, as I see it, that's being played, is the pretense of overlooking the silent "you". "You" Catholics, "You" Protestants, "You" Americans, "You" used car dealers. "You" Freepers who happen to be included in any particular group of people.
We are walking virtually into each others living rooms by way of the intertubes and making blanket statements that we then expect magically not to be taken personally by the persons to whom we are communicating. It defies reason because it requires people not to react as they would if the statement was made to their faces.
Imagine this exchange:
Catholics are communists
"Oh really? People who make that claim are festering morons."
SOMEONE just got called a festering moron after someone else was called a commie. Someone should take that personally.
What makes the whole thing absurd is that writing "You really helped me to understand your position" is ok but "You really make me want to drive a fork into my eye" isn't.
Oh well, thank God I don't make the rules or I'd have you all doing laps.
“Hispanics” includes a lot of different ethnic groups. The great majority are Mexcians. The longest in residents are those who families were here in 1848. But they are a small minority, as upper California was not settled until the 1770s. New Mexicans can be traced to the 1590s, Tejanos in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas have been there since the early 1700s. Until recently, most Mexicans in the United States came from the Mexican states bordering the northern border. In Texas the real ethnic border was the Nueces River. That is until the railroad penetrated to the Valley, and midwestern famers came in and plundered the lands that had belonged to rancheros forever. In the 1920, San Benito in the Valley was a major KKK center, since the biggest Klan center was Indiana.
Well, about 40% of those over 18. And it would be interesting to know what % of priests and nuns voted for him. Probably larger than than the percent of regular churchgoers. At least if one is talking about the older ones.
During wwII, 40% of those in combat Arms were Catholics.
Give me the link so that I can look at the numbers.
Wow, that was not relevant to anything I have posted.
Mexicans are Mexicans, not Americans, if you mean Hispanics or Mexican-Americans I understand, but not calling them “Mexicans”, that is inaccurate.
Obama received 54% of the Catholic vote, and 52% of the Protestant Hispanic vote.
No, no. YOU lrebut it. . For anyone my age, this is common knowledge. Don’t call me a liar. Southerners, and midwestern farm boys, and northern urban Catholics were the gunfodder because they don’t have college degrees.
It requires thick skin.
A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.
I can and do intervene to keep posters from "making it personal" but there is nothing I can do to keep posters from "taking it personally."
If the "open" RF debate offends you, then you should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
No debate of any kind is allowed on RF threads labeled "prayer" or "devotional" and no antagonism is allowed on RF threads labeled "ecumenical." Only members of a caucus are allowed to post on RF threads labeled "caucus", e.g. "Catholic Caucus."
Go ahead and post your source for that strange claim.
Socialism.
Strange? A simple reflection of the demographics of the 1940s. 16 million people in uniform; conscription made its men a cross-section of the nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.