Plea to Catholics of a Liberal Persuasion - Page 3

saraih · #31 Feb 11, '12, 7:52 pm

Condoms are available for sale in my local grocery shops. That is not the government interfering in my bedroom. Sex education is available to my children. This is not the government forcing my children to have sex. The world is not Catholic - that alone is not oppression of Catholics.

Catholics need to be Catholic. We need to find ways to encourage this without needing special exceptions for everything.

familyof4 · #32 Feb 11, '12, 7:53 pm

I used to be liberal, probably would be classified as moderate these days (which means I annoy liberals and conservatives, I guess).

I decided a while back that I would put my faith first, and politics second. That means sometimes that I will not vote for either of the two presumptive winners because I don't think that I can support them from a moral standpoint.

So, to refer back to the OP-- my time reading and thinking as I have made my journey home to the RCC has tempered my politics, so keep praying, I think it works!

CMatt25 · #33 Feb 11, '12, 8:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

It doesn't impact religious freedom at all. The Administration took the employers completely out of the situation so that the employees who want the "objectionable" coverage go *directly* to the insurance companies and get a rider added on to their employer-provided policy. The employers are not offering the extra coverage. It's no different than it is now when you want to add a rider, except that the insurance companies are required to give it for free. It has nothing to do with the employers. It's between the employee and the insurance company directly. The Administration couldn't be more flexible and accomodating, and couldn't make it any easier on religious employers.

Mike2010 · #34 Feb 11, '12, 8:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by iloveangels

Exactly. If this mandate sticks, the same thing would happen to us that happened to the Jews early on in the Third Reich. Jewish doctors and dentists in Germany could only treat Jews. They could be fined and even arrested for treating someone who was not Jewish. The use of fines is exactly the same penalty as the HHS mandate has, BTW. As time when on in Germany, the penalties got more and more dramatic, until they were sending Jewish doctors and dentists to the concentration camps on what were often trumped up charges.

Your point about Jehovah's witnesses, and so on, is a good one. We are being backed up by a huge number of protestant churches and Jewish congregations. The pastor of the largest Protestant congregation in the USA, Pastor Warren of Saddleback, has said that he will go to jail before he complies with this mandate. We also have the support of the Evangelical Association of the USA, the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of the USA and also the Othodox dioceses of the USA- All 65 of them!!!

All religions have something they regard as sacred. Governments don't have the right to discard these things. These are basic rights. This is what our Constitution was written to protect.

BTW, the HHS mandate is NOT a bill. Bills come from Congress. Rather, it is a mandate, a decision handed down by the Obama administration and it is unconstitutional. Presidents in the United States do not have this kind of power, nor do they have the ability to pass bills. We have 3 departments in our government, sources of authority--legislative, executive and judicial. Presidents can't pass bills; that's not what they do.

Amen!!

Mike2010 · #35 Feb 11, '12, 8:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

It doesn't impact religious freedom at all. The Administration took the employers completely out of the situation so that the employees who want the "objectionable" coverage go *directly* to the insurance companies and get a rider added on to their employer-provided policy. The employers are not offering the extra coverage. It's no different than it is now when you want to add a rider, except that the insurance companies are required to give it for free. It has nothing to do with the employers. It's between the employee and the insurance company directly. The Administration couldn't be more flexible and accomodating, and couldn't make it any easier on religious employers.

Rence, who do you think will end up paying in the end? Insurance is never free, never has been. There are no free lunches.

The Religious organizations will indirectly have to pay for this. It is extremely naive to believe that this won't get put on the religious organizations.

If you don't think this is an issue, just wait. This is the crack in the door. Once Obama or those that share his ideologies get there foot in, the first ammendment will rapidly get kicked to the curb. The full on assault on religious freedom doesn't happen all at once, it is a process that doesn't seem so bad at first, and then 20-40 years later, we are all wondering, "how did this happen? How did we not see this coming?"

Why would we want someone as president who doesn't care about people's conciences and doesn't obide by the constitution? How can we trust them?

Rence · #36 Feb 11, '12, 9:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike2010

Rence, who do you think will end up paying in the end? Insurance is never free, never has been. There are no free lunches.

You're right, there are no free lunches. The costs will be made up and factored into premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts across the board. Everyone from subscribers, to employers, to providers will be paying a portion of it, whether they use all of the available benefits or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike2010

The Religious organizations will indirectly have to pay for this. It is extremely naive to believe that this won't get put on the religious organizations.

Employers, subscribers and providers will be paying for it. If the insurance companies are mandated to provider riders for those who work for religious based employers, it's no different than another rider added on to a policy, except that the insurance company is mandated to eat the cost. Of course, all the benefits will be made more affordable by factoring them into the premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts -- just like other benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike2010

If you don't think this is an issue, just wait.

This is not an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike2010

Why would we want someone as president who doesn't care about people's conciences and doesn't obide by the constitution? How can we trust them?

I want a president who will represent everyone, not only one demographic.

Mike2010 · #37 Feb 11, '12, 10:17 pm

[quote=Rence;8948821]You're right, there are no free lunches. The costs will be made up and factored into premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts across the board. Everyone from subscribers, to employers, to providers will be paying a portion of it, whether they use all of the available benefits or not.

Bingo, so the revision still violates the first ammendment. All Obama did was take his first rediculous plan and dress it up with different words to seem different...to decieve

Employers, subscribers and providers will be paying for it. If the insurance companies are mandated to provider riders for those who work for religious based employers, it's no different than another rider added on to a policy, except that the insurance company is mandated to eat the cost. Of course, all the benefits will be made more affordable by factoring them into the premiums, deductibles, copays and provider discounts -- just like other benefits.

This is not an issue.

I want a president who will represent everyone, not only one demographic[quote]

If you want a president who will represent everyone, than Obama isn't your guy. Because most people of faith (many religions) are not siding with Obama and his view that the first Amendment doesn't matter. This isn't just a Catholic issue, its a precedent that affects all people of religion. If you think its only about contraception, than you don't get it.

I suggest you read this article by Jimmy Akin:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/evil-...ven-more-evil/

Bubba Switzler · #38 Feb 11, '12, 10:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthCatholic

And this... in essence... is exactly my thought on this matter. Catholic rights are not being infringed on because no Catholic is required to take advantage of this provision in insurance plans. Perhaps the bishops' time would be better spent encouraging Catholics to not use artificial birth control.

It simply amazes me that anyone could take this argument seriously. Do they not teach logic in Catholic school anymore?

While the bishops certainly have a job to do to persuade Catholics (and non-Catholics) not to use birth control, have abortions, etc., it remains the case that they will be forced to pay for these.

The fact that no Catholic is forced to take advantage of these does not in any way remove the fact that Catholics will be forced to provide these to any employee (Catholic or not) who does.

The fact that Catholics rights are not being violated in one way does not mean that they are not being violated in another way. If you don't care that Catholic institutions are going to be forced to violate Catholic teaching then just say so.

Perhaps those who are trying rationalizing Obamacare should spent a moment or two thinking through the logic of their arguments instead of just repeating what they hear from the administration.

Cursilista · #39 Feb 11, '12, 11:23 pm

Isn't taking birth control and having abortions a conscience issue. Its a choice one makes. Why is it that their conscience rights are more important than the moral conscience rights of those who choose not to participate in those activities. These supposed medical issues are elective. they are a moral choice a person makes based on their current life situation. Yes a lot of Catholic women may have used contraception at one time in their life. at least most may have known that there is something inherently wrong with these procedures and struggled with the issue. Without the Catholic church holding firm on basic rights and wrongs in this society, one day, if not already, having an abortion will have no more moral consequences in ones mind than having a tooth pulled.

My plea to liberal catholics was for them to take a look at the "me" society we have created today with the liberal, secular, governing of our basic morals. It has eroded our society to where we are today. It seems that today we dont want to feel guilt about anything we want to do. We dont want to have any consequences for whatever we want to do. We dont want to be responsible for what we what to do. The secular world is right there with you and legislating any and all lifestyles. I hope though that somewhere deep in the back of most liberals minds, they are glad that their is still a force that has stood the test of time for holding onto basic human morals. A force that knows God's will and how he expects us humans to behave. A force that dosent waver. A force they can blame and rail against as unfair because they say their lifestyle is immoral. Without such a force trying to hold back mans ability to rationalize its wanton needs , man surely would become degenerate.

Dawnia · #40 Feb 11, '12, 11:26 pm

If the government can step in and say that an employer is required to cover care that violates religious beliefs, what is stopping the the HHS secretary from imposing other requirements. Why shouldn't euthenasia be covered? It prevents all illness, would save the government & insurance providers billions of dollars. Really, you wouldn't be killing anyone, you'd just be paying to have them killed.

Julia Mae · #41 Feb 12, '12, 5:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cursilista

While some of the agenda of the Liberal movement may seem to coincide with our Catholic teachings, the ultimate goal is a secular world ruled by government.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the United States as constituted by our forefathers should not exist and that we should be ruled by a religious government?

I wasn't aware being an American made me a "liberal" Catholic. But that's probably not what you meant at all, so could you explain?

baylee · #42 Feb 12, '12, 5:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawnia

If the government can step in and say that an employer is required to cover care that violates religious beliefs, what is stopping the the HHS secretary from imposing other requirements. Why shouldn't euthenasia be covered? It prevents all illness, would save the government & insurance providers billions of dollars. Really, you wouldn't be killing anyone, you'd just be paying to have them killed.

Although I feel your pain, euthanasia isn't legal (yet).

kmuestwin · #43 Feb 12, '12, 5:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by baylee

Although I feel your pain, euthanasia isn't legal (yet).

Doctor assisted suicide is legal in some states.

baylee · #44 Feb 12, '12, 6:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmuestwin

Doctor assisted suicide is legal in some states.

True, but it's not a federal law (similar to Roe v Wade).

Tigg · #45 Feb 12, '12, 6:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Wow that's jumping to conclusions. On the otherhand perhaps it is important to the lapsed to identify as a Catholic because the Church identifies them as such and where they are on their journey they're not 100% certain the religion is not true. So they hang on as long as they can until they no longer feel welcomed instead of "being out of there in a flash".

It has been well documented for years that the enemies of the Church have a specific agenda within the ranks of radical feminism and liberation theology. There are recent threads with quotes if you care to know.