Obama's war on Catholics

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by jem, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. jem


    Dear Friends,

    On January 20, 2012, the United States Department of Health and Human Services with the approval of President Barack Obama issued a new federal mandate making coverage of abortifacient drugs, sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives obligatory for virtually all employers, including faith-based institutions.

    What is at the center of the concern of Catholic bishops and others about this action by the Obama administration? How can it affect the institutions of the Archdiocese of Washington?

    The new mandate is the first federal regulation in our nation’s history to require all faith-based institutions to pay for coverage of abortifacient drugs, sterilization and contraceptives. People were already free to use such widely available products and procedures. Up until this mandate, employers could choose whether or not to cover them and individuals could choose whether or not to seek employers that pay for them. Now nearly all those who provide insurance must include abortifacients, sterilization and contraceptives. Virtually all Catholic institutions and individuals will have to pay for that coverage. Being forced to provide these services violates both our faith conviction and our freedom.

    In upholding the HHS regulation, the administration has ignored the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and has denied Catholics the most fundamental freedom, religious liberty. Despite the Church’s appeal for a broader religious exemption, which was echoed by many other faiths, the administration refused to modify the regulation’s current exemption that is limited to religious groups that hire and serve people primarily of their own faith. Most churches and church-run institutions do not qualify for the exemption because of their very openness to serving the common good of society and all people regardless of creed.

    Even those who may disagree with the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life, such as the editorial boards of The Washington Post and the New York Daily News, have stated that the government has no business forcing religious institutions to sponsor and pay for procedures and drugs which violate their beliefs.

    What will happen if this mandate stands? Our schools, hospitals and charitable organizations will be placed in the untenable position of choosing between violating civil law and abandoning our religious beliefs.

    For example, the mandate will allow a Catholic school one of three options:
    1) violate its beliefs by providing coverage for medications and procedures we believe are immoral, 2) cease providing insurance coverage for all of its employees and face ongoing and ultimately ruinous fines, or 3) attempt to qualify for the exemption by hiring and serving only Catholics.

    A Catholic school simply cannot effectively teach Catholic doctrine while providing insurance to its teachers – and in the case of Catholic universities, to its students as well – that violates its own beliefs. Nor should it have to deny its employees access to affordable health care, a basic human right. Nor could it afford to pay crippling fines. Nor should it be forced to close its doors to non-Catholics.

    There can no longer be any doubt that religious liberty in our country is in jeopardy. Only weeks ago, the Obama administration unsuccessfully argued to the Supreme Court that the government has the right to interfere in a church’s choice of its ministers. Thankfully, the Court unanimously rejected this radical position. Undeterred, the government has advanced on another front.

    Catholics across America are already fighting this mandate. Catholic journalists of all backgrounds have widely criticized the HHS rules as unjust, and leaders of major Catholic organizations — such as the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Relief Services, and Catholic Charities USA — have also spoken out against them. In the meantime, the Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty is actively exploring options for litigation and legislative proposals to remedy this injustice.

    This is the time to speak up. This is the time for all our voices to be heard. Therefore, I ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we need to commit ourselves to prayer that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be preserved. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I ask you to visit www.usccb.org/conscience and www.mdcathcon.org to learn more about this assault on religious liberty and to find the resources to support legislation that would reverse the effects of the administration’s decision.

    With gratitude for your collaboration in this very important matter and with every good wish, I am

    Faithfully in Christ,

    Cardinal Donald Wuerl
    Archbishop of Washington
  2. pspr


    Obama doesn't understand religion. Nor does he feel the Constition is the binding, superceeding document.

    After 20 years in Rev. Wright's church he thinks religion is just a thing to use to promote racism against your enemy.

    Harvard failed at providing this man with a quality education.
  3. =========
    I see your points;
    agree with many of them & Jems. But the Supreme Court may declare the atempted federal power grab on health care unconstitutional .

    Not a prediction:cool:
  4. 377OHMS


    Gotta agree. Barrack Obama is a charming man but he hasn't behaved like a well educated man. Harvard failed the whole country by papering over Obama's performance, hiding it essentially.

    I went to an extreme leftist school and it was pretty rough at times. I learned to hide my beliefs as a survival mechanism but the experience left me somewhat embittered towards what we called the "black dressers", the faculty members that wore all-black clothing and were militantly marxist-leftist.
  5. Lucrum


    They certainly did.
  6. Agree, he only became President of the United States. Makes one wonder just how bad Harvard really is.

    I know, pretty basic response, but it had to be said by someone.

  7. pspr


    Wow! This is a U.S. university that has an engineering school?

    The only place I'm aware of that could be that cuckoo 20 years or more ago is Cal. Berkley.
  8. pspr


    It was a fluke. A set of nearly impossible circumstances occured in late 2008 that pushed Obama into the White House.
  9. OK, and I guess Bush could claim the same thing. And, he went to Yale, so back to even. At least the second term. I must say, as much as I hated much of Mr. Bush's war making and policies, I always supported him as President. When I saw him in other countries, having things thrown at him, protesters and all that, I was really pissed, and supported my President. Not much of that with Mr. Obama, too bad.

  10. More right-wing hysteria,

    "1. Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement. Accordingly, the requirement does not employee to actual church employees.
    2. What the law requires is that institutions such as universities (e.g., Notre Dame) or hospitals that provide health insurance must include within their plan co-pay free contraception for individuals under the plan. As the employees of these institutions are employed to perform a job, and are not there to practice some form of religion, there is no impact on the free exercise of religion."
    #10     Feb 1, 2012