Catholic priests defend Church against Obama from pulpit

[Mornac]

• Tweet

(The sermon we had at Mass yesterday was particularly derisive. If it shows up in print, I’ll be sure to bring it here.)


Catholics hear protests of Obama health ruling at Mass

Sun, Jan 29 2012

(Reuters) - U.S. Catholic bishops and priests across the country read out letters at Mass on Sunday protesting plans by President Barack Obama's administration to force religiously-affiliated nonprofit groups to offer birth-control coverage to women employees.
 
On Jan 20, the Obama administration made final a proposal requiring most employer-sponsored health plans to offer women contraceptive services including sterilization without copays, co-insurance or deductibles.
 
Religious authorities including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops condemned the rule as a violation of religious conscience and the constitutional right to religious freedom.
 
In an organized protest, numerous local media reported on Sunday that Catholic clergy read out letters of protest Mass.
 
"We cannot, we will not, comply with this unjust law," wrote Phoenix bishop Thomas J. Olmsted in one such letter, adding that the rule was an attack on religious freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
 
"Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build (America) ... or to have the posterity stripped of their God given rights," he added.
 
The rule changes ordered by the administration were welcomed
 
by birth control advocates including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
 
The government's decision does not apply to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and some religiously-affiliated elementary and secondary schools, which remain exempt.
 
But it came as a blow to religious officials who pushed hard for a broader exemption that would have included religious organizations whose main purpose is not to provide religious services for their members. These include institutions such as Catholic-affiliated hospitals.
 
The Obama administration said it sought to meet those concerns by allowing religious groups an extra year to adjust.
 
The change is intended to reduce health costs, unwanted pregnancies and abortions, as part of Obama's healthcare overhaul.
 
The 2010 healthcare reform law, his signature domestic policy achievement, is facing unprecedented challenges in the Supreme Court and from Republicans this year as the president seeks re-election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/us-catholics-contraception-idUSTRE80T06K20120130

[johnhp]

So.....the priest wants the ruling to apply to the groups to which it does not now apply?

From the news story:

The government's decision does not apply to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and some religiously-affiliated elementary and secondary schools, which remain exempt.

[DougRich]

The most important part of the story:

The government's decision does not apply to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and some religiously-affiliated elementary and secondary schools, which remain exempt.
 
But it came as a blow to religious officials who pushed hard for a broader exemption that would have included religious organizations whose main purpose is not to provide religious services for their members. These include institutions such as Catholic-affiliated hospitals.

Bottom line: when you're preaching, teaching or practicing your religious faith, the government will, per usual, remain hands-off. When you're offering secular services - hospital care, adoptions, resorts, whatever - you play the same game as everybody else.

[DougRich]

So.....the priest wants the ruling to apply to the groups to which it does not now apply?

No, they want it to apply to any business the church is involved with - whether it's a bed & breakfast or a travel agency, or whatever.

[johnhp]

No, they want it to apply to any business the church is involved with - whether it's a bed & breakfast or a travel agency, or whatever.

i was being sarcastic.  Mornac does not understand how stupid the subject heading is that he chose.

[johnhp]

Partisan political activity from the pulpit....someone does not appreciate a tax exempt status.

[IM2]

Mornac,

No one wants to read any sermon by a conservatvely biased preist. God is neither conservative ro liberal.

[johnhp]

Mornac,

No one wants to read any sermon by a conservatvely biased preist. God is neither conservative ro liberal.

That is right...God, as well all know, is a communist...."and those who believed, shared all things in common..."

[notoc]

"We cannot, we will not, comply with this unjust law,"

Somewhere there's a tent with his name on it.

[Mornac]

Bottom line: when you're preaching, teaching or practicing your religious faith, the government will, per usual, remain hands-off.

--Back when the Constitution was still in force, yes. Today we are living in the era of Barack Obama. If practicing your religious faith entails not being forced to finance sinful acts – too bad. The supreme soviet and its blood thirsty premiere say you do it or else.

When you're offering secular services - hospital care, adoptions, resorts, whatever - you play the same game as everybody else.

--Only if the rules of the game don’t force you to finance things that violate your faith as the Constitution guarantees.  (Except of course, if you’re a weak willed liberal who fears standing up to the communistic overlord.)

[DougRich]

--Back when the Constitution was still in force, yes. Today we are living in the era of Barack Obama. If practicing your religious faith entails not being forced to finance sinful acts – too bad. The supreme soviet and its blood thirsty premiere say you do it or else.
--Only if the rules of the game don’t force you to finance things that violate your faith as the Constitution guarantees.  (Except of course, if you’re a weak willed liberal who fears standing up to the communistic overlord.)

Please direct our attention to that part of the Constitution that states that a religious group can engage in a wholly secular enterprise without having to follow the same rules as everybody else. No one is forcing the Catholic Church to own and operate (for profit) hospitals, adoption agencies, childcare centers, bed & breakfasts, etc, etc. If the Church doesn't want to follow the rules that apply to others engaged in the same businesses, they can get the Hell out of those businesses. "Religious freedom" has nothing whatever to do with it.

[Mornac]

Please direct our attention to that part of the Constitution that states that a religious group can engage in a wholly secular enterprise without having to follow the same rules as everybody else.

--There isn’t any. However there is a part that states that Congress cannot make up rules that would impede religious groups from practicing their faith.   It’s right here.

No one is forcing the Catholic Church to own and operate (for profit) hospitals, adoption agencies, childcare centers, bed & breakfasts, etc, etc. If the Church doesn't want to follow the rules that apply to others engaged in the same businesses, they can get the Hell out of those businesses.

--Or they can force Congress to start obeying the Constitution.

"Religious freedom" has nothing whatever to do with it.

--Guess that’ll be for the judicial branch to decide. Let’s just hope that they don’t screw it up this time.

[DougRich]

--There isn’t any. However there is a part that states that Congress cannot make up rules that would impede religious groups from practicing their faith.

I strongly suspect that even you must understand that the law distinguishes - and rightly so - between religious practices and wholly secular activities that the Church has chosen to be engaged in...even if your misplaced human pride compels you to pretend that you don't comprehend the distinction.

[Mornac]

I strongly suspect that even you must understand that the law distinguishes - and rightly so - between religious practices and wholly secular activities that the Church has chosen to be engaged in...even if your misplaced human pride compels you to pretend that you don't comprehend the distinction.

--I strongly suspect that even you must understand that living one’s life according to one’s religious principals is not a “wholly secular activity(y) that the Church has chosen to be engaged in”...even if your misplaced human pride compels you to pretend that you don't comprehend the distinction.

[johnhp]

Looks like you were correct Doug.