@wandeljw,
Quote:And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so)....
The rule would not compel Catholics to violate their consciences. It would not mandate that Catholics use the coverage to apply to anything that would violate their religious beliefs or consciences.
The Catholic church employs many non-Catholics in their various facilities--hospitals, universities, etc,. and community programs. These people currently have their health care benefits, and freedom of choice regarding health care, infringed upon and limited because the religious beliefs and religious policy of their employer are being imposed on them.
Quote:To give an analogy, it would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews who don't follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis. The law wouldn't technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.
I find this analogy, offered by Michael Brendan Dougherty, flawed and misleading.
To mandate that a Kosher deli serve pork, would effectively exclude the main group of consumers the deli was created to serve--those who follow dietary laws and who could not dine in non-Kosher eating establishments. It would be exclusionary and disadvantaging to this entire group. Those who wish to eat pork, are not disadvantaged by the fact they cannot obtain pork in a Kosher deli, they free to eat elsewhere where that menu item can be found.
However, requiring the expansion of health care coverage, to include coverage of things like contraceptive drugs, does not exclude any group of consumers/employees from this coverage--on the contrary, it only makes the coverage more inclusive, because it is not restricting areas of coverage on the basis of religious belief/compliance--it makes the coverage for
entirely secular health matters more comprehensive, for all employees, without imposing any hardship or deprivation to those who wish to follow Church pronouncements and who choose to not use these areas of coverage.
And, when deciding where to dine, people have options and choices. That is not the case with health care coverage. Most people are limited to the health care choices supplied by their employers. If you aren't provided with adequate coverage, you are left hungry--you can't stop off somewhere for more, unless you can pay for it out of your own pocket.
The Catholic church, in its role as an employer of both non-Catholics and Catholics, who work in essentially
secular jobs in hospitals, universities, community programs, etc. has an obligation to provide the sort of health care coverage that would be available elsewhere in the employment market because these
secular employees should not be unfairly subjected to limitations in coverage made on the basis of
religious doctrine rather than on the basis of medical issues and needs. The Catholic church is, in effect, trying to mandate and force compliance with their religious doctrines by restricting the type of health care coverage offered to it's employees--in effect, disadvantaging, and penalizing and depriving those employees who do not subscribe to, or follow Church doctrine, of more adequate coverage. And the Church likely resents having to shell out the money that expanded coverage would cost them--the issue involves money, and not just "conscience", but the Church neatly avoids talking about the financial incentive involved in their opposition to the health care mandate.
Yes, they are clearly advocating political activism in furtherance of religious aims, and for religious reasons, and for the benefit of their particular Church. There is really nothing new about their doing this. And, in itself, it doesn't bother me, as long as all they are doing is suggesting that parishioners contact their Members of Congress and express their views. That they refer to the Obama administration is reasonable, given it was a decision announced by the administration.
Quote:We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law
The Catholic church is an employer in the public sector--essentially in the public secular sector. It employs both non-Catholics as well as Catholics. It is the recipient of government monies. It enjoys a tax exempt status. In return for all that, they give up their right to arbitrarily impose their religious mandates when these conflict with governmental laws and public policies.
They don't want to comply, fine. Then let them be deprived of all government monies, and their tax exempt status, if they wish to function free of either government control or privileged status.
Quote:People of faith cannot be made second class citizens.
Nor should Catholic employees, or non-Catholic employees, or people of no faith at all, who are employed by the Catholic church, be made second class citizens when it comes to the adequacy and comprehensive nature of the health care coverage provided by their employer because that employer is trying to use insurance coverage to impose religious doctrine on secular medical choices.
