Skip to comments.Catholics Turn on the One
Posted on 11/02/2012 8:33:44 PM PDT by Rob in Arizona
Catholic voters have reason to feel particularly aggrieved, given the Obama administrations battle with the Catholic church over the mandate in Obamacare that employers cover abortion drugs and contraceptives. Those grievances came to the fore particularly sharply in mid-October, after the Vice Presidential debate between incumbent Democrat Joe Biden and Republican challenger Paul Ryan (both Catholics). Ryan brought up the conflict between the administration and the church over Obamacare: They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Bidens response was total denial: With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy--any hospital--none has to either refer contraception. None has to pay for contraception. None has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact. Ryan responded simply: If they agree with you, then why would they keep--why would they keep suing you? The church responded at greater length, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops publicly disputing Bidens fact: This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain "religious employers." That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to "Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital," or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.
(Excerpt) Read more at cdn.breitbart.com ...
I am convinced that the President's HHS mandate is not accidental, but deliberate. He knows that (1) Catholic bishops will not betray their principles and provide hospital, school, and charity employees health insurance that includes the funding abortion and birth control; and (2) the Church will pay the huge fines until they have no choice to close the doors to all of these institutions.
With Obamacare, there will be fewer doctors, rationing of scarcer health care, and ever-increasing costs of an increasingly older citizenry. Who will cost/expend the most of these dwindling resources? The answer:
(1)Unborn children whose prenatal care reveals abnormalities and health problems that will cost the system every year of their life. (It happens: last year, doctors encouraged my sister-in-law and brother to abort their son because they thought he had Downs Syndrome and other ailments; they refused, but he was born with many birth defects).
(2) The elderly whose productive days are long in the past, but whose visits to the doctor's office are weekly, not annually.
(3) The chronically ill.
To curtail the costs incurred by the first category, HHS will want doctors to encourage abortions--that will never happen in a Catholic hospital.
To curtail the costs of the elderly and the chronic ill, HHS will deny them the level of care they now enjoy and encourage euthanasia--again something the Church will never sanction at its hospitals.
Thus, the best way to keep costs down is to get the Catholic Church (and like-minded Christians) out of health care entirely.
As for schools, close down the parochial schools and you have no debates about voucher programs and school choice, less competition for teacher union power, and an education system that can dispense with outdated Judeo-Christian values.
Finally, close down the non-profits, you increase dependence on government programs--and make the so-called 47% a super-majority big government electorate.
What is so scary about this is that Obama is attacking the Church on a doctrinal point that few Catholics actually follow or agree with: the use of artificial birth control. The public has swallowed the media's attempt to frame the issue as about birth control and the Church trying to deny them reproductive freedom. Even my most intelligent friends fail to see that the actual issue is about the First Amendment and the unconstitutional attempt to force an employer to violate his institution's or his own personal religious beliefs in subjugation of a secular government's decree. (They finally see the point when I ask them if I have a Second Amendment right to own a gun or a First Amendment right to free speech (they agree), and then when I inquire whether I have a right to receive their tax dollars to buy a Glock handgun or air time on a radio station to express my political views.)
We need to see why Obama is doubling down against the Catholic Church and other Christians before it's too late.
I’m a Catholic and it has long frustrated me that so many of my fellow Catholics seem to migrate to the Democrats. Never ever understood that.
I’m not Catholic but don’t understand how people like Biden are still accepted in the church ...
“Im not Catholic but dont understand how people like Biden are still accepted in the church ...”
That’s how I used to feel about most of the Kennedy men.
“Im a Catholic and it has long frustrated me that so many of my fellow Catholics seem to migrate to the Democrats. Never ever understood that.”
I am also wondering why “Catholics” like Joe Biden get to remain members in good standing when they should be excommunicated. I know of no instance where a Catholic politician was excommunicated for openly speaking in opposition to his church’s doctrines. I’d make a donation if they would kick out both Biden and Pelosi.
We need the good people anyways. :) Sympathise with you, but I chose to join because the Catholic church is the strongest bulwark against this administration.
The only reason the Democrats control the big cities is because of their control of the Catholic vote. The party would be dead without it.
In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the non-negotiable issues.
In such situations, a citizen is called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.
Now, imagine a situation wherein one candidate has a record of fighting for unrestricted access to abortion, and the other candidate would only consider allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest.
This is simply an example of a situation where all of the available candidates take a morally unacceptable position, but one will most limit the harm that would be done.
We now have leaders in America, like ArchBishop Chaput, who understand that “Social Justice” doesn’t mean substituting charity with corrupt gov’t programs, that buy votes, but help nobody.
HHS’s Sebellius was excommunicated by her bishop.
The larger question is: What should Christian churches do about their members, politicians or not, who support abortion?
Nonsense. What demographic does Portland Oregon and NYC have in common?
“The larger question is: What should Christian churches do about their members, politicians or not, who support abortion?”
Absolutely they should stand up for their beliefs. Membership isn’t automatic. If you don’t really believe in the teachings of your church, you ought to have the character to leave. But if you don’t you should be asked to go. Otherwise just what does the church become? In my view, a great big nothing!
Imagine you have two candidates. Both support slavery, one because it’s a unpleasant necessity, and the other, because they believe it’s essential to their way of life.
Who do you vote for?
Democrats look for social gospel suckers. And it’s not just a Catholic problem, it’s a fundamentalist problem.
What about other sins?
Imagine not missing the point on purpose.
There would be 45 million more babies alive today under Romney’s “exceptions”.
False choice because, in your scenerio, both candidates support the equal amount of slaves for different reasons.
In the case of abortion, it is one candidate who states only for rape, incest, life of the mother versus the other candidate who nor only supports unlimited abortion but also voted three times to murder late term babies born alive and outside of the mother’s body.
You vote for the candidate who will allow less evil to take place in our society.
Put defunding the largest abortion mill in the mix.
If in your imaginary scenario, the candidates are Obama and Romney, your assessment of Obama is correct but your assessment of where Romney stands is incomplete.
the other candidate (Romney) would only consider allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest or health of the mother
. A distinction made that opens a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through.
I had not read your reply yet when I posted my #18.
And Biden has been excommunicated in several dioceses of Colorado. He cannot receive Communion there. Now if DC would just follow suit!
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.