[Shadow44]

Start purging heretics. It’s been overdue for decades.

[noiseman]

Not constitutional. RESIST.

[joe fonebone]

There is another option....

drop benefits and raise pay accordingly..

make employees buy their own health insurance...

[all the best]

There is no bigger supporter of the welfare state and thus welfare state politicians and the Dem party than the Catholic bishops. They love this destructive system based on envy, jealousy, covetousness, bitterness and theft. They promote this all the time and then they say oh, no, don’t vote for pro-abortion candidates. Good luck with that. Choosing which sins are ok and which are not is kinda tricky business.

[HangingTuff]

The Catholic Church has too many priests and nuns who believe in exactly what Obama does. The pope may say one thing but most Catholics do another. The Catholic Church is a huge believer in social justice. Sad to say but it is true.

[HangingTuff]

The Catholic Church has too many priests and nuns who believe in exactly what Obama does. The pope may say one thing but most Catholics do another. The Catholic Church is a huge believer in social justice. Sad to say but it is true.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I am supremely confident that the US bishops will find a way to accommadate themselves to the Obamacare abortion/contraception mandate.

[campaignPete R-CT]

CT Catholics lost. And when you lose, it means your opponents are winning. So the Bishops and the rest of us got nobody to blame but ourselves.

They did not participate in the campaign. Only the discusssion of issues, no candidates. Ask for a show of hands at daily Mass. How many of you voted? Not much more than half.

And it would not be a landslide for Linda McMahon at any daily Mass that I attend. “Did not vote” gets more votes than Linda. I bet she barely wins the others and these are ... daily communicants.

[txrefugee]

Boo hoo. I guess the bishops forgot to tell their huge Mexican membership that perhaps 75% of them shouldn’t have voted for Obama.

Get out of the business of distributing government tax-payer-extorted freebies, and see how many real believers you have in those flocks.

[Salvation]

The first prong of the crisis is that Obama is expected to press policies favoring abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage even more aggressively and coercively in his second term than in his first.

 

The second prong is reflected in the fact that, according to CNN exit polls, 50 percent of the Catholics who voted backed Obama despite his well-publicized conflict with their Church, with 48 percent going for Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

[Salvation]

Setbacks for bishops

But the outcome is a bitter setback for Church leadership even so, considering that a number of bishops made pre-election statements saying or strongly implying that a Catholic could not vote in conscience for a pro-abortion candidate like Obama.

Along which much else, the result also is a blow to the bishops' religious liberty campaign, which was launched last year with the aim of focusing attention on threats to the First Amendment rights of religious institutions as well as the right of the Church to have a voice on matters of public policy.

[dartuser]

For the Catholic Church in the United States, the re-election of Barack Obama as president means serious trouble ahead ...

Sorry ... you get what you voted for.

[Salvation]

Two other thoughts to hone our efforts as Warrior Catholics:

8 out of 10 white Protestants voted for Romney...95% of black Protestants voted for Obama...

6 out of 10 White Catholics voted for Romney...75% of Mexican Catholics voted for Obama...

[PeevedPatriot]

I don't like to criticize the bishops but I think they missed an opportunity to publicize other problems with Obamacare that will impact Catholic institutions, laity, and people in lower income brackets. It isn't just the bishops though. Candidates in the last election cycle weren't talking about it. And neither are those presently in office.

Why are they behaving as if the mandate is the only risk they face? Obamacare makes it more risky to employ people in low income brackets because employer costs are based on household income. If a household member becomes eligible for a subsidy (for example a wife gets laid off and loses employer based coverage, lowering household income to meet subsidy threshhold) the husband's employer can be subject to a several thousand dollar penalty. Will the husband's employer pay additional taxes to continue employing him or lay him off too?

Beyond the employment discrimination issues, there are risks to employee privacy and the potential for arbitrary enforcement by a partisan/punitive administration. I think a lot of people with public pulpits missed the opportunity to make a case that this law discriminates against the lower income people it was supposed to help by penalizing employers-Catholic or otherwise-who'd like to give them a job. People unmoved by the religious liberty or forced payment for abortifacient argument may be open to hearing about incentives to discriminate that are built into the law. But no one talks about it.

Peace be with you. And may God help us all!