Comments on: EXCLUSIVE: Lay Catholics Buck Bishops’ Overreach on Religious Liberty Campaign

By: DR

DR — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:35:48 +0000

It is important to keep in mind the backgrounds of these activists. Personally, I know six of the signees to this letter, and while likable, they are all very well off financially, and very active in the Democratic Party. For example, Ivo Spalatin is a member of an organization that actively supports this list of candidates: http://livableworld.org/support/meet_candidates/ .

Of course, as citizens, they all have the right to express their opinions, but no one should assume that they represent a high percentage of Catholics; instead, they are part of a group of wealthy liberals in DC who put political affiliation ahead of faith and charity.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 01:46:19 +0000

Mike Boyle: “Best to look up “intrinsic evil” and then come back to the table. It doesn’t matter what 57% or 60% of Catholics believe. The Church is not a democracy. Intrinsic evil is evil – and the Church will not be forced to enable it.”

The Church isn’t being forced to enable anything. All churches and diosceses are EXEMPT from the mandate, always have been. The original fight was over whether or not groups such as Catholic Charities are religious employers or secular employers. The bishops said they’re part of the Church; the government said they’re not. (Things got really blurry when the Church itself claimed such groups are not, in fact, Church institutions during the sex abuse scandal.) The bishops have become prisoners of their own rhetoric.

By: Joe Bruns

Joe Bruns — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:37:58 +0000

Thank you for crafting this letter. You speak for many of us.

By: joeM

joeM — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:48:05 +0000

“Thirty parishoners does not a parish make.”

No, they don’t–they actualy make a Church. Mathew 18:20

By: Trina Marie

Trina Marie — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:36:08 +0000

Great letter…I totally support this stand.

By: David Philippart

David Philippart — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:35:54 +0000

Best to look up Catholic social teaching on health care and then come back to the table: Cardinal DiNardo on behalf of the USCCB in 2010: “The bishops were clear in calling for health care reform as a moral imperative and urgent national priority. We called for reform that would make health coverage affordable for the poor and needy, moving our society substantially toward the goal of universal coverage. We were equally clear in stating that this must be done in accord with the dignity of each and every human person, showing full respect for the life, health and conscience of all. http://www.usccb.org/news/archived.cfm?releaseNumber=10-104 And just because something is intrinsically evil does not mean that Catholics must oppose it by outlawing it. There are other ways to oppose intrinsic evil. See Cathleen Kaveny’s article:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11166

By: Mike Boyle

Mike Boyle — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:50:13 +0000

Best to look up “intrinsic evil” and then come back to the table. It doesn’t matter what 57% or 60% of Catholics believe. The Church is not a democracy. Intrinsic evil is evil – and the Church will not be forced to enable it.

By the same token, affordable health care (as nice as that sounds) has not been addressed by the Affordable Healthcare Act. Rearranging how healthcare is paid for doesn’t magically make it “more affordable.” The issues that dramatically increased the costs of healthcare remain – and not a word is mentioned regarding those issues in Affordable Healthcare.

Christians are to be charitable. That said, it does not meet the definition of “charity” for me to take money from the man on his way to work to “give” to the man without a job. Charity is a condition of the heart, not a piece of legislation. As such, the Affordable Healthcare Act does not suffice as Catholic social teaching.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:55:33 +0000

I meant at no cost to the employee. However. I think that single payer health care is the way to end this whole issue.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:54:32 +0000

@Chris Nunez,

Please read the mandate about contraception. The employer has been removed. It is the insurance company that is being required to provide contraception at no cost not the employer.

By: Chris Nunez

Chris Nunez — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:20:56 +0000

Fine article, grateful for the effort to express the displeasure of many of us. However, I’m still greatly bothered by the statement “and about 60% of whom believe religiously affiliated social-service agencies, colleges, hospitals, and privately owned small businesses should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception.”

That any employer is in the position to choose the health care insurance plan that their employee will purchase seems to be at the heart of this issue. It’s an example of the “road to ‘heck’ being paved with good intentions.”

Until employers are removed from being the ‘middleman’ in this consumer transaction, the worker will remain a serf-subject of the employer. This is the issue that the public and our bishops, and the administration in Washington is sidestepping.