Cardinal George: no Catholic hospitals in 2 years unless HHS mandate is rescinded

[Yarddog]

you like to be rude when you are puffed up, uh?

I have no problem being frank with those being rude and making false accusations about my Church.

Read what you just wrote, you went in a circle, around and around again.

Sorry that you had a problem comprehending what was written but you were the one coming up with some sort of conspiracy theory about the CC going to methodist and controlling SCOTUS so that no insurance coverage for contraceptive coverage is offered.That may occur but if it is it would not be the fault of the Catholic Church. It would be the fault of the framers of the Health Care Bill for not understanding the Constitution.

No not rambling, don't get puffed up.

Rambling is when you write something that doesn't have anything to do with the subject that do it for the sake of writing,m which you have done.

That post was of church and sin. You said that"The US government cannot force a Church to sin".And I said "... but it can stop the church from sin".

It cannot stop the Church from sinning if the Church is not sinning. The US government doesn't define sin, it defines the law. Those laws can stop people, within the Church, from sinning when those laws agree with God's will about sin.

Example I would use is Slavery. Government stopped slavery which stopped the church supporting slavery. Thus, government stopped church from sinning, look it up.

The can not stop the Church from supporting slavery, it can keep people from owning slaves. The Church has for many many centuries condemned certain aspects of slavery. Slave should be maintained as scriptures states. The Apostle Paul did not condemn slavery but sent Onesimus back to his owner, Philemon. Look it up.

being testy again,

Nope.

You said "But it is the people, who own or operate the institution, who are being forced to offer insurance which goes against their faith." That sounds like to me the RCC org offers insurance.

And? You said: "so the RCC owns the insurance company too? How does that work, imagine it too has tax exemptions."

The Catholic orgs. offering insurance is not the same as the CC owning the insurance company. An Insurance Co. calling itself "Catholic Life Insurance" does not mean that it is owned by the CC.

We the people elected Obama, We the people didn't elect the Pope.

I voted for Obama but I would not have voted for the Pope to be President.

We can get rid of Obama through elections, no so much with a Pope.

Hopefully both will enjoy several more years in the office which they hold.

HHS is for all citizens in USA, not so much for those in Vatican City.
that is what the RCC is doing now

No, and not even close. HHS is for all citizens of the US but certain provisions should be subject to our Constitutional laws. The CC wants the Health Care Bill and believes that it did not go far enough in who and what should be covered. What the Church wants is for Catholics to be able to follow the faith which they are taught without the government trying to force them to do otherwise.

Hope this helps in putting what had been said into perspective.

We are working at trying to come to an understanding of what is actually occurring. I am not against the coverage, but only that it should not be forced onto religious orgs.

 

[Yarddog]

OK yarddog, I won't post to again about this issue, even though you skirt the Q&A and deflect conversation to what you wish it to be by not giving straight answers to basic questions.

I haven't skirted any of the questions which you asked but have shown that you are incorrect in most of your accusations. I have also given you straight answers and if not show which are not.

Your attempt to goad me by calling me conspiracy theorists is fruitless, only shows you are still puffed up over this issue.

The conspiracy statement was because you tossed out some wild theory saying; "Lets look at tax-free Vatican City, a theocracy which governs all RCC properties and personnel worldwide. Nothing happens without Pope or his reps. approval.
However, the point I made was of the informal theocracy that is created by RCC political power & influence. You can side step the claim, but it is true."

Thus, a conspiracy theory unless you can prove your accusation factually, which you have not done yet.

The doctor told me that it takes about three days for ones blood pressure to go down to normal after being puffed up. Take my suggestion to calm down.

Well, I guess using your definition for puffed up, you prove that I am not, since my blood pressure is 105/ 70.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Well, I guess using your definition for puffed up, you prove that I am not, since my blood pressure is 105/ 70.

I would like a second opinion from a physician of my choice at your expense. (That's GOP Romney Careless). Ha3

 

[Yarddog]

are they following God or the catholic church?

They who? Your question doesn't make sense since the "they", in the initial post, was about who the Catholic Church was following. The Catholic Church is following Jesus, as was said.

what is this teaching based on? The CC thinks that a couple are not offering everything to their spouse if they use contraception. However anyone should be able to plainly see that that is actually denying their spouse of something called choice. If a couple discuss it and make a choice together then they are offering each other everything. Don't tell me i have their teaching wrong because it is available to read on the vatican website.

The teaches that procreation is essential in a Christian marriage but that a couple can choose, together, to delay starting a family. If they choose to delay having children, the Church teaches that the couple should abstain from sexual contact except in those times when the woman is unlikely to get pregnant. It is called natural family planning(NFP) but called the rhythm method by many as well. It has been shown to be over 90% effective when practiced properly. Unfortunately, Catholics have been shown to have poor rhythm.

 

[Yarddog]

I would like a second opinion from a physician of my choice at your expense. (That's GOP Romney Careless). Ha3

I hope that we can take each other in a light hearted way.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I hope that we can take each other in a light hearted way.

sure yarddog, I'm usually light hearted and at times (as you alluded to) light headed.

 

[TheDag]

They who? Your question doesn't make sense since the "they", in the initial post, was about who the Catholic Church was following. The Catholic Church is following Jesus, as was said.

your the one who has denied the RCC is an institution when it suits you to so don't try turning around and changing your mind now.
It is obvious from the question what was meant. You claim you do not avoid giving answers but here you have. You made it clear what you understood the question to be as shown by first part of your response and then decided to answer a different question!

The teaches that procreation is essential in a Christian marriage but that a couple can choose, together, to delay starting a family. If they choose to delay having children, the Church teaches that the couple should abstain from sexual contact except in those times when the woman is unlikely to get pregnant. It is called natural family planning(NFP) but called the rhythm method by many as well. It has been shown to be over 90% effective when practiced properly. Unfortunately, Catholics have been shown to have poor rhythm.

it is still witholding from your spouse which goes against the reason of your belief! if you will not allow the use of methods which when combined is as close to 100% certain as you will ever get then you are not offering the choice and therefore you are holding back. The reason for your belief and the teaching do not match up.

No, and not even close. HHS is for all citizens of the US but certain provisions should be subject to our Constitutional laws. The CC wants the Health Care Bill and believes that it did not go far enough in who and what should be covered. What the Church wants is for Catholics to be able to follow the faith which they are taught without the government trying to force them to do otherwise.

and they can do so under the proposals. having insurance cover is not the same as doing. If you disagree then you are saying insurance companies are guilty of murder because they offer life insurance which can include coverage for murder. Where is the big fuss over insurance companies covering suicide? There isn't one is there yet the CC thinks that is wrong. Sorry but you don't understand the difference between insurance cover and doing. So question is are you a murderer? Yes or no? That will answer this other matter unless your beliefs are nothing but double standards.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

yeah they shouldn't ignore the catholic churchs freedom of religion but they should allow the catholic church to ignore everyone elses freedom of religion! Can anyone say double standards!

in what way are others freedom of conscience or religion being ignored? an employee at a Catholic institution can still obtain contraception, it is just not paid for by their private employer...there is no Constitutional right to such a thing, so no ones rights are violated.

 

[LOCO]

According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty the following are the Myths being peddled around about the HHS.


Myth #1: “28 states — more than half — in the country have laws with contraception coverage mandates.”

Truth: The federal mandate actually goes much deeper. In states where there are mandates religious organizations can simply opt out by self-insuring or dropping prescription drug coverage. The federal mandate does not allow any of these alternatives, and does not protect our religious liberty.



Myth #2: “If you receive federal funding you have to comply by federal rules. You can’t have your cake and eat it too!”

Truth: The mandate forces every group health plan in America to cover these drugs whether the group gets federal funds or not. There is no opt-out. The government is making religious groups choose between offering services they believe to be immoral or closing their doors. That would have the terrible consequences of withdrawing charitable religious organizations from our country’s social safety net. Who will bear the brunt of this backwards policy? The poor, the homeless, the sick and the hungry.


Myth #3: These drugs don’t cause an abortion! Catholics should learn a little bit about biology.

Truth: Biology does not dictate theology. Reasonable people may disagree about when a pregnancy begins, but for individuals who believe that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, not implantation, these drugs destroy innocent life. More specifically, the mandate requires religious organizations to cover Plan B, the morning after pill, and Ella, the week after pill, both of which can terminate a human life after fertilization. Also, RU486, A.K.A. the abortion drug, is currently being tested, and if approved by the FDA as an emergency contraceptive would automatically be mandated as well.


Myth #4: Employees who do not share the same faith of their religious employer should not be deprived of health care because of their employer’s religious beliefs.

Truth: Religious groups believe in promoting the well-being and health of their employees and students, which is why they provide health insurance; but as part of their religious commitment, they cannot cover services that are inconsistent with their religious faith. Employees are free to purchase these services even if they are not covered under a religious employer’s plan. And employees and students at religious organizations know — when they accept a job or enroll as a student — they do so at a religious institution that takes seriously its faith commitment.


Myth #5: The federal mandate actually protects women’s health because it increases access to free birth control.

Truth: Access isn’t the issue. 9 out of 10 employer-based insurance plans already cover these services. There is no need for the government to force religious groups to provide these services against their religious convictions.
__________________

 

[WinBySurrender]

Well here's an "interesting" (read: moronic) addition to the debate. State Representative Stacey Newman (D-Richmond Heights) has introduced a bill to limit vasectomies in the state, allowing them only "if needed to avert serious injury or death."

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/22956/newman_030112

 

[Yarddog]

your the one who has denied the RCC is an institution when it suits you to so don't try turning around and changing your mind now.

Ah, can you show me where I said that the Catholic Church isn't as institution?

It is obvious from the question what was meant. You claim you do not avoid giving answers but here you have. You made it clear what you understood the question to be as shown by first part of your response and then decided to answer a different question!

What was obvious was that you didn't read what was written or you wouldn't have asked what you did in the manner which you did.

In reality, though you didn't mean it that way, you were asking if the Catholic Church followed Jesus or the Catholic Church. If you want to clarify your question, I'd be more than happy to answer whatever you want, in the best way that I can.

it is still witholding from your spouse which goes against the reason of your belief! if you will not allow the use of methods which when combined is as close to 100% certain as you will ever get then you are not offering the choice and therefore you are holding back. The reason for your belief and the teaching do not match up.

Since you claim to have access to the Vatican site, give us the evidence which leads you believe your position. Then, I can give you more showing the full teaching of the Church involving marriage and family planning.

and they can do so under the proposals.

Not if the section requiring birth control is forced upon a Church or its faithful when it is a clear violation of their doctrine.

having insurance cover is not the same as doing.

In what way is it not?

If you disagree then you are saying insurance companies are guilty of murder because they offer life insurance which can include coverage for murder.

Want to explain that nonsense?

Where is the big fuss over insurance companies covering suicide?

And that nonsense.

There isn't one is there yet the CC thinks that is wrong. Sorry but you don't understand the difference between insurance cover and doing.

You don't seem to understand the issue. All that other babbling has nothing to do with this issue. The Church is standing up against being forced to provide insurance coverage which violates a doctrine of the Church which has been in place for many many years. If they are forced to provide coverage which allows murder or suicidethe Church will fight that, IMO.

So question is are you a murderer? Yes or no?

Nope.

That will answer this other matter unless your beliefs are nothing but double standards.

I don't know where you get all of this rhetoric from but it seems to show that you are a little disturbed.

 

[TheDag]

Ah, can you show me where I said that the Catholic Church isn't as institution?


What was obvious was that you didn't read what was written or you wouldn't have asked what you did in the manner which you did.

In reality, though you didn't mean it that way, you were asking if the Catholic Church followed Jesus or the Catholic Church. If you want to clarify your question, I'd be more than happy to answer whatever you want, in the best way that I can.


Since you claim to have access to the Vatican site, give us the evidence which leads you believe your position. Then, I can give you more showing the full teaching of the Church involving marriage and family planning.



Not if the section requiring birth control is forced upon a Church or its faithful when it is a clear violation of their doctrine.


In what way is it not?


Want to explain that nonsense?


And that nonsense.


You don't seem to understand the issue. All that other babbling has nothing to do with this issue. The Church is standing up against being forced to provide insurance coverage which violates a doctrine of the Church which has been in place for many many years. If they are forced to provide coverage which allows murder or suicidethe Church will fight that, IMO.



Nope.



I don't know where you get all of this rhetoric from but it seems to show that you are a little disturbed.

Can't you just say you have been caught out? Suicide and murder can be covered by insurance so if insurance is the same thing as doing then you are guilty of murder. It really is a very simple argument to follow. if however you claim not to be guilty of murder (which you have claimed) then it is aclnowledging insurance cover is not the same as doing. You can't have it both ways. So make up your mind once and for all is providing insurance cover the same as doing? if so then the catholic church is guilty of murder but if not then this does not violate your religious freedom. You can start name calling by saying I'm disturbed but it really is very simple logic. You just want to have your cake and eat it too!

here is the vatican website address you requested Vatican: the Holy See see not hard to find!

 

[Yarddog]

Can't you just say you have been caught out?

Why, you haven't done anything other than show you don't understand the issue.

Suicide and murder can be covered by insurance so if insurance is the same thing as doing then you are guilty of murder.

Again, what does that have to do with this issue? The government isn't telling anyone that they have to give life insurance to cover suicide. Stick with the issue please. There are conditions in most policies which can make it void in these cases. Explain yourself better.

It really is a very simple argument to follow.

Who cares if it has nothing to do with the OP. Start another thread dealing with those policies with sites showing what you are talking about.

if however you claim not to be guilty of murder (which you have claimed) then it is aclnowledging insurance cover is not the same as doing.

Your argument is silly but I never said that a policy is the same as doing.

You can't have it both ways.

Who is trying? It still has nothing to do with the OP.

So make up your mind once and for all is providing insurance cover the same as doing?

It depends on if you provide the insurance for the purpose of doing. If you purchase a life insurance policy for someone for the purpose of collecting for murdering someone, it is the same as doing. If you purchase the policy as protection in case a loved one dies and that person is murdered, then you are not complicit in the crime.

if so then the catholic church is guilty of murder but if not then this does not violate your religious freedom.

If the government forces a religious institution to provide insurance for the purpose of murder, then the government is guilty of murder, not the institution. But since complicity means that the persons who knows of the crime and does nothing about it shares some guilt for the crime, the institution would share in the guilt if it failed to try and stop the crime. The are a de-facto accessory.

You can start name calling by saying I'm disturbed but it really is very simple logic. You just want to have your cake and eat it too!

It is so simple that it is incorrect or a fallacy.

here is the vatican website address you requested Vatican: the Holy See see not hard to find!

I didn't ask for the web site, I have it, I asked you to produce the evidence from it that supports your claim.

 

[TheDag]

yarddog you are changing argument again. or you have lied about answering questions without avoiding them. I said having insurance is not the same as doing. you responded by saying How is it not? So either you are not addressing the issue even though you claim you are or you have stated it is the same and now want to change your mind.

i will continue to use the suicide example because it is relevent. it is relevent in that it is something the catholic church is against yet pays for insurance for on behalf of its employees. They did not make protests about this. So either the catholic church according to your reasoning is guilty of suicide because they pay for insurance that covers it or they can pay for insurance cover under the proposal being discussed and not be guilty of wrong doing.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Well here's an "interesting" (read: moronic) addition to the debate. State Representative Stacey Newman (D-Richmond Heights) has introduced a bill to limit vasectomies in the state, allowing them only "if needed to avert serious injury or death."

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/22956/newman_030112

Why wasn't the women allowed to speak, silenced seven? Same thing in DC, not many women or medical doctors giving opinions.

Boiled down, I think this is no religious conscience exemption issue, for no institution has a conscience. Individuals do, individuals are to follow Christ not institutions. The Church of God isn't brick & mortar, it's human beings. Whenever that rule came into being and why is beyond my understanding, nonsense. Who came up with applying this to institutions? SCOTUS?
State Eugenics! yeah, that's the answer.....whada you think
North Carolina State Sponsored Sterilization Program...sign up, it's free!

North Carolina was one of 31 states to have a government run eugenics program. By the 1960s, tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized as a result of these programs.

Rock Center with Brian Williams - Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program, which targeted women, young girls and blacks
The Winston-Salem Journal: Against Their Will - North Carolina's Sterilization Program

 

[Yarddog]

yarddog you are changing argument again.

I haven't changed the "discussion" once, you have. You have gone away from issue bringing up other types of "life" insurance policies when the issue is a provision of the Health Insurance Bill. It would help if you stayed on topic.

or you have lied about answering questions without avoiding them.

I haven't lied either, you have a problem comprehending what has been written and instead of providing proof of how you come up with your wild accusations when I confront you with them, you head off in another direction.

I said having insurance is not the same as doing.

And when one looks just at the issue as just having insurance, I would agree, but then you start adding to the issue by going off topic and bringing up murder and suicide and then that starts to complicate things. One's answer needs to be amended to suit those cases.

you responded by saying How is it not?

No, I had to show how it "may not", depending on "why" one bought the insurance policy. If a man buys a Health Insurance policy to cover his health needs and a provision in that policy pays for abortion, having that insurance is not the same as doing because he is not going to use. If a woman buys that policy "because she plans on having an abortion" the insurance is the same as doing.

If a Church offers insurance which pays for abortion and a woman has one under that policy, the Church is complicit in the abortion. They become an accessory.

you have stated it is the same and now want to change your mind.

I did have to adjust my answer because You brought up other issues which showed that my answer needed to be altered to fit.

i will continue to use the suicide example because it is relevent.

Suicide is not covered under the Health Care Bill so it is not on topic.

it is relevent in that it is something the catholic church is against yet pays for insurance for on behalf of its employees.

Provide the proof that suicide is covered under this Bill. In most life insurance policies, suicide voids the policy.

They did not make protests about this.

Why should they if the policy is voided.

So either the catholic church according to your reasoning is guilty of suicide because they pay for insurance that covers it or they can pay for insurance cover under the proposal being discussed and not be guilty of wrong doing.

If the Church provided a Life insurance policy which covered assisted suicide, you would have a point. Provide proof that they do.

 

[Lovely Lane]

yarddog, you refer to 'proof' in several of your posts. You haven't applied any proofs in your speech, just more of the same as others do in applying opinion. And opinions is what drives discussion.

Do you know where this idea on 'religious conscience' and the 'exemption' derives from?

 

[WinBySurrender]

State Eugenics! yeah, that's the answer.....whada you think
North Carolina State Sponsored Sterilization Program...sign up, it's free!http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/

This happened in the 30s through the mid-60s, you realize, right?

 

[Yarddog]

yarddog, you refer to 'proof' in several of your posts.

I asked Dag for proof in one post and I asked you to prove your accusations in one post and neither of you have provided anything. I asked Dag for evidence to back up his accusation in another post but he wanted me to do the work for him.

You haven't applied any proofs in your speech, just more of the same as others do in applying opinion. And opinions is what drives discussion.

No one has asked for evidence or proof of my statements.
I'm not the one making accusations against the Catholic Church. If you or Dag make accusations, provide your proof. Neither of you have done that.

Dag said:"yeah they shouldn't ignore the catholic churchs freedom of religion but they should allow the catholic church to ignore everyone elses freedom of religion! Can anyone say double standards!"

I asked how and he never responded to that and you answered using a lame statement "by not providing choice, Jesus offered choice, didn't he."

Do you know where this idea on 'religious conscience' and the 'exemption' derives from?

I'll be interested to hear your theory.

 

[Lovely Lane]

This happened in the 30s through the mid-60s, you realize, right?

actually, 1974.....1974 wasn't the dark ages, remember? The church didn't argue religious conscience exemption at the time, and I don't see where the church protested or sued over sterilization practices. What do you say?


Do you have information on law defining "religious conscience" or "religious conscience exemption" ? I guess it is some kind of leap of the first amendment but I haven't seen any SCOTUS rulings defining it. Or could it be a political catch phrase?