Catholic Cardinal: Yes, it’s a sin to comply with the Obamacare mandate

posted at 6:14 pm on April 10, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In the clearest statement of what’s at stake for Catholic employers when it comes to the Obamacare contraception mandate, a leading Catholic cardinal recently said that it is, in fact, a sin for employers to comply with the mandate.

Cardinal Raymond Burke told EWTN’s Thomas McKenna that Catholic employers would not only be guilty of material cooperation with sin, but also formal cooperation because they would knowingly and deliberately be providing employees with contraception:

Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin … the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”

Responding to the comments, [former executive director of HLI America Jenn] Giroux says, “This comment by a high ranking Cardinal is the clearest explanation to date on the issue of an employer’s culpability when providing contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drug options in the insurance plans for employees.”

It’s easy to see that this statement might come as a surprise even to the most faithful of Catholics, who are taught that an individual must freely consent to sin to bear full responsibility for it. Under the mandate, do employers really have the freedom not to consent? Cardinal Burke is telling them that, yes, they do. They have the freedom, for example, to get out of whatever business it is they’re running. They have the freedom to not have employees. They have the freedom to ignore the mandate and suffer the legal consequences. Burke’s comments are a hard call to faithfulness to all those Catholic employers who have been outraged by the mandate but might have been tempted to justify their ultimate compliance with it with that perennial of excuses: “I had no choice.” The seriousness of Burke’s words are also a warning to the Obama administration: He is saying that Catholic employers should go out of business before they comply with the mandate. Just as opponents have said from the very beginning, the mandate does, in fact, endanger the very existence of Catholic hospitals, schools and other charitable organizations. The president had better think long and hard about whether contraception coverage is more important to him than broader health care, education and help for the poor.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

theCork on April 10, 2012 at 8:13 PM

It is possible to remain a Democrat — but not to support any of their platform planks which run counter to the teachings of the Church. No stealing from others, even for redistribution, no contraceptives, no abortions.

I lean Republican, but I have a big problem with the rabid anti-immigration stance of many of the candidates. I tend to be of the Abraham Lincoln persuasion — free immigration to anyone who’s willing to work toward the American Dream.

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

16 years of Catholic education here – for decades the Catholic clergy has backed every liberal scheme out there other than abortion – every single program for the “poor”, every program to turn a war into a genocide, every program for the environment, every program to send money to other countries, deserving or not, in other words the Catholic clergy did all they could to support bigger government. And now they find it’s their turn to be eaten by the lion. Well tough luck. I’ll have some sympathy when Rome has every parish priest preaching the evils of bigger government and demanding the elimination of all those government programs and associated taxes they have supported for five decades. Let me know when today’s Father Berrigan chains himself to the White House fence protesting big government.

Over50 on April 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

The Democrat Party has changed. It is no longer possible to be a faithful Catholic and be a Democrat.

theCork on April 10, 2012 at 8:13 PM

My hubby has said this for years. Sadly, I know lots of low-information voters who happen to be faithful Catholics who still do not realize this. I’ve said it before, but my impression is that they remain Democrats because their parents and grandparents were and they are doing it out of some nebulous sense of family honor. But if they actually pondered it, they might conclude that if their parents and grandparents were alive today, they might very well not be Democrats after seeing Obama and the current Democrat party.

PatriotGal2257 on April 10, 2012 at 8:26 PM

How is calling on the Catholic Church to bankroll Obama’s opposition anti-Catholic? This is FAR MORE THAN a mere “war for minds.” You dismiss Obama’s evil at your peril, just as the Catholic Church does. This is a war for your very soul – whether it will be free or enslaved to the state. Unless the RCC wakes up to this fact, they too, will become enslaved.

Harbingeing on April 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

It is not the Church’s place to interfere in American politics by campaigning for or against any particular candidate. It is the Church’s place to speak out against sin, which it is doing.

I don’t think Mr. Obama is evil; I believe he is, however, sinful. I do think he is in over his head, and he’s not the constitutional scholar he thinks he is. He wants to give the left what they want, and to that extent he is sinning.

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Huh? Is this verifiable, or is it one of those everybody-knows-it’s-true-so-we-don’t-need-to-offer-proof statements?

JimLennon on April 10, 2012 at 6:40 PM

The wealth of the Vatican is well documented – do a search.

They are not $15 trillion in the hole and counting. In fact, no organization in the history of the world ever has been $15 trillion in the hole.

CorporatePiggy on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Actually yes – I was forced to join as a kid

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Not by the church, presumably your parents who likely forced you to do a lot of other things you didn’t want to do, so that’s hardly a legitimate point against Catholicism.

That said, I am not Catholic and don’t necessarily have the best impression possible of the church and probably shouldn’t talk. I don’t like how often they’ve sided with Dems and do feel in some ways that this is a “lie down with dogs” moment, but I also hope they don’t cave.

Esthier on April 10, 2012 at 8:32 PM

The Democrat Party has changed. It is no longer possible to be a faithful Catholic and be a Democrat.

theCork on April 10, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Yep.

CW on April 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Allahpundit Hardest Hit

Knott Buyinit on April 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM

The president had better think long and hard about whether contraception coverage is more important to him than broader health care, education and help for the poor.

Has he EVER given broader health care, education, or help for the poor greater priority than his dedication to abortion and infanticide? Not in the entire time I’ve lived in Illinois. You must not know him very well.

SteveThomas on April 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM

It is not the Church’s place to interfere in American politics by campaigning for or against any particular candidate. It is the Church’s place to speak out against sin, which it is doing.

I don’t think Mr. Obama is evil; I believe he is, however, sinful. I do think he is in over his head, and he’s not the constitutional scholar he thinks he is. He wants to give the left what they want, and to that extent he is sinning.

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

There’s your problem then, Uncle.

Don’t you realize that the Church itself and its doctrines are in the process of being attacked and institutionally invalidated by an evil ideology, and that Obama himself is spearheading the attack?

You sound as naiive and weak as Romney does, and this reason, most of us believe he will lose this election, and that the Catholic Church will, in the end, just roll over and submit. Naivete and weakness invites attack, and you have that in spades.

Harbingeing on April 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM

I agree with Dolan. And, I think everyone who can should get out of the economy as much as possible before the election. Don’t buy any more than absolutely necessary, don’t work more than necessary.

Obama and the democrats are using you for their own ends, to help their friends (which you are not), and to bring fundamental change to this country. Why should we participate in that?

Our biggest participation should be voting him and his America-hating friends out of office.

jaime on April 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

And to put an end point on it, I leave you with a very famous quote often attributed to Edmund Burke:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”

Right now, in actual effect, the Catholic Church doing virtually nothing. Some talk, some words here and there by this Cardinal or another, but effective actions? None. When an institution with the resources, good men and moral authority of the Catholic Church DOES NOTHING in the face of evil, then evil triumphs and their complacency deserves a large measure of the blame.

Harbingeing on April 10, 2012 at 9:13 PM

“Burke’s comments are a hard call to faithfulness to all those Catholic employers who have been outraged by the mandate but might have been tempted to justify their ultimate compliance with it with that perennial of excuses: ‘I had no choice.’”

I don’t know why this should come as a surprise to anybody who was even remotely aware of events around & after WWII. “I was only following orders” didn’t wash as an excuse, then, either.

To paraphrase unclesmrgol from earlier, “Civil disobedience is a path which every good person of any moral grounding must pursue when his government acts against His Will.”

leucanthemum b on April 10, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Don’t you realize that the Church itself and its doctrines are in the process of being attacked and institutionally invalidated by an evil ideology, and that Obama himself is spearheading the attack?

The Catholic Church has survived much worse in its over 2,000 years of existence. Obama can be as narcissistic as he wants, he can try as hard as he can, but he can’t invalidate the Catholic Church’s doctrines any more than he can dictate yours and my rights as persons. Obama is one of a long line of petty politicians who will be shown to be as weak, as small and as desperate as any who have gone before him.

You sound as naive and weak as Romney does, and this reason, most of us believe he will lose this election, and that the Catholic Church will, in the end, just roll over and submit. Naivete and weakness invites attack, and you have that in spades.

Harbingeing on April 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Ya think? What some in the U.S. seem to forget is that the Catholic Church is not “the American Catholic Church,” as the liberals want to believe, but the Catholic Church in the United States. It is a significant difference, and I seriously doubt that Pope Benedict is going to sit back and allow Obama to dictate the terms of the Church’s existence in this country.

PatriotGal2257 on April 10, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I’ll be impresed when the catholic church starts denying communion to pro-abortion catholic politicians.

AnotherOpinion on April 10, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Kingfisher on April 10, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Congratulations on making yourself the stereotype hypocritical catholic who spouts WWJD platitudes (that you don’t really understand) to shore up your holier-than-thou snobbery.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Clarity is better than agreement, and it doesn’t get much clearer than Cardinal Dolan Burke…? Whoa. Bless him.

Jaibones on April 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I’ll be impresed when the catholic church starts denying communion to pro-abortion catholic politicians.

AnotherOpinion on April 10, 2012 at 9:27 PM

That would be impressive.

Jaibones on April 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM

for decades the Catholic clergy has backed every liberal scheme out there other than abortion –Over50 on April 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

This. I worked for the Church for over a decade and always wanted to tell them that the left is coming after their freedom too. Now they get it.

The president had better think long and hard about whether contraception coverage is more important to him than broader health care, education and help for the poor.

Obama wants an end to all Church related charities and everyone dependent on big government.

HellCat on April 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM

The president had better think long and hard about whether contraception coverage is more important to him than broader health care, education and help for the poor.

Not going to happen. The Chosen One is incapable of thinking outside the Socialist box.

Not only that, to back away would be an admission of His Infallibility.

GarandFan on April 10, 2012 at 10:23 PM

I don’t think Mr. Obama is evil …

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I think he is. I think I’m right.

SagebrushPuppet on April 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM

I don’t think Mr. Obama is evil …

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I think he is. I think I’m right.

SagebrushPuppet on April 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM

I think he’s the devil Barackzabub.

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Wonder what Father Pfleger has to say about this…

Vanilla Salt on April 10, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Chicago is the perfect example of why liberal policies fail, epically.

How much money has been poured into that city since the 1970′s, particularly the Southside, and what is there to show for it?

Reverend Wright?

ccrosby on April 10, 2012 at 11:37 PM

I’m not RC but this kind of talk raises my respect for them. Next they need to publicly call phonies like Pelosi and Delauro on the carpet and send them packing. And this is one opportunity for the Body of Christ of all stripes to show a high level of unity.

paul1149 on April 10, 2012 at 11:48 PM

As a Lutheran, while I disagree with the Catholic church on contraception, there is definite agreement on the evil of abortion. My church body has also stated that this is the government (in the case of abortificents) attempting to force Christians to do something against the law of God and that in this case, we must obey God rather than men. I personally go a bit farther than that because I believe that it is the members of the administration and Congress who passed this horrible law and are attempting to implement it that are the ones who are in open rebellion to our established form of government and attempting to overthrow that form of government from within. They are violating the supreme law of the land as embodied in the Constitution and if we allow them to implement this law and its commands, we are guilty of supporting them in their attempt to overthrow the duly constituted government of the US.

Hint to libs, just because you win an election does not mean that you get to usurp the clearly stated limits of the Constitution. Your candidate is to pledge to uphold and defend that constitution, not to shred it.

AZfederalist on April 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM

There’s your problem then, Uncle.

Don’t you realize that the Church itself and its doctrines are in the process of being attacked and institutionally invalidated by an evil ideology, and that Obama himself is spearheading the attack?

You sound as naiive and weak as Romney does, and this reason, most of us believe he will lose this election, and that the Catholic Church will, in the end, just roll over and submit. Naivete and weakness invites attack, and you have that in spades.

Harbingeing on April 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Catholicism is anything but scriptura sola. We believe that works are part of the equation — that faith without works is nothing, and works without faith are nothing, but together, they equal salvation. Jesus did say “by their fruits shall you know them”, and there it is.

So, right now we are at the words stage — words being part of works. Should we have to disobey Mr. Obama, all of us who are true Catholics stand ready to do so.

I think the Church is far past the Holy Thursday Peter thing. I don’t know if you’ve been in a Catholic church over the past couple of months, but the homilies are certainly working Obamacare over. So are a lot of Catholics on youtube — and to see where the Church is in all of this, search on “obamacare homily”

unclesmrgol on April 11, 2012 at 12:57 AM

I’m not RC but this kind of talk raises my respect for them. Next they need to publicly call phonies like Pelosi and Delauro on the carpet and send them packing. And this is one opportunity for the Body of Christ of all stripes to show a high level of unity.

paul1149 on April 10, 2012 at 11:48 PM

You’re going to be waiting a long time for that.

The RC Church is a highly political and monetized religious organization.

They’ll talk a good game and cut their own deals.

This is all just posturing.

CorporatePiggy on April 11, 2012 at 12:59 AM

I’m not RC but this kind of talk raises my respect for them. Next they need to publicly call phonies like Pelosi and Delauro on the carpet and send them packing. And this is one opportunity for the Body of Christ of all stripes to show a high level of unity.

paul1149 on April 10, 2012 at 11:48 PM

We are a church of sinners. You don’t send your sinners packing unless they are ecclesiastics and teach wrongly, thus becoming a danger to the Body of Christ by leading others into error.

Pelosi and Delauro are not ecclesiastics — they have no teaching or clerical authority whatsoever. Several bishops have already confronted Pelosi’s words and refuted them — much as St. Augustine did with the Menachaeans. One strives to bring a sinner to Christ, not to send them away.

unclesmrgol on April 11, 2012 at 1:06 AM

This is all just posturing.

CorporatePiggy on April 11, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Perhaps. And perhaps you are just posturing too.

unclesmrgol on April 11, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”

this is bull. the same argument goes to employing people and allowing them to use the money in “sinfull” ways.
employers should not be able to limit the options of their employees do with the money and benefits they get because of their own moral objections.
question, can I have work contracts where the employer forces me not to buy something they disapprove of or else?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 7:08 AM

employers should not be able to limit the options of their employees do with the money and benefits they get because of their own moral objections.
question, can I have work contracts where the employer forces me not to buy something they disapprove of or else?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 7:08 AM

Simply put, yes. Employers have every right to limit the behavior of their employees. Some employers forbid their employees to smoke cigarettes at any time. An employer can definitely tell its employees that they can’t use their money to buy marijuana or heroin or to use the services of prostitutes. Moral objections? Certainly. If you want to use the money we pay you to purchase such things, then you can’t work here anymore.

But your comment is a red-herring. This isn’t about employers limiting what employees can do with the benefits they receive, it’s about an employer saying we’re not going to provide that particular benefit in the first place. If having that particular benefit is so important to you, go find an employer who provides it.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 7:34 AM

I congratulate Cardinal Burke on speaking out authoritatively on this. Caving into the latter day impulse to “go along to get along” that rewards and encourages bad behavior is long overdue.

insidiator on April 11, 2012 at 7:35 AM

He’s correct, though it may hurt some people’s feelings or cause him to now be one of those the Obama administration now must personally destroy. Those Catholics who choose to ignore this will account for it some day – not to the Church or the Cardinal but to God. Since it is a sin, I agree with those of you who call for the Church to take a stronger stand and excommunicate Pelosi, Sebelious, and the rest of those who say they are Catholic and they aren’t. They have actually ex-communicated themselves by going publicly against the teachings of the Church, but a more public ex-communication is needed to be an example to those Catholics who don’t read articles like this and only watch MSM.

lukjuj on April 11, 2012 at 7:38 AM

I lean Republican, but I have a big problem with the rabid anti-immigration stance of many of the candidates. I tend to be of the Abraham Lincoln persuasion — free immigration to anyone who’s willing to work toward the American Dream.

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

We’re always going to need some type of immigration limitations — unless you’re willing to allow all the world’s violent criminals to take up residence here. But I’d be happy to have a more open and accommodating immigration system if we could first dismantle our counter-productive welfare state.

As someone once said, we can have open borders or we can have a welfare state, but we can’t have both.

AZCoyote on April 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Doing the right thing is hard.
Who knew?
Much easier to do bad stuff.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Simply put, yes. Employers have every right to limit the behavior of their employees. Some employers forbid their employees to smoke cigarettes at any time. An employer can definitely tell its employees that they can’t use their money to buy marijuana or heroin or to use the services of prostitutes. Moral objections? Certainly. If you want to use the money we pay you to purchase such things, then you can’t work here anymore.

“Some employers forbid their employees to smoke cigarettes at any time”. even at home? can an employer forbid you from smoking cigars outside your work hours and far away from your work place?
to buy marijuana or heroin or to use the services of prostitutes are illegal. while contraception is not.
but my beef was with some kind of legal binding in work contracts. for example, could any employer have a clause in their contract that if their employed are found using contraception(that is legal) or porn, outside their work ours, they can force the employees to pay a fine or be fired without justification? would such thing be legal or even constitutional? its a “no snark” question. I am really in doubt.

But your comment is a red-herring. This isn’t about employers limiting what employees can do with the benefits they receive, it’s about an employer saying we’re not going to provide that particular benefit in the first place. If having that particular benefit is so important to you, go find an employer who provides it.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 7:34 AM

this is just about the bishop comments that any employer would be sinning if he provides the contraception coverage in its health insurance.
that might not be theologically correct. providing health insurance contraception coverage is not the same as forcing the employees to use contraception.
its always the employee choice of using that benefit or not as it is the employee choice to use its money in sinfull things or not. the employeer is not in sin by providing benefits and $ that could facilitate the sinfull ways of its employed.

1

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Doing the right thing is hard.
Who knew?
Much easier to do bad stuff.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM

is contraception bad stuff?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM

This is overkill.

Okay – the WAS about forcing the RCC to provide contraception in it’s health care plans. The RCC is against that – I get that – I support them in that even though most of them endorsed ObamaCare, which is now the instrument of their woe.

But now he’s saying that employers (not associated with the church) – but where the OWNER of the company is Catholic – then he commits a sin by providing contraception to his employees who want it?

Okay – I can go with that but …

Why hasn’t the Cardinal pronounced Nancy Pelosi as an apostate? She’s been responsible for A LOT WORSE during her time in congress than any Catholic owner of a hardware store who provides contraception has.

WTF?

HondaV65 on April 11, 2012 at 8:52 AM

“Some employers forbid their employees to smoke cigarettes at any time”. even at home?

Yes, some employers ban their employees from smoking at any time.

to buy marijuana or heroin or to use the services of prostitutes are illegal. while contraception is not.

I’ll grant you heroin, but in some jurisdictions purchasing marijuana is legal, and so is prostitution. Can employers ban their employee from purchasing these things? They certainly can, and do.

but my beef was with some kind of legal binding in work contracts. for example, could any employer have a clause in their contract that if their employed are found using contraception(that is legal) or porn, outside their work ours, they can force the employees to pay a fine or be fired without justification? would such thing be legal or even constitutional? its a “no snark” question. I am really in doubt.

While I doubt that an employer could ban its employees from using contraception, they certainly can ban other behaviors. The point here though is not whether employers can ban the use of an item by their employees, but whether they can be forced to provide the items to their employees in the first place.

Suppose I worked for the Drug Free America Foundation in a state which allows medical marijuana purchase and use. Would it be reasonable for me to demand that my employer provide me with medical marjiuana as part of its health plan, or would it be reasonable for the employer to require 100% drug abstinence by all employees and to refuse to offer medical marijuana purchase as a part of their employee health plan?

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 8:56 AM

oops, quotes fail, but you know where you left off and i began!

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 8:57 AM

TeaPartyNation on April 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM

You have to use zero’s when you type his name that way as in 0b0z0!

BTW, not one more cent in his coffers to give to his bundlers and his green energy company. How come we aren’t hearing more about the bundlers who have stepped in front of the tax payers to receive money ahead of us? Come on!
Get off the criticsm of the Catholic Church, he hates all religions except the muslims and golf. This is a broad side and we all should know it, and stand with the Catholics. No, I’m not Catholic!

Bambi on April 11, 2012 at 8:58 AM

“Some employers forbid their employees to smoke cigarettes at any time”. even at home? can an employer forbid you from smoking cigars outside your work hours and far away from your work place?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Yes,.. we have a local employer here who does that, if you even smoke in your care in the parking lot, gone.. if it shows up on a random drug test, even though it’s legal… gone.. and yes, folks hate the company for it.. but jobs are so scarse people take the chance of being fired, just because they have to.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Yes, some employers ban their employees from smoking at any time.

you have examples? and what is the penalty allowed if people breach contract?
I mean, if it is a regular work contract, it has regulations no? I am very surprised such things are allowed.

I’ll grant you heroin, but in some jurisdictions purchasing marijuana is legal, and so is prostitution. Can employers ban their employee from purchasing these things? They certainly can, and do.

examples?
and followup question, why does not the church or any employer just updates their work employees contracts to forbid them of doing whatever they think its sinfull?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:07 AM

#

I think ObamaCare is a travesty, but that last thing Americans, American conservatives, and, in particular, American Catholics, need is some damned foreign cardinal at the Vatican telling Americans how to behave.

People rightly decry the anti-Catholic prejudice that was widespread in this country in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but people forget the main reason: the Church opposed most of the tenets of the American political system and indeed claimed the authority to tell Catholics how to participate in public life and claimed the right to secular authority.

It’s statements like this foreign official – because the Vatican is a foreign country, not just a religious entity – that make anyone who is not Catholic suspicious of Rome and of especially devout Catholics in public life.

The Vatican should shut the f— up about American politics.

If American clergy (Catholic or otherwise) want to talk about morality, that’s fine, but the the foreigners can go to h—.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Yes,.. we have a local employer here who does that, if you even smoke in your care in the parking lot, gone.. if it shows up on a random drug test, even though it’s legal… gone.. and yes, folks hate the company for it.. but jobs are so scarse people take the chance of being fired, just because they have to.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 9:06 AM

cigarrets parking lot of the company? that can be justified. but smoking at home? how can they even test for cigarrete smoke knowing that people get second hand smoking all the time.
what is their justification for this? can employers make any rule for their employees they want? is there no restrictions and regulations? I find that really hard to believe.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:13 AM

is contraception bad stuff?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM

To the Catholic church it is, tool.
Abortion is also bad stuff.
Bud since bad stuff doesn’t bother you, why are you bothering to chime in?

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I find that really hard to believe.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:13 AM

It’s also hard to believe a woman can get her child taken away bcs she ate something containing poppy seeds.
What a crazy world!

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I fully back the Catholic church on this, it’s not the governments business to tell people just what part of their faith is unacceptable, not their call.

That some people hate the church or disagree with this or that policy or position is beside the point.. it’s the mere fact the government is stripping Catholics of their 1st Amendment protections that SHOULD be the rallying cry..

I don’t care that some folks hate the Vatican’s stance on contraceptives.. utterly unconcerned.. what I do care about is that on abortion the church is correct, and on the 1st Amendment, they are correct.

If you don’t believe as Catholics do, then don’t be one..

but don’t tell me that they are fair game for a government targeting them because they want to force them to violate their faith. Do I get to decide which of your views are up for government interference?

That would seem the fair response..

We either stand up for all of us, stand for all Americans right to believe as they like, or don’t cry when no one cares when they come for you.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM

While I doubt that an employer could ban its employees from using contraception, they certainly can ban other behaviors.

they sure can ban legal behaviors in their workplace, but outside the workplace and work hours, what legal behavior can they ban?

The point here though is not whether employers can ban the use of an item by their employees, but whether they can be forced to provide the items to their employees in the first place.

provide a benefit is not the same as forcing the employee to use it. I mean, for a “calculation of sin”, you facilitate any bad bad behavior by giving people means, either by money or work benefit, to do it. unless you can control what employees do with their money, you are facilitating sin no?

Suppose I worked for the Drug Free America Foundation in a state which allows medical marijuana purchase and use. Would it be reasonable for me to demand that my employer provide me with medical marjiuana as part of its health plan, or would it be reasonable for the employer to require 100% drug abstinence by all employees and to refuse to offer medical marijuana purchase as a part of their employee health plan?

while it makes sense for your case, it would allow all kind of crazy restrictions by employees.
say, if you worked for the celibate association of America, could you be forced, by work contract, not to have sex?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM

what is their justification for this? can employers make any rule for their employees they want? is there no restrictions and regulations? I find that really hard to believe.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:13 AM

You want the companies name?

What the Hell?.. are you this sheltered? This isolated from what people do to each other out in the world?..

The Longaberger Home Office is located at:
**** Market Square
**** ****** **** Street
Newark, Ohio 43055

They forbid hyperlinks and I don’t want to run a foul of Hotairs rules, so I can’t link directly.. but this is a family run company, and well known locally as being run by a pack of control freaks.. I have no idea which party they favor.. don’t care.. they treat the help like serfs..

and you’re naive in the extreme.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM

The Catholic Church will not cave on this. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, it does not flow with the tides of public opinion, frankly it does not care what humans think of any of its policy. At the highest level, the Pope and his bishops will do what is God’s law, and that does not change. Did the Church change because of what Stalin wished? No, it went underground. Did the Church change because of any dictator or any tyrant through the 2000 year history, no. Oh you get weird Popes, you get strange politics, but the core beliefs do not and can not change. The entire and full truth of the gospel was given 2012 years ago on Easter. That truth, that revelation can neither be changed or added to. (That by the way is Catholic doctrine and one of the traits by which you can tell truth, if a “Saint” or minister tries to reveal a new doctrine, that adds to the full revelation it then means Jesus didn’t teach us all that we need, which can not be true, therefore the “Saint” or minister or president is leading the sheep astray.) Obama and everyone else on the left does not understand this. It is beyond their comprehension that regardless of the pressure, the posturing, the messaging that some laws just can not be changed, re-interpreted to suit them and their ends. This is the essence of the Church, to be the rock, the immovable object. This will end badly for the left. The hospitals will close down, the congregation might get divided, the righteous on one side, the secular on the other side, it might go so far as to “chose thou this day whom ye serve, life or death”. Maybe it is time to push it that far. He has a plan.

odannyboy on April 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Right now, in actual effect, the Catholic Church doing virtually nothing. Some talk, some words here and there by this Cardinal or another, but effective actions? None. When an institution with the resources, good men and moral authority of the Catholic Church DOES NOTHING in the face of evil, then evil triumphs and their complacency deserves a large measure of the blame.

Harbingeing on April 10, 2012 at 9:13 PM

You obviously don’t attend a Catholic parish. Every diocesan priest in the nation has preached against the HHS mandate. Most urged parishioners to attend the rallies for religious freedom.

They head of the Council of Bishops in the US has threatened to shut down every Church hospital, hospice, parochial school, university, etc.

Neither of those are NOTHING. Name an organization that has done more against Obamacare recently? I’m waiting.

theCork on April 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM

It’s also hard to believe a woman can get her child taken away bcs she ate something containing poppy seeds.
What a crazy world!

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 9:19 AM

that was the case of a woman that was suspected of an illegal behavior. and it was the state\county that took her baby away, not a company. its a apples and oranges example you gave me.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I congratulate Cardinal Burke on speaking out authoritatively on this. Caving into the latter day impulse to “go along to get along” that rewards and encourages bad behavior is long overdue.

insidiator on April 11, 2012 at 7:35 AM

Several Catholic institutions are already in compliance with contraception coverage based on state laws. If the bishop can’t influence those institutions it seems unlikely that he’ll have much effect on non-church-operated corporations in the event of a federal mandate.

OptionsTrader on April 11, 2012 at 9:45 AM

You want the companies name?

What the Hell?.. are you this sheltered? This isolated from what people do to each other out in the world?..

The Longaberger Home Office is located at:
**** Market Square
**** ****** **** Street
Newark, Ohio 43055

it a bit strange, because the employees are door to door salesman, I guess they can forbid they employees from smoking anywhere where they are identified as company employees. I checked the website and could not find any restriction to their behavior.
you can post an hyperlink by dividing it with spaces:
ww w.long aber ger. c om/

They forbid hyperlinks and I don’t want to run a foul of Hotairs rules, so I can’t link directly.. but this is a family run company, and well known locally as being run by a pack of control freaks.. I have no idea which party they favor.. don’t care.. they treat the help like serfs..

and you’re naive in the extreme.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM

no I am not naive, there are work regulations, and there are things that are out of bounds of a work contracts. what I never saw was a work contract that forbid you of doing LEGAL things in your own home and outside your your works hours.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:47 AM

The point here though is not whether employers can ban the use of an item by their employees, but whether they can be forced to provide the items to their employees in the first place.

this is the point… not controling their behavior, but being forced to provide explicit means..

provide a benefit is not the same as forcing the employee to use it. I mean, for a “calculation of sin”, you facilitate any bad bad behavior by giving people means, either by money or work benefit, to do it. unless you can control what employees do with their money, you are facilitating sin no?

nathor on April 11, 2012

You assume too much, you provide income in exchange for labor.. the healthcare issue is forcing them to provide direct means to violate the tenet of their faith, when never before was that even an issue.

They could use their pay to do all kinds of immoral activities.. so to use your logic..

You be better off to simply not pay them at all.

They MIGHT SIN or something…

How you’d get around providing compensation when you can’t just pay them, is your logical dead end, not mine.

That’s why your line of thought is wrong, providing a paycheck isn’t the same morally as providing contraceptives directly.. it simply isn’t..

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 9:50 AM

its a apples and oranges example you gave me.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Doesn’t matter.
This one nothing happened.
And they took the kid away anyway.
Let’s be honest here, though.
The Federal Govt does not have the RIGHT to force anyone to buy healthcare.
It also doesn’t have a RIGHT to provide Medical Services, old age pension services, etc. AKA New Deal welfare programs to US citizens.
The Federal Govt’s powers are clearly enumerated.
The mandate is not an enumerated power.
This is the real issue.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 9:50 AM

its a apples and oranges example you gave me.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And BTW-since when is it OK to suspend someone’s Const rights based on perceived illegal behavior that hasn’t been proven?
Family Law is full of this type of thing.
Guilty until proven innocent.
I don’t care if the woman is suspected of illegal behavior.
One test for a TRACE amount of a drug is not sufficient enough evidence to rip a child from its home.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Catholic employers would not only be guilty of material cooperation with sin, but also formal cooperation because they would knowingly and deliberately be providing employees with contraception

That’s the point. Don’t think the Obamunists don’t know this. It’s designed to drive those into the exchanges who refuse to comply.

Akzed on April 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM

while it makes sense for your case, it would allow all kind of crazy restrictions by employees. say, if you worked for the celibate association of America, could you be forced, by work contract, not to have sex?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Since there isn’t a “Celibate Association of America” your point is moot. There is a Drug Free America Foundation, which I used in my example. But, let’s follow where you’re going with this. Is there an employer which bans certain of its employees from having sex? Why yes! Yes there is. It’s called the Catholic Church.

(And the first idiot who starts yammering about pedophiles will feel my digital boot up its digital a$$!)

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM

I think ObamaCare is a travesty, but that last thing Americans, American conservatives, and, in particular, American Catholics, need is some damned foreign cardinal at the Vatican telling Americans how to behave… If American clergy (Catholic or otherwise) want to talk about morality, that’s fine, but the the foreigners can go to h—. CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM

You do realize that we are talking about the ROMAN Catholic Church, right?

Truth knows no national boundaries, and the Church transcends them.

Akzed on April 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Doesn’t matter.
This one nothing happened.

link does not work

And they took the kid away anyway.
Let’s be honest here, though.
The Federal Govt does not have the RIGHT to force anyone to buy healthcare.
It also doesn’t have a RIGHT to provide Medical Services, old age pension services, etc. AKA New Deal welfare programs to US citizens.
The Federal Govt’s powers are clearly enumerated.
The mandate is not an enumerated power.
This is the real issue.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I agree with you on some of your points, but you are switching topic. I was discussing what can the employers force on employees, not what the DC can impose on all employers and employees.
and what can the employers force on employees is a real issue no? after all, why should we be free of government meddling only to have employers filling in the same way or worse?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

no I am not naive, there are work regulations, and there are things that are out of bounds of a work contracts. what I never saw was a work contract that forbid you of doing LEGAL things in your own home and outside your your works hours.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:47 AM

It’s not about their salespeople, they make the baskets themselves, right here in my town, not 5 miles from my house, I have family who work for them.

I looked for their employment rules, they aren’t posted there.. just what policies they have regarding customer services. BUt I’m talking about their piece work employees..

Why is this so impossible for you to believe.. They are intensely religious,.. as am I.. but they are in the busybody subset.. I know one person who was terminated for smoking in a car in their parking lot, another who was fired, because nicotine showed up on their random drug test,.. not enough to terminate her for,.. but when they asked her straight up… do you smoke?

she didn’t lie, and said yes..

well that was it, they fired her.. their excuse is liability costs on their insurance.. they get cheaper rates for an all non smoking work force..

They demand when you get hired you sign a I don’t smoke contract, which is their loophole..

So I really do not see why you think I’m lying to you, or why you think it’s necessary to be that insulting.. YES PEOPLE DO GET FIRED FOR SMOKING AT HOME.. I know the woman personally, it’s not a I’ heard from, a guy who heard from… sort of story..

I’m just amazed you think it doesn’t happen.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM

what I never saw was a work contract that forbid you of doing LEGAL things in your own home and outside your your works hours.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Alaska Airlines and Union Pacific Railroad will not hire smokers and bans existing employers from smoking at any time, at work or during their time off, as do numerous hospitals and medical groups.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

after all, why should we be free of government meddling only to have employers filling in the same way or worse? nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Because employment is voluntary.

Akzed on April 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I don’t think the religious community would vote for Obama in general, waiver or no waiver.

The damage has been done. There will be a minority who will but Obama intentionally committed the damage to gain support from his base.

Kingfisher on April 10, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Obama is ahead of Romney in the polls among women voters, but the majority of women voters priorities are not contraception on top. Especially when it’s so available already. Obama is trying to position himself as the “reasonable” choice, compared to the Party of Old White Guys trying to control women’s reproductive behavior. It’s all about optics. There isn’t anything “reasonable” about the contraceptive mandate, that’s undermining the 1st Amendment. Muslims got a waiver could it be argued that “one” religion is state sanctioned now? Isn’t that against United States law? Where is the ACLU?

Dr Evil on April 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Since there isn’t a “Celibate Association of America” your point is moot. There is a Drug Free America Foundation, which I used in my example. But, let’s follow where you’re going with this. Is there an employer which bans certain of its employees from having sex? Why yes! Yes there is. It’s called the Catholic Church.

(And the first idiot who starts yammering about pedophiles will feel my digital boot up its digital a$$!)

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM

you are wrong, the Catholic Church forbids its priests nuns and monks of having sex, but they are not technical employees although they receive money from the church. and the prohibition of sex is by ecclesiastical code, not by secular “work contract”.
however, the church does not forbid a laic doctor or nurse that works in a catholic hospital and bound by a secular work contract to “not have sex”.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I agree with you on some of your points, but you are switching topic. I was discussing what can the employers force on employees, not what the DC can impose on all employers and employees.
and what can the employers force on employees is a real issue no? after all, why should we be free of government meddling only to have employers filling in the same way or worse?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I realize I’m wasting my time with you. And of course Google is your friend if you were really interested.

I don’t care what you’re discussing. It’s parsing.
Employers can force their employees to do a lot of things.
Guess what?
YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORK THERE.
Novel concept, I know.
If you want to have access to BC, you HAVE it already.
It’s called Wal-Mart, Walgreens, etc.
You can even go to the women’s clinic & get BC pills. On a sliding scale fee, no less.
The Catholic church, nor ordinary citizen, cannot be forced according to the Const of The US to buy health insurance.
But since the Fed has already grabbed power it is not authorized to have, & the citizenry is OK with that bcs of parsing, I’m sure America will continue to circle the toilet bowl.
We do not follow the Const anymore.
That is the real issue you should be discussing.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Alaska Airlines and Union Pacific Railroad will not hire smokers and bans existing employers from smoking at any time, at work or during their time off, as do numerous hospitals and medical groups.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

very well, my question is, what else can be banned by work contract? anything? its really a no snark question.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Because employment is voluntary.

Akzed on April 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

THE REAL POINT.
And yes, there are choices in employment.
If you do not like the choices in your area, MOVE, get new skills, or go on welfare.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM

after all, why should we be free of government meddling only to have employers filling in the same way or worse?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Here’s the fundamental difference. We should be free of government meddling because the government exists by the consent of we, the governed, and it works for us to do the things we want it to do. We have the right to fire them, not the other way around.

Employment, on the other hand, is completely different. Employers hire workers to do specific things. In return the employee is compensated with money and other benefits. It’s a voluntary arrangement. The employee can say that in order for me to work here you must pay me this much and give me these benefits. The employer can agree or not. Similarly, the employer can say that in order for you to work here you must do what you’re told and that may include not engaging in certain behaviors. The employee can agree or not. Employers and employees are free to end the relationship if either one doesn’t comply with what has been agreed upon.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM

well that was it, they fired her.. their excuse is liability costs on their insurance.. they get cheaper rates for an all non smoking work force..

They demand when you get hired you sign a I don’t smoke contract, which is their loophole..

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Tell me… when this community has an unemployment rate of much higher than the national average, as Ohio does.. when jobs are so scarse, so hard to get good ones.. people line up the day before by the hundreds for just a few openings..

People will do what they must to get a job, even when they hate the company, or think their rules suck,.. they’ll lie to get the job, taking a risk, when they know telling the truth just means they don’t get hired anyway.

It’s a coercive environment, where people are just for mere survival sometimes forced to lie about something, because their kids are hungry..

It’s not so simple as just choosing another employer, when there are so few.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM

you are wrong, the Catholic Church forbids its priests nuns and monks of having sex, but they are not technical employees although they receive money from the church.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I’m afraid you are absolutely wrong on this. Priests are most definitely employees of the diocese in which they work. The IRS considers priests to be employees of the Church and the Church issues W-2′s to priests for tax filing purposes. I can give you sample “employment agreements” if you like.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM

The president had better think long and hard about whether contraception coverage is more important to him than broader health care, education and help for the poor.

As if it mattered that much to him.

Socialism costs lives.

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I realize I’m wasting my time with you. And of course Google is your friend if you were really interested.

I don’t care what you’re discussing. It’s parsing.
Employers can force their employees to do a lot of things.
Guess what?
YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORK THERE.
Novel concept, I know.
If you want to have access to BC, you HAVE it already.
It’s called Wal-Mart, Walgreens, etc.
You can even go to the women’s clinic & get BC pills. On a sliding scale fee, no less.
The Catholic church, nor ordinary citizen, cannot be forced according to the Const of The US to buy health insurance.
But since the Fed has already grabbed power it is not authorized to have, & the citizenry is OK with that bcs of parsing, I’m sure America will continue to circle the toilet bowl.
We do not follow the Const anymore.
That is the real issue you should be discussing.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

look, if employers can forbid anything, then this whole “religious freedom” argument is senseless because in the end the church can just forbid its employees of using contraception (although forced to included it in the health insurance)like they can forbid cigarettes no?
I just want to understand this…

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

very well, my question is, what else can be banned by work contract? anything? its really a no snark question.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I don’t know the outer limit on that has ever been reached..

God help us..

I didn’t mean to infer before I would do away with letting private employers write their own restrictions as long as they stay within the law.. just.. there is some grey here..

The pool of employers is low enough, there is little choice left for the employee pool.

Letting your kids go hungry or going on welfare aren’t options for a lot of us. So you work for a company that you hate, till you have another option become available.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I’m afraid you are absolutely wrong on this. Priests are most definitely employees of the diocese in which they work. The IRS considers priests to be employees of the Church and the Church issues W-2′s to priests for tax filing purposes. I can give you sample “employment agreements” if you like.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM

goverment wants to control the money given to the priests, but those “employment agreements” include all the ecclesiatical laws they should follow? i dont think so! in the end, the church can still “fire” the priest without giving any justification to the goverment, no?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

look, if employers can forbid anything, then this whole “religious freedom” argument is senseless because in the end the church can just forbid its employees of using contraception (although forced to included it in the health insurance)like they can forbid cigarettes no?
I just want to understand this…

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

No! No! No! This whole “religious freedom” arguement applies to what the government is forbidden to do, based on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. It applies to the government only. The Constitution says nothing at all about employment agreements or employer/employee relations. It says that the government cannot interfere in the free practice of religion. And that is what this is about.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM

It’s not so simple as just choosing another employer, when there are so few.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I live in an extremely rural area in SW ND.
Employment options are very few.
I cannot move bcs we ranch. We’re stuck, so to speak.
But I am free to make other choices, like sell the place & go somewhere else.
I do not have to teach. I can go work in the oil fields.
I can work in the bar, the C-store, the cafe, etc.
It may not be simple, but hard choices rarely are.
I’ve moved across the country on a few bucks, a ’76 Ford 3/4 ton & a prayer to find a new life.
It is possible.

look, if employers can forbid anything, then this whole “religious freedom” argument is senseless because in the end the church can just forbid its employees of using contraception (although forced to included it in the health insurance)like they can forbid cigarettes no?
I just want to understand this…

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

As has been said, you do not have to work for these people.
Make the choice yourself.
The Catholic church cannot reasonably police it’s members nor employees on the use of BC.
They can regarding drugs using tests.
If a person employed by the Catholic church is found to be a porn addict, I imagine they may want to get rid of them, as is their right.
I, as a public screwl teacher, can be non-renewed if I engage in inappropriate behavior, even if it’s legal.
The community has a right to hire whom they please, as does any business.
The right to pursue happiness is not the same as a right to happiness.
You have no right for happiness to occur all the time.
You only have the right to engage in the pursuit of it for yourself.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM

i dont think so! in the end, the church can still “fire” the priest without giving any justification to the goverment, no?

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

In just the same way that Jet Blue or Ford Motor Company can fire their employees without giving justification to the government. What’s your point? My point is that priests and religious are in fact employees of the Church by every legal definition. A 1994 Federal Court ruling on the status of Methodist Pastors stipulated a seven-fold test of the nature of the employment of religious pastors. Based on this seven-point test Catholic priests qualify as employees of the Church.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM

It applies to the government only. The Constitution says nothing at all about employment agreements or employer/employee relations. It says that the government cannot interfere in the free practice of religion. And that is what this is about.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM

The patently obvious is lost on a lot of people in this country.
Hence the pickle we find ourselves in.
That Const & associated documents were very clear & concisely written things.
But leave it to the witless to obfuscate such common sense.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM

look, if employers can forbid anything, then this whole “religious freedom” argument is senseless because in the end the church can just forbid its employees of using contraception (although forced to included it in the health insurance)like they can forbid cigarettes no?
I just want to understand this…

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Yes, employers can set the rules for their employees – if want the paycheck you follow the rules or find a different employer.
Badger has the correct answer – the difference between government mandating something and an employer or church mandating behavior is you can choose to change employers (or start your own business) and you can choose to change which church you belong to – you may not be able to easily choose a new country – and the government uses the threat of fines and prison to enforce their rules.
The church can forbid certain behaviors, but they are not likely to kick you out for violating those rules. The hammer they waive is “eternal salvation”. And that is why I’m no longer catholic – there are other issues, but I don’t agree with some of their rules so I chose not to be a member.
In line with this particular thread – I fully understand and support the church being against government mandates that violate their principles. But as my earlier posts indicated, I think the church is currently battling a bit of “reap what you sow” as catholics have been heavily (and somewhat hypocritically) Dem oriented for many years – e.g. Pelosi and the Kennedy clan.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I don’t know the outer limit on that has ever been reached..

God help us..

indeed they could force an employee to:
-not use contraception
-use contraception
-have abortions
-not have abortions
-not use a fossil fuel vehicle
-use a fossil fuel vehicle
-eat vegetables
-dont eat vegetables
-be religious
-dont be religious

I didn’t mean to infer before I would do away with letting private employers write their own restrictions as long as they stay within the law.. just.. there is some grey here..

There is probably some work regulation laws that forbid many restrictions on workers. Just no one in this thread knows them. and I think they are mostly state laws, not federal laws.
I think the best is that employers be given as little power as possible to make work contracts that limit personal behavior outside the work place and work hours, agree?

The pool of employers is low enough, there is little choice left for the employee pool.

Letting your kids go hungry or going on welfare aren’t options for a lot of us. So you work for a company that you hate, till you have another option become available.

mark81150 on April 11, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I dont agree, you open a pandora box if you allow employers to make up any restriction the see fit. outside work place and work hours, the employer should have no power to limit your freedom.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

You do realize that we are talking about the ROMAN Catholic Church, right?

Truth knows no national boundaries, and the Church transcends them.

Akzed on April 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM

The ROMAN Catholic Church, as you emphasize it, is a foreign power. For most of American history, the explict doctrine of the ROMAN Catholic Church was hostile to the fundamental American notions of individual liberty and our express rejection in the Constitution of a state church. The ROMAN Catholic Church is hostile to capitalism, and always has been. The ROMAN Catholic Church cares nothing for the Constitution of the United States, and never has. For those reasons I don’t want the ROMAN Catholic Church to have anything to say in or about American politics. Americans, who happen to be ROMAN Catholics, are almost all loyal to the Constitution of the United States and the values it embodies of individual liberty. Like any citizen, they are welcome participants in American politics, and it’s not improper for their religious views to inform their politics.

The Church hierarchy — especially the hierarchy at Rome — has no such loyalty or commitment to the Constitution and is not welcome to participate in American politics.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Forgot to mention, the Church is also participating in the lawsuit filed by states with briefs and indirect legal support.

theCork on April 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM

The Church hierarchy — especially the hierarchy at Rome — has no such loyalty or commitment to the Constitution and is not welcome to participate in American politics.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

The Almighty himself has no loyalty or commitment to the Constitution. Do you want to outlaw His involvement here?

theCork on April 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM

As has been said, you do not have to work for these people.
Make the choice yourself.
The Catholic church cannot reasonably police it’s members nor employees on the use of BC.
They can regarding drugs using tests.

its not just BC that is not reasonable to police, there is a whole world of sinful behavior that the church is unable to control.

If a person employed by the Catholic church is found to be a porn addict, I imagine they may want to get rid of them, as is their right.

sure. fire him.

I, as a public screwl teacher, can be non-renewed if I engage in inappropriate behavior, even if it’s legal.
The community has a right to hire whom they please, as does any business.

but if your contract is 6 months and its broken at 3 months, the community should still pay you no? or can you put a “inappropriate behavior” clause in your contract? how would you even define all “inappropriate behavior”?

The right to pursue happiness is not the same as a right to happiness.
You have no right for happiness to occur all the time.
You only have the right to engage in the pursuit of it for yourself.

Badger40 on April 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM

ok

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The ROMAN Catholic Church, as you emphasize it, is a foreign power. For most of American history, the explict doctrine of the ROMAN Catholic Church was hostile to the fundamental American notions of individual liberty and our express rejection in the Constitution of a state church. The ROMAN Catholic Church is hostile to capitalism, and always has been. The ROMAN Catholic Church cares nothing for the Constitution of the United States, and never has. For those reasons I don’t want the ROMAN Catholic Church to have anything to say in or about American politics. Americans, who happen to be ROMAN Catholics, are almost all loyal to the Constitution of the United States and the values it embodies of individual liberty. Like any citizen, they are welcome participants in American politics, and it’s not improper for their religious views to inform their politics.

The Church hierarchy — especially the hierarchy at Rome — has no such loyalty or commitment to the Constitution and is not welcome to participate in American politics.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

very well. its very well put. Agree.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I dont agree, you open a pandora box if you allow employers to make up any restriction the see fit. outside work place and work hours, the employer should have no power to limit your freedom.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Of course there are laws which restrict what employers can or cannot do regarding hiring and employment practices. You can’t, for instance, discriminate in employment based on race, gender, ethnicity, age, or physical disability. And those are federal, not state laws. But as long as employment conditions do not violate the law, employers are free to set what those conditions are. If you don’t like it, don’t work here. It’s a voluntary arrangement.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM

He already thought ‘long & hard’ & issued the mandate anyway. He has called the Catholics’ bluff, not the other way around.

MissMagnolia on April 10, 2012 at 6:24 PM

It’s not a bluff if you follow through and always intended to…

affenhauer on April 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I dont agree, you open a pandora box if you allow employers to make up any restriction the see fit. outside work place and work hours, the employer should have no power to limit your freedom.

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

there is such things as contractual laws(contracts in general, not just work contracts) and there are contracts that are forbidden(or at least without legal value to make). I feel I needed to know more about this to properly discuss this theme. :(

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM

The Almighty himself has no loyalty or commitment to the Constitution. Do you want to outlaw His involvement here?

theCork on April 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Well, since no one has actually seen Him or spoken with Him in a couple of thousand years, I don’t think that’s an issue.

The Church hierarchy at Rome, however, is very real, has a long history of interfering in secular affairs, and seems increasingly to want to pontificate about American politics.

The American political conversation is for Americans, those who owe by birth or adoption a loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. It’s is not a conversation in which the opinions of those who never had any duty of loyalty to the United States, or those who have forsaken that loyalty for offices bestowed by a foreign prince, are welcome.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Of course there are laws which restrict what employers can or cannot do regarding hiring and employment practices. You can’t, for instance, discriminate in employment based on race, gender, ethnicity, age, or physical disability. And those are federal, not state laws. But as long as employment conditions do not violate the law, employers are free to set what those conditions are. If you don’t like it, don’t work here. It’s a voluntary arrangement.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM

there are limitations to the voluntary agreements you can make that are legally binding.
you cannot contract sex for money. you cannot contract the sale of your organs. your cannot contract yourself into slavery.
there is such things as contractual laws(contracts in general, not just work contracts) and there are contracts that are forbidden(or at least without legal value to make). I feel I needed to know more about this to properly discuss this theme. :(

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM

The Church hierarchy — especially the hierarchy at Rome — has no such loyalty or commitment to the Constitution and is not welcome to participate in American politics.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

First, the Catholic Church is not a “foreign power”, but a universal organization. It’s called the Roman Catholic Church not because it’s headquartered in Rome, but because it follows the tenets and precepts of the orginal church that was founded in Rome. Putting that aside, are you suggesting that that the Catholic Church in America, represented by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has no loyalty or committment to the Constitution? Has no interest in the direction of American policies? And has no right to voice its concerns? Sounds quite un-American of you, especially when the Catholic Church is basing its position on its Constitutional right to be free of government intervention in the free practice of its beliefs.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Well, since no one has actually seen Him or spoken with Him in a couple of thousand years, I don’t think that’s an issue.

The Church hierarchy at Rome, however, is very real, has a long history of interfering in secular affairs, and seems increasingly to want to pontificate about American politics.

The American political conversation is for Americans, those who owe by birth or adoption a loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. It’s is not a conversation in which the opinions of those who never had any duty of loyalty to the United States, or those who have forsaken that loyalty for offices bestowed by a foreign prince, are welcome.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM

another good post! so very true!

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Well, since no one has actually seen Him or spoken with Him in a couple of thousand years, I don’t think that’s an issue.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I speak with Him everyday and He’s physically present at every Mass.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM

It’s is not a conversation in which the opinions of those who never had any duty of loyalty to the United States, or those who have forsaken that loyalty for offices bestowed by a foreign prince, are welcome.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Once again, are you really suggesting that American Catholics, and that includes American priests, bishops and cardinals, have no loyalty to the Constitution and have no say in American politics? It is possible to be American and Catholic at the same time you know?

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I think ObamaCare is a travesty, but that last thing Americans, American conservatives, and, in particular, American Catholics, need is some damned foreign cardinal at the Vatican telling Americans how to behave… If American clergy (Catholic or otherwise) want to talk about morality, that’s fine, but the the foreigners can go to h—.

CatoRenasci on April 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM

This is why I said this in an earlier comment:

What some in the U.S. seem to forget is that the Catholic Church is not “the American Catholic Church,” as the liberals want to believe, but the Catholic Church in the United States. It is a significant difference, and I seriously doubt that Pope Benedict is going to sit back and allow Obama to dictate the terms of the Church’s existence in this country.

That’s what catholic (small c) means – universal. The Catholic Church does not stop at any nation’s borders. Cardinal Burke is a U.S. citizen (born in Wisconsin) and according to Wikipedia: “… is seen by many as one of the most conservative bishops in the United States, and increasingly as a leader of the conservative wing of Cardinals in the Church.” The Wikipedia article goes on to say that Burke has publicly stated in 2004 that politicians such as John Kerry who publicly support legalized abortion should not give or receive the Eucharist, so it’s entirely consistent to me that Burke is speaking out so strongly about this.

Here’s the link, if you want to read the whole thing: Raymond Leo Burke

PatriotGal2257 on April 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM

He already thought ‘long & hard’ & issued the mandate anyway. He has called the Catholics’ bluff, not the other way around.

MissMagnolia on April 10, 2012 at 6:24 PM

It’s not a bluff if you follow through and always intended to…

affenhauer on April 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM

So the Church walks away from its hospitals, clinics, retirement homes, charities, etc.. What do you suppose the odds are that Obama would then declare a government takeover um, “bailout” of them all?

skydaddy on April 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3