We don’t establish our moral principles by doing a cost-benefit analysis.

“So now the scissor of logic shall close in on you.”

Are you for real?

“Well the health bill was passed by Congress, like it or not.”

But these regulations were not voted on, were they?

“Speaking of which, what then is the logical conclusion of this ‘teaching’ in regards to health insurance for the individual?”

This is about government coercion, not about your silly, ponderously long, hypotheticals.

This is a time for strong words.

“Maybe I am not thinking of something, but it seems to me there is always an honorable way out for a religious employer who does not want to provide insurance under the HHS terms. There are no provisions in the HHS mandate for forcing employers to shut down.”

This is not about saving face. This is about the government forcing religious entities to support what they consider immorality. You appear to downplay this because it involves contraception, but pursuant to your approach, the HHS regulations could be amended next year to cover surgical abortions, and the religious entities would have to just go along with that as well.

well actually there is, pay $2K per employee and then its up to them to buy their own insurance. Since insurance typically costs more than $2K per employee, this should be a boom to Catholic hospitals….esp. since the really smart people here have bent over backwards to explain that insurance isn’t compensation.

Re social engineering

Jaw-droppingly incorrect. Is your reading on this subject so superficial that you actually believe the Bishops instigated this confrontation? This has nothing to do with the “standard health plan.” This has to do with the specific healthcare policies that are being purchased by Church affiliated entities and individuals.

Errr, are you unaware of Catholic teaching on contraception? It is that it is an intrinsic evil. That means that stance doesn’t just apply to Catholics (such as the rule about not eating meat on Friday’s during Lent), but to everyone. Just like charity is an ‘intrinsic good’ that Catholics would encourage for all, incl. non-Catholics, contraception is to be discouraged for all.

So now the scissor of logic shall close in on you. Either the Catholic Bishops are indifferent to contraception in the wider society, or they want to discourage it in the wider society. If its the former, then they are in violation of Catholic teaching themselves. If it’s the latter then part of their position *must* by necessity be about more than the individual religious freedom of Catholic hospitals to be Catholic.

Now don’t get me wrong, you have every right to advocate social engineering. When Dan Quayle bashed Murphey Brown that was an attempt at social engineering via shaming. Just about every election sees politicians proposing special tax credits for people that have kids. But here’s the thing, your social engineering desires are nothing more than that. If you fail to convince people that your ideas are good, it ain’t no violation of your freedom. Maybe you will get people to buy it in the future, maybe you won’t but either way if you play the game you take the risk you may loose just as much as you may win.

This is a regulation issued by HHS, not a specific law passed by Congress after debate. The Bishops and all individuals and entities affected by this power grab have every right to fight it.

Well the health bill was passed by Congress, like it or not. And when HHS overruled the FDA and kept stricter controls on the morning after pill for teens I don’t recall anyone talking about ‘power grabs’. But you’re right, they have every right to fight it. But it’s not an infringement on the first amendment, not an infringement on religious liberty.

No, because there were escape routes, or they apostasized.

Speaking of which, what then is the logical conclusion of this ‘teaching’ in regards to health insurance for the individual? It would seem many Catholics work at private companies that offer insurance that covers not only contraception but also abortion. It would seem that to be logically consistent, it would be unethical for one to join such an insurance plan to cover themselves or their families. But you say the individual may join such a plan if he himself (or herself) does not actually use contraception or abortion despite it being covered! Not good enough! Poke holes in the moral condom and lots of stuff gets through! By being part of such a plan you, then, must be morally complicit in the funds going to others who are using such morally objectionable services, unless you could ensure that every employee covered would not utilize abortion or contraception.

Apostate is a very strong word. I am quite sure if you asked Cardinal Dolan, for example, if Catholic organizations (like the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin) who have complied with a contraceptive mandate are apostates, he would very emphatically say no.

I said: “But there is no reason at all why a Catholic organization would be forced to shut down as an alternative to complying with the federal mandate.”

You said: You really are incapable of understanding this is a moral issue.

No, I understand the moral issue. I was making a practical statement. The worst that should happen is that a religious organization drops its employees’ insurance coverage. That will save the employer several thousand dollars per employee. There will be a government “fine” of $2000 per employee, which the employer can well afford to pay, since the savings from not providing insurance is a good deal more than $2000 per employee. For those who consider the $2000 per employee a “fine” for not complying, that is the price to be paid for “civil disobedience.” Maybe I am not thinking of something, but it seems to me there is always an honorable way out for a religious employer who does not want to provide insurance under the HHS terms. There are no provisions in the HHS mandate for forcing employers to shut down.

No, because there were escape routes, or they apostasized.

“Have any Catholic organizations complied with state mandates?”

So what? Since when do apostates get to determine the belief system for the religion they abandoned?

“As I have pointed out several times, dropping insurance coverage for employees saves an organization money.”

And as I have pointed out several times, we don’t set our moral principles based on doing a cost-benefit analysis.

“But there is no reason at all why a Catholic organization would be forced to shut down as an alternative to complying with the federal mandate.”

You really are incapable of understanding this is a moral issue.

Brian English,

Have any Catholic organizations closes as a result of state mandates? None. Have any Catholic organizations complied with state mandates?

Nationwide, major Catholic universities including Fordham, Georgetown, and DePaul all offer birth-control coverage. So does Dignity Health, until recently known as Catholic Healthcare West, the fifth-largest health system in the country. In Massachusetts, the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals, which were recently acquired by Steward Health Care System, all complied with the state law.

As I have pointed out several times, dropping insurance coverage for employees saves an organization money. Now, in the long run, organizations that don’t provide insurance as a benefit may have trouble recruiting the kind of employees they want, so dropping insurance coverage for employees may harm them. But there is no reason at all why a Catholic organization would be forced to shut down as an alternative to complying with the federal mandate.

Wow,even Nancy Pelosi knew that was in Obamacare.

“Catholic Hospitals, will not shut down because of this regulation. This is a known fact because the regulation more or less mirrors what many states already require and not a single hospital closed ever because of it.”

(1) We are talking about far more than Catholic hospitals here.

(2) The mandates in most states had far broader exemptions. For those that didn’t, Church affiliated organizations could self-insure, drop employee coverage, or could qualify for federal ERISA. There is no ability to escape from the federal mandate. So yes, if the mandate remains in force, you will see Catholic entities of various types closing, which I am sure will make you very happy.

“What this really is about is social engineering.”

Correct.

“The Catholic Bishops would like contraception to not be considered acceptable by default. Having it removed from the standard health plan would be a step in that direction.”

Jaw-droppingly incorrect. Is your reading on this subject so superficial that you actually believe the Bishops instigated this confrontation? This has nothing to do with the “standard health plan.” This has to do with the specific healthcare policies that are being purchased by Church affiliated entities and individuals. If you don’t understand that, then you are really wasting everyone’s time by commenting here.

“They are totally within their rights to advocate that, but that is not an issue of religious liberty but debate in a democratic society.”

Putting aside the First Amendment for a moment, which shouldn’t be hard for you to do since you appear to regard it as the equivalent of an informal procedure for fixing parking tickets, there was no debate on this. This is a regulation issued by HHS, not a specific law passed by Congress after debate. The Bishops and all individuals and entities affected by this power grab have every right to fight it.

“The claim that this is religious persecution is not valid and has not been supported here on this or any other thread I’ve seen.”

Forcing Church-affiliated individuals and entities to purchase insurance policies that provide services that they regard as morally objectionable does not implicate religious freedom?

It would be funny if that were true. It would be even more ironic if it turned out I had fallen in with a group of other people conducting the exact same study. That hypothesis would certainly explain more than a few other commentators here.

Boonton is almost certainly a graduate student using these web comments to conduct a study in how long complete strangers will continue to engage in a discussion with a person who repeats and repeats preposterous arguments at great length, twists arguments, never acknowledges when one of them has been proven to be wrong, but then picks them up and repeats again and again.

How many times can he/she get people to continue to read interminable comments and actually try to make sense of them. How long before sensible people just stop reading or responding to the web postings under this barrage of digressions?

It will be a graduate thesis in sociology or psychology, and this web site will have contributed invaluable research assistance.

Authoritative studies demonstrate that 99% of First Things readers have figured this out, and simply skim past Boonton’s postings. 100% of them are very happy they did.