HHS mandate ‘ominous’ threat to religious liberty, priest says
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
Fr. Avelino Gonzalez
As the battle to defend religious freedom continues, a Capitol Hill priest said the contraception mandate should be a cause for concern for all Americans.
“The trend set by the current administration has ominous overtones which recent history shows should be taken very seriously from the beginning – before further liberties are taken away,” Fr. Gonzales told CNA June 1.
In his native Cuba, Fr. Gonzales said that Catholics faced similar restrictions before the start of an all-out persecution.
“In 1960 after the takeover of Fidel Castro in Cuba,” Fr. Gonzales said, “the Catholic Church began to feel the sting of anti-Catholic policies which reduced the right to religious freedom to the freedom to worship in private temples.”
Fr. Gonzales said the rhetoric behind such persecutions is similar to that which is found in the federal contraception mandate.
“This smacks of the present language used by the current administration that seeks to redefine religious freedom to the freedom to worship,” as in private houses of worship.
His comments come the same day as the U.S. release of the epic war drama “For Greater Glory” which charts the history of Mexico’s Cristero War that was sparked by anti-Catholic legislation passed at the hands of President Elias Calles.
The highly anticipated film has already prompted much praise from clergy and laity alike as an example of the courage that is necessary to defend one’s faith in the face of religious persecution. Some have also called it highly relevant in light of the battle over the contraception mandate.
Drawing attention to the timely message of the sacrifices necessary for religious liberty, the Knights of Columbus featured a spread of the film in their May issue of “Columbia” magazine.
But the cover, which featured an image of actor Andy Garcia as Gen. Enrique Gorostieta Velarde – the leader of the Cristiada martyrs – with the phrase, “Freedom is Our Lives” in bold red, has already received sharp criticism from opponents. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:55
Poll: Catholic Church view on same-sex marriage causing parishoners to flee
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:52
Man arrested in shooting during Catholic church service in Utah
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:45
Scituate parishioners taking dispute to highest Vatican court
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:41
Local clergy abuse survivor testifies before the United Nations
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:38
Alleged victim of clergy sexual abuse files lawsuit
-
Jun 18, 2013 10:28
Chaos as gunfire erupts at Utah Father’s day Mass
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:51
Obama names former CRS head ambassador to the Vatican
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:46
Addressing U.S., global child malnutrition a top priority for advocates
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:42
Female priests risk excommunication to be ordained
-
Jun 14, 2013 5:04
Catholic League president: ‘Nest of homosexual priests’ should be ‘rooted out’
17 Comments
[...] Catholic Patriot Mom Sacred Heart Radio Overlawyered The Archdiocese of Washington Catholic News USA Catholic News USA Stand Up for Religious Freedom Return to Rome, Frank Beckwith’s blog on [...]
Now THAT is really weird — any comment of substance I make will not post, just comments like this about my inability to post. The website must have set up some parameters that, if my comment contains certain words, it automatically is rejected. Very good, website owners — but don’t expect me to continue to go along with this nonsense.
Doug In Too Deep, what you say is misleading. While employers can choose to pay a penalty or drop health coverage, the fact is that doing either compromises the employer’s ability to attract good employees. So, for all of your high-falutent legalese, wake up and look at things with common sense — this HHS mandate is a gross violation of the first amendment right to free practice of religion. Practicing religion will now be penalized. Wise up, Doug. You can’t see the truth because you are blinded by your own beauty when you look at yourself in the mirror and marvel at your knowledge and God-given ability to write well.
Arguments that the health care law infringes religious liberty are predicated on a big lie. Notwithstanding the bishops’ arm waving about religious liberty, the law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.
Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans). Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.
Some nonetheless have continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral?
In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers or employees pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.
The bishops are coming across more and more as just another special interest group with a big lobbying operation and a big budget—one, moreover, that is not above stretching the truth.
Doug, maybe you can help me because you seem to know everything — I just can’t remember tha name of that Greek mythological figure that was entranced when he saw his own reflection in the pool. Can you tell me who that was? I don’t know what about your post triggered that question in me.
Doug, if the government charged someone their annual salary to practice their religion, would you still assert that the right to practice that religion was not compromised? The government has absolutely NO BUSINESS penalizing anyone for following their own religion, especially one that has been around for two centuries, and one that was responsible for founding the colony of Maryland.
You suggest that it is somehow wrong to require payments of those who choose not to provide complying health care plans for religious reasons. (Note that some may do so for economic or other non-religious reasons.) Such requirements are hardly new or unusual. When the legislature anticipates that application of laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may afford some relief to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.
In any event, objection to paying an assessment is simply not an argument about avoiding being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers—who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, whatever) each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an exemption is predicated on the false claim that employers otherwise are forced to act contrary to their religions. They are not.
For some reason, I cannot post the comment I want to post in response to Doug’s last comment — perhaps Doug operates this website? If so, I won’t continue to post on a biased, anti-Catholic website.
I continue to not be able to post what I want to say!!!!!
testing 1-2-3
Be it known that I am done with this inability to post substantive comments — this liberal website is supressing replies that are faithful to the Church.
Doug, as a lawyer, you should know that just because a regulatory body mandates something, it is not necessarily right — it might need to be tested by the courts.
so, I have found the word that this website is rejecting: it begins with a C, and it is the founding document of our country.
That document is being violated by the HHS, and the courts are going to throw it out. Doug has forgotten the icon of his profession: the scales of justice, which weigh one interest against another, including against that document that begins with a “C”.
“a Capitol Hill priest said the contraception mandate should be a cause for concern for all Americans.” Most American women, including Catholic women, use contraception. The Church wants to violate their consciences!
Yes, Carl, because their consciences are ill-formed; read, WRONG. The Church has a moral duty to correct the wayward. Even if everyone does something, it does not make it right.
I’m sorry for you, Carl, that you let a bunch of contracepting women define what is right and wrong. If you for a minute would look at your logic, you’d be appalled at what you see.