BANGOR, Maine — Bishop Richard J. Malone on Friday called President Barack Obama’s announcement that religious employers would not have to provide free birth control coverage under his health care plan a step in the right direction, but stopped short of endorsing it.
“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Malone, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, said in an interview at St. John Catholic Church in Bangor. “We hope that through ongoing dialogue, with the Catholic Church and others who have expressed concern, the Obama administration will ensure that Americans’ religious liberties are respected by the government. That being said, religious liberty, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, may need to be reinforced through further legislation.”
Malone’s statement was similar to one released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington.
“While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, the conference’s president, said in a press release.
The controversy that has swirled since Jan. 20 — when what appeared to be the Obama administration’s final rule on the matter was announced — has been about much more than birth control, Malone said Friday. The objections have focused on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“We see this as really an invasion into the life and ministry of the church,” Malone said. “This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. We see this as a violation of that religious freedom.”
Whether Catholic women use birth control or have access to birth control also was not the issue, the bishop said.
“The rights of conscience — that was the major concern,” he said. “That and having to pay for and therefore allow certain services we would consider immoral. We are being forced into doing something against our teaching and our conscience.”
The bishop said that this weekend, priests were expected to urge parishioners to call members of Maine’s congressional delegation and seek support for bills that would have reversed the earlier rule. Malone said that could change if the bishops conference issues a new statement before Saturday afternoon, when the first Masses of the weekend are held.
Health care itself is a universal human right under Catholic teaching, he said.
Under the new policy, religious employers will not be required to offer contraception and will not have to refer their employees to places that provide it, according to information released by the White House. If such an employer opts out, the employer’s insurance company must provide birth control for free in a separate arrangement with workers who want it.
The change will still take effect in August 2013 — with an extra year built in for religious employers.
Twenty-eight states, including Maine, already required health insurance plans to cover birth control before the federal regulations were issued. They offered different exemptions for religious employers.
Obama’s health care law requires most insurance plans to cover women’s preventative services, without a co-pay, starting on Aug. 1, 2012. Those services include well-women visits, domestic violence screening and contraception, all designed to encourage health care that many women may otherwise find unaffordable.
Catholics weren’t the only faith group unhappy with the original rule. The Southern Baptist Conference, evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews were among those who felt the faith exemption should be broadened. Other faith traditions, such as the United Methodist Church, supported the original mandate and did not believe it infringed on religious freedom.
Republican U.S. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and 2nd District Democratic Rep. Mike Michaud all signed on as co-sponsors of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would have reversed the previous ruling. The Senate and House versions of that initiative appeared to be up in the air Friday after Obama’s announcement.
Maine groups that had been supportive of the original rule nonetheless praised Obama’s about-face on Friday.
“The Family Planning Association of Maine wholeheartedly agrees with President Obama that every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health, including decisions around accessing and paying for birth control,” said Kathleen Brogan, the group’s vice president for public affairs. “With today’s decision, the White House has wisely taken control of this access out of the hands of religious institutions and has put it more directly into the hands of women.”
Zachary Heiden, legal director at the ACLU of Maine, agreed.
“Everyone in this country has freedom of religion, but nobody has the right to use their religion to make decisions for other people,” he said Friday in an email statement. “It is hard to understand how something that ninety-nine percent of women use is considered ‘controversial,’ but the new rules from the White House should put any controversy to rest.”
Snowe, Collins, Michaud and 1st District Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree all praised the president’s actions.
“It appears that changes have been made that provide women’s health services without compelling Catholic organizations in particular to violate the beliefs and tenets of their faith,” Snowe said. “According to the Catholic Health Association, the administration ‘responded to the issues [they] identified that needed to be fixed,’ which is what I urged the president to do in addressing this situation.”
Collins, who is a Catholic, called Obama’s announcement “a step in the right direction.
“The administration’s original plan was deeply flawed and clearly would have posed a threat to religious freedom,” she said. “It presented the Catholic Church with its wide-ranging social, educational, and health care services, and many other faith-based organizations, with an impossible choice between violating their religious beliefs or violating federal regulations.”
Pingree on Thursday had urged Obama not to back down. A day later, she praised him.
“This is a good compromise that serves the public health,” she said. “If a religious-affiliated organization like a hospital or university doesn’t want to provide birth control coverage, they can take themselves out of the equation, but the insurance company will have to step in to make sure women still have access to no-cost coverage.”
Michaud, who also is a Catholic, agreed.
“I have always been a strong proponent of family planning services because of their importance to women’s health. The initial ruling, however, was an issue of religious freedom,” he said. “I am pleased that after hearing the input of religious communities some of these concerns have been addressed, and I look forward to working with all affected groups as the changes are implemented.”
More than half the states in the nation, including Maine, have a law or insurance regulation that covers contraceptives but includes a religious exemption.
The law in Maine has been in effect since 1999. It has an exemption for churches and religious organizations such as the diocese and religiously affiliated preschool and K-12 schools. It does not exempt religiously affiliated hospitals or religiously affiliated colleges and universities.
It could not be determined late Friday if the new federal rule or state law would be applied to religious institutions.



Translation :
Bishop Malone : “Make us both happy and kiss my ring … while I check with the the home office.”
And don’t forget the 10% weekly salary stipend on the way out, right?
And the Tax Free Status!
disqusbites: ” I would never know how to think for myself, heaven help me if I actually look thoroughly into an issue without prejudice.”
Where did I say that ?
Are you cool with being a false witness ?
Bishop Malone,
I have defended you for years, but it’s difficult when you seem to be capitulating away the basic tenants of the Catholic Church. I am not only speaking about the Obama abomination, but also other recent directions that you seem to be supporting.
Interesting that many Catholics (and former Catholics) do not agree with you. And how did the Bisdhop “capitulate” on this issue? Looks more like he won at least a partial victory.
if you say so
Not just me.
Zachary Heiden, legal director at the ACLU of Maine, agreed.
“Everyone in this country has freedom of religion, but nobody has the right to use their religion to make decisions for other people,” he said Friday in an email statement. “It is hard to understand how something that ninety-nine percent of women use is considered ‘controversial,’ but the new rules from the White House should put any controversy to rest.”
Is there any doubt that the ACLU is nothing more than a liberal advocacy group? Still waiting for them to recognize my second amendment rights.
RealClassy,
Nobody wants to come near your 1.75ac lot to argue this topic. Nobody wants to take your guns. Relax. You sound desperate……..
What’s wrong with a liberal advocacy group?
Was it the, “nobody has the right to use their religion to make decisions for other people” statement that is bothering you?
What’s wrong with the ACLU is that they bill themselves as defenders of civil liberties, but I have yet to see them take a stand for any liberty that threatens their liberal agenda. People need to recognize that employers, whether religious or secular, have rights, among them the right to determine what compensation they will provide to their employees. If you don’t like the insurance plan that an employer is offering, you don’t have to work there. The ACLU would never adopt such a position; they prefer to advocate for government mandates that further a radical, left wing social agenda. So much for liberty.
Patently false. http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
They’re an advocacy group for civil liberties.
Unless you’re a conservative white property owner, who isn’t on welfare. The ACLU’s stated position is that women should have access to birth control, courtesy of the US taxpayer. Civil liberty? Nobody can defend that.
You’re a liar.
Wrong again Bucky.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/birth-control
Please direct me to the everyone but “conservative white property owner, who isn’t on welfare” clause. Please direct me to the “courtesy of the US tax payer” clause.
Conservative property owner: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights
Whites: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/striving-equal-opportunity-why-aclu-supports-affirmative-action
Who isn’t on welfare: http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/background-briefing-civil-liberties-issues-welfare-reform
Courtesy of the US tax payer: Included in the previous link
LOL!!
So Civil Liberty advocacy makes the ACLU “liberal”? Only if they don’t agree with you?
Civil liberties? Like the civil liberty to get taxpayer funded birth control? The civil liberty to demand accomodation on my property, at my business, etc.? They don’t believe in liberty, they believe in fundamentally changing American society.
Your opinion. Does that make them a “liberal advocay gorup”?
Yes. The ACLU doesn’t recognize any civil liberties that aren’t embraced in the Democratic Party platform. Do they recognize my property rights? My right to bear arms? My right to choose whether I will purchase insurance? They aren’t fighting for my rights; in most cases they’re fighting against my rights.
This so called “compromise” is a joke. Obama simply mandated (without any Congressional approval) that the insurance companies provide the services for free. This President is nothing more than a tinpot dictator.
He thinks he’s Robert Mugabe.
Better than thinking he’s the Pope.
Did you miss the part that this law has been in effect in Maine since 1999? Further, I read on NPR that it’s been in effect on a national level since 2000 (that would be pre-Obama for those who can’t do the math). Why all the furor now? Is it because some group has seen this as a way to attack Obama and label him antireligious since the “he’s really muslim” claim has lost it’s steam?
Catholic institutions have never been mandated to provide birth control coverage for their employees. When you go to work for a Catholic institution you should know that. It’s like an employee going to work at a store that’s open on Sunday, if you are commanded not to, then don’t work for such an institution.
Not exactly. I bet you will find that the Catholic Church has a more flexible stance on this than they are letting on. Because of the “recruiting” involved in getting certain specialist positions filled at their hospitals, you can bet there are many doctors whose plans cover contraceptives. The dime-a-dozen employees won’t get such perks because it violates the dogma, but the dogma doesn’t apply to those with specialist degrees.
I’m not sure what you are talking about. Usually employers offer the same health insurance policy for all of their employees on its payroll. I’m aware some hospitals hire workers on a contractual bases. These workers are usually paid by an employer other than the hospital.
I am also aware that some so-called Catholic institutions are independent organizations. While not legally required to conform to the Church’s teachings, they are nonetheless expected to be in conformity. Undoubtedly some of these institutions have policies for their employees that cover contraception and other objectionable services.
It’s just like they won’t perform abortions, but if you know the right Dr. and have the money you can have a D and C.
It’s more like an employer telling it’s workers that the employee’s insurance doesn’t cover them for something the employer disagrees with morally. Why not, if the church doesn’t like it, maybe it should stick to being a church.
If it’s been in effect “Nationally”, there was NO need for the President to even come out with the announcement that NOW….etc. And, there would be no need to “again” have it in Obama Care which it is.
Funny that you should imply that a mandate in Maine similar to the one Obama wants to impose exists. I scanned my insurance policy and found no coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, or sterilization, yet I live in Maine. So don’t believe everything you read in the newspaper.
Anyway, regardless of whether a similar mandate exists by law in Maine, that mandate is clearly a violation of our 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. This 1st Amendment right is very broad and not just limited to churches as some Obama backers have falsely indicated.
Gee…I seem to recall that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (in which this provision is clearly stated) was passed by both the House and the Senate. Hardly an edict. More like , say, how laws get written in this country according to the Constitution. It also included the exact exemption everyone is just now deciding to get worked up about. Here’s the exact text – (from 2010…not yesterday)
** Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B). See the Federal Register Notice
The President “Negotiated” the New Terms with the Insurance Industry!
The Affordable Health Care Act Was Voted on In Congress.
Save the Dictator Lingo for the Limbaugh Show!
Wrong, this was done without negotiation with the insuranse industry. countyguy is right, this is a mandate.
I believe Dlbrt meant the AHCA was negotiated with the insurance industry and the resulting authority was delegated to HHS.
If he is allowed to be ….your right~
Having worked in DC for some 32+ years, what happens in Congress is the concept is defined and then it is shuttled off to the policy wonks to write the details of how this new law will take effect.
This announcement, if it were anything less controversial, would amount to a few memos, a couple of meetings, and a conference call or two, to resolve a particular sticking point. No one expects a perfect law with every clause covering every possible contingency. The insurance companies will figure out a way to absorb the costs of this care, which on the scale of things, and compared to other procedures, very likely is not all that much money taken in conjunction with other care already being provided.
As I said, if this were not a hot potato, and even if it required Congressional approval for the change, it would be added as a corrective rider on some other bill. The principle of providing this kind of care hasn’t changed – only who is going to pay for it has. Really, pretty minor in my opinion.
It’s a hot issue because it’s an election year (along with “anything Obama does is wrong” mentality).
I wonder how many children the bishop has
Church in talks with priests’ mistresses – News – The Independentwww.independent.co.uk/…/church-in-talks-with-priests-mistresses-12…
Catholic Church has opened contacts with support groups for priests’ mistresses. The Bishop of Portsmouth, the Right Rev Christopher Budd, has been
…Italian priests’ secret mistresses ask pope to scrap celibacy
It disgusts me when I hear these guys taking a moral stand on anything. Don’t they get that they have squandered any moral authority they might have had! And not just the issues of the last 25 years. They catholic church has abused its power since the 4th century. That power corrupts and that absolute power absolutely corrupts has not been exempted by their being nearer to God.
They are the people promoting social engineering, not Obama. They try to dictate how we will think and behave, who we’ll marry (and btw we’ve all been in a class that at some time was prohibited by the bishop to marry ). As an old catholic, it confounds me that Newt has become one of the faith. There was a time when divorcees, philanderers and hypocrites could not have taken the entrance exam, let alone gotten in. And now I hear him preach about the evil of contraception being perpetrated on the catholic church by the Obama administration.
This is what happens to a 1700 year old State Church.
The point is religious liberty as stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution. You can have your morals as anyone else can have theirs including the Catholic Church. We are all protected from the abuse of power by the President. Just because you agree with him doesn’t make his over reach right. I guess no one has a monopoly on power abuse.
Churches are exempt. The moment a church starts employing non-believers is the moment they should cease to complain about their church status.
I appreciate your opinion. It is just not constitutionally correct.
Good to hear an opinion from someone on the inside. I have always been on the outside looking in and never could figure out all the hoopla my classmates went through regarding church. They ate fish on Friday (had to) and went on “retreats” which I had no idea what those were – it didn’t sound very good – “retreating.” Over the years it continued to make less sense to me but as they did their thing, and I did mine, all was fine. I was raised that you could do what you wanted as long as you did not disturb others.
Today, for some reason, and I have no explanation for this, I see just what you say – their attempt to social engineer those who are not members of their faith. Frankly, I see this with most of the very conservative churches and not at all with the liberal churches. I will get some disagreement there. Others will say the acceptance by the liberal churches of gay marriage, for example, affects others. I really do not see how. In contrast, the active efforts by the Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist churches to change our secular laws to comply with their views is very apparent.
The part these groups seem to miss is that if we are not members of their particular faiths, then we should not be compelled to follow their rules, and they should not be changing our laws to make it so. If they do not wish to perform a same-sex marriage, who cares? They do not have to, nor would they have been expected to. This line is clearly defined. I fail to see why they cannot see it.
Why this has all come about since I was a kid, I have no idea. It is almost like some act of anger and desperation. They see the world changing (yet it always has) and this disrupts their sensibilities. They do not seem to be able to adapt and accept change. I cannot explain it but it certainly has changed since my early days. Back then, Mainers were known very much for their “live and let live” attitude.
Chuck you have it Bass Ackwards.
You don’t have to follow the Church’s teaching. The Church can not impose anything. They can only propose a way of life in Christ. You are free to take the Church’s teaching or leave them.
It’s the government that wants to IMPOSE a regulation (not a law) on the Church.
As far as the things about the Church you find peculiar…what does any of that have to do with the question before us. You don’t understand Church traditions, therefore they’re wrong and don’t deserve constitutional protection like any other religion?
Feel free to research the history and meaning of thes oddities you write about. It is pretty easy to do.
Well, again, I do not have a dog in this fight. However, just observing, you said you are free to take the church’s teachings or leave them? To talk with my ex-Catholic friends, they would say, “… or else.” The church can be quite persuasive. That is evidenced by how traumatized they are by what went on in church. They also are very passive-aggressive. An example: “Well, true, you can choose not to follow the word of the Lord, but burning in Hell for all Eternity is not the choice I would make.” Their words, not mine.
And, yes, the government wants all women to have access to reproductive health care services. The solution now is to have the insurance companies pay for it. Seems like a win-win to me. The church, once again, can hold its head high.
Now, you cannot tell me that the church having dumped millions of dollars into repealing same-sex secular marriage is not trying to impose its view onto our secular laws? That is very obvious.
As far as me not understanding the traditions and what it has to do with today, my point is that they had these traditions way back when and they did not try to force them upon those who were not members of their church. I ate a hamburger on Friday and no one cared. I did not get some Cardinal trying to impose a law telling me that I had to eat fish on Friday.
That is in stark contrast to now. Today, we have the church telling those of us in the secular world who may and may not be issued a marriage license – a legal document created only by the State, not the church. Why is the church forcing its views upon those of us in the secular world? Marriage licenses are state-issued documents. I do not ask the state for a baptismal certificate. Why should the church butt in when I ask the state for a marriage license? It is none of their damn business.
Chuck, first thank you for the decorum and civility you have shown to me on this forum. It is greatly appreciated.
It has been my experience that EX – anythings (spouses, boyfriends, catholics) come from a one sided perspective. I would love to debate same sex marraiage; perhaps on another forum as the referendum approaches.
My question is, would you require a priest or minister in any religion that does not believe in same sex marraige to perform such ceremonies? That’s as problematic as this issue.
Here’s a couple of questions I have in general. These aren’t really directed to anyone specifically on this forum.
If 99% of women use or have used contraception in the US, then affordable access to contraception isn’t a REAL issue is it? It already exists. So this really is shoving it in the face of Catholics, isn’t it?
If contraception benefits saves insurers money, then you would have to agree the Church is putting it’s money where it’s mouth is?
Why is that 95% of those who debate the issue or side with the government have to add some Catholic bash, somehow implying that justifies the Federal Government overeaching it’s authority.
The following link is to a Business Week blog written by Non Catholics. From a secular perspective i believe it states the benefits society gains and loses when we wander from a religious or moral code.
http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2
Peace
Thank you for the kinds words. Let’s see if I can answer your questions:
No, I would not require any clergy person to perform a same-sex marriage if they did not wish to. There are plenty of churches who would be willing to do so, if the couple wished to have a “church wedding.” However, the question really resides around the legal side of the equation – that is this issuance of state-sponsored marriage licenses which are deemed to be secular contracts in law. Anything to do with any church really is only ceremonial and has nothing to do with the legal side of the fence. That is why when a couple divorces they end up in Divorce Court and not Divorce Church. No, what we want is just the ability to obtain a secular, legal, marriage license issued by the State. No one has any plans to force a church to perform a ceremony the do not wish to perform. If there is some attempt at this, it is between the couple and their church but it never would stand up in court.
The number most often quoted is 98% of the Catholic women use or have used contraception in their reproductive lives. And, I do not think it necessarily is affordable. That is the point. Apparently, financial concerns are there and providing this as a part of health insurance reduces that financial burden and ensures access to reproductive health care which goes beyond the issue of only contraception. It is important to remember they can opt in or out for this care. It simply is being made available to them at no cost. I also think this would be preferable to abortion. If you want to stop abortions, you need to stop unwanted pregnancies.
“If contraception benefits saves insurers money, then you would have to
agree the Church is putting it’s money where it’s mouth is?” — I am not sure what you mean by this. It is reasonable to assume the costs of contraception and women’s preventative health care is less than pregnancy and birth costs.
I do see the bashing of Catholics on this issue and it probably goes back to the credibility of the church which has suffered a great deal with the priest sex scandal, the coverup, and the millions spent to deny civil marriage to gays, and so on. I think also the idea that, again, women are put down by the church and denied medical care when 98% of their flock already use this care. It appears petty and cheap and out-of-touch with the times. After all, this would be care offered to them, not forced upon them. The “true” Catholic follower, I suppose, would opt out of this care. But, this ban also extends to non-Catholics in places like universities and so forth – separate corporations owned by the church. These women are denied access to that care and for those of us on the outside, including a university as part of a “church” in the sense of the First Amendment, seems like a stretch. If the church bought Boeing Aircraft, would Boeing become a non-profit that denied women health care? It seems like a stretch and really hypocritical considering 98% of the women already are on birth control.
I will take a look at the link you provided.
I read the link you provided. I see his points but I would say that like many he is not looking at both sides of the coin. Picking the “ideal” past juxtaposed against the “less than ideal” present is a false comparison. The old days hardly were ideal, either. The present is far from the Abyss of Hell, too.
Given a choice between then and now, I will pick now, if nothing more than for the improved medical treatments available. My dad died in 1960 when a common bypass operation of today would have extended his life by many years. I will stick with the present.
The other problem with the article is the presumption that morality is derived only from the church. Far from it. I have friends raised in Communist China and the USSR who had nothing to do with religion and they are true gentlemen, are empathetic, and care about their fellow man. They also are not bogged down with guilt because they did not comply 100% with the dogmatic teachings of an old institution. You see, you can learn morality and what it means to be a good person in a church, but churches are not the exclusive purview of this knowledge.
I would argue that I am a good person, kind to others, and all that. I would trace this back to my family who is not at all religious, although they never objected to it. It is more of the old English Protestant “rules for a gentleman” and genteel behavior – the mores of the British, if you will, where I think my “morals” originated. Polite society, and all that was drilled into me – manners and etiquette. Making others feel comfortable and deferring to them. Now, I am sure some readers are rolling their eyes right now, but I can say what I said in honesty. We were taught what was right and what was wrong and most of it had to do with the treatment of others. More of the “Golden Rule” deal which long pre-dates Christianity. Some of these rules matched those in religion, but only coincidentally. One could derive the same “lessons for life” by reading Aesop’s Fables or any number of historical literature books.
The writer seems to believe this “societal morality” is derived solely from the church and the loss of the church’s influence will result in the demise of society. I disagree with that premise.
We are going to do just fine and we are getting better every day. I suggest people take a counter-approach to the article. Instead, list all of the bad things of yesteryear and list all the good things of today.
The Church does not impose? They may have backed off some recently, but at any thime they’ve been the State Church, they do a pretty good job imposing, decreeing, etc. The Inquisition and persectution of “heretics” comes to mind. Even in the 20th Century, remember the “B list” for movies (hence the term “B Movies”). As I recall, if you watched one, you had to confess it. So many of The Church’s edicts have no theological basis including celebate priests (preservation of Church “property” from priest’s widows), meatless fast days and seasons (leading to fish is not meat since The Church controlled the fish markets), the annulment travesty and not allowing divorced members to remarry in the church, endless excommunications, even the mistranslation of the Vulgate (and subsequent transaltions) leading to the excessive veneration of Mary and her place as intercessor, etc.
Gopher, Are you seriously going back 600 years to find fault with the Church? Believe me we don’t have to go back that far to find plenty wrong. I fail to see how medievil Church practices play any role in the modern debate. Certainly it doesn’t serve as a justification for the US Government to force any religion to fund practices they disagree with.
Confess no. The Church readily admits that priests not being allowed to marry is a Church rule and not one that came from God. Again, I’m not sure what this has to do with the current debate.
Only that since you disagree with Church teachings, Cannon Law and practices, you, through the government somehow should have the right to force them to conform to your way of thinking.
As a Catholic woman I also have a problem with the Church’s insistance that it not pay for contraceptives but have no problem paying for Viagra.
I had heard that 28 states have even more strigent rules on contraception funding than the original government regs, but the first time that I heard Maine is one of them. Where was the ire, rhetoric, and demonizing sermons on this one? Such hypocracy.
I hope that the Big Brothers get the word out so that all priests nationwide can back off in their sermons (political as they were) and relish in their at least partial victory. You’re getting by with a lot in describing many of your sponsored activites as faith related. Guess you can’t keep the finances separate like other organizations do. Oh yeah, the rabid right had better call off the dogs too. Sorry guys (and gals), you’ll have to find some other reason to pick on the Admistration.
Yeah, so when the Irish Church in Maine go GOP ?
If that decision is not prompted by misleading and even false propaganda, OK. If it’s as result of being commneded to from the pulpit, not OK.
The Catholic church is an anachronism. Pathetic old men telling women how to “behave”… Do the world a favor and go away.
Malone, go away, most catholics are no longer scared by your silly twittering. Fear no longer works for you and your church. And another thing. They don’t care what you think….no reasonable person does.
Just because you think you are right doesn’t make you right. Your ignorance of catholicism is blatant. You should learn to speak for yourself as that would be reasonable!
People who still follow this pathetic organization are the pinnacle of ignorance.
I have and will continue to pray for you.
Scientlogists do not recognize mental illness so they should be exempt from offering this coverage to anyone employed by them. Mormons believe caffeine, tobacco and alcohol use is immoral so they should be exempt from offering to provide for health problems/diseases directly related to their use to anyone employed by them. Jehovah Witnesses believe that receiving blood products is a sin (although they have made a few exceptions) so they should be exempt from covering these expenses to anyone employed by them.
Some people believe that obesity is a self-control issue and immoral (gluttony) so they should be exempt from offering coverage that addresses the health issues related to it.
I hope you will support these exemptions as strongly as you support the ones asked for by the Catholic Church.
I certainly do. Any employer, whether religious or secular, has the right to shop for an insurance policy that meets their needs and reflects their values. There should be no “exemptions” because there shouldn’t be any rules to exempt them from.
Then they should lose their tax-exempt status. Plain and simple.
Why?
Why not?
Because it’s wrong to specifically target religious organizations.
Of course, there is the whole question as to why health insurance is provided by the employer at all. I think it just started that way as an incentive to hire people, especially in the days of large factories. It really might make more sense if people just bought insurance on their own or through some common-interest organization (in order to gain from group policy rates). With health insurance costs off the employer, salaries might go up.
This would then separate the issues we encountered this week from the employer. I’m sure the employers would like this idea – less cost and less paperwork.
My wife went to Business College while I was a science student. She got excellent training on what to look for in a job including helath insurance, pension plans (this was 50 years ago), etc. We took all of these factors into account when I left school and was job hunting. These good prectices were not limited to large factories but were incentives used by the larger corporations, especially when hiring professionals.
Yes, very good point. I recall the IBMs, Xeroxs, and AT&Ts pushing this as a “perk” for hiring the best people. I have been a consultant since 1984 and buy my own insurance. I had forgotten about that point.
But, that must indicate then that the connection between work and one’s insurance being provided was an incentive to get people to work for your company. Of course, the insurance companies loved this as it gave them a huge pool of people who were “forced” into the company insurance plan. That said, most people thought it a good deal and due to group rates, it probably was cheaper than private insurance – in some cases, it was provided for free, or at a much reduced rate.
FDR, through his wage and price controls, was responsible for the creation of the employer based insurance system. Creating an individual market is the best way to improve our insurance system, but with constant left-wing demands for government health care it’s too dangerous for reasonable people to even approach the issue. I’ve always believed that businesses should only provide monetary compensation. No insurance, vacation, sick time, etc.; just a higher wage.
I will give FDR his due. Drastic times, drastic measures. As far left-wing demands for government health care goes, everyone seems to think Obamacare is that. From what I see, it is that everyone must be insured but by private insurance companies, where possible.
However, Medicare and Medicaid is what we have and that is not going away anytime soon. Personally, I have and pay for private insurance and am very pleased with my HMO. Of course, here in the DC area, we have Kaiser-Permanente. Everyone I know who is on one of their plans has no complaint about the service or care received. Again, those are the comments from my friends. Others may feel differently.
With Obamacare and the removal of caps and limitations on all policies and by all insurers, I was able to lower my policy from $878/month (the Cadillac covers-all policy) to a high-deductible policy costing $305/month. It includes an HSA that rolls-over each year and is used to cover the high-deductible and annual out-of-pocket routine medical expenses. For me, it is a hands-down, slam-dunk improvement over what I had. But, that’s me. Others with medical issues may find differently. I had considered a high-deductible years ago when the HSA first were introduced under Bush in 2003(?), but all the policies had caps and limitations – no doubt to be competitive with other companies. Having a policy with a $50,000 limit on a heart attack really isn’t much good. This removal, across the board, of these caps, limitations, and previous conditions, at least leveled the playing field so all companies could compete at the same level of care. Believe me, the insurers and their actuaries have these calculations down to a science.
My overall issue comes down to whether someone in the USA to be allowed to die just because they cannot afford insurance. I do not believe they should. Prior to Obamacare, many simply could not afford insurance and often waited until they were at death’s door before showing up at an ER. The theory behind changing this all over makes logical sense, that is, unless you feel people should just die and “too bad.” But, if people have preventative and regular care, they won’t be having as many major medical issues and won’t be flooding the ERs (the most expensive form of care) when they do. This would lighten the load on ERs and the hospitals who now have to jack up prices for everyone to cover the uninsured who show up on the doorsteps.
That’s the theory. The government involvement as you call it, excluding our existing Medicare/Medicaid seems to be telling the insurance companies they have to cover people and somehow providing coverage for those who cannot afford it. The devil is in the details, of course.
I do not want this to turn into a big discussion on health care as it is away from the subject at hand, but for me, this has worked out very well and saved me a chunk of money each month. $305 for the policy I get with all the checkups, labs, dental exams, and so forth, is chump change to what I was paying. Plus, I get an HSA that will grow over time, funded by pre-tax dollars.
I sort of agree with you, but I have not heard of the religion of obesity.
Two points:
There is no such thing as “free” If the insurance companies need to offer the services it will be reflected in the premiums. It has to be. All this essentially does is remove the offensive line item. The church would still be funding the services. In essense they would still be funding these services, only without the offensive line item.
I am truly amazed at the ignorance of some posters. They criticize the Catholic Church for many of it’s follies and then mock them when they stay true to their faith stand up for a principal.
The point is that the health care should and will cover contraceptives.
And I would like to see TMJ treatment covered too.
It’s follies? What would those be …. if you are including the child abuse that was ignored, covered-up and in which it protected those guilty of it …. “folly” isn’t the first word that comes to mind.
Someone brought up the point that contraceptive care would be paid for by the insurance companies and they would gladly do so as it is cheaper than care for pregnancies and births. I do see your point – someone has to pay for it and I suspect the costs will be buried in the bill to the church, or at least as an unbillable cost to the company. I said in another post this seems like semantics to me. Nothing really has changed except who is picking up the tab (at least on paper).
The church can once again hold its head high (at least on this issue – the jury is out on a litany of others).
Insurance companies don’t charge a premium for birth control because that
is far cheaper than the medical expenses of having children.
If anything their insurance premiums will go up because without birth control their costs will rise as the number of births and associated health complications go up.
I guess I missed the part where birth control was made unavailable.
It’s not and that’s because of health care reform :-)
Are you saying birth control was unavailable before healthcare reform?
I can see why you call it hypocracy. But it’s not true, it is actually eight states and Maine isn’t one of them.
First many states do not require plans to include prescription coverage. Twenty-eight states mandate employers to cover contraception in their health insurance plans, and all but eight of them exempt churches. Maine’s law exempts Catholic schools and churches.
In all eight of the other states, the church has become self insured and has the legal right not to offer contraception coverage and remain faihful to it’s teaching. In fact I could only find one Diocese in the entire counntry that offered contraceptives, Madison, WI. That diocese could not afford to self insure and thought Obama care might actually help their plight.
Under Obama Care, these churches will lose that legal ability.
So clearly these 28 states are not “stricter” than the federal plan. It’s not even close.
Putting relion aside, If Obama actually has the legal authority to just make up regs to decide what is and isn’t covered by simple DHHS decrees, it would have to also mean every President would have the same legal authority to change them. What a fiasco that would be.
The Bishops also take a wait and see attitude when it comes to their child molesters. They can raise Hell when it suits their purposes and remain quite, when it come to disclosing felonious criminal wrongdoings by their priests. Nuf’said.
A “Wait and see approach” to Birth Control usually results in pregnancy, doesn’t it?
I can’t imagine why anyone would both with the Catholic church at this point – they take your money in exchange for a series of demands about how to live your life, they insert themselves into every issue, they pretend to know God better than the rest of us and they might hurt your kids. No thanks.
Sounds like any organized religion to me…why single out Catholics?
They seem to bemuch more dogmatic and demanding than several others.
Not really..many others make you give 10% no matter what…ask for proof of income..and many other demands..Catholics do not do that..sexual abuse in others as well…as Bangor just found out~ non of the organized religions are perfect..far from it..although they will all tell you different. Its all about MONEY..God is suppose to be first..but he comes second to money
Well, the hypocrisy is probably one of the aspects that bugs Americans the most. Had the church long ago acknowledged the wide-spread priest sexual abuse scandal and then done something pro-active about it, people would have better accepted it. After all, the church yammers on endlessly about sin and forgiveness. That’s their big selling point.
But, rather than do what was right, they perpetrated this cover-up running all the way up to the Vatican. Even when it came to light, they continued to deny this claiming it was an “American church problem” until it started cropping up around the world and even at the Vatican itself. Still, the coverups continued. Transferring offending priests around and not giving a damn about the victims.
If you look at the number of reported cases, you must realize this is the tip of the iceberg. Most of the sexual abuse was against young teenage males. This has been labeled pedophilia but I also think it could be “targets of opportunity” as these kids would never go against the word of a priest! Many, many suffered from this. And, this goes back to the 1950’s and probably before but most of those priests and victims are long since dead. At the time, no male would ever have admitted he had sex with another male, forced or otherwise.
Not bad enough, the church commissions an “independent” report. In it, the definition of pedophilia was lowered to 10(?) years of age thus showing the percentage of pedophilia (a bad word) to be a low number. The law and medicine define pedophilia as 16 to 18 depending upon the state. So, again, the numbers were cooked.
The report, rather than admitting blame (something the church rarely does) attributed the priest sexual abuse scandal on the “permissiveness of the times” and this was dubbed the “Woodstock Defense” by the media. This does not account for the abuse occurring in the 1950’s long before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.
There was some remote village in Canada or Alaska where a tag-team of priest and church worker had their way with many of the native boys. Those boys suffered, became alcoholics, and otherwise had a terrible life. Part of some court settlement was that a higher-up in the church was to go there and apologize and try to make amends. The interview with the guy afterwards showed his complete lack of comprehending the seriousness of this whole issue. He said he was surprised this so affected them!
What happened to this famous contrition?
I am not even Catholic and I was appalled not only by the actions of the priests – people put into positions of trust, but by the church’s coverup, denials, and utter disregard and dismissal of the victims. It was all about them and protecting the church.
I agree with all of the above. That situation is totally disgraceful~Unforgivable~
Hey, Bangorian – I agree with you here. As someone who was raised Catholic, I’ve seen the church for what is and left it many years ago.
As a woman, I know the church is anti-female, seeing us only as vessels to pop out more Catholics (it’s officially called The Propogation of the Faith). They, as many men and virtually all male religious preachers, want to control our reproductive abilities.
They, as do most other extreme religions with weird stories (like the Mormons, look that one up on www.wikipedia.org ……wheee!) about how they came about, see women as inferior. They say, as did Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic intellectual centuries ago. “Woman is to man as man is to God.”
How nice for men. Ask any fundamentalist if they believe women should “obey” men and see what they say. It’s still in most marriage ceremonies, for Pete’s sake.
Fortunately, I didn’t like that the church wouldn’t allow questions, only believe in what seemed slightly ridiculous. So, at 5 years old, I mentally left the church.
Disgusting, really, Celibate (sup0posedly) old men telling women we must pop out babies for them to propagandize with their twisted beliefs.
There are over a billion Catholics in the world today, so if the church and the pope really followed Christ’s teachings, the whole world would be better off.
Most of the comments here disgust me. This is not about the Catholic Church, it is about the Government violating the first amendement to the Constitution. Another thing, Who is going to pay for this??
It’s actually about contraceptives for women.
Interesting how those who have been denying the Separation of Church and State are now asking for an exemption of that policy.
As for who’s paying, yes we all are but think of the increased expenses for all of us without ready access to birth control and family planning.
The reversal was not really that–it simply was a scam for political gain–create a chaotic scene, then come out as the glorious giver, and wham, the Catholics vote for him, while the insurance companies have to deal with the mess left behind. The entire 2500 page Obamanoncare should be repealed.
I would dare say that couples who use contraceptives, especially Catholic couples are breathing a sigh of relief that they will have access to birth control through insurance. Certainly women who are on an oral contraceptive to treat reproductive health issues like endometriosis, ovarian cysts, fibroid tumors, excessive menstrual bleeding etc are also breathing a sigh of relief.
Nope.
Whether you agree with the Church on this or other issue is one thing, but the blatant anti Catholicism
is alive and well in this country. I’m expecting a new chapters of the KKK headed by the liberals in this country to once and for all shut the Catholic Church up.
Medications to treat EDysfunction are allowed by the Church ….. has a male’s life ever been in danger because of ED or have males died as a result of ED? Will these be covered by the coverage offered by religious organization?
Good point. Didn’t know that. Talk about hypocrisy!
I think the wives of these ED men should be consulted as to whether they wish their mates’ dysfunction to be “fixed” so the men can pursue those pursuits for which the organ is suited. Might be more than a few women who want things left as they are….{~;>
Further reading on a Catholic site explains why and how these prescription medicines are approved: “If people are not married, and/or are not open to life, then it would be morally impermissible to take Viagra. If the married couple is beyond child-bearing age, but otherwise are open to life, then it could be morally licit to use Viagra if it helps keep the love and affection alive between husband and spouse.
But what we must reject is the instrumentilization of sex for pleasure. That’s a dead end and leads to isolation. The marital act always needs to be understood from the perspective of gift of self, and not a gift for self.”
From a male and/or priest’s standpoint, as the author is a male priest, Viagra helps keep love and affection alive …… evidently without it the love and affection will die? And it is for the “pleasure” of the spouse only, not the male. I wonder if they will offer coverage for “female viagra”?
This is the same thinking, if I understand correctly from Jewish friends, that it is a rule of Orthodox Jewry that one must have sex only if one is open to becoming pregnant and bearing children. Further, as in the Catholic church, that is is “sinful” to attempt to stop the man’s little swimmer from reaching the egg.
Or, when older women are beyond child-bearing, she and her husband are allowed to have sex if they believe that contraception is wrong and that if a man impregnates a woman, with or without her permission, that she must bear that child and be responsible for its care (I don’t see the church or others who are opposed to contraception or abortion taking responsibility for unwanted children).
Misogyny rules the church. And virtually all religions.
Hilarious if it weren’t serious. And the concept of celebate male non-pysicians making those sort of decisions for their minions is outrageous.
False victimization.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.
LOL
Your comment proved the point. You have deep seated issues regarding the Catholic Church and it has nothing to do with the scandals (every institution has scandals).
Just keep commenting and your true hate for Catholics will come out.
No, my comment certainly did not prove your idiotic non-point. It’s so laughable to suggested that Catholics are the biggest of victims in American history. What the heck is wrong with you that you would say something like that? It’s so ridiculous.
I don’t hate Catholics. I AM Catholic. My entire family is Catholic.
What I hate is people pretending to be victimized when they’re not. It’s such a joke coming from you too, because if I remember correctly, you were on here bashing and spreading hate about gay people. There was NOTHING hateful about my comment.
I have never bashed or spread hate about homosexual people. I disagree about allowing them to marry, but that is not hate.
You may have been baptized into the Catholic faith, but do you agree and follow your churches teachings or are you like most Catholics you pick and choose what you believe? Most Catholics have no clue what their church believes. How about you do yourself a favor and really study the Catholic faith.
You should be asking historian Arthur M Schiesinger, Jr. what the heck is wrong with him (I bet you don’t even know who he was?)
Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve been treated wrongly more because I’m a woman than because I was brought up in the Catholic Church.
The nonsense notion that “Christians” are being persecuted in this country is perpetrated by those who want special treatment because they’re “Christian.”
Maine is chock-full of Catholics and who cares what religion anyone is, anyway? Isn’t what people do with their lives – how much good they do or don’t do – what really matters?
There are more Catholics in this country than any other “Christian” religion. It’s women who should be angry with the celibate (supposedly) old men who run the church, and who are trying to control our reproductive abilities.
Whether or when women choose to have children is none of the church’s business.
Hyperbolic, way over the top persectuion complex. If that’s the way you’ve ben taught to beleive, it’s becasue your leaders need the reason for a new crusade to keep up your flagging interest.
Some people belong to groups that the Catholic church has persecuted for centuries.
Bishop Malone, the majority of your female parishioners have used or are using contraceptives for birth control, surely some are using them as part of the primary treatment of other reproductive health issues with birth control being a secondary benefit …… this is about women’s health.
A Catholic bishop wants to lecture the rest of the world on sexual morality and religious freedom? The irony, it burns . . .
Does this whole mess strike anyone as just semantics?
With the announcement on Friday that the same independent insurance companies will provide the option for reproductive care free-of-charge versus the corporate subsidiaries of the Catholic church paying for them, the Church can claim the high ground and so can the Administration. The net result remains the same. The only change is who is picking up the tab.
And, of course, with 98% of the Catholics using, or have used, contraceptives during their reproductive lives, this objection by the church seems at best to be little more than lip service to their principles. Anyone from my era of growing up in Maine can plainly see the huge Catholic families I saw in my childhood rarely exist today. It used to be 10 kids, then 5, now 3, and in some cases 1 or none. And, the marriage rate is now below 50%?
Looks like Principles meet Realities.
Of course, I think this is much ado about nothing. The problem is resolved. Both parties can claim victory. Let’s move on.
The real issue at hand is the inability of the Roman Catholic Church to grow to the needs of the people in the Church. Contraception is a good idea which most every good Catholic does practice.
The world population is growing and needs limits, unwanted children become fodder for abortion.
The Romans are out of touch with reality. I can’t even go into their church anymore because of their
narrowminded approach to contraception and gay people.
What would Jesus do? I don’t think he would act like Romans who apparently crucified him, but he rose from the dead. Can the Roman Catholic Church rise from its dead state?
With the help of Jesus,
Let us Pray.
Dominus vobiscum: et cum spiritu tuo. Amen.
Very good, Sir. As a long-time ago, fallen-away Catholic, I very much appreciate your post.
If the priests and popes were married men, they might, possibly, maybe, perhaps understand that women are people, too, and should be allowed to decide whether or when to bear children.
This is primarily about women and our reproductive capabilities, which men don’t have. Thus, many men – and virtually all major religious men – want to control.
And may the good spirit be with you, too. Kyrie Eleison.
The Romans position that a woman is a second class citizen has always appauled me as anti-Christ; most of the friends of Jesus were women. I believe that I am a spiritual being in a human existence. This body is under my jurisdiction, anything that occurs within the boundaries of my body are noones business but my own, my jurisdiction, I am the judge in my body land. My body was given to me by God, the maker of the universe and no man can take that away from me. Or I dare say you.
Christe, eleison.
Wouldn’t dare try! {~;>
I like the way you think.
All I hear now is: FREE, FREE, FREE!!!
And who’s paying for this? The poor working middle class employee.
Now, it’s being put on the Insurance Companies, who are going to raise rates on the working class.
How much more can we take. These are hard working people sometimes that are being hammered badly over and over. We are trying to keep our heads above water too!
I’ve gotten 3 different advertisements for these FREE phones with re-newable FREE minutes. The cose of just the advertising alone is huge and it’s costing US millions of dollars.
Where does it all stop anyway!
We are the most Charitable people on earth but this FREE everything has to stop.
In this particular case, statistics have shown that providing birth control *lowers* the cost of providing medical care and therefore the cost of medical insurance.
I love it. We finally get to see how the holier than thou crowd acts when someone tries to impose THEIR views on them. How do you sanctimonious hypocrites like it when it’s done to you for a change?? Next time you hear God whispering in your ear to assimilate someone,remember how this felt. You don’t try and tell me how to live my life and I wont tell you how to live yours. Fair Enough?
a prophet indeed:
“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the
doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue [of artificial
contraception] if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans
for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.
Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and
to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so
exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is
an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect
that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed
to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a
woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce
her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”
“Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger
of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who
care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a
government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an
entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by
married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who
will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive
methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as
necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well
happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or
social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and
are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public
authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate
responsibility of husband and wife.”
– Pope Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 1968