Government Shouldn't Define 'Church'

[Draggingtree]

Patriot Post:

Government Shouldn't Define 'Church'

 

By Cal Thomas · February 5, 2013

 

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

 

The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.

 

Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the "body" of Jesus Christ, "which is the church." By this, he means the "body of believers" in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that's the church.

"The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )"

[Draggingtree]

Posted in Weekly column from Archbishop Chaput, on February 4th, 2013

Making sense of another ambiguous ‘compromise’

 

To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one’s heart, with all one’s soul and with all one’s efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).

– Augustine

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that prudence is the auriga virtutum, the “charioteer of virtues.” It’s “right reason in action,” the guide to correctly applying all other virtues. Rash action, no matter how well intended, violates prudence and usually does more harm than good. God gave us brains. He expects us to use them to judiciously pursue the highest moral good for others and for ourselves.

Here’s why both these virtues are vital in the weeks ahead. On Friday, February 1, the Obama administration issued for public comment a set of revised regulations governing the HHS “contraceptive mandate.” At first glance, the new rules have struck some people as a modest improvement. They appear to expand, in a limited way, the kind of religiously-affiliated entities that can claim exemption from providing insurance coverage for contraceptive and abortion-related services under the new Affordable Care Act.

 

The trouble is, the new rules are very complex. And they may actually make things worse. In the words of Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard Bradley:

 

“Gauging the net effect of the new administration proposal [is] hazardous. But one can say with confidence the following: (1) religious hospitals are, as before, not exempt ‘religious employers’; (2) religious charities are very likely not exempt either, unless they are run out of a church or are very tightly integrated with a church. So, a parish or even a diocese’s Saint Vincent De Paul operations would probably be an exempt ‘religious employer,’ whereas Catholic Charities would not be; (3) the new proposal may (or may not) make it more likely that parish grade schools are exempt ‘religious employers.’ But Catholic high schools are a different matter. Some might qualify as ‘religious employers.’ Most probably will not.

 

“It is certain that Catholic colleges and universities do not qualify as exempt ‘religious employers.’ The new proposal includes, however, a revised ‘accommodation’ for at least some of these institutions, as well as some hospitals and charities http://catholicphill...ous-compromise/

[Draggingtree]

The unintentional hilarity in Margaret Carlson’s scolding of Catholic bishops

 

posted at 11:16 am on February 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

 

This probably deserves a full-scale fisking, but I’m pressed for time today. Margaret Carlson seems very annoyed at the priorities set by Catholic bishops in opposing a law that forces Catholics and other people of faith to violate their religious doctrine. But, er, whose priorities exactly are out of whack here?

 

U.S. Catholic bishops have a lot to worry about: the gunning down of children; 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of them Catholic; a warming planet; a chilly economy. Instead they’ve spent the last year obsessed with contraception.

Shouldn’t the phrase “US Catholic bishops” be replaced by “Washington DC”? After all, the Catholic Church doesn’t

 

President won’t even acknowledge that the economy is “chilly” after four years of Obamanomics. And it’s the bishops whose priorities are not in line?

http://hotair.com/gr...tholic-bishops/

[Valin]

Patriot Post:

Government Shouldn't Define 'Church'

 

By Cal Thomas · February 5, 2013

 

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

 

Amazing how a Limited Government would solve this issue.

/crazy talk

[Draggingtree]

Catholic Bishops Reject Obama Offer on Contraceptive Coverage

 

Thursday, 07 Feb 2013 08:14 PM

U.S. Roman Catholic bishops on Thursday rejected the Obama Administration's latest bid for compromise over a hotly disputed health policy that requires employees at religiously affiliated institutions to have access to insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said his group would redouble efforts to reach an agreement on the contraceptives issue after more than a year of protest and scores of federal lawsuits from Catholics groups and other social conservatives.

But the cardinal, one of the most prominent voices in the American Catholic Church, said new federal rules proposed last week offer only "second-class status" to church-affiliated universities, hospitals and charities by failing to grant them the same full exemption afforded to houses of worship.

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/bishops-reject-obama-contraception/2013/02/07/id/489444?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

[righteousmomma]

The other day I heard on local radio something to the effect that Obama/etc have "tweaked" their Bill so that now individuals will be assured that their companies are not compromising their consciences by providing certain services to women because the insurance companies will provide.

 

So , does this mean separate little free policies for women.

Who pays the insurance companies if the policy holder and her company are not jointly paying? Oh, I get it - the taxpayer!

Well as one tiny little taxpayer among millions I protest my penny being used . I protest on moral conscience grounds.