If you don’t want to feel ridiculous on the day you meet the martyrs…

then oppose the HHS mandate now.

  • Tommy Jeff

    Fight the power…and the devil…

  • Qualis Rex

    Amen.

    The moral acrobatics people (see: Catholics) perform to try and justify their support is as apalling as it is transparent

  • Elaine S.

    It seems to me that the premise of the linked article raises an even bigger moral question that demands some kind of answer:

    If it is wrong for employers (Catholic or not) to pay for abortion, contraception, or sterilization by providing insurance plans that cover it, is it therefore equally wrong for a Catholic INDIVIDUAL to accept coverage and pay a premium for an insurance plan that covers ANY of these things (whether employer provided, purchased on the open market, or through Medicaid), even if one never has any intention of using the coverage for these purposes? And if one’s employer-provided insurance covers ANY of the above, is one thereby morally obligated to drop it? Even if that means exposing one’s family (including one’s minor children who have no choice in the matter) to financial ruin if they get sick?
    While I can understand the need to be firm about the moral obligations of employers in this situation, it seems to me that it also leads to an inescapable conclusion that ALL Catholics may in the future be morally obliged to go without employer provided health insurance if they want to continue to be Catholics in good standing — and that is a pretty awful choice to force upon a family, don’t you think? (Though it isn’t really the Church “forcing” this choice upon families but the God King and his minions who are determined to force abortion/contraception coverage on all insurers.)

    • Qualis Rex

      Nice try. We are not obligated or morally obliged to drop our insurance for covering certain procedures anymore than we are to boycott all supermarkets, convenience stores and pharmacies for selling contraceptives. If said institutions said, “ever purchase you make goes towards subsidizing the price of contraceptives for the rest of the shoppers who want them” then you’d have a case. But you don’t.

  • Kirt Higdon

    I think this is a distinction without a difference here. In either case (business purchaser or individual purchaser) you have remote material cooperation with evil due to government coercion. I don’t think this has the elements of a formal sin. Same goes for employees of insurance companies who are compelled to provide the coverage. This is the equivalent of being forced to pay taxes to support Planned Parenthood or unjust wars. Indeed the Supremes have ruled the mandate to be a tax. This is different from the situation of the Roman martyrs who were required to commit an individual act of idolatry or face death. (Their taxes were already used to maintain pagan temples.) An individual act of idolatry would be the equivalent of being commanded to actually use contraceptives on an individual basis. In these cases, the material cooperation with evil, while coerced, is not remote.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X