Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What The Hell Is The Matter With The U.s.c.c.b. ?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#1 Ed Normile

Ed Normile

    Master Fisherman

  • n00b
  • 3,195 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 01:59 PM

Yup, thats what I asked, what the hell is the matter with the U.S.C.C.B., the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, maybe I should have asked "What from hell is wrong with the U.S.C.C.B.?". I am sure those of us who went to mass today heard the lame announcement read from the U.S.C.C.B regarding the Obama-care policy of pro-death and that we as catholics and even catholics orgs such as hospitals and catholic charitable orgs will be required to pay into this policy of death or suffer penalties from the government if we refuse.

Did this fact just suddenly come to their attention, did they miss the fact that Obama promised this in his presidential campaign? This announcement at this juncture is the moral equivalent of spitting on a raging forest fire, I guess it makes them feel like at least they tried no matter how poor or useless the effort really was. The announcement was made at the end of mass while many were scurrying out the door to be first in line for the luncheon buffet, it should have been the homily during the last presidential election each mass.

Did St. John the Baptist wait until after he was beheaded to call Herod out? If the U.S.C.C.B. really wants to help the cause of pro-life they should have a body who studies these candidates and advises catholics during the homily that if they wanted to vote for a candidate that most closely matches the Roman Catholic Church viewpoints on relative issues than "Candidate X" is the one who, you as a catholic faithful, have a moral obligation to vote for. Yeah right, that will happen, as soon as they weigh the possibility of losing some monies in the collection box it will be forgotten.

ed

Edited by Ed Normile, 05 February 2012 - 02:21 PM.


#2 :: Estase ::

:: Estase ::
  • Guests

Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:27 PM

I agree. Looks like the bishops thought that they could win Obama over on life issues, which was super-naive of them. They supported Obamacare even though they knew it would close many Catholic hospitals.

#3 qfnol31

qfnol31

    Call me "Q." Felix Prognosticator

  • Church Scholar
  • 7,454 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:49 PM

This post really isn't fair to the work of the USCCB. Here's an article from their website from August 2011 (http://www.usccb.org...2011/11-154.cfm):


WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sharply criticized a new HHS “preventive services” mandate requiring private health plans to cover female surgical sterilization and all drugs and devices approved by the FDA as contraceptives, including drugs which can attack a developing unborn child before and after implantation in the mother’s womb.


“Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a ‘religious’ exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social service agencies and healthcare providers,” said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities.


“For example, under the new rule our institutions would be free to act in accord with Catholic teaching on life and procreation only if they were to stop hiring and serving non-Catholics,” Cardinal DiNardo continued.“Could the federal government possibly intend to pressure Catholic institutions to cease providing health care, education and charitable services to the general public?Health care reform should expand access to basic health care for all, not undermine that goal.”


“The Administration’s failure to create a meaningful conscience exemption to the preventive services mandate underscores the need for Congress to approve the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” the Cardinal said.That bill (H.R. 1179), introduced by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Dan Boren (D-OK), would prevent mandates under the new health reform law from undermining rights of conscience.


Cardinal DiNardo added: “Catholics are not alone in conscientiously objecting to this mandate.The drugs that Americans would be forced to subsidize under the new rule include Ella, which was approved by the FDA as an ‘emergency contraceptive’ but can act like the abortion drug RU-486. It can abort an established pregnancy weeks after conception. The pro-life majority of Americans – Catholics and others – would be outraged to learn that their premiums must be used for this purpose.”


“HHS says the intent of its ‘preventive services’ mandate is to help ‘stop health problems before they start,’ said Cardinal DiNardo. “But pregnancy is not a disease, and children are not a ‘health problem’ – they are the next generation of Americans.”


“It’s now more vital than ever that Congress pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act to close the gaps in conscience protection in the new health care reform act, so employers and employees alike will have the freedom to choose health plans in accordance with their deeply held moral and religious beliefs.”


In a July 22 letter supporting the bill, Cardinal DiNardo wrote: “Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families or their employees.To force such an unacceptable choice would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience.”


The full text of Cardinal DiNardo’s letter is available online at www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/religious-liberty/upload/respect-for-rights-of-conscience-act-cardinal-dinardo-letter-to-congress-hr1179-07-22-11.pdf. Cardinal DiNardo also addressed the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations on preentive services for women in a July 19 statement:www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-143.shtml



#4 Maggie

Maggie

    Regatta Queen

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 4,492 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:50 PM

They can't publically advise people which candidate to vote for. That's how you lose your tax-exempt status. And yeah, there's more important things than being tax exempt, but being tax exempt enables a lot of the church's ministry. Think what the real estate bill would be on St. Patrick's Cathedral alone. Think about what happens to properties where the owners can't meet their tax obligations. It becomes the property of the state. Bleh.

Besides which they really shouldn't have to tell people. It should be obvious on its face, if the people are well-formed. It's a much better strategy to focus on converting the sheep in your flock and educating them on what it means to care for the least of these, rather than just giving them instructions how to fill out their ballot.

#5 qfnol31

qfnol31

    Call me "Q." Felix Prognosticator

  • Church Scholar
  • 7,454 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:55 PM

*
CRAZY DOPE POST, YO!

I didn't want to bog that post down with too much information, but the reason the USCCB has come out more strongly against this mandate in the last few weeks to Cardinal-elect Dolan is because he and a number of other religious leaders met privately with the President. They were all confident that religious liberty would be respected by the current administration and that HHS would provide a conscience clause. Unfortunately, just after this meeting, the US bishops and other religious leaders in this country were effectively thrown under the bus.

The bishops have been speaking out against this mandate since last year. It's very easy to come up with a bunch of links to demonstrate their commitment in fighting this mandate.

If you want to see less "lame" announcements, check out the following links. Look particularly at Bishop Zubik's comments (he's the bishop of Pittsburgh, and normally very soft-spoken). These come from http://www.catholicv...dex.php?p=25591


Items in bold mean the statement was read at all diocesan Masses or included in all parish bulletins on Sunday:



#6 Winchester

Winchester

    Wicked Messenger

  • Mediator of Meh
  • 17,796 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:59 PM

They can't publically advise people which candidate to vote for. That's how you lose your tax-exempt status. And yeah, there's more important things than being tax exempt, but being tax exempt enables a lot of the church's ministry. Think what the real estate bill would be on St. Patrick's Cathedral alone. Think about what happens to properties where the owners can't meet their tax obligations. It becomes the property of the state. Bleh.

Besides which they really shouldn't have to tell people. It should be obvious on its face, if the people are well-formed. It's a much better strategy to focus on converting the sheep in your flock and educating them on what it means to care for the least of these, rather than just giving them instructions how to fill out their ballot.

All I got out of that was that they were scared. They are princes of the Church. Molon labe.

#7 catholicinsd

catholicinsd

    Only he Pope can rep the Pope

  • Phishy
  • 3,834 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:43 PM

What Ed does not realize is that he is subject to the Mighty Power of the Most Excellent Bishops. How dare he blaspheme.

#8 Nihil Obstat

Nihil Obstat

    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

  • Church Militant
  • 30,410 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:45 PM

What Ed does not realize is that he is subject to the Mighty Power of the Most Excellent Bishops. How dare he blaspheme.

The USCCB has no authority beyond that of any individual bishop in his own diocese.

#9 eagle_eye222001

eagle_eye222001

    Captain of the Guard

  • Church Militant
  • 11,751 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 04:31 PM

The USCCB has no authority beyond that of any individual bishop in his own diocese.


Which is what makes it so weak. Although funny enough, liberals love quoting USCCB documents like they are Catholic mandates......cite a papal encyclical and they'll ask what's that? True story. :|

#10 Nihil Obstat

Nihil Obstat

    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

  • Church Militant
  • 30,410 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 04:32 PM

Which is what makes it so weak. Although funny enough, liberals love quoting USCCB documents like they are Catholic mandates......cite a papal encyclical and they'll ask what's that? True story. :|

And don't even think about citing an encyclical or motu proprio from any time before 1969.

#11 Papist

Papist

    acta non verba

  • Church Militant
  • 10,824 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:20 PM

I don't get the purpose of this thread. Can some explain?

#12 Winchester

Winchester

    Wicked Messenger

  • Mediator of Meh
  • 17,796 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

Your face

#13 Norseman82

Norseman82

    Peoples of the phorum, please attend carefully...

  • Church Militant
  • 7,737 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:18 PM


I clicked on the link for Bishop Seminack, and what caught my eye was the tab for "Pierogies"...

Edited by Norseman82, 05 February 2012 - 08:22 PM.


#14 qfnol31

qfnol31

    Call me "Q." Felix Prognosticator

  • Church Scholar
  • 7,454 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:32 PM

*
CRAZY DOPE POST, YO!

I clicked on the link for Bishop Seminack, and what caught my eye was the tab for "Pierogies"...

Pierogi, perogi, pierogy, perogy, pierógi, pyrogy, pyrohy, pirohi, varenyky, vareniki, вареники…whatever you call them, we have ‘em!-Sauerkraut--Potato with Sauerkraut--Potato with Farmer’s coagulated milk--Potato with Cheddar coagulated milk--Potato with Onion--Potato with Jalapeño-

#15 Papist

Papist

    acta non verba

  • Church Militant
  • 10,824 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 06 February 2012 - 07:00 AM

Your face


You mean this thread is about this?

Posted Image

#16 Hubertus

Hubertus

    PM Alien

  • n00b
  • 506 posts

Posted 06 February 2012 - 08:45 AM

The USCCB has no authority beyond that of any individual bishop in his own diocese.

But we should still show a little more respect for them, shouldn't we? Seems like the topic is kind of brash, to me.

I was told that you aren't supposed to speak ill of priests, or in other words be more respectful when speaking of them, so I would think that especially applies to bishops, and even more so to a council of bishops.

#17 Nihil Obstat

Nihil Obstat

    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

  • Church Militant
  • 30,410 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:02 AM

But we should still show a little more respect for them, shouldn't we? Seems like the topic is kind of brash, to me.

I was told that you aren't supposed to speak ill of priests, or in other words be more respectful when speaking of them, so I would think that especially applies to bishops, and even more so to a council of bishops.


All they are is a group of bishops.

#18 Amppax

Amppax

    "Don't let your life be barren. Be useful."

  • Church Militant
  • 4,110 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:14 AM

Did St. John the Baptist wait until after he was beheaded to call Herod out? If the U.S.C.C.B. really wants to help the cause of pro-life they should have a body who studies these candidates and advises catholics during the homily that if they wanted to vote for a candidate that most closely matches the Roman Catholic Church viewpoints on relative issues than "Candidate X" is the one who, you as a catholic faithful, have a moral obligation to vote for. Yeah right, that will happen, as soon as they weigh the possibility of losing some monies in the collection box it will be forgotten.

ed


There is no candidate we have a moral obligation to vote for, that notion is laughable. What they should do is educate people on the non-negotiable issues, and pray that people are smart enough to make a logical choice when votiing. Which, in my experience, some parishes do well, others do poorly.

#19 Nihil Obstat

Nihil Obstat

    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

  • Church Militant
  • 30,410 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:35 AM

All they are is a group of bishops.


To put this in a different way, when the USCCB meets it's not an ecumenical council. It's not even a local council. It's just a group of bishops discussing issues, and nothing they decide upon is binding in a canonical sense.

#20 Papist

Papist

    acta non verba

  • Church Militant
  • 10,824 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:43 AM

To put this in a different way, when the USCCB meets it's not an ecumenical council. It's not even a local council. It's just a group of bishops discussing issues, and nothing they decide upon is binding in a canonical sense.


Very well said. However, we need to not use this fact to quickly dismiss the USCCB. I am not saying you are/do.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users