Catholic Online Forum

Can somebody please give me a short, simple explanation about this?

Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions but they pay taxes which presumably might go to a government hospital that does blood transfusions.
Or people are against war, or maybe specifically against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but their taxes are used to support the defense department and military.

Yet these people are still expected to pay taxes. So what is the difference with Catholics not wanting to pay taxes for the HHS mandate?

(I'm not debating this, by the way. I want an explanation that I can understand well enough to then turn around and explain to somebody else).

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

You will note that both examples you gave are indications of taxes. Taxes are a legitimate function of government and, by practical necessity, cannot be opted out of based on moral objection.

The HHS mandate is not a tax; it is a requirement that one private party (an employer) pay for the immoral requirements of another private party (the employee). It is government inserting itself into a transaction between two private parties to violate the conscience of one over the other.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Good explanation Jeff.

_________________
Pax et Bonum


Schultzz

Well stated.

_________________
Bob C

Taxes are used to pay for all kinds of government obligations and purposes, both intrinsically evil and very good. It would be particularly onerous to attempt to separate out the amount of tax that every person contributes to a particular intrinsic evil (or the purposes to which each person has an individual moral objection (particularly, one based on religion)). Unless there were a specific tax for a specific purpose, such as an abortion surcharge with all proceeds to go to paying for abortions, our material participation in the moral evils of the government through our paying of taxes is pretty remote. Our material participation is more immediate in our actions as voters.

The HHS mandate would be more akin to an abortion surcharge levied by the government to be used specifically for funding abortions. The level of participation in this mandate (or paying a specific tax for the specific purpose of funding abortion) would be at least material cooperation, where the organization (e.g. the Catholic Church) would not intend to perpetrate the evil of abortion or contraception, but the participation in that mandate materially contributes to the immoral action (because the Church's payment for coverage directly enables persons to obtain abortions or contraception on its dime; abortion and the use of contraception will occur because the Church is paying for it).

If the government levied such a tax, by the way, the Church would find herself in the same position (and so would we as individual taxpayers, I believe). We would be compelled not to pay it, since we are never allowed to engage in formal or immediate material cooperation with evil. It is only permissible to engage in mediate material cooperation with evil in certain circumstances. I pray that day never comes.

A good discussion of the different levels of cooperation in evil is found here.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Excellent, Jeff. Even non-Catholics can understand that.


Thanks, Dean, for that reference. (It is of interest to me, but more than the person I'm talking to would want to know).

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

So is it the same as forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to provide for blood tests/blood transfusions in an insurance plan?

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

If the JW believes such an act is intrinsically evil then I suppose it is the same, the valid taxation argument aside; to Catholics support of contraception and abortion is unquestionably support of an intrinsic evil, there is no way we can reconcile such an action. I furthermore don't believe committing a grave wrong with the intention of confessing it later is a valid Catholic premise, at the very least it is a dangerous action in terms of our potential salvation.

_________________
BobA

I think the JW is a harder case. They have to pay taxes and that part is easy.

But also, they cannot impose their moral regime on anyone else, for example, their employees. The last I heard (which was decades ago) even their children cannot have normal healthcare withheld from them.

It seems to me that none of us would argue that 'freedom of religion' means permission to do anything according to the traditions of any person's religion. Everyone can pray according to their tradition, but the realm of action has limits, when it impacts other people. Female circumcision comes to mind; we consider it child abuse and mutilation, and we don't care if someone's tradition says it is necessary or sacred. So, we know there is a limit somewhere. The question is, where is the limit exactly.

I would have liked to see a rational setting of the limit. I think it is more likely to be decided by pure political power, i.e. how many citizens are willing to assert that a given action (or inaction) is protected by freedom of religion.

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson

FWIW, I think that The Catholic Church Universally has clear cut teachings on such items as Birth Control and Abortion, it will be easier to fight the Mandate for Catholic Institutions, and possibly businesses run by Catholics.

The Orthodox Christians, the Main Stream Protestants, the Independent Evangelical Churches, The JW's, The Christian Scientist's, most of the Variants of the Jewish Faith (not sure about the Hasidic) , The Muslims and The Mormons do not have such universally held teachings.

IMO, what will get us Catholics in trouble is SCOTUS will give greater weight to the general Practices of US Catholics as opposed to the Universal Teachings of the church.

_________________
Bob C

I would suggest that the limits have been long established and that it is a tyrannical leftist government that attempts to create and impose new limits upon the people so that it may advance evil.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Excellent point. I wonder how much trouble we are in when the administration pays more attention to the pseudo-Catholics within it than the bishops of the Church and will the SCOTUS also consider the pseudo-Catholics as speaking for the general Catholic population?

Our government has a long history of granting legal exceptions to various religious groups including Native American religions utilizing mind-altering drugs like Peyote and Mushrooms and conscientious objectors.

_________________
BobA

Grace,



There is infact a very important difference: blood tests and blood transfusions are not objectively morally disordered; there can be no doubt (since we've been infallibly informed) that contraception is.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

How many Catholics on the SCOTUS? What do they believe?

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

What do you mean "do not have such universally held teachings"? I think that JW doctrine, Christian Scientist doctrine, Mormon doctrine, and Orthodox doctrine has not changed much.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Joe,

Formally speaking at least, there are six.

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson

Jeff,

You left out the first sentence of what I wrote where I stated that the Catholic Church teaches Universally that Artificial Birth Control and Abortion are immoral.

I am unaware of any such teachings universally held by any of the above religions that I cited above.

_________________
Bob C

I agree.

But you seemed to say that Jehovah's witnesses could not make an analogous case for their opposition to blood transfusions. Was that not your point?

My assertion is that the groups I mentioned above have clear cut teachings on some matters that would impact on a similar circumstance to what is impacting Catholics.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Yes, but they are wrong for JWs. I am not asking for myself to understand the Catholic teaching, but I am trying to work out and understand arguments that non-Catholics can follow, if you see what I mean.
I hope not. In that UK case about a Christian who lost her job over wearing a cross, the opposite was valued. They said that although many Christians feel it is important to wear crosses, it is not a requirement of the religion. So I hope the fact that Catholic teachings are written down and span centuries will carry the day.

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

Jeff,
Sorry to jump a bit late into this thread.



I should think so, too. But didn't the Supreme Court rule it to be a tax?



And if it were indeed a tax, shouldn't Churches be exempt from paying it, anyway?

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

Jeff,



I was not, in fact I had forgotten that until it was brought up here. Is JW's teachings universal, do they have an overall and recognized leadership? I simply don't know but if that is true then I would modify my statement.

_________________
Bob C

Marie,

What was ruled a tax was the requirement for every individual, who is not covered under a plan provided by someone else (such as an employer), to buy health insurance. That is a separate issue from the HHS mandate, which requires that those who provide health insurance for their employees also cover contraceptives and abortifacient drugs.

And charities, including churches, pay taxes, just not income taxes, which would be levied on income, which churches, as non-profits, do not generate as businesses and individuals do. What is always threatened is that donations to churches or other non-profit charities will no longer be able to be written off by individuals and businesses from their incomes. And there isn't a consitutional or any other right that specifies this should necessarily continue.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

In the news today is a story about a High Court judge in the UK Not good.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... judge.html

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

In my opinion, there is a big problem if it becomes accepted that government defines what is or what is not a matter of faith. Or for that matter, that a matter of faith requires a rational premise or an expert or collective concurrence.

I am fine with government objectively deciding upon the impact of matters of faith and whether or not a matter of faith may violate some inalienable right of another; however, government has no authority to arbitrarily and or subjectively decide what is and what is not a matter of faith. Religious freedom is an individual God given right -not a collectively derived right whether the collective is a government or an institution.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Grace,



Not so. Morality cannot be subjective. Either blood tests are morally acceptable or not. They cannot be morally wrong for a Jehovah's Witness and at the same time perfectly acceptable for a Catholic. Moral truths are objectively true.

Now, that Jehovah's Witnesses believe it to be wrong and whether the right to hold that belief should be defended...

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Daniel,



It is a fact of life that from time to time law courts need to do exactly that. What matters is how they go about doing it. Does the court examine the official teachings of the religious group in question? Well, obviously. But what if the actual practices of a large number of members differ? What if they don't follow those teachings in their own lives? What then? Catholics and contraception is relevant here. As Bob C mentioned above



That is more than just a little scary.

There was an amusing example of this during the Vietnam War. A young man (atheist and state educated) wished to avoid conscription. In court he identified himself as "Catholic" and stated that as such he was bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church to be an ardent pacifist. What was amusing was that the judge just happened to be a Catholic. He was furious at this vile misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. That young man was the recipient of a talking to by the judge considerably more forceful than the usual one given to cowards.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

James,

The problem then is ours for allowing those demonstrating overt behavior contrary to Catholic teaching to continue to publicly proclaim they are Catholic; public excommunication would seem an appropriate measure for the defense of the Church as well as an inducement to re-align the thinking of the lost.

In an earlier post you implied morality was an absolute; non-negotiable and universally applicable. I disagree, morality is diverse across societies, cultures and religions. Granted we Catholics believe we have the one Truth but that by no means dictates what non-Catholics must consider moral. In the US we have a set of principles generally defined by Judeo-Christian heritage upon which our laws and expected interactions are based; our mores are not necessarily compatible with those of a population that has evolved along an alternate social path; Islamic, Buddhist or native culture for example. In a culturally diverse nation such as the US, perhaps the most diverse in the world, clashes are certain to occur and it stresses the central courts to reconcile the views both of the majority and minority populations; in recent years our courts have rendered many opinions giving the benefit to the minority.

_________________
BobA

Bob A,



Or at least perhaps the provisions of Canon 915 should be invoked as recommended by the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. (I take it we're talking about "Catholic" politicians.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_p ... munication

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Absolutely, but I would include all public figures and I would make their risk of damnation crystal clear to the laity as well; no pretty language, it's too ambiguous.

_________________
BobA

Bob A,

Let's not forget the intention of Canon 915 is remedial. It is to be hoped our fellow-Catholics abandon their errors and publicly recant.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Yes, I understand but there must be a means of implementation that does more to protect the Church than the current process, if indeed there is a current process. We have all these pseudo-Catholics in the administration "speaking" for the Church, doing a good deal of harm and causing a lot of confusion within the less catechized Catholic population.

_________________
BobA

Bob A,



The current process is just fine. Now, if only there were bishops with the courage to enforce the law as it stands.

(Malcolm Turnbull, who is pro-RU486; Joe Hockey, who thinks same-sex "marriage" is "inevitable"; Christopher Pyne, who believes there should be a law forcing priests to break the seal of confession... with "Catholics" such as these in politics who needs communists?)

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

The current process is fine, I agree, I intended to state the current practice is not.

_________________
BobA

No. The individual mandate is a tax. The requirement for employers to provide contraception coverage (colloquially known as the "HHS Mandate") is simply a regulation by an executive agency.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Obama on the Ground Zero Mosque - August 14, 2010

-small excerpt:


Some might suggest that Muslim owned companies are treated differently than Christian owned companies by the Obama Administration. Some might suggest that the right to practice religion extends beyond worship and beyond religious organizations. Some might suggest that the right is an individual right and that right might include the right to build something; maybe, even the right not to build something -or God literally forbid, not purchase or fund something...

Then again some might selectively support rights as some might selectively enforce laws...

I await President Obama's statement that reaffirms our unshakeable commitment to religious freedom.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51