www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall CA Supreme Court Trashes Catholic Teachings

[Pretty scary ... ]

Catholic Group Must Provide Birth Control
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A Roman Catholic charitable organization must include birth control coverage in its health care plan for workers even though it is morally opposed to contraception, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 6-1 ruling could reach far beyond the 183 full-time employees of Catholic Charities and affect thousands of workers at Catholic hospitals and other church-backed institutions throughout the state.

The high court said Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, which is one of 20 states that require company-provided health plans to include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits. In California, "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement.

The charity doesn't offer insurance to pay for birth control because it follows Roman Catholic Church dogma, which considers contraception a sin. The charity argued unsuccessfully that it should be exempted from state law along with the church.

The Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to the public without directly preaching about Catholic values.

The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.

"Moreover, Catholic Charities serves people of all faith backgrounds, a significant majority of whom do not share its Roman Catholic faith," Justice Joyce Werdegar wrote for the majority opinion.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, writing that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.

"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of it religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is no accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

President Bush in October nominated Brown to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but her appointment has been opposed by Democrats in the U.S. Senate who view the black jurist as a conservative judicial activist who would limit abortion rights and corporate liability and oppose affirmative action.

Versions of the law considered in Monday's ruling have been adopted in 20 states after lawmakers concluded private employee prescription plans without contraceptive benefits discriminated against women.

Civil rights groups, health care companies and Catholic organizations filed extensive position papers with the court. Most wrangled over the rights of a religion to practice what it preaches and the newly acquired rights of thousands of women employed by church-affiliated groups to be insured for contraceptives.

Catholic Charities had a $76 million budget in California in 2002 and provided social services to persons of any religion or background. It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists viewed the dispute as a health issue, arguing that contraception gives families a chance to plan for a pregnancy, making for healthier mothers and babies.

The 20 states that require private-sector insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives include Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

The case is S099822, Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc., v. Superior Court of Sacramento County.

story [story.news.yahoo.com]

Not scary at all.

Not scary at all.

Just the next step toward the next step.

1 ... Next, a court order requiring benefits for live in lovers and same-sex couples, on the same grounds.

2 ... After that, a court order that San Francisco is RIGHT to marry same-sex couples, California law to the contrary not withstanding, because anything less is "discriminatory".

3 ... After that, a requirement, by court order, that Priests must marry same sex couples in Catholic and Orthodox Churches because they are licensed by the state to perform marriages and cannot "discriminate" any more than real estate agents or barber shops.

IT IS SO ORDERED !!!!!!!

And it is coming !!!!!!!

In a parish near you !!!!!

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

"After that, a requirement, by court order, that Priests must marry same sex couples in Catholic and Orthodox Churches because they are licensed by the state to perform marriages and cannot "discriminate" any more than real estate agents or barber shops."

Give me a break! They don't force priests and ministers to marry heterosexual couples do they? If you believe that line of garbage, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you or some oceanfront property in Arizona. Moe

The oceanfront property in Arizona sounds attractive, but unfortunately I can't afford it. Meanwhile, does anyone know if the California decision is being appealed?
Incognitus

"As serpant slithers toward our Lord in Gethsemene..."

There seems to be two ways to look at this. The persecuted Church has always found ways to survive and thrive. We will do so again.

Is the Church the ordained representative of God on earth and as such have every right to ignore this ruling, Western?

Or,

Is Caesar also ordained of God and hence our tax burden ought to be considerably lightened, Eastern?

In either case we are objects of persecution from time to time but will we stand or capitulate. Too often by following the Western pattern, which we most often do, we wind up quietly capitulating. It's sort of Christendom redefined but hopefully not into oblivion.

The Eastern pattern might be to do what God ordains and let the consequences from the state come what may or even to have the state pay for it.

Do I know what I'm writing about? Not sure.

Dan Lauffer

The simple solution, of course, would be to ANNOUNCE to the press that rather than cave to that idiotic decision compromising the moral values of the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities would be letting go all non-Catholic workers, through attrition, and hiring Catholic only replacements. The public outcry would be such that the case would be speedily rethought on appeal. Even in California. :rolleyes: I hope...

If not, I suppose one can always pray the San Andreas fault line is activated and California is set adrift by Act of God...and we don't go get it back...Apologies in advance to anyone who still lives there....


Gaudior, who really wonders what we need that state for, anyway.

Dear Dolly:

Between the specific provisions of a State "employment law" and the Constitutional (U.S. and CA State Constitutions) guarantee of freedom to exercise one's religion, this California case clearly distinguishes the line separating the two.

Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. is not the Catholic Church (e.g., the Diocese of Sacramento) nor is it "an integrated auxilliary" of the Catholic Church in the U.S. for it to be exempt from the coverage of California's "Women's Contraception Equality Act" (WCEA).

Although Catholic Charities is a non-profit corporation, it does not qualify as an "exempt" organization as defined by the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

Catholic Charities could evade the requirement to include coverage for prescription for contraceptive drugs (which the California Supreme Court recognizes as against the teachings of the Catholic Church) but by voluntarily providing health insurance to all its employees it must include coverage for contraceptive prescriptions like all other employers in the State of California.

An appeal may be worthwhile but, at the outset, I am convinced of the rationale of the California decision.

And I am a Roman Catholic myself.

AmdG

Actually, I believe the easiest way around this would be to simply not offer coverage for prescription drugs.

Sharon

Dear Sharon:

Yes, I think that's one of the suggestions made by California's regulatory body, the Department of Managed Health Care, during the pre-suit stage, which the California Supreme Court "approved" as a means of evading the mandatory requirements of WCEA.

However, Catholic Charities of Sacramento did not have the cold heart to deprive its employees of the additional coverage for prescription drugs.

And health insurance seems incomplete without a coverage for prescription drugs, don't you think?

AmdG

No argument! We would be in TERRIBLE shape without such coverage.

But I suspect they will be considering all sorts of "creative" solutions - assuming there is no avenue for appeal. I don't keep track, but it seems to me that there are a number of California courts whose decisions (at least some of the ones that make headlines) are routinely modified or overturned on appeal.

I am not any kind of an attorney, but ISTM that the area requiring the greatest scrutiny is the definition of what is or is not a "religion." No, the charity itself is not a religion, but it _is_ a hunk of the ministry of the local Church.

Of course, this is also another indication of the insanity of the American "system" of health insurance.

Cheers from the Stone Age,

Sharon

Dear Sharon:

I had the same reaction as yours: I wish the U.S. Supreme Court will have another occasion to revisit the definition of what consitutes a "Church" or "a religious body."

This California case may provide such an avenue, if the lawyers of Catholic Charities have the confidence to appeal to the region's U.S. Court of Appeals, and failing in that, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court!

However, the definition of a "religious employer" as used in the WCEA and in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, which could have exempted Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc., seems clear to me at the moment.

AmdG

Isn't the problem that Catholic Charities takes government money? What if the Church decided to take no government money? Then the opposite problem would ensue, would our members give more than the average 1.5-2 % that they give now in order for the Church to do this? Moreover, can our Catholics schools afford to operate without some government funds? Or is the better question: Can we afford to operate with them?

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

In California, it's not that they take this money or that. In that state, employers providing insurance which includes prescription drug coverage are required to ensure that such coverage includes prescription contraceptives.

Doesn't matter if you are Kentucky Fried Chicken or the March of Dimes.


Sharon

Dear Dan:

In addition to Sharon's remarks, "Catholic Charities USA," together with "Catholic Relief Services" and Catholic Campaign for Human Development," as a group is the largest non-governmental "agency" provider of relief, development, and social services in the U.S.

Catholic Charities USA is manned by Catholic laity whose funding comes largely from charitable donations of individuals and corporations, while the other two are organizations directly funded and maintained by, and, therefore, under the direction of, the USCCB.

Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. is one of the local/state organizations "federated" or "networked" under the auspices of the national "Catholic Charities USA." The latter is, in turn, one of the 162 national organizations "confederated" under "Caritas International."

In the U.S., Catholic Charities "does not take" government funds per se, but it is "approached" by federal and state agencies for the "proper disbursement" or "utilization" of available government funds earmarked for charitable and other social services, the group being the most organized and having a "nationwide" presence.

The government knows that Catholic Charities adheres strictly to the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially on the "hot" areas of abortion and contraception, which the organization unabashedly proclaims in its mission satement.

The causes of friction, if we may call them that, arise because the programs and projects of Catholic Charities, and the other two Catholic agencies, "invades" or, at least, parallels the area of responsibility of "civil society," i.e., the secular government.

There are existing laws (like WCEA of California)and regulations, and many more to be passed by State legislatures, which to the view of the Church and Catholic agencies such as Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services, as infringing the freedom to exercise one's religion.

This will be a continuing problem to be sure.

AmdG

I don't think you need to fear this, in the US divorced people have the right to re-marry, still the Catholic Church have the right to refuse to perform such marriges. In the US mixed marriages are legal, but still Rabbis have the right to refuse to perform marriages between Jew and Gentiles.

In the same way, even if Gays are given the right to marrige, churches might still refuse to perform such marriages if it's against their faith...

Christian