Can corporations be Catholic?

Oct 2012
4,211
Louisville, Ky
Should this become the norm, we will no longer have a separation of Church and State when it comes down to it. More and more corporate influence guides the state, eventually creating a symbiotic relationship between the two. Once religion becomes involved, it becomes corrupted by dogma.

Not a good position to be in.
 
Nov 2012
174
Salt Lake City, Utah
I think (just as every non-conservative does) that corporations are NOT people, that political motivation has driven the debate, that Clarence Thomas should be removed from the SC (by whatever means necessary), and that if the correct ruling emerges, it will solve this issue as well.

Call it "wishful thinking"....
 
Jan 2012
1,975
Texas
The notion of a corporation is a group of people that is legally treated as a person. But it is not right to suspend peoples rights. It isn't the legal obligation of any company to provide insurance to its employees. If a corporation selects a heath policy that doesn't cover birth control I don't see what recourse anybody can have.
 
May 2009
225
USA
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations are persons for purposes of constitutional protections under the First Amendment. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010). The decision has generated much criticism, some of it directed at the court, but most at corporations generally. Some say corporations are out of control: like the fictional Triffids that were cultivated to produce edible oil, they got out and began to infest everything. John Wyndham, The Day of the Triffids (1951).

A corporation is an artificial person. It is a creature of statute; and, unlike a natural person, a corporation can, potentially, exist indefinitely. Once formed, a corporation has all the rights and privileges of a natural person, except voting (which it does nevertheless with its checkbook), or appear in federal courts except by attorney; for, unlike a natural person, a corporation may only act through its officers, directors and agents. A corporation, like a natural person, may be licensed to do business in a state other than its domicile. Like a natural person, a corporation may be held accountable for it acts, and even convicted of crimes. Corporations have been around for some time. Our cities and many towns are municipal corporations through which local government is exercised.

The problem is not with corporations, but those who would abuse its franchise, and much that is wrong with our country is due to such misuse. The pernicious influence of corporate corruption is ubiquitous, even in the halls of Congress where their lobbyists peddle their influence. It is their doing that much of the tax code is so unfairly balanced to the point of subsidization of corporate business, and it is their agenda that sponsors much of the so-called "reform" legislation that has been recently enacted. It is like a cancer that has spread into every cell of our social structure and civic institutions to the detriment of individual rights and liberties.

Is there any remedy? The courthouse doors have been all but closed for individual legal redress; and there are even efforts being made to undermine the independence of the federal judiciary which threatens to subvert the constitutional checks and balances to the excesses of government. Therefore, it will have to be the responsibility of every citizen to be vigilant in overseeing their representatives and holding them accountable lest our democracy turn into a corporate tyranny.
 
Nov 2012
141
USA
Corporations are collections of people. To deny the corporation First Amendment rights is to deny the people of that corporation First Amendment rights.

Newspapers are corporations. Is anyone here really suggesting that freedom of the press should be limited to unincorporated, lone individuals?

Hay Zoomer, I caught your assassination threat against a Supreme Court judge. Should I be calling the authorities? Or, should I just write it off as the ramblings of a troll?
 
Nov 2012
64
Catholic hospitals/medical services & charirty orgs are owned by Catholics. Unless the gov't takes them over, as they did GM & Chrysler, how can the gov't tell a private sector org to provide contraceptions &/or other "birth control devices"?
IMO, there are corps that are Catholic, just as there are athiest orgs/corps.
 
Oct 2012
4,211
Louisville, Ky
Firstly...the Government did not take over the Auto companies.

Secondly...The Government is not telling Catholic Organizations what to do, though it IS telling insurance companies what to do. If there is an issue here with a separation clause, it is in a Religious Organization "Telling" the Government it needs to be treated special.
 
Nov 2012
64
Firstly...the Government did not take over the Auto companies.

Secondly...The Government is not telling Catholic Organizations what to do, though it IS telling insurance companies what to do. If there is an issue here with a separation clause, it is in a Religious Organization "Telling" the Government it needs to be treated special.
As to yoiur "firstly"...surrrrre, of course. :poop:
How does a POTUS ask for the resignation of a private sector corp? "Ask"? LOL
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html


Of course the gov't is telling Catholic orgs to provide BC, that's the reason the RCC has a law suit against Obamacare.
But neither of your "points" goes to the topic.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
141
USA
The Government is not telling Catholic Organizations what to do, though it IS telling insurance companies what to do. If there is an issue here with a separation clause, it is in a Religious Organization "Telling" the Government it needs to be treated special.
Catholic organizations are not asking for special treatment. They're asking not be forced to do something that violates their closely held religious beliefs. Sense when is asking for freedom or for your Constitutional rights asking for special treatment?

Tecoyah on slavery, "[email protected] negroes, telling the government they need special treatment."
 
Nov 2012
64
Catholic organizations are not asking for special treatment. They're asking not be forced to do something that violates their closely held religious beliefs. Sense when is asking for freedom or for your Constitutional rights asking for special treatment?

Tecoyah on slavery, "[email protected] negroes, telling the government they need special treatment."
Absolutely correct!
 
Oct 2012
4,211
Louisville, Ky
Catholic organizations are not asking for special treatment. They're asking not be forced to do something that violates their closely held religious beliefs. Sense when is asking for freedom or for your Constitutional rights asking for special treatment?

Tecoyah on slavery, "[email protected] negroes, telling the government they need special treatment."
Okay...so Insurance companies are required to provide certain services. But, even though a hospital which serves the people covered can forgo the coverage based on distaste for said coverage, it instead decides it deserves to be treated "Differently" than every other hospital...even if the distasteful product is not a requirement, but instead something they actually want (just not served quite like this).

Then, because it makes more sense to appease than confront, exemptions are given to make them happier. This however still tastes funny and is simply not good enough.


Yeah...not "Special" treatment, simply different.
 
Nov 2012
64
There are Catholic Insurance Companies, should they be fprced to provide whatever the gov't tells them to provide? Even military medical insurance (Tri-Care) doesn't provide everything, including "free medical for life" to retired members & their spouses, as they were promised.
 
Oct 2012
4,211
Louisville, Ky
There is Catholic Insurance Companies, should they be fprced to provide whatever the gov't tells them to provide? Even military medical insurance (Tri-Care) doesn't provide everything, including "free medical for life" to retired members & their spouses, as they were promised.
I am unaware of this being an issue, but if there is a law requiring it to be so....then yes. All must follow the law, God or not.
 
Nov 2012
141
USA
Okay...so Insurance companies are required to provide certain services. But, even though a hospital which serves the people covered can forgo the coverage based on distaste for said coverage, it instead decides it deserves to be treated "Differently" than every other hospital...even if the distasteful product is not a requirement, but instead something they actually want (just not served quite like this).
Your premise is a lie. Catholic organizations aren't asking to be treated "differently". They're asking that their Constitutional rights be protected, without regard to anyone else. And, if they are making a case for everyone, they're asking that they, and everyone else, not be forced to do something that violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

Even the premise to your lie is a lie, that there is something uncompromisable about equal treatment without regard to individual differences; such that, for example, someone without income should be given the same home loan as someone with income. Even if you were right, your argument shouldn't be against a religious exemption, but there there should be an exemption for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
174
Salt Lake City, Utah
There are Catholic Insurance Companies, should they be fprced to provide whatever the gov't tells them to provide? Even military medical insurance (Tri-Care) doesn't provide everything, including "free medical for life" to retired members & their spouses, as they were promised.
Excellent point Wendy, and my own opinion would be no. But what this really tells me is a) our healthcare should not be dependent on religious belief or our employer, and b) Healthcare should not be a "for profit" industry. Besides being morally wrong (my opinion only), the practical issue is that "if" we let the laws of supply and and demand control the market, the result will not coincide with our values (letting people die that can't afford the care).

m2c
 
May 2009
225
USA
The Catholic Church in America is incorporated at the diocese level under applicable state law, as well as church-run educational institutions and medical facilities. As corporate entities, they are bound to the provisions of state (and federal) law. The church does get special treatment under section 501(c)(3) of the the IRS Code, for which these pius money-changers should be ever mindful before challenging government authority from the pulpit. Indeed must it be so, for what Congress giveth, the Congress can taketh away: Blessed be the hand of Congress.
 
Nov 2012
64
Excellent point Wendy, and my own opinion would be no. But what this really tells me is a) our healthcare should not be dependent on religious belief or our employer, and b) Healthcare should not be a "for profit" industry. Besides being morally wrong (my opinion only), the practical issue is that "if" we let the laws of supply and and demand control the market, the result will not coincide with our values (letting people die that can't afford the care).

m2c
Thanks. :)
How is our healthcare dependent on religious orgs? They are, in comparison, small compared to other private medical orgs & the gov't owns some pretty big healthcare institutions as well. Religious medical institutions aren't needed to keep the medical community nor patients in business.
I don't believe the gov't has the right, legally or morally, to tell any religious institution what to do so far as what services they provide.
I'm not picking on Obama here, cause we've been sliding into this for a long time & whether it sounds like I'm a conspiritor or not, I do believe that gov't likes power & will grab it at any opportunity, 99% of them are "guilty" of that, IMO. Grab control of our healthcare & gov't owns the whole ball of wax. Obamacare as it is now is just the beginning to a one payer system.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
Texas
The Government is not telling Catholic Organizations what to do, though it IS telling insurance companies what to do. If there is an issue here with a separation clause, it is in a Religious Organization "Telling" the Government it needs to be treated special.
There is no religious organization involved, there is a corporation (person) that is being ordered to provide coverage, for something that traditionally isn't covered, by the government against its will, on grounds of its religious belief, something nobody has the right to do.

there is no separation issue an insurance company isn't the government, there is no church involved. There is an entity (corporation) and a person who thinks the corporations belief is inappropriate. No place for the government.
 
Nov 2012
174
Salt Lake City, Utah
Thanks. :)
How is our healthcare dependent on religious orgs? They are, in comparison, small compared to other private medical orgs & the gov't owns some pretty big healthcare institutions as well. Religious medical institutions aren't needed to keep the medical community nor patients in business.
I was commenting based on the context of the thread "Can corporations be Catholic". And based on the concept that "corporations are people" (which I entirely disagree with), I'd have to say yes, they can be Catholic, Jewish, etc., based on the fact that their corporate culture follows the religious beliefs of it's board and/or executive staff.

My comment wasn't directed (primarily) at Healthcare providers, as much as Healthcare "insurers", and Healthcare "employers" (i.e. a Catholic hospital with potentially non-catholic employees). I did answer "no" in reference to your question "should a catholic corporation be forced to provide coverage against it's beliefs". And my answer would also be "no" if asked about the insurers. Which is the foundation of my argument that a persons "right" to healthcare should not be dependent on the beliefs of their employer(s), but be administered by the government (and not for profit), which removes the issue entirely from that domain.

I don't believe the gov't has the right, legally or morally, to tell any religious institution what to do so far as what services they provide.
Agreed.


I'm not picking on Obama here, cause we've been sliding into this for a long time & whether it sounds like I'm a conspiritor or not, I do believe that gov't likes power & will grab it at any opportunity, 99% of them are "guilty" of that, IMO. Grab control of our healthcare & gov't owns the whole ball of wax. Obamacare as it is now is just the beginning to a one payer system.
I sure hope Obamacare is a step in that direction. As it is, it does NOTHING to control costs. It is NOT representative of socialized healthcare. It is simply a "boon" for profit-making insurers. I'm not arguing against any of the "good" stipulations in the bill, which remove pre-existing condition clauses, etc. I'm arguing against the fact that "insurance" is involved at all. Medicare - part E (for "Everyone"). It works well for the "best" healthcare systems in the world (not my opinion, the WHO's), and it will work well here when we finally come to our senses. AND, it will control costs as well as guarantee the "equal" right to life.