As a Catholic and a lawyer, I strongly support Bishop David Zubik in his efforts to exempt the Pittsburgh Diocese from certain mandates of the Affordable Care Act (“Zubik would choose fines, not mandate,” Nov. 13).
This is an issue of the federal government mandating that a religious institution violate one of its core tenets. I was brought up to do the right thing even when no one is looking and even if it hurts. The government's position that the requirement presents little or no burden on the diocese is a red herring. I surmise Bishop Zubik would maintain his position even if the diocese was paid to comply.
The Catholic Church does not condone divorce. In my law practice, however, I facilitate divorce. That is my choice. I am not being forced to do so any more than an atheist would be forced to believe in God. The First Amendment of the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... .” The Affordable Care Act, in the context of this litigation, is establishing a religion — a secular state religion that prohibits the Catholic Church as an institution from its free exercise thereof. Every citizen of this country should be outraged by the government's actions.
If the government can force a religious institution to violate its beliefs — while doing so in violation of one of its basic tenets — are we not on the path of tyranny?
Gerald G. DeAngelis
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.