There were lots of political cartoons with Catholics as subject matter this week, so I thought I’d give them their very own post.
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Nick Anderson (a liberal, surprisingly) at GoComics.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com (in reference to this story)…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow. Look how accurate the last one is. Could they REALLY not see this coming?
Cartoonists nailed the truth on these cartoons. LL
It’s A Miserable Truth,Because Nearly 3 Generations Were NEVER Taught What The Church Teaches in The First Place(No Catechism) Many STILL Don’t ,Sadly. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
As I pointed out on another thread, Catholics supported and trusted Obama and wound up getting schnookered big time by a sociopath. Really bites doesn’t it??
Hey, live and learn, when it comes to getting schnookered by sociopaths, I could write a book.
So Barack Obama, mmm..mmmm..mmm.. really stuck it to you. Well my friends, let it be a lesson. You overlooked the true character and fell for the charm, manipulation, superficial facade, and charming smile. A story as old as the human race. Oh sure, the guy supported abortion big time, he pulled some shady deals, he had no qualifications. But that was all beside the point.
So you see folks, you served his purpose. You gave him your money, support, and votes. He stuck it to you the first opportunity he had.
But hey, you’re not alone, look what happened to his pastor and mentor of 20 years. Poor Rev.Wright was relegated to being the “senile uncle” that embarasses all of us.
Again, compare this to the guy who is killed by his “pet” boa contrictor. He overlooked the animal’s true nature and paid a price. You overlooked a socipath’s true nature and paid a price. Little seperates a pet boa contrictor from the cunning sociopath.
The last one is great! Although, to be honest, I don’t see how the abortion issue could really matter much to anyone, including those who call themselves Catholic, that supports Obama.
As as Catholic who believes and follows ALL the teachings of my church, I don’t really believe that the contraceptive issue will be a big thing for most Catholics. 40 years ago, maybe. But not now when the majority of Catholic couples are using contraceptives. The Catholic Church has no one to blame but themselves. This is the result of 40 years of rebellion against Humanae Vitae and consequences have now come home.
This might actually be the best thing that’s happened to the church in America in a long, long time.
Hi Joanne,
Catholics are so shocked and dismayed. I only wonder what took Obama so long to stick it to them.
Hi angel,
I think the issue here is more serious. We have a president conducting himself as a dictator. Religious issues should be left to the churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.
There is no more rationale to this than there would be to decree that cosmetic surgery must be covered.
Mary, I would agree with your 9:49am post if you qualified that with *some* Catholics. I certainly didn’t support Obama and I knew exactly what he was about.
Hi Lrning,
Thank you. I stand corrected. Indeed I should have specified *some* as I personally know many Catholics who vehemently opposed Obama and were outraged at those who supported him.
I also knew Catholics so spellbound by him, including nuns, that they literally viewed him, and still do, as a Messiah. I would think this would be blashemy or heresy.
My post was directed at the 54% of Catholics who voted for him and I should have specified that. There were 46% who did not.
Here’s one I like:
http://news.investors.com/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=600140
But where is Sebelius in all these cartoons?
Hi Lrng,
You’ll find her by looking for Obama. He’s hiding behind her skirts.
I know of younger groups of Catholics of voting age who fell under Obama’s spell and jumped on the bandwagon because they wanted to be seen as diverse, progressive and not hateful of other races. First black president and all — (although I argued that Obama is just as white as he is black so race should have never been a factor to anyone.)
I also believe the public schools had a lot to do with pushing for Obama, at least in my area. At our schools they had a mock vote and the students OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Obama (pushed by teachers under the guise that Obama cares about your education and anyone else voted in will hurt programs kids love like the arts, sports and music). There were also posters put up of Obama before he was even elected but I didn’t see any other candidates up.
These children’s votes were put into our slanted local paper run by liberals which in turn affected others — of course we need to vote for someone who cares about our kids’ future (at least the children we don’t kill anyway).
Mary, I’m betting most Catholics are happy to have their bc paid for. I realize there are bigger issues than just bc but for most Catholics I don’t think there is much upset.
Do you know whether anyone has done any sort of polling among American Catholics to determine what they think about this?
angel, I personally believe the Catholics that are in church every week on the whole oppose bc.
The chreasters and cinos are probably a different story.
I keep waiting for non-Catholic religions to wake up and realize what this ruling means for all religions.
Why would a polling of American Catholics be important?
Sadly, most of my friends that are in Church every week use BC or have had vasectomies.
Hi angel,
I’m afraid you miss my point. The issue to me is not contraception, which BTW I have no issue with.
My concern is a president dictating that people must violate their religious tenets. Whether we agree with those tenets or not isn’t the issue.
Can a president dictate a Hindu grocer sell meat or a Muslim grocer sell liquor? I say absolutely not, and its not because of what I personally think about eating meat or enjoying liquor.
The Western Christian Church as a whole – Catholics and Protestants alike - has failed for the last 40 years. Pastors of most churches, even those who say they are pro-life, rarely include life issues like abortion, euthanasia, adoption, or abstinence, in their sermons/homilies.
A lot of young women who abort come from families where her father chooses to be emotionally distant from his children, often from workaholism; but I have heard very few sermons directing fathers to be more involved in their children’s lives. A lot of young women who abort come from families where her mother has walked away from a relationship and prevented the youg woman’s father from being involved in her life, but I have heard very few sermons directing mothers to allow the father to be involved.
There are a lot of immature men who don’t want to be involved in their children’s lives because kids are an inconvenience, and there are a lot of immature women who don’t want their husbands/boyfriends involved in their kids’ lives because they aren’t happy with the father. Both the parents of these children and the Church have seriously failed these children.
Sadly, most of my friends that are in Church every week use BC or have had vasectomies.
Lrning, maybe I am just seeing what I want to see ):
A lot of young women who abort come from families where her mother has walked away from a relationship and prevented the youg woman’s father from being involved in her life, but I have heard very few sermons directing mothers to allow the father to be involved.
Eric, if he wants to be involved, the law states this will happen. If it is not happening, it is his job to make sure it does. She can’t keep him away without his permission. If he was emotionally distance when they were together, that won’t change once the couple are apart unless he gets help.
The court gave my ex half-time with his kids when he stated over and over that he wanted to be involved (the GAL could find no problems with alcohol or his parenting skills and actually lied in court — which is a whole different story and laughable if it weren’t so sad). He is great playing the victim-card to anyone who will listen and I knew it wasn’t about the kids but about money and control.
My ex will be involved to the extent that the kids are welcome to sit in his house while he sits in the bar and he will not get them to any thing they are involved in. Some parents choose not to spend time with their kids. The few times my ex has seen the kids recently, it has been at my insistence that they contact him.
Situations are not always as they appear and some of those working in the court systems need to wake up. But often times, there too, it is about the almighty dollar.
Hi Praxedes, 11:12am
You can visit YouTube and see for yourself how schoolchildren were indoctrinated to sing Obama’s praises. Very unnerving, like something right out of North Korea or Nazi Germany.
Of course the teacher’s unions supported Obama so what would one expect? Maybe complete objectivity and keeping politics out of the classroom? Nahhhhhh. Add a slobbering media. As I watched the mindless adoration of millions I also saw a red flag from the depths of hell. A master sociopath was at work here, and like Nazi Germany, millions were again lining up to be led to their destruction.
“My concern is a president dictating that people must violate their religious tenets. Whether we agree with those tenets or not isn’t the issue.”
Amen! It’s amazing to me the number of people that don’t care about the bc issue and so don’t see this as a problem! Myopic much?
Eric, if he wants to be involved, the law states this will happen
Unfortunately that is not always the case — it depends on the state. Being involved means more than seeing them every other weekend. In some states, the mother can ask for sole custody and receive it, no questions asked.
“Almost 40 percent of (sole) custodial wives reported that they had refused at least once to let their ex-husbands see the children, and admitted that their reasons had nothing to do with the children’s wishes or the children’s safety, but were somehow punitive in nature.” (Fulton, Julie A, “Parental Reports of Children’s Post-Divorce Adjustment, Journal of Social Issues, V35, p. 133)
“Research by Drs. Judith Wallerstein and Joan Berlin Kelly revealed that approximately 50 percent of mothers either saw no value in the father’s contact with the children and actively tried to sabotage it, or resented the father’s contact.” (Wallerstein, Surviving the Breakup, HarperCollins, p 125)
“Father -deprivation is a serious form of child abuse that is institutionalized and entrenched within our legal system.” (Freeman, Dick et al, “Child Custody or Child Abuse”, Victoria Times-Colonist, 8 Jan 1998)
What is the current percentage of Catholics that use contraception?
Ex:
That is irrelevant and I think you know it. Even if 100% use contraceptives or even if 100% believed it okay to commit adultery the point is the governmnent does not have the right to force the institution to purchase products (in this case insurance) that go against the teachings.
probably 98 % of Catholics practice bc – and BTW, many of those ARE people attending Mass on a weekly basis – for most Catholics it’s a matter of “choice” as to how many children they have.
my point is that it’s not a religious tenet for most CAtholics. They don’t care. They just take the pill and tell the church to flip off.
The Obama administration is directly attacking Catholics against the protection of conscience rights and religious liberty. Please remember Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote, “First They Came”, which is shown on a large monolith at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston. Who will be the next target if you don’t speak up now?
“First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,and I didn’t speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
The actual quote from Niemoller is this:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
From the website of the National Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. And interestingly, only the Orthodox Jews have joined with the Catholics on this issue.
my point is that it’s not a religious tenet for most CAtholics.
No. Actually, it IS a religious tenet for ALL Catholics. Some choose to be disobedient to the tenets of their faith.
Bringing up how many Catholics use ABC has no bearing on the issue. It doesn’t matter.
It also doesn’t necessarily matter that the product at issue is ABC/abortions.sterilizations.
The point is that the government is forcing people to purchase a product against the religious beliefs of a people. Whether or not people agree or disagree about the product at hand, all people should be concerned that a protected freedom is being ignored.
This is not just a Catholic issue.
“I keep waiting for non-Catholic religions to wake up and realize what this ruling means for all religions.”
ORLANDO, Fla. — A group of religious organizations Monday thanked President Obama for his administration’s recent decision on contraception, hoping to bring attention to religious pro-choice voices and to show that not all people of faith disagree with the new law.
Seven religious leaders from the Jewish, Unitarian, Baptist and other faiths addressed a letter to Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. All are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a which includes more than 40 denominations and faith groups to promote education and issues of reproductive choice…
KEEP YOUR OVARIES OFF OUR ROSARIES!
Pasted from some where else…
Protestant and orthodox Jewish leaders join in opposition to HHS contraceptive mandate.
Today, more than 40 non-Catholic religious organizations including Protestant-affiliated colleges, National Association of Evangelicals, Focus on the Family, Assemblies of God, Northwest Nazarene University, and Eastern Mennonite University, sent a letter to the White House demanding religious protection against the newly issued HHS contraceptive mandate.
“We write not in opposition to Catholic leaders and organizations. We write in solidarity.” Says the coalition letter. “Leaders of other faiths are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the mandate and the narrow exemption.”
In a letter sent December 21, 2011, the group expressed deep concern about the contraceptive provision in the Health and Human Services mandates, which includes the most narrow “religious employer” qualifications excluding protection of most-faith based organizations.
“We are all deeply concerned about the narrow exemption, including proposals made to expand it while still leaving unprotected many faith-based organizations.” The letter continues, “We believe that the Federal government is obligated by the First Amendment to accommodate the religious convictions of faith-based organizations of all kinds, Catholic and non-Catholic.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty currently represents Belmont Abbey College, a private Catholic College, and Colorado Christian University, a non-denominational Christian University, in the first lawsuits against this unprecedented mandate.
Kris, I wish I could “like” your comment more than once!
CC
“Seven religious leaders’ and they are “all are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice…”
Wow, you could just knock me over with a feather!
Here is the link at the New England Holocaust Memorial
http://www.nehm.org/contents/niemoller.html
“The actual quote from Niemoller… ” Niemoeller recited more than one version of the quotation during several speeches after the War, so there is no single actual quote. From the US Holocaust Memorial Museum,
“Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings… Nonetheless his point was that Germans — in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches — had been complicit through their silence …”
test
If anything, all this furor will bring attention to what many, myself included, feel is the medieval, misogynist dogma of the Roman church. One in 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic and this kind of thing won’t exactly bring back the sheaves. Secular young people will not find this kind of thing appealing and it actually could cause some to leave the church and there won’t be an in-rush of new congregants. For many of us in the pro-choice community, the church has always been a symbol of women’s oppression. This further validates it.
I’m really torn on it. I do believe that health plans should be required to have some sort of minimum coverage. For instance, if large employers suddenly said they were against their employees having kids because they miss more work (I’m just throwing something outlandish out there), and thus they were going to drop all maternity and well baby/children coverage, the end result would be pretty negative and I would hope people would be against that.
I also believe in religious protections, even though the numbers that I’ve found are similar to what was posted earlier – that nearly all catholic women have used contraception at some point in their life.
I do wonder a bit though – if some folks are really mad that the government doesn’t restrict funding (medicare/medicaid payments) to planned parenthood because they don’t agree with a legal service that they provide, are those feelings justified towards catholic institutions that also receive government funding (medicare/medicaid payments)? It seems like both sides are saying that if an institution receives federal funding, certain condition can and should be placed on them.
I’m working these thoughts out here as I go…so where are there holes in my logic here?
“Seven religious leaders’ and they are “all are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice…”Wow, you could just knock me over with a feather
The reality is that there is a large faith community that is pro-choice. How do you propose dealing with them short of outbreeding them. Ah, could that be the reason for the Catholic ban on birth control? Is it really about demographics cuz if so, good luck with that given that Catholic women do use contraceptives. And now, those who work for secular entities won’t have to pay for them.
Thank God the Church is a hospital for sinners.
Ex-Gop- I understand what you are saying. Below is some points from Bp. Zubik regarding a lot of angles that I found helpful. I’ve read a lot about this topic and found his straight forward analysis helpful to cut to the chase.
Before I paste it I just want to re-iterrate again, that all people– even non-religious should be concerned about the gov.’s move here. Religious freedom may not seem like something BIG to those who are non-religious, but it can have broader implications the further the government stretches their reach.
i find Bp. Zubiks point about receiving government funding as being an poignant issue as well. Basically, if the government gives you funding…Does that mean they get to buy off your freedoms and liberty???
Here are his points…please not that I cut off point number one as it didn’t apply. It only referred to the language he had used in a previous letter.
Kris – thanks for the info. It is definitely a complex situation. Just found a great article on the background as well – I was interested that a lot of state already have this mandate, and some catholic organizations have self insured since then, and some simply cover contraception. Also is interesting to further read on the definition of who is exempt. I think those who are saying “everyone is mandated…” need to read up on it some. The issues seems to be the classification of what is a religious institution, and some groups may be wrongly classified.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/contraception-mandate-outrages-religious-groups
Ex-Gop- Yes. The exemption that everyone is claiming is there is so incredibly narrow that it really leaves almost no one to be exempt! It’s really a cloak by HHS. Also, religious institutions in the past have been able to choose options among health plans for employees. The employees were aware of this and could choose whether or not to work there and be insured with the health plan chosen knowing that that institution’s health plan does not have coverage for those items. This has already been happening and people CHOOSE to work there. However, NOW if institutions do not follow this mandate there will be consequences (read: FINES). No more choosing the plans. (Also, as a side note, picking and choosing among plans is a universal concept among businesses. Its not a religious institution thing.)
Obama has seized upon the perfect issue to attack religious liberty in America, and he is a true genius (evil, albeit) who deserves a big round of applause.
Catholics pretty much stand alone on the issue of contraception, and Obama is betting that Protestants and others will not line up behind the Catholics on this one.
If they don’t, he will have succeeded in a new precedent: The Federal Government redefining what is religion, and what is a religious institution. On that score, Obama’s terms are that:
1. The majority of employees must be of that faith, and,
2. The people served by that institution must be predominantly of that faith.
Once the Catholics are left to twist and the precedent has been set (in other words, once Christians have been divided), then the government can come in and pick off the remaining groups one at a time.
Well played, Mr. President. Well played.
However, victory or defeat for you will be determined by the other communities of faith, whether they see in this contraceptive mandate their own existential threat. You will not destroy us, Mr. President. We will survive or die by our own hand.
Lrning asks where Obama is and Mary responds “hiding behind behind Sebelius skirt”. Good point. This is typical Obama. He has done the same with Pelosi, Cecile Richards, Sister Nancy Keehan, his SCOTUS appointees, and now Sebelius. He has these doing his bidding and keeps the majority of his base–feminists and proaborts–from straying.
CC 2:06 PM
Does the federal government have the right to force the Amish to have electricity in their homes or to force the Sikhs to cut their hair? Do I agree with these religious tenets?? NOT THE ISSUE!! If you don’t like the Catholic Church, NOT THE ISSUE!!
We have a Constitution that states the gov’t will not interfere in the free exercise of religion or mandate any religious faith. Yes, I know Obama views the Constitution as liner for the litter pan, but the rest of us take it very seriously and respect that while we may not agree with every religious tenet, we respect the right of everyone to practice their faith with no government dictates.
Obama is kissing the backsides of the left, the people who’s support he needs. He is hiding behind the skirts of Sebelius, who is nothing but a toady doing his dirty work for him. That’s all this is about.
Anyone who wants contraception can buy it. For heaven’s sake filling your gas tank costs more.
CC, the troll, says:
If anything, all this furor will bring attention to what many, myself included, feel is the medieval, misogynist dogma of the Roman church.
Way to go CC…never let a chance pass to spew your anti-Catholic venom.
Kris – what I’m reading is that there are a lot of folks exempt – but they are churches specifically, not charities/corporations with a religious mission.
Regardless, my guess is that since it was announced well before it comes into play, exemptions and tweaks to the rules will be made between now and then.
I’m just a bit surprised of the states that already mandated…I’ve just never seen the coverage before (as these states did the same thing). Maybe it is just because I’m not Catholic…
The conflict within the Church is captured by the “Devil is in the details” cartoon. This has been a painful reality for many prolife and/or conservative Catholics over the past few decades especially. At the heart of the matter is the Church teaching of the fundamental option for the poor. Unfortunately the majority of our shepherds read this to mean that wealth and goodies should be assigned per a governmentally controlled distributive basis, rather than through the dynamics of the marketplace in a free society where rewards and consequences often reflect hard work and disciplined lives. For safety net considerations most conservative Catholics are on board with the government having a significant role, but after that we part company with the elite liberals and many of the Bishops.
Though the Bishops are for the most part probably well intentioned they are nevertheless seriously mistaken. And now they have been taken for a ride by the fraudster, the same fraudster that accepted accolades from Notre Dame and the help of the Catholic Sister Nancy Keehan and them at a critical juncture in the Obamacare vote. (We see how meaningless the executive order was–how pathetic!) One wonders if the placement of Catholic Kathleen Sebelius at HHS is just another example of his using mush headed Catholics to his political purposes and was a calculated move from the beginning to somewhat ameliorate the fallout from exactly this type of thing.
These are perilous times–very serious indeed. Some will scoff at this and will not learn until it is too late. Indeed, as it has been said…experience is a dear school but some will learn by none other. As patriots it falls on us to overcome these falsehoods through our efforts and prayers. We know that these matters are at the very heart and soul of our freedoms and of our Republic. And for prolifers who have done battle with the powers that be for years and years in our fight for the lives of the poorest of the poor–the unborn with no rights at all–we are uniquely positioned to take up the cause of freedom.
More info (from Forbes blogger Rick Ungar)
– All CHURCHES that offer insurance are exempt
– Nobody is obligated to acquire or use contraception – the plan must cover contraception though for employees who choose to purchase contraception
– The law does not mandate that doctors prescribe contraception
– RU486 is not a part of this whole debate – not covered in this mandate
– over 50% of Americans already live under these same rules
Again, lots of interesting information on both sides.
Ex-RINO,
Answer this one question for me without dodging around and dancing out loud for us.
Do you think think Catholic hospitals should be required by the government to act against 2000 years of faith as it has always been written in our cathecism?
Jerry – you live in Wisconsin, correct?
Ex says:
I also believe in religious protections, even though the numbers that I’ve found are similar to what was posted earlier – that nearly all catholic women have used contraception at some point in their life.
Your repeating that again does not make it any more relevant.
Answer to your question: Some times of the year, but mainly in Illinois.
Ex-GOP, what the Fed Govt is doing now is more far-reaching than what some states have done re: contraception.
When compared with the laws of the 50 states, the HHS contraceptive
mandate is the most radical in the Nation. A substantial number of states (at least
22) have no contraceptive mandate whatsoever. Of the 28 states with some type of
contraceptive mandate,
• First, no state requires coverage of contraceptives in all plans. State
contraceptive mandates generally exclude self-insured and ERISA plans.
none is as sweeping as the one adopted by HHS:
• Second, no state (except California and Georgia) mandates contraceptive
coverage in plans that have no prescription drug coverage.
• Third, no state (except Vermont) requires coverage of sterilization.
From: http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-to-hhs-on-preventive-services-2011-08-2.pdf
“Anyone who wants contraception can buy it. For heaven’s sake filling your gas tank costs more”
Without insurance, an IUD can run up to $800. If that’s what your paying for gas, it’s time to trade in the gas guzzler.
Truth -
Three things
1) You owe me a response on another thread…
2) NO, I don’t believe that a catholic should be forced to take contraception if they don’t believe in it
3) I’m not so sure though that a charity that employees many non-Catholics is equal to a church. For instance, I don’t know if I would equate a catholic hospital with a catholic church. Know what I’m saying?
– over 50% of Americans already live under these same rules
That is incorrect.
Ex-Gop–“Churches specifically.” No, actually that is not a lot of people being exempt. The mission of the church is to go outside of itself to help others. We have many, many organizations that do just that. The exemption means the organization has to largely employ and SERVE those of the same beliefs. By their very nature, they do not always employ and they most definitely do not serve only those who share their faith. Those churches may have an exempted policy for the small number of people who work for their church/parish. But overall any charity, school, hospital etc. is not exempt. But ALL Catholics support the broader mission of the church – our charities, relief services etc. also come from those sitting in those churches.
Lrning – on the flip side, Colorado, Wisconsin, and George provide no religious exemption at all. California, New York, and North Carolina has identify religious exemptions as what was handed down by the feds.
I honestly don’t know how I feel about it – I have my concerns, but I also have concerns about organizations picking and choosing aspects of what is covered in health care (I believe in certain minimum standards). I agree with the exemption for churches. I don’t agree with it for regular organizations. Where of these other charities fall in the spectrum is a tough call.
“Ex-GOP, what the Fed Govt is doing now is more far-reaching than what some states have done re: contraception.”
Your source, the Catholic bishops, is hardly unbiased.
“Do you think think Catholics hospitals should be required by the government to act against 2000 years of faith as it has always been written in our cathecism”
The catechism hasn’t been around for 2,000 years. Church dogma has been changed and refined during its two millenia. Do you know that the official doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were from the 19th century which was when “infallibility” was declared as a result of votes in a papal council convened by Pius IX – the pope who kidnapped the Jewish child – a situation that was an international outrage. But the good old catechism. What other religion gives you the questions and the answers!!! Not much room for nuance there.
And I do love how the main issues for today’s reactionary Catholic Church seem to be focused on women’s reproductive rights and gays. Poverty and social justice – meh!
Lrning -
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/
This is where I got the 50% number.
CC 3:14PM
Is the IUD the only form of available birth control?
Do some googling. You’ll find the costs of IUDs vary and IUDs may last for several months or years. If $800.00 filled up my tank for half a year, I’d be happy. Oh, and no insurance plan pays for my gas.
”I don’t agree with it for regular organizations. Where of these other charities fall in the spectrum is a tough call. ”
They are not regular organizations. They are driven by their faith based mission. It is an extension of their faith.
I understand your concern about the picking and choosing of aspects of health care. However, it has always been that those items have not been mandated to be covered, because they do not prevent disease. This is an unprecedented move to mandate the coverage. Those things have been what’s called ”electives” for businesses choosing health plans, again, because they were not preventative services- preventative meaning disease.
NO, I don’t believe that a catholic should be forced to take contraception if they don’t believe in it Supremely dodged Ex-RINO. The question was never wether or not a catholic should be forced to take contraception. The question was should a catholic be required to dispense contraception to others. We can agree that it is written in our beliefs that taking contraception is a sin. I challenge you to name me just ONE thing that you think is a sin but that you also think the government should be able to require you to assist others in doing.
“Your source, the Catholic bishops, is hardly unbiased. “
Check out the laws themselves, listed in Addendum B.
Ex-RINO, I dont think you can squirm out of this one. I challenge you to name me just ONE thing that you think is a sin but that you also think the government should be able to require you to assist others in doing. expecting ***crickets***
my point is that it’s not a religious tenet for most CAtholics.
No. Actually, it IS a religious tenet for ALL Catholics. Some choose to be disobedient to the tenets of their faith.
Bringing up how many Catholics use ABC has no bearing on the issue. It doesn’t matter.
Kris I think it does have some bearing because the resistance should also come from lay catholics as well. IF I a were a Catholic using bc, I really would be happy that my insurance would be covering my bc costs. So I’m not going to complain.
And as a Catholic myself I do realize it is part of our faith, I am just saying that most Catholic’s don’t practice their faith for the most part.
I completely agree that this is the thin edge of the wedge to forcing every insurer to cover a myriad of things from sex-change operations to sterilizations and even euthanasia.
I just don’t believe that for most Catholics this is something they get their noses out of joint for….
TS 3:37PM
Great question.
Its like the abortion advocates who demand that medical students be denied the option not to learn abortion techniques or that medical personnel be denied the right to refuse to be involved with abortion.
I won’t dirty my own hands but I’ll happily force you to dirty yours.
“IF I a were a Catholic using bc, I really would be happy that my insurance would be covering my bc costs. So I’m not going to complain.”
NOT true angel. If you were a Catholic you would never want the government forcing another catholic to violate their conscience. If you do; then you are not only uncatholic; but you are unChristian and more of a dark angel then an angel of light.
”Do to others as you would have them do to you.“ Luke 6:31
TS 4:12PM
Well for that matter, I’d be happy if my insurance company covered cosmetic surgery. You’d be fighting me for my place in line! Fair is fair. If we can’t all afford cosmetic surgery, then insurance companies should be mandated to pay for it.
truthseeker, I think you and many many others here somehow think that most Catholics are simply wonderful people who wouldn’t want to hurt anyone else, who wouldn’t want someone to act in a way that violates their conscience.
Catholics are human beings susceptible to the same feelings and errors that others make. :)
How many Catholics push their daughters to have abortions?
How many Catholics are in marriages where one spouse refuses to follow the teachings of the faith, forces another to use bc, to get sterilzed, to abort?
How many Catholics work for PP but consider themselves Catholics in good standing?
A true Catholic wouldn’t do this but people sin, make mistakes, do the wrong thing etc.
The number of Catholics in the church who follow the teachings or at least try to follow the teachings of their faith is likely very very small…
And for the record, I am a Catholic who follows the teachings of the church in the area of sexual morality. Some of the mods can vouch for that. I just am not convinced that my fellow Catholics are somehow more moral than the average joe in the street.
truth – on your 3:37 post – that isn’t the question at all. it isn’t about dispensing – it is about covering it under an insurance plan. If Notre Dame has an insurance plan, should they have to meet certain standards as set by the government. That is the question.
Actually, the question is, is Notre Dame more like a church or more like anybody else?
Kris – it is a very hard question. Yes, it is very much mission related. But many organizations are owned by Christians who see their work as a mission. Heck, everything in the life of a Christian is a mission field…
Truth -
The government makes me participate, through my taxes, in a whole bunch of things that I find objectionable.
The Church of Scientology is a tax exempt organization – thus I believe out tax dollars are in part subsidizing their organization.
I find many foreign wars/engagements objectionable (blessed are the peacemakers). My tax dollars go towards that.
My tax dollars recently went to a brewery expansion in Wisconsin. I don’t have anything about beer per se, but I have a lot of objection to how the alcohol industry conducts itself.
Still waiting on an answer on the other thread…
A true Catholic wouldn’t do this
Then it is wrong for you to keep saying that ‘Catholic’s’ do. That is not the same thing as saying members of the catholic faith are sinners and fail to following the faith as taught in the catechism. And even the most liberal of catholics that I know at least make an effort to follow the ‘golden rule’.
” it isn’t about dispensing – it is about covering it under an insurance plan.”
No, it is about both.
“The government makes me participate, through my taxes, in a whole bunch of things that I find objectionable. ” Quit the diatribe about the government does this and that already yada yada yada. I challenge you again to name me just ONE thing that you think is a sin but that you also think the government should be able to require you to assist others in doing.
The totality of the conscience clause argument involves dispensing, but this decision by the feds doesn’t have anything to do with dispensing – at least that I can find. If you can find other info, feel free to post it. I’d be interested to read.
I listed multiple things in my 4:52 post – you must have missed it.
No I did not miss your post. I had asked you to name me just ONE thing that you think is a sin but that you also think the government should be able to require you to assist others in doing.
You gave a diatribe about ‘the government ‘making’ me participate, through my taxes, in a whole bunch of things that I find objectionable.
There is a difference between saying that the government forces you to do things and saying that you think the government should be able to force you to do things. Were you saying that the government ‘should’ be able to force you to assist in things that you find sinful?
Ex-RINO,
If a nurse works in a ‘maternity’ ward at a hospital should the hospital be able to force a nurse to assist in committing abortions?
Truth -
I find Fred Phelps hatred speech to be sinful.
I believe the government should force me, through my tax dollars that pay for police protection, to protect and manage his protests where he sins.
truth -
Yes, if a woman was about to die and an abortion was necessary.
In general though, no (and given the fact that the above situation is massively rare) – and thankfully the bill we are debating – the mandate, has absolutely nothing to do with forcing somebody to perform an abortion.
‘the bill we are debating – the mandate, has absolutely nothing to do with forcing somebody to perform an abortion.’
Not true Ex-RINO, forcing a Catholic hospital to provide b/c and the morning after medication to people has absolutely exactly to do with forcing somebody to assist in committing abortion.
In some states, the mother can ask for sole custody and receive it, no questions asked.
I find Fred Phelps hatred speech to be sinful. I believe the government should force me, through my tax dollars that pay for police protection, to protect and manage his protests where he sins.
Ok, but that is not an accurate anaolgy. We are not debating a right to free speech we are debating a right to force another person to participate in hate speech. More accurate would be if you were to say wether or not you believe that you should you be forced to pass out his hate filled flyers at one of his speeches.
Ex-RINO, ever hear of break-away ovulation. Women on bc still release eggs and those eggs can be fertilized and at that point the bc acts as an abortificient by preventing the fertilized embryo from being able to implant in the uterus. It is not a matter of opinion. It is scientific fact. BC does cause abortion. So does the morning-after pill.
Truth…
my goodness…
– The mandate does NOT force Catholic hospitals to provide b/c and the morning after medication to people. It simply says that the plan has to cover contraception. The irony here is if the majority of employees were Catholic, and they adhered to the teachings, then no money would be spent anyways.
– It is an accurate analogy because again, you are misunderstanding the mandate. There is nothing forcing anybody to prescribe or dispense anything. I stated this earlier. There’s information all over the internet around this. Don’t continue to take a false statement and run with it like it is true. My analogy is pretty darn good because it is regarding funding in other people’s activity that you disagree with.
And your last post is a complete waste of typing because I never said that birth control can’t cause abortions – and again, nobody is forcing anybody to prescribe birth control.
If I say it 20 times, will it get through?
Hi Ex
FYI
If a mother’s health and life are in danger her child can be delivered to try and SAVE both of their lives. The intent is to save, to help, to heal, to err on the side of life. The unfortunate result could be the death of the child. This is not considered abortion.
The intent of an abortion is to kill the child. Always.
I don’t know what happened to my last post but it disappeared. I wanted to ask Eric about his statement way up if he is still reading:
In some states, the mother can ask for sole custody and receive it, no questions asked.
I never knew this Eric and believe it is very wrong. What states? Is this when she doesn’t know who or where the father is? Children deserve to spend time with both parents if they will remain safe. I still believe if the father fights for his rights, he will get them. He can’t do much if she doesn’t tell him about the baby but he needs to be careful who he has sex with.
It simply says that the plan has to cover contraception.
Key words are ‘HAS TO’. Not simple to some of us. You are okay with forcing people to cover for behaviors that violate their consciences.
Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh states that Sebelius and the Obama administration “have said ‘To hell with you’ Catholic faithful of the United States. To hell with your religious beliefs. To hell with your religious liberty. To hell with your freedom of conscience. We’ll give you a year, they are saying, and then you have to knuckle under.”
Ex-Gop- you are right, it does not require someone to dispense ABC, but it does require religious institutions to be complicit in something that they find to be against their conscious and religion. It is requiring the people to buy a product against their will.
And again these are not organizations that just happen to be Catholic. These aren’t organizations that are “hey I’m Catholic, I’m gonna live my faith and feed people some soup in a kitchen that I start” i.e separate from the Church, but the owner is Catholic (which also applies but is a smaller subset). These are organizations through the Catholic church. These are Catholic institutions that are started by the entire Catholic organism, if you will, and maintained by the entire Catholic organism. Catholic Charities for example isn’t a laypersons organization, calling themselves Catholic because they happen to be Catholic. It is Catholic organization because it was started and maintained through the Catholic Church, and has archdiocesan and Archbishop oversight and on and on. So too, for the Catholic Hospitals, Universities, and all the other Catholic charitable organizations such as Catholic Relief Services that help so many third world countries. It very much is one and the same. The Catholic Church even takes issue with it’s members who use the word “Catholic” in it’s title because they do not speak with authority and represent all unless they are sanctioned by the Church. It is very serious.
Also, the government very much has been pressuring Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions and morning after pills etc. which is partly the reason for the mandate. Most Hospitals won’t do it with pressure (at least those individuals in charge of the hospitals who are faithful) so the government sees the opportunity to mandate. ”Now we can MAKE THEM do what we want.” It is very recent in history that the government was involved in health care at all. It was the Catholic Church, long ago, that saw the need and created all the various institutions for the people that the government could not help. It was too expensive. Later, the government became involved. And when they have a different ideology than you, the more they reach and the more you let them in-the more they will attempt to control you to do things their way. Your freedom and liberty be damned. (Can I say that word here?) ;-)
Ex-RINO,
So you are saying that selling people insurance policies that pay for peoples birth control should not violate the consciences of catholics. If I can borrow a line from the top cartoon. Who died and made you pope?
In your mind (lol); if I were to sell somebody a contract that they could use to buy cynanide to kill unwanted people would I be conscionable responsible or would I be off the hook as long as I didn’t actually dispense the cyanide?
EX-Gop- BTW I just want to say “thanks” for how respectful you have been in your conversations with me… I appreciate the dialogue, and it is rare that I have been able to talk to someone with a differing opinion here without a condescending “hook” and nuance at every turn.
okay, carry on….;-)
Praxedes, many states declare that joint custody will only be allowed if the parents get along well enough to make joint decisions together. Nebraska is one of those states. Based on this law, one parent only needs to be uncooperative with the other parent to establish sole custody. Asking the father to “fight” for his rights is the problem. The court sees a “fighting” father and disallows joint custody because the parents disagree on the custody issue. Conversely, if a father doesn’t “fight”, then the court sees a father who isn’t interested in being there for his kids, and he also loses custody. It is often lose-lose for the father… which is a lose-lose for his children.
To counteract this, a Nebraska senator introduced a bill two years ago to automatically grant joint custody in a separation/divorce unless there was a documented reason to disallow it. Amazingly, there are groups that are fighting the bill (mostly radical women’s groups who cite anecdotes of abusive fathers and imply that fathers are not only unnecessary but harmful to children), and the bill is stalled.
I can appreciate, based on what you have written, there are a lot of men who are not involved in their children’s lives out of choice. That is why my first post said the Church as a whole has failed children by failing to address both men and women. In summary, the Church needs to say, “Men, get involved in your children’s lives. Women, let your kids’ father be involved in their lives.” Until then, teen pregnancy and subsequent abortion rates will continue.
Thanks, Eric. I did not know this. Every child deserves to spend time with each parent if they can be safe, it is physically possible and if the parent is actually spending time with them.
It breaks my heart that my children’s dad doesn’t make time for them. I am very thankful a good man stepped up who loves them as his own but I believe there will always be a hole missing with them where their dad should be.
I believe churches should more often address both parents becoming more involved with their children as well as addressing abuse and alcohol/drug issues.
I agree Praxedes, churches can’t be afraid to address the issues affecting parents that leave teens seeking fulfillment in sexual relationships for which they’re not ready, to include alcoholism and workaholism.
Ex:
The irony here is if the majority of employees were Catholic, and they adhered to the teachings, then no money would be spent anyways
Are you suggesting that Catholic employers should discriminate in their hiring practices?
Kris – I appreciate the conversation and appreciate your level-headedness as well. I truly don’t have a firm position on this – though I do think it is more complex than a lot of folks are seeing. I strongly believe that folks should be able to object to certain things under religious protections. I also strongly believe that in health care, the feds should be able to mandate certain coverages to make the whole system work. Obviously, these two are colliding here, and it makes it messier in regards to where to draw the line between a church and a local car dealership. Now, I’ll say again – I’m not Catholic ( I go to a non-denominational church), and get my health care from a non-Catholic facility. 95% of the research I’ve ever done on this subject has been today, so I’m still working things out.
To you, does it make any difference if the facility gets federal dollars?
truth – I’m simply saying that is what the debate is about. You’ve tried to make it into about a half dozen other debates along the way – and I want to make sure you actually understand what we’re talking about. It’s a bit like the other thread you owe me an answer on – where you complain that the UK government isn’t covering medicine, then say all medicine should be covered, but then say the government shouldn’t be in the business of covering medicine. I’ve just learned with you, and I’m trying to be as nice here as possible, but we have to get to a framework where you are understanding the issue that we are talking about – otherwise you seem to just take the opposite position that I take, or simply make up a position, whether it is relevant to the topic or not.
What I am saying is that the government has said it is fine if a catholic church (or any church) says we don’t want to have contraception coverage in our health care plan. They are also saying that most organizations do need to have contraception coverage. They are saying that many catholic organizations, because they aren’t churches by definition, fall into the organization bucket. It is fine if catholics object. There is a difference if the catholic that objects heads up the plan at their church, or at the auto dealership they own.
Jerry – I’m not saying that – because quite frankly, looking at the numbers, it wouldn’t matter. Catholics seem to treat contraception just like anybody else.
Ex-RINO,
Nice dodge again. In your mind (lol) what is more on topic here…. the dispensing of bc or car dealerships?
Truth – if you say “dispensing” one more time in this argument, I hope one of your keys flies off the keyboard and lodges in your nose.
Ex-RINO,
speaking of keys; you really seem to be caught up on the dispensing as being key to any violation of conscience.
You didn’t answer when I posted this earlier so I’ll post it again:
In your mind (lol); if I were to sell somebody a contract that they could use to buy cynanide to kill unwanted people would I be conscionably responsible or would I be off the hook as long as I didn’t actually dispense the cyanide?
truth –
Dispensing, quite frankly, is simply not part of the discussion because it isn’t part of the mandate. You could say something like “I agree with the feds on this mandate, but what about if they were being forced to dispense as well”…
You don’t give much information on this – are you a legit company selling cyanide for mining or pest control, and somebody takes your legally contracted goods and poisons people? If that is the case, then I don’t believe you are responsible.
If somebody walked up to you and said “I want to buy goods so that I can kill people”, and you sold them those goods, and you killed people, then you have a level of responsibility.
Now, if the government had declared it was okay for you to kill the people you were killing, then it is a whole different can of worms.
Thankfully, this discussion isn’t regarding cyanide or dispensing of drugs.
Truth – don’t you live in Wisconsin? If so, you’ve been living under the same rules as the feds just declared for a few years…
Truth – don’t you live in Wisconsin? If so, you’ve been living under the same rules as the feds just declared for a few years…
As far as I’ve been able to find out, this is untrue. Wisconsin requires health-insurance plans that cover prescription meds to cover contraception also. There is no requirement that ALL health plans cover prescription meds. Also, coverage of sterilization is not mandated.
So although there is no religious exemption in Wisconsin, there is still a way for religious organizations to offer health insurance without violating their faith.
Ex-GOP – the point is that the institutions that the churches are affiliated with will be forced to pay for the coverage of what they believe is sinful – and this includes Catholic Colleges, Hospitals, rehab centers, half-way houses, charities, relief organizations and social service agencies.
Since their teaching is clear – that they view sterilization, abortion, abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and illicit sex as sins, they, by rights – can not do anything to support that, aid that or promote that.
So, if I offer what the Church believes to be sinful, I will aid in another’s sin. If I pay for it outright, and am absolutely aiding in another person’s sin.
And that is the point. The religious exemption for this mandate is written so tightly, even Jesus would not qualify – one has to employ (vast majority) only from your own clan, AND serve (mostly) your own clan. For Christians, both are not in our mandate…
as Christians, we are called to serve ALL OTHERS, and we are not restricted to employing ONLY our own. So on both accounts, we can not pass the mandate, And other businesses – owned by Catholics and others, will have to comply if they employ over 50 people.
So – without talking about the specifics of contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, you have the outrage in a nutshell.
Catholics, and then others, will be forced to betray their teaching for a mandate they believe is sinful. It’s the start of the breach into religious liberties.
I hope this helps! God Bless.
There are so many comments on here that this has probably been said already, but geez. If people want to purchase contraception, well OF COURSE that is their right, along with abortion at the present time. JUST DON’T MAKE ME PAY FOR IT. Duh.
This is not about BC or abortion; this is about FORCING people and institutions who are against it to pay for it. Why is this issue so hard for people like CC, or even Angel, to understand.
Making arguments about how many Catholics are violating the tenets of the Church is straw man making, IMHO. The issue is the issue – mandating full coverage of artificial birth control violates people on a bunch of different levels.
If you want it, pay for it yourself!
What some trolls know about Catholicism will fit in a thimble.
The Assumption of Mary was accepted as truth in the earliest years of the Church, before there were any schisms at all. The Greek Orthodox still guard her empty tomb after centuries. Unfortunately, trolls only know how to troll, not read, but the earliest writings of Church fathers reveal a teaching that is remarkably intact today.
Our most prolific anti-Catholic troll is constantly trying to use what is called “argumentum ignoratum” wherein the speaker or writer ASSUMES the ignorance of the audience and proceeds to fabricate things he or she thinks the audience doesn’t know. It reminds me of people who yell out “the council of Trent!” because they heard Rodney Dangerfield say it in “Back to School.”
Also, I loved the comment on another thread that mentioned “quotes from the New England Journal of Crap I Made Up.” Lol!! I can’t remember who wrote it but it is still making me chuckle this week!
Now back to your regular thread about Adolph Obama. Lol!
:) Ninek, that (@12:14) was classic!
EGV wrote, in reply to Truthseeker:
Truth – don’t you live in Wisconsin? If so, you’ve been living under the same rules as the feds just declared for a few years…
Well… surely you know that this won’t help your case? If Wisconsin is violating the rights of Catholics, does it mean that the Federal Government should be allowed to do so, as well? I hardly think so; I think a far better solution is for Wisconsin to STOP violating the rights of Catholics (and others of like mind).
Re: the fact that many individual Catholics use artificial contraception: this is (tragically) true, but it’s quite plain that such Catholics are violating the teachings of the Church when they do so (and are engaging in raw hypocrisy, thereby), as surely as a member of PETA would be if he/she were to denounce so-called “exploitation and cruelty” to animals while eating a bacon cheeseburger. As such, it’s really quite irrelevant; I hardly think you meant to say, “Most Catholics don’t follow Church teaching anyway, so the piddling few who are faithful should be forced to be complicit in the business”, did you?
Re: your suggestion that the recent mandate (key word!) does NOT force Catholics to participate in a moral evil: that is simply not true; it is a blatant attempt to coerce Catholics to contribute financially toward the dispensation of resources which flatly violate core Church teachings. (Organisations such as Catholic Charities, who seek to help anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, do not print their own money, you know… their funds come from Catholic and Catholic-sympathetic donors.)
Re: the suggestion that Catholic organisations simply allow contraceptive-including plans, and then fire any employee who partakes of them, misses the point: the fact that the Church might be able to compensate in such a way (and I can only imagine the lawsuits which would result from that) is utterly distinct from the fact that the original mandate was a gross abuse of power in the first place. One might as well say that arson is permissible, so long as state-sponsored fire-fighting teams and equipment are available! The damage will already have been done, thank you.
Thanks, Paladin!
Obviously some people think ’practicing religion’ is some quaint thing you do in temples or churches on special occaisions. It boggles their minds that some of us actually believe what we believe and !gasp! actually ACT on what we believe in our normal daily lives. !!
ninek @ 12:14, thank you, I was thinking the same thing. These Catholic Church-hater trolls probably get their Catholic history from some of the more professional Catholic Church haters like Lorraine Boettner or others that no jack about historical Christianity.
“What some trolls know about Catholicism will fit in a thimble.”
12 years of Catholic education and A+’s all the time. What, what – could these nuns have been so stupid as to give me good grades?
The Assumption didn’t become a holy day of obligation (and what other religion has an after-life penalty for their members who don’t go to services, LOL) until the early 50’s. So if the church “knew” about Mary’s orbit around earth, why didn’t they enshrine it as an infallible dogma until 2,000 years later? Oh, right. The Pope didn’t become infallible until 1870. Do you professional Catholics know that? Do you professional Catholics know about the Jewish child kidnapped by the Pope who put forth the infallibility dogma?And about the Greeks guarding Mary’s “tomb” – remind me of the archaeological evidence. Those of you, like Ninek, who pride themselves on their knowledge of Catholicism only know the sanitized version that has no crusades, no Inquisition, and no close relationship between the Pope, Hitler, and Franco. You probably don’t know that the Vatican expedited the passage of Nazi war criminals to Catholic countries after the war. And how bout Galileo. When the Protestants, particularly in England, were advancing in science, the Vatican was prosecuting Galileo for daring to put forth the heliocentric solar system. And LOL, the church only apologized in the 60’s. And one wonders if you also deny the vast pedophilia scandal of your church.
And for those of you who think that your church is so pure, you might want to read Frank Caroll’s “Sword of Constantine” which is about how anti-Semitism is a Catholic tradition going back to the time of Constantine. While the church does some good, it also has a sordid history that you true believers are blind to. A history that my Catholic education never talked about. Maybe that’s why I’m so ignorant of Catholicism, eh?
Paladin -
Long time no talk – hope all is well. A quick point-by-point:
1) The Wisconsin comment was only to say that I find it a bit odd that, by some estimates, over 50% of the public has lived under these rules (or similar rules) for a while now, but now we’re having a big freak out. In fact, even if the feds retract, the state laws still stand in place.
2) I’m not 100% sure what I’m trying to say, except that the Catholics seem to be trying to go out of their way to control the masses in something that Catholics themselves don’t seem to want to be controlled on.
3) The only issue I have with your next paragraph is, where do you draw the line? I fully agree that the government should be able to state minimum standards of plans…and let’s just say that in this regard, we’re both fine with churches being exempt but AT&T not being exempt (let’s just assume that). Now, at some place you’ve got to draw the line in between the two. I’ve said, Catholic churches – sure. Other churches – sure. I’m just not sold at this point that the line is past all catholic institutions.
4) If I conveyed that thought, it was not intended.
joy -
Where do Catholics draw the line in regards to being able not to pay for things they find sinful? Witholding taxes in death penalty states? Cutting back on scholarships or funding for sinful kids? And who decides on what is sinful? If I had nothing to go by but the statistics, I’d say Catholics have no issue with contraception. I don’t mean for a low blow there – I’m just saying, is this something Catholics truly see as sinful?
Now, if the government had declared it was okay for you to kill the people you were killing, then it is a whole different can of worms. Ex-RINO, you saying that your conscience about what is right or wrong is formed by government declaration. That expalins why you are unable to grasp why a Christian would be offended by going against church teaching. Unlike you, my conscience is NOT formed by government declaration; it is formed by the Holy Spirit. Do you also believe that you will not be held accountable on judgement day for actions that are allowed or forced upon you by government declarations? Would that include GOP declarations or only those of the Obama administration. Seriously; your soul will be lost man. You need to base right and wrong on Jesus’ teachings; not on government declaration. May Jesus Christ enlighten you.
Maybe that’s why I’m so ignorant of Catholicism, eh? No CC, you are ignorant of Catholicism because Catholicism is a Christocentric entity and understanding of Catholicism requires understanding of Jesus and seeking the Holy Spirit to guide you until Jesus returns. If you truly wish to know the Church more intimately then instead of relying on your 12 years of A+ grades in theology you should start living 12 years of prayer to our Father in heaven to send His Holy Spirit down to guide you to knowledge of Jesus Christ.
truth – I was talking specifically about your scenario – and the government does declare that there are lawful and okay times to kill people. I was making no statement in regards to the morality of killing people or the government setting right and wrong – I was simply answering your question. I feel quite okay with my soul truth. Those who so quickly judge people…those are the ones I wonder about.
By the way, every time you post, do you “like” your own statements? It seems like every time you right something, within minutes, you have a like. Just wondering.
Where do Catholics draw the line in regards to being able not to pay for things they find sinful? In this case forcing Catholics to provide employees with a ‘benefit’ that provides services contrary to church teaching would be a good place to draw a line.
truth – I was talking specifically about your scenario – and the government does declare that there are lawful and okay times to kill people. I was making no statement in regards to the morality of killing people or the government setting right and wrong – I was simply answering your question.
Ex-RINO,
my scenario was this:
”if I were to sell somebody a contract that they could use to buy cynanide to kill unwanted people would I be conscionably responsible or would I be off the hook as long as I didn’t actually dispense the cyanide?”
Your response: Now, if the government had declared it was okay for you to kill the people you were killing, then it is a whole different can of worms. sure makes it sound like the government declaration would be relevant to being conscionably responsible. Maybe you just didn’t realize what you were typing.
truth – fine, I’ll ask the followup I should have.
Are you a government contractor and the government has asked for this contract for war purposes?
I realized what I was typing.
By the way, every time you post, do you “like” your own statements? It seems like every time you right something, within minutes, you have a like. Just wondering.
I don’t think you can like something more than once and that had two likes before I even got back to it. I have liked my comments a few times in the past but not very often. Usually only when I go back and laugh at my own comments :) I would guess maybe one in every 50 comments.
I realized what I was typing. Then explain yourself. To me those comments say that you feel as though you are not conscionably responsible for actions that sanctioned through government declaration. I must be missing something. What did you mean when you said Now, if the government had declared it was okay for you to kill the people you were killing, then it is a whole different can of worms.
Truth – I don’t believe those who manufacture weapons during a justified war are at fault for any killings that result in their actions – that is my contention.
You still haven’t finished the debate on the other thread regarding prescription drug coverage – are you done with that conversation? You had wrapped yourself up in quite a logical pretzel. I was kind of interested if you were going to admit your fault before moving on.
lol…I’ll go back and check on that thread.
I don’t believe those who manufacture weapons during a justified war are at fault for any killings that result in their actions
Ex-RINO, huh? When you said Now, if the government had declared it was okay for you to kill the people you were killing, then it is a whole different can of worms. The reason for you saying that was to point out to me that you don’t believe those who manufacture weapons during a justified war are at fault for any killings that result in their actions.
In my eyes wether I am making the weapons for the government or the people fighting against the government I would be just as responsible. I still don’t understand why you think government declaration has anything to do with your being conscionably responsible for your actions. It still just doesn;t make any sense.
Truth – you originally asked: ”if I were to sell somebody a contract that they could use to buy cynanide to kill unwanted people would I be conscionably responsible or would I be off the hook as long as I didn’t actually dispense the cyanide?”
– Let me try to restate my answer as you seem a bit twisted on this (or I’m not explaining myself well – I’m not exactly sure what you are going for with the word “contract”).
– If a housewife comes to you and wants to kill her husband, and you enter into a contract with them and sell them poison, and they kill somebody, you are morally and legally responsible (in my eyes, and the eyes of most).
– If the government is fighting a brutal war, and you were part of the military and sold a contract to make poison, and that poison was made and used in war and it killed enemy soldiers, you are not morally and legally responsible (in my eyes, and the eyes of many)
Ex-RINO, why have people without insurance always been able to get hospital care in the US if they needed it? Answer – Catholic hospitals do not refuse emergency care to patients who have no insurance. It is part of their mission and there are signs in every catholic hospital stating that care cannot be denied to those without insurance. Now team Obama is trying to push the catholic church out of the hospital business so that the poor will be forced to depend on the government for their needs. Can’t you see how bad it will be if people are denied care from catholic organizations. I am sure the indigant (uninsured) wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about contraception coverage when they get in an accident and they are transported to a catholic hospital. wtf. The pro-abort lobby (who have backed Obama since he became involved in politics and of which Barack Obama is their hero) are insane in demanding all health plans cover contraception and abortion and you can’t see it because you are still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Your former party scorned you and now you are blinded.
That’s not true Truth – the Emergency Medical Treatment Act of 1986 makes it law that any medical facility that receives government funding (and almost all have medicare or medicaid patients) must provide emergency care to anybody regardless of citizenship or ability to pay.
By the way, this is part of the reason the Heritage foundation argued for a personal mandate back in the day. 55% of all emergency care is currently not paid for – so insurance rates for those who do pay keep getting racked up. The Heritage foundation argued it was a matter of personal responsibility for all to pay since any might end up taking advantage at any time.
Just a quick health care lesson – but yeah, your post is wrong as they are simply doing what is required under the law.
Ex-RINO,
Your statements about government sanctioned killing being ok but individual sanctioned killing not ok is really flimsy. The wife might want her husband dead for abuse and the government might use weapons for less than conscionable reasons. You need to find another way to make your point cause government declaration means nothing morally.
Yes truth – I suppose so.
When I ask clarifying questions though, you get all high and mighty about “dodging” questions. Now you are getting all high and mighty about not putting fine print in my answers.
I don’t think anything has changed on this whole conversation between you and me. I’m interested to hear back from joy and Paladin, but I don’t think there’s anything more left unanswered from your questions.
Just a quick health care lesson – but yeah, your post is wrong as they are simply doing what is required under the law.
Ex-RINO,
catholic hospitals have been caring for the poor free of charge for centuries as part of their mission to serve the poor. So your assertion that they do it cause it is required by a 1986 law is disingenous. Why are you so hard-hearted about acknowledging that?
Truth – that’s great, but you said “why have people without insurance always been able to get hospital care in the US if they needed it? Answer – Catholic hospitals do not refuse emergency care to patients who have no insurance.”
People have gotten care from Catholic and non-catholic hospitals alike because it is a law. That’s great it is a mission as well, but it is also a law. In fact, if anybody asked why people get emergency treatment at any hospital, the family feud answer for smart people would be the EMT act of 1986. Survey says, that would be the top answer.
“why have people without insurance always been able to get hospital care in the US if they needed it?
Jeopardy answer would be ‘Catholic hospitales’. You have a habit of ignoring words that don’t fit your agenda. Maybe you blocked the word ‘always’ subliminally. I don’t know your motives or reasons but in everybody elses world the word ‘always’ includes the time before 1986 doesn’t it ;)
Er… CC is a troll, y’all; pray for her conversion, rather than feeding her. It’d be time much more productively spent.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Long time no talk – hope all is well.
It is (thank you! I hope the same is true for you…), though it’s become rather difficult to squeeze in spare moments to read and comment, these days…
1) The Wisconsin comment was only to say that I find it a bit odd that, by some estimates, over 50% of the public has lived under these rules (or similar rules) for a while now, but now we’re having a big freak out. In fact, even if the feds retract, the state laws still stand in place.
I can’t speak for others, but: the contraception mandate in Wisconsin received a virtual media black-out, locally; only the local bishops made any noise about it, and even their message fell too quickly into silence. The bishops resorted either to starting their own private insurance groups (which were exempt), or they (like Bishop Morlino of Madison, whose diocese could not afford to start a private group) adopted contraceptive-inclusive health insurance plans, but warned that any employee at a Catholic institution who attempted to use them would be fired for breach of contract (i.e. the morality clause by which such employees agree not to flout Catholic teaching). But none of the bishops should have been placed in such a position in the first place; and the level of indignation in any given venue really says nothing germane to the moral urgency of the issue at hand… any more than a lack of outcry from a drugged patient excuses a molestation of that patient.
2) I’m not 100% sure what I’m trying to say, except that the Catholics seem to be trying to go out of their way to control the masses in something that Catholics themselves don’t seem to want to be controlled on.
I don’t see it that way, at all; before this mandate came through, did you hear of any initiatives by the Church to outlaw contraceptives for every last person in the United States, for instance? The Church’s reaction is one of defense (after being attacked), not offense.
3) The only issue I have with your next paragraph is, where do you draw the line?
Well… I see a clear distinction between watching the federal government spending my federal tax money on contraceptive-promotion (which is certainly wrong of them), and watching them command *Catholic* institutions to dispense/provide such contraceptives THEMSELVES (i.e. through Catholic-owned health services, insurance, etc.). Don’t you?
I fully agree that the government should be able to state minimum standards of plans…
I agree… but there is the small matter of avoiding gross violations of the plain text of the 1st Amendment, in the process…
and let’s just say that in this regard, we’re both fine with churches being exempt but AT&T not being exempt (let’s just assume that). Now, at some place you’ve got to draw the line in between the two. I’ve said, Catholic churches – sure. Other churches – sure. I’m just not sold at this point that the line is past all catholic institutions.
Part of my difficulty in answering this issue is the fact that a great number of “Catholic” institutions (or, more accurately, institutions run/owned/directed by dissident, clueless and/or morally timid “Catholics”) do not follow the Church teachings that they (at Baptism, Confirmation, at every Mass, etc.) have sworn to uphold, defend, obey and believe with their whole hearts. (If that is not hypocrisy, good sir, I challenge anyone to find an example of hypocrisy, anywhere.) As such, there are some institutions which, in the final analysis, do not deserve a Catholic-specific exemption… because they are not, in fact, truly Catholic anymore. The cure, however, is not to carpet-bomb all Catholic institutions, be they good, bad, or indifferent; the cure is for the Church to strip those institutions of their claim to the title “Catholic”, and then let them fend for themselves.
Mind you, this abstracts from the fact that NO institution (not even an atheist one) should be forced to dispense contraceptives; not only is their use intrinsically evil (yes, I know that some will disagree with that statement; so be it), but no sane person can consider them a “medical necessity”, comparable to antibiotics, food, water, etc.
In short: the government has, for polemic reasons, violated its own constitution in order to advance a privatised agenda (i.e. empowerment/promotion of all equipment necessary for sexual license, for all), and this was done by those who are so blinded by shallow ideology that they simply don’t care about the grave consequences this entails.
I wasn’t in the state yet when it came down, but I’ll take your word for it. I’ll still stick to the point that the odd thing is, even if the Feds completely back down, a good chunk (one site said the majority of Americans) live under these types of laws anyways.
I see that the feds want to work on the wording and are open to changes, so who knows what happens. Your paragraph starting with “part of my difficulty”…that is a very well written, well argued point. I saw a poll today that said the majority of catholics actually want this type of coverage. But carpet-bombing all probably isn’t the approach. Again, where they draw the line will be interesting.
I don’t agree with your final paragraph though – I think is all about money. I’d love to see where politics would be without so much outside money. Plain and simple, I think big donor groups on the left are demanding this type of coverage. Just like big donor groups on the right demand certain things. I don’t believe much in anybody promoting an ideology…I believe they are all ensuring the money keeps flowing, and that when they are out of politics, they have the right jobs waiting for them.
Ex-GOP says:
“a good chunk (one site said the majority of Americans) live under these types of laws anyways.”
I hope you’ll stop repeating this and instead try to understand the finer points of the laws so you can understand why this isn’t true. NO ONE lives under a mandate as stringent as this one.
The HHS Mandate Requires ALL health plans include:
1) Contraception
2) Sterilization
3) Exemption for churches only
Legal analysis of state laws shows:
• First, no state requires coverage of contraceptives in all plans. State
contraceptive mandates generally exclude self-insured and ERISA plans.
• Second, no state (except California and Georgia) mandates contraceptive
coverage in plans that have no prescription drug coverage.
• Third, no state (except Vermont) requires coverage of sterilization.
So even states that do not have religious exemptions are NOT the same as the Federal mandate.
EGV wrote:
I’ll still stick to the point that the odd thing is, even if the Feds completely back down, a good chunk (one site said the majority of Americans) live under these types of laws anyways.
You’re quite welcome to see it as odd (though I have a hard time empathising with that conclusion); but I’m equally free to see your point as (with all due respect) quite irrelevant to the fundamental point. I, for one, do not chide someone who comes to his senses after drunk-driving and causing a particularly bad auto accident, on the dubious grounds that “it’s odd of you to become upset about your actions this late in the game, dear fellow; where were you, all these years when your drunkenness was causing other problems?” (This is aside from your errors on some details; see Lrning’s post, above.)
Are you seriously suggesting that no one is free ever to experience a “straw which broke the camel’s back” moment, and that the penalty for their tardiness is a mandatory silence on the matter?
I don’t agree with your final paragraph though – I think is all about money.
I agree that money is a large–perhaps a dominant–factor… though I hardly think the two are mutually exclusive; it’s quite possible to push a destructive agenda while hoping for a lucrative kick-back in the process! What makes me hesitate about agreeing that *all* such efforts are purely driven exclusively by finance is the extent to which certain ideologues (in Hollywood, and in politics) will push their agendas feverishly, even if it entails political or financial suicide (e.g. Obamacare, and now the Obamacare contraception mandate with inadequate conscience protection). Perhaps they are blinded to the detrimental effects which will likely result; or perhaps they know, and don’t care. I have no idea.
I don’t believe much in anybody promoting an ideology.
I’d have great difficulty denying an ideological component in the actions of President Obama, or of Kathleen Sebelius, at this point… nor, again, do I think that money-lovers are all ideology free, nor do I think that ideologues are all free from the craving for money.
Lrning/Paladin – I think it depends on the state. Some status offer no religious exemption at all. And what is interesting, is that the more and more I read, the more and more it seems like it isn’t a big deal to *many” Catholics.
– Dignity Health (Catholic Healthcare West) has had contraception in their plan since 1997.
– Two polls in the past few days have pointed to a majority of CATHOLICS supporting this plan
I’m not Catholic…why is their a massive disconnect between the leadership and everybody else? The overwhelming majority of Catholic women use, or have used contraception before. What is going on? I just think that this is one of the many reasons people have issues with the church – you’ve got a mandate saying that plans for organizations that employ a lot of non-catholics need to have contraception coverage, and you’ve got catholics saying, “well, we don’t really even believe this, but we’re going to make you adhere to this to”. Crazy stuff.
Some status offer no religious exemption at all. *sigh* Wisconsin offers no religious exemption. And yet religious employers have the option of self-insuring or offering plans that do not cover prescription medications. Neither of those options are available through the HHS mandate. I might be convinced that the fact that “many” Catholics don’t care about contraception is important if this was about contraception. But it’s not. It’s about First Amendment rights.
Lrning – you might feel strongly that it is a first amendment issue, and I’d be right there if there were no exemptions for churches. My dad is a minister of a church…I go to church weekly…I don’t see my church being the same thing as Notre Dame or a Catholic charity.
This has gone through the courts before though – when the law passed in New York years ago, the NY State of Appeals ruled against the church and the supreme court let the ruling stand.
So I think it is about contraception, and I’m back to my last paragraph here in regards to the disconnect between the leadership and everybody else.
Ex-RINO,
The majority of people do NOT want Obamacare.
The majority of people DO think our government runs better when they pass annual budgets.
The majority of people regret they gave Obama and the Democrats complete control in 2008. Proven by 2010 election.
The majority of people do NOT believe we should put fossil fuel industries out of business by EPA mandate cause we do NOT like to pay more for our gas and electricity.
The majority of Catholics DO NOT want the government mandating our church to break it’s conscience.
You can keep your head in the sand for 10 more months but it will be harder to deny reality after the elections this November?
Truth – you can go find the numerous multiple polls I’m referring to. Thanks.
Enjoying the conversation with Paladin and Lrning.
If you do want to debate, you owe me a reply on the other thread still.
Thanks,
My dad is a minister of a church…I go to church weekly…I don’t see my church being the same thing as Notre Dame or a Catholic charity. Ex-RINO, You said yourself yesterday that you understand BC can cause abortion of the embryo when breakaway ovulation occurs and a woman on bc get pregnant. Maybe your dad’s church is ok with abortion then. Our church is NOT ok with it. We understand that Jesus was once an embryo and an unborn child and that God knows us even in the womb. This is biblical Christian doctrine. So the organizations that we create as part of our mission are not allowed to particiate in other people acting in ways that would kill unborn human life by providing them with bc. Again I say; may Jesus Christ enlighten you.
Truth – if you are going to engage in grown-up conversation, I beg of you – read the posts.
I didn’t say anything about the morality of contraception.
The mandate says that churches are exempt. I am saying I understand what a church is. I’m saying that I don’t think all catholic organizations are the same thing as churches.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a single word you just posted, because you are failing to either read the posts or understand the conversation.
Truth – you can go find the numerous multiple polls I’m referring to. Thanks.
Keep your selective polling till next November if you’d like also ;)
Posting this again in an attempt to break through your selective comprehension:
So the organizations that we create as part of our mission are not allowed to particiate in other people acting in ways that would kill unborn human life by providing them with bc. Again I say; may Jesus Christ enlighten you.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/08/rasmussen-majority-opposes-obama-contraception-mandate-on-religious-organizations/
I would have said no to question three of the poll as well:
The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?
But Rasmussen phrased it as such that it isn’t applicable to this current situation. Churches do have opt out of this. Plus, the poll was likely voters. Why would likely voters be used instead of registered voters or just general public. This isn’t something coming to a national vote.
You would agree? Did you see where it said church OR religious organization?
Yes Truth – I believe that you understand what the word “or” means.
If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church, should the government… – I’d say no.
If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a religious organizations, should the government… I’d say I need more information.
Or gives me two options – I can’t say “yes” unless I want to make it mandatory for churches as well.
Along with Rasmussen’s historically bad lean, you need to look at other polls that are better worded to get the full picture.
Hey Truth -
Yes or No (those are the only two options)
Do you like Jesus or Hitler?
See – if you have only two options, and it is a yes or no – see how that is a bad poll?
If someone asked me if I could accept either Jesus or Hitler as my saviour I would say NO. Because I could only accept Jesus as my saviour. But I see how it could be logically misunderstood. I am really surprised by your stance on this though. As a Christian I would have thought you’d understand the problem with government mandating the church violate it’s teachings by basically forcing the church to lead others to sin. Question for you. Do you think Catholic Relief Services should be forced to provide contraception to communities it serves as part of it’s woman’s health services? If not, then why not?
Truth – I’ve said above, many times, I believe that Churches should be able to opt out. I’ve said organizations should not. Where the line is drawn in between is a tough call. I don’t know enough about Catholic Relief Services quite frankly – I don’t know total employees, religious affiliations of those employees – so I’m not going to be able to answer that.
I am going to say, again, that I believe churches should have an opt out. I don’t believe an organization automatically equals a church simply because they want to. I think you’d agree that churches are their own entity from things like hospitals and universities. Some will say a hospital or a university is simply an extension of a church – I don’t know if I’d go that far, but who knows how it all ends – it is a tricky situation.
You say the government should be able to mandate Christian organizations to go against their conscience as they carry out Christ’s mission to love one another. Why should a Catholic hospital that feels a calling to help pregnant mother’s choose life be forced to assist women in choosing death. I find it hard to fathom how any Christian could fail to comprehend how tremendously this grieves the Holy Spirit when people who call themselves Christians fight openly against those who would follow the ‘golden rule’ when carrying out His mission of love for one another. Tread carefully friend.
” whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit* will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.” Mark 3:29
Somebody tell me. What do you call someone who forces anyother person to pay for someone elses bc? They are not pro-life. They are not pro-choice. Oh, I know, they must be pro-death.
Lrning/Paladin – I think it depends on the state. Some status offer no religious exemption at all. And what is interesting, is that the more and more I read, the more and more it seems like it isn’t a big deal to *many” Catholics.
And I’ll say again: the popularity (or lack of popularity) of a given teaching, or even the percentage of “Catholics” who hypocritically (or ignorantly, etc.) reject Church teaching on this matter, is utterly beside the point; it is not the purpose of the civil government to micromanage the internal workings of any religious body, or to decide (from “on high”) that “your religious adherents are too luke-warm for us to consider your religion to be viable or significant, anymore”. Is that quite clear? Even if every last Catholic in the United States were to turn (privately, or otherwise) to wanton contraceptive use, it would not affect the principal objection of the Church in the least: any “command” (implicit or otherwise) by the civil government which orders any religion to violate its own core teachings is a flat violation of the 1st Amendment, a flat violation of basic religious liberty, and utterly unjust.
– Dignity Health (Catholic Healthcare West) has had contraception in their plan since 1997.
– Two polls in the past few days have pointed to a majority of CATHOLICS supporting this plan
I hope, now, that you know my response to that; “tu quoque” is still a fallacy, when last I checked.
I’m not Catholic…why is their a massive disconnect between the leadership and everybody else?
I’ll do my best to answer this, for the sake of your interest; but please remember that this is a red herring: utterly beside the point. It is not the job of the civil government to “tidy up and/or fix” the inner workings of any religion (whether explicitly, as in the case of China, or implicitly, as in the case of USA mandates which no faithful Catholic could possibly obey). It is unjust for any civil government to say “sacrifice to our gods [or non-gods], or be persecuted”.
To understand the Catholic Church, one would need (at least as a mental exercise) to divest oneself of moral relativism–the idea that “there is no objective moral standard by which personal views can be judged to be right or wrong, true or false, good or evil”. To a relativist, the Catholic Church is simply one more organisation among many–no different (save perhaps in size, length of history, and other incidentals) than British Petroleum, PETA, the United Nations, etc., where Church teachings and laws are seen as mere “company/organisational policies”–perhaps enacted by committee or by a CEO–which are only binding on the membership which deigns to submit to them; and such a view misses the point completely. Even if every last Catholic in the USA (or the world) rebelled against the Church’s teaching on contraception, the teaching would still be true, valid and binding; it would simply be the case that (in such a hypothetical scenario) every last USA Catholic was sinning against God, and they would be held accountable for that. The Church really and truly is not a political organisation (though She consents to using politics in order to interact with the rest of the world); She is the Bride of Christ, and Her mission is not determined (or vetoed) by a “count of noses” of the unfaithful.
The overwhelming majority of Catholic women use, or have used contraception before. What is going on?
Three short answers to that: a catastrophic collapse of Catholic catechesis (i.e. teaching the Faith) which is only now starting to right itself, an immensely pervasive “marketing campaign” by which the culture uses sex to sell everything from lingerie to tooth-paste, and the fact that Original sin is, in fact, a fact.
I just think that this is one of the many reasons people have issues with the church – you’ve got a mandate saying that plans for organizations that employ a lot of non-catholics need to have contraception coverage, and you’ve got catholics saying, “well, we don’t really even believe this, but we’re going to make you adhere to this to”. Crazy stuff.
I think you’ve blurred together several categories of people, even at a basic level, sir. When you portray a group as saying that “WE” don’t really believe this, and then follow it with the quote that “WE” are going to make you adhere [etc.]”, surely you can see that these two “WE’s” are not the same? Surely you can recognise that the very people who indulge in contraception would not be at all interested in mandating it for anyone? It is those who have NOT abandoned Catholic teaching who still seek to uphold and enforce it (as they should); Catholic teaching is determined by the teaching handed down to us from Christ… not by the opinion polls or surveys or petitions of the dissident.
Whoops… I neglected to italicise a few quotes; sorry about that!
Ex-GOP says: “I don’t believe an organization automatically equals a church simply because they want to.”
I think I understand where you’re coming from now. Why do you think the First Amendment only applies to churches?
This quote from Jill’s latest post summarizes why I see this as a First Amendment issue:
Catholic University President John Garvey made a great point on Fox News February 6:
Paladin/Lrning -
I appreciate the conversation, and I”m sure we won’t end up seeing eye to eye here. First of all, I don’t see catholic organizations as being the same as a church. Second of all, I don’t understand why the right of an employer automatically trumps the right of a the employee. Who owns the health insurance, and why do their rights get thrown aside simply because the leadership of the parent organization doesn’t agree with it? In your argument, could the Catholic church ban non-catholic employees from using their vacation time to go to Vegas? Certainly those vacation days are being subsidized?
And Paladin – while you tried to explain it away – I still think it reeks of what people on the outside hate about the church. ”We’re going to dictate how things are to you, even though we engage in this behavior ourselves”. I’ve seen and understand your point – and as somebody who works in a place with a lot of non-Christians – let me tell you that the perception out there is as I describe it.
We’ll see how it ends up. It is a long way from over.
Paladin/Lrning -
Interesting article with some background, good thought, and some alternatives.
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html
First of all, I don’t see catholic organizations as being the same as a church.
Neither do I.
Second of all, I don’t understand why the right of an employer automatically trumps the right of a the employee.
It doesn’t. Both the employer and employee should be afforded free exercise of religion. What “right” of employees is being trumped if their health plan doesn’t include contraception and sterilization?
Who owns the health insurance, and why do their rights get thrown aside simply because the leadership of the parent organization doesn’t agree with it?
I’m not sure “owns” is the word I’d use, but typically it is the employer that selects the insurance coverage that will be offered to employees, since it is offered through the employer as an employee benefit. Not sure what you mean by the second half of that question. Are you asking why Catholic organizations would need to follow Catholic teaching?
In your argument, could the Catholic church ban non-catholic employees from using their vacation time to go to Vegas?
Going to Vegas is not against Church teaching. The Church doesn’t “ban” anyone from going there.
The link didn’t work for me.
Lrning – it appears when the previous link I had was clicked, it added a space behind the l…so if this doesn’t work, try taking out any spaces as the end:
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html
On your response…
The article probably states it better than I will…but employee’s get certain benefits for working somewhere. I get 401K matching, paid time off, health insurance, and various things like that in my job. If I have a moral issue with any of those things, I can certainly decline the coverage. I see those things as my rights as an employee. So should my employer be able to override regulation because they are upset with my rights? I fundamentally don’t believe so. I think that health insurance is a right of an employee and the employee’s rights trump the employer. Just my feelings.
Regardless, it looks like a compromise is in the works. Sure it won’t make everyone happy as some folks don’t believe contraception should even be legal…