Calm Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Let's just put it up for a popular vote. The Catholics should be in favor of that approach.Why should the public vote on what is essentially a private business issue?
Mark Beesley Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I am the LDS Church and I employ lots of people, and required to pay at least a minimum wage. Some of those employees might decide to use some of their wages to do things that I find are wrong - hookers, gambling, drugs, alcohol, etc. Is the proper remedy to quit paying them, pay them less than minimum wage so they can't afford the vices, etc.?The Catholic Church is being required to offer full-service health coverage. Now, if some of the recipients of that coverage choose to use it in a way the Church finds objectionable, is the solution to take away the benefit . . . or maybe educate the people and let them make their own choices.The choice for the Catholic Church is easy, either comply with the law or get out of the employment business. Edited January 31, 2012 by Mark Beesley 1
Calm Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I am the LDS Church and I employ lots of people, and required to pay at least a minimum wage. Some of those employees might decide to use some of their wages to do things that I find are wrong - hookers, gambling, drugs, alcohol, etc. Is the proper remedy to quit paying them, pay them less than minimum wage so they can't afford the vices, etc.?The Catholic Church is being required to offer full-service health coverage. Now, if some of the recipients of that coverage choose to use it in a way the Church finds objectionable, is the solution to take away the benefit . . . or maybe educate the people and let them make their own choices.The choice for the Catholic Church is easy, either comply with the law or get out of the employment business.The difference in your example is that it is the employee that is paying for the services with his own, not the Church. If the Catholic Church paid a certain amount of money to each individual with the understanding it was to be devoted to appropriate health care and the employee chose to spend it on abortions, etc. or even nonhealthcare, then your examples would be equivalent. 1
Mark Beesley Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The difference in your example is that it is the employee that is paying for the services with his own, not the Church. If the Catholic Church paid a certain amount of money to each individual with the understanding it was to be devoted to appropriate health care and the employee chose to spend it on abortions, etc. or even nonhealthcare, then your examples would be equivalent.I think the example is near enough to make the point . . . the Catholic Church should not be dictating what kind of health coverage should be avaliable to its employees.Sorry Catholics, but I can't stand with you on this one. 1
blueadept Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The Catholic Church is being required to offer full-service health coverage. Now, if some of the recipients of that coverage choose to use it in a way the Church finds objectionable, is the solution to take away the benefit . . . or maybe educate the people and let them make their own choices.The choice for the Catholic Church is easy, either comply with the law or get out of the employment business.I've come to appreciate why some LDS do not view this as a moral issue, but the RCC always has and will run its business accordingly. IMO, the government is pushing its values upon the Church and this should be easily defeated if and when it gets to the Supreme Court since it obviously violates the 1st Amendment. So as a Catholic, I have no fears the Church will be forced to provide this full-service health coverage.If it ever was forced to follow morally wrong laws, they would shutdown those faciliities which would be a travesty which I believe will eventually happen.My 2 cents 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The choice for the Catholic Church is easy, either comply with the law or get out of the employment business.Let it be known that Marksist Beesley has spoken.I disagree, this is an infringement upon freedom of religion. Got the nanny state trying to force a religious institution to do something that goes against it's teachings. Funny you can't see that.MRSR has left the building. 4
Analytics Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The LDS Church not only employees tens of thousands of people, it actually owns its own insurance company that provides them with health insurance benefits. Is the Church following the Catholic's example and going to war over presumably being forced to offer these health insurance benenefits to Church employees?
Senator Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Let it be known that Marksist Beesley has spoken.I disagree, this is an infringement upon freedom of religion. Got the nanny state trying to force a religious institution to do something that goes against it's teachings. Funny you can't see that.Not very good at this, are you?
blueadept Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I believe Sarah Palin summarized President Obama's intentions very well. How Obama Repaid Notre Dameby Sarah Palin on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 1:37pmBack in May 2009, during the controversy over Notre Dame’s decision to have President Obama as their commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient, I gave a short statement to the Boston Herald: “My favorite grandpa, Clem James Sheeran, was Catholic. Irish to the core, his favorite place (other than church) was Notre Dame. I can’t imagine what he would think as the university recognizes someone who contradicts the core values of the Catholic faith by promoting an anti-life agenda.”In his latest Washington Post column, Michael Gerson writes about the Obama administration’s war on Catholic institutions with President Obama's decision to strip conscience protections from Catholic universities, hospitals and charities.As Gershon points out, the timing of Obama's most recent slap won't go unnoticed by the faithful: "In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. Preparing for the march, Catholic students gathered for Mass at Verizon Center. The faithful held vigil at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Knights of Columbus and bishops arrived to trudge in the cold along the Mall. All came to Washington in time for their mocking.”And in this we see how the faithful at Notre Dame got snookered and how Obama has shamefully repaid their faith in him:Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer... The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men:Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.- Sarah Palin Edited February 1, 2012 by blueadept
Cobalt-70 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Let me just start out by saying that this has nothing to do with abortion. What they are talking about is the "morning-after" pill which prevents pregnancy before it occurs (which happens at implantation), and does not cause an abortion. Moreover, Catholics are free to refuse to take birth control, despite their insurance policy giving them that option.Second, the Catholic church is not paying for birth control. The insurance company is paying for birth control, and only for those individual patients who want it. The Catholic church is only paying an insurance premium. And if the Catholic itself church wants to enter the healthcare insurance industry and self-insure, it should have to play by the same rules as every other insurance company. Edited January 31, 2012 by Cobalt-70 1
blueadept Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 The LDS Church not only employees tens of thousands of people, it actually owns its own insurance company that provides them with health insurance benefits. Is the Church following the Catholic's example and going to war over presumably being forced to offer these health insurance benenefits to Church employees?I don't believe the LDS Church sees the same moral issue as the RCC does IMHO. My experience is that it's a personal matter in your eyes and see more convenient ways to work around the issue.My 2 cents
blueadept Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Let me just start out by saying that this has nothing to do with abortion. What they are talking about is the "morning-after" pill which prevents pregnancy before it occurs (which happens at implantation), and does not cause an abortion. The RCC would disagree with your viewpoint.
mercyngrace Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Let me just start out by saying that this has nothing to do with abortion. What they are talking about is the "morning-after" pill which prevents pregnancy before it occurs (which happens at implantation), and does not cause an abortion. Moreover, Catholics are free to refuse to take birth control, despite their insurance policy giving them that option.Out of curiosity, why does pregnancy "happen at implantation"?I've been pregnant 6 times and my docs calculated due dates based on conception or the fertilization date (i.e. missed menstruation minus two weeks). Clearly, many people believe that pregnancy begins when sperm and egg meet.As an aside, I think the morning after pill is, as you suggest, akin to an IUD because it makes the uterus lining unhospitable for implantation. Of course, a lot of people might get upset if an IUD was compared to an abortion. I've wondered why one is okay and the other is murder in some people's eyes. Very confusing.
3DOP Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) It is debatable I suppose what the "morning after pill" does. Whether it induces abortion, or not, it is still artificial birth control. It is just as problematic. I realize non-Catholics do not have any sympathy for our position, but we hold that it would be gravely sinful anyway. Catholic institutions are supposed to close rather than not provide "full-service health benefits"? I think we are mainly talking about Catholic hospitals and insurance providers like Providence Health Plan. No one is claiming that the Catholic Church is being asked to pay for these sinful options. But institutions that are founded by Catholic religious orders like the Sisters of Providence and continue under their direction have an obligation to avoid providing services that are in grave conflict with Catholic moral teaching.Over a century ago, when the Sisters began building hospitals in this country, they were as bound as they are now to follow the teachings of the Church. We understand this activity to be one that will send a properly formed Catholic to Hell if unrepented. Assuredly, most non-Catholics do not agree about the sinfulness of the activity, and certainly not the gravity of the sin. Maybe this is the opportunity to bring this issue into public debate? This is what Pope John Paul meant when he spoke of the West as embracing "a culture of death". Catholic institutions must resist cooperation with the culture of death by providing so called "health benefits" that actually promote the opposite by killing babies and disabling healthy biological functions. I am not asking anyone to agree with the pope's evaluation of the matter. Reasonable people don't have to agree with the pope to appreciate why Catholics are making a hubbub.But there is another crowd that is worried there are too many people and who despise Catholic moral teaching because it is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with their faithless political agenda. As a Catholic, I believe the world is going to end with Christ's return before we overcrowd the planet. I am not going to doubt Catholic Tradition because infidels are worried that there are too many people. "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead." Those who give no consideration to that article of the Apostle's Creed are building a different city on earth than those who believe in Christ's return. Of course! The builders of that city are working in the vain hope that it will never end, and their policies reflect that. Those of us who act upon the knowledge that the Earth is truly filled with God's wonders, but for all that a very temporary home, are not troubled about "over-population" so-called. I am concerned about saving my soul, and I have made my peace with God sacramentally in regards to those times when I doubted or was ignorant of His moral teachings. Having done so, I would resist now, God helping me, to the death, before cooperating in an anti-Christian culture that imagines to build a city that can never endure anyway. Edited February 1, 2012 by 3DOP 1
Cobalt-70 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Out of curiosity, why does pregnancy "happen at implantation"?I've been pregnant 6 times and my docs calculated due dates based on conception or the fertilization date (i.e. missed menstruation minus two weeks). Clearly, many people believe that pregnancy begins when sperm and egg meet.As an aside, I think the morning after pill is, as you suggest, akin to an IUD because it makes the uterus lining unhospitable for implantation. Of course, a lot of people might get upset if an IUD was compared to an abortion. I've wondered why one is okay and the other is murder in some people's eyes. Very confusing.I understand that medically, pregnancy is considered to begin at implanatiation. Before that, there is no measurable difference between an embryo that has been in vitro fertilized in a Petri dish and an embryo that was fertilized in a Fallopian tube. Nobody considers that a woman is pregnant the moment that a doctor fertilizes her eggs in a Petri dish. In either case, you just have a free-floating embryo with no attachment to a mother. In either case, a woman might become pregnant, or she might not. So there is a time delay between conception and pregnancy.The "gestational age" typically used by doctors is just a standard approximation. Usually, I think most doctors measure from the date of the last period, which is actually a couple of weeks before conception. Edited February 1, 2012 by Cobalt-70
ERayR Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Let me just start out by saying that this has nothing to do with abortion. What they are talking about is the "morning-after" pill which prevents pregnancy before it occurs (which happens at implantation), and does not cause an abortion. Moreover, Catholics are free to refuse to take birth control, despite their insurance policy giving them that option.Second, the Catholic church is not paying for birth control. The insurance company is paying for birth control, and only for those individual patients who want it. The Catholic church is only paying an insurance premium. And if the Catholic itself church wants to enter the healthcare insurance industry and self-insure, it should have to play by the same rules as every other insurance company.I understand the Catholic Church is against any form of artificial contraceptive. So it is a religious values issue.
ERayR Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Let me just start out by saying that this has nothing to do with abortion. What they are talking about is the "morning-after" pill which prevents pregnancy before it occurs (which happens at implantation), and does not cause an abortion. Moreover, Catholics are free to refuse to take birth control, despite their insurance policy giving them that option.Second, the Catholic church is not paying for birth control. The insurance company is paying for birth control, and only for those individual patients who want it. The Catholic church is only paying an insurance premium. And if the Catholic itself church wants to enter the healthcare insurance industry and self-insure, it should have to play by the same rules as every other insurance company.They will have a big increase in insurance cost because of adding these things.
california boy Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 It is debatable I suppose what the "morning after pill" does. Whether it induces abortion, or not, it is still artificial birth control. It is just as problematic. I realize non-Catholics do not have any sympathy for our position, but we hold that it would be gravely sinful anyway. Catholic institutions are supposed to close rather than not provide "full-service health benefits"? I think we are mainly talking about Catholic hospitals and insurance providers like Providence Health Plan. No one is claiming that the Catholic Church is being asked to pay for these sinful options. But institutions that are founded by Catholic religious orders like the Sisters of Providence and continue under their direction have an obligation to avoid providing services that are in grave conflict with Catholic moral teaching. Over a century ago, when the Sisters began building hospitals in this country, they were as bound as they are now to follow the teachings of the Church. We understand this activity to be one that will send a properly formed Catholic to Hell if unrepented. Assuredly, most non-Catholics do not agree about the sinfulness of the activity, and certainly not the gravity of the sin. Maybe this is the opportunity to bring this issue into public debate? This is what Pope John Paul meant when he spoke of the West as embracing "a culture of death". Catholic institutions must resist cooperation with the culture of death by providing so called "health benefits" that actually promote the opposite by killing babies and disabling healthy biological functions. I am not asking anyone to agree with the pope's evaluation of the matter. Reasonable people don't have to agree with the pope to appreciate why Catholics are making a hubbub. But there is another crowd that is worried there are too many people and who despise Catholic moral teaching because it is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with their faithless political agenda. As a Catholic, I believe the world is going to end with Christ's return before we overcrowd the planet. I am not going to doubt Catholic Tradition because infidels are worried that there are too many people. "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead." Those who give no consideration to that article of the Apostle's Creed are building a different city on earth than those who believe in Christ's return. Of course! The builders of that city are working in the vain hope that it will never end, and their policies reflect that. Those of us who act upon the knowledge that the Earth is truly filled with God's wonders, but for all that a very temporary home, are not troubled about "over-population" so-called. I am concerned about saving my soul, and I have made my peace with God sacramentally in regards to those times when I doubted or was ignorant of His moral teachings. Having done so, I would resist now, God helping me, to the death, before cooperating in an anti-Christian culture that imagines to build a city that can never endure anyway.This is exactly why I said we should put this issue up for a popular vote. Doesn't the Catholic Church preach that moral issues should be put up to a popular vote? Let the majority decide if this is a moral issue.
Calm Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 And do you think it is appropriate to put to a vote whether any institution can offer to cover such things through insurance or not?
3DOP Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) This is exactly why I said we should put this issue up for a popular vote. Doesn't the Catholic Church preach that moral issues should be put up to a popular vote? Let the majority decide if this is a moral issue.Hi California Boy.It is not my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that moral issues are decided by popular vote. I am intrigued as to where you got this idea. Do you recall?Clearly, the Catholic Church in America, as represented by the spokesman who references the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, as well as the popes of the last century have spoken as to how artificial birth control, not to mention sterilization or outright abortion, are in conflict with Catholic moral teaching, regardless of who votes however they want. For Pope John Paul to defend the traditional Catholic teachings, referring to the modern views of abortion, sterilization, and contraception as a "culture of death" does not sound like some optional teaching that can be modified if enough people can be persuaded to vote against it. If the rest of humanity wants to decide morals according to popular vote, that is for the rest of humanity to decide.But Catholics do believe in democracy too, in a different way. We believe that it is important to consider the "votes" of more than those who happen to be alive at any given moment. We believe in the "democracy of the dead" to use an expression used by G.K. Chesterton. If our dead fathers were against it so are we. Otherwise we corrupt their faith. We preserve and pass down what was given to us. That is the meaning of true Catholic Tradition. Democracy is fine as long as everyone gets a voice, especially the dead. Edited February 1, 2012 by 3DOP
Yirgacheffe Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I think the example is near enough to make the point . . . the Catholic Church should not be dictating what kind of health coverage should be avaliable to its employees.Sorry Catholics, but I can't stand with you on this one. All employers dictate what kind of health coverage is made available to employees. .
california boy Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Hi California Boy.It is not my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that moral issues are decided by popular vote. I am intrigued as to where you got this idea. Do you recall?Clearly, the Catholic Church in America, as represented by the spokesman who references the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, as well as the popes of the last century have spoken as to how artificial birth control, not to mention sterilization or outright abortion, are in conflict with Catholic moral teaching, regardless of who votes however they want. For Pope John Paul to defend the traditional Catholic teachings, referring to the modern views of abortion, sterilization, and contraception as a "culture of death" does not sound like some optional teaching that can be modified if enough people can be persuaded to vote against it. If the rest of humanity wants to decide morals according to popular vote, that is for the rest of humanity to decide.But Catholics do believe in democracy too, in a different way. We believe that it is important to consider the "votes" of more than those who happen to be alive at any given moment. We believe in the "democracy of the dead" to use an expression used by G.K. Chesterton. If our dead fathers were against it so are we. Otherwise we corrupt their faith. We preserve and pass down what was given to us. That is the meaning of true Catholic Tradition. Democracy is fine as long as everyone gets a voice, especially the dead.I got this idea because of how the Catholic church pushed Prop 8. The Catholic church decided to put up gay marriage to a popular vote because it was a moral issue. So evidently the way we are to decide moral issues in this country have nothing to do with civil rights or religious rights under the constitution. It only has to do with public popularity of an issue. What one person perceives as a moral issue, obviously not everyone believes is a moral issue. So lets just vote on what we think are moral issues in this country and let the most popular view of the day become law. How many times do we hear "Let the people vote to see wheither they want gay marriage? It is no different. When Catholic members were told if they did not want to participate in gay marriage, they said that is not enough. We want to make sure no one can have gay marriage because we feel it is morally wrong. Well now something that they feel is morally wrong the majority of Americans think is not a moral issue. So lets have a vote. 1
Stargazer Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I think the example is near enough to make the point . . . the Catholic Church should not be dictating what kind of health coverage should be avaliable to its employees.Sorry Catholics, but I can't stand with you on this one. The RCC isn't dictating what health care coverage should be available to its employees. If an RCC employee wants coverage that his employer will not provide, then nothing stops him from obtaining it. The RCC is saying that it considers certain medical practices immoral and against the RCC's moral teachings, and it will not provide coverage for those things. Your example of the minimum wage is a complete non-sequitor in this case. Paying a particular wage is not a tenet of RCC theology, therefore complying with the secular minimum wage law is a non-issue. You're a real scream, Mark. 2
ebeddoulos Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I got this idea because of how the Catholic church pushed Prop 8. The Catholic church decided to put up gay marriage to a popular vote because it was a moral issue. So evidently the way we are to decide moral issues in this country have nothing to do with civil rights or religious rights under the constitution. It only has to do with public popularity of an issue. What one person perceives as a moral issue, obviously not everyone believes is a moral issue. So lets just vote on what we think are moral issues in this country and let the most popular view of the day become law. How many times do we hear "Let the people vote to see wheither they want gay marriage? It is no different. When Catholic members were told if they did not want to participate in gay marriage, they said that is not enough. We want to make sure no one can have gay marriage because we feel it is morally wrong. Well now something that they feel is morally wrong the majority of Americans think is not a moral issue. So lets have a vote.Interesting. California Boy attempts to derail another topic with "gay rights". imagine that. This propensity of his reminds me of the joke: "Give a child a hammer and everything becomes a nail." 1
Cobalt-70 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I understand the Catholic Church is against any form of artificial contraceptive. So it is a religious values issue.That doesn't make it a religious freedom issue. A church does not have "freedom" to prevent its members from getting medical care with which it does not agree. Religious freedom is about individual choice, not about the right of churches to control their members. In this case, the Catholic church is not buying birth control: they are merely buying health insurance, and insurance companies are splitting the cost of birth control with willing individuals.
Recommended Posts