Benjamin McGuire Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 As a side note, Selek, most Catholics seem to agree with me.http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/catholics-backed-birth-control-mandate-poll-showed-114020.htmlThey must also be "Orwellian" right? They are "illiberals" right?I might add that this actually had nothing to do with employers being required to add these things to insurance policies. The change was that insurance companies were required to add these services to their policies for women. There were several things added in the mandate, but of course, only this one seems to be getting lots of attention .... funny, when at least according to your rhetoric, all of them are just as bad - I suspect that your characterizations are in part because you want to keep up the charade that your point of view represents the vast majority of Americans.Ben M.
selek1 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) As a side note, Selek, most Catholics seem to agree with me. A two year old push-poll (which carefully avoids the undisputed fact that religious exemptions were a very public assurance being offered at the point) is hardly evidence of where Catholics stand now that their Constitutional rights are under direct assault.As the actual facts and truth have escaped adminstration spin. the numbers have plummeted:Most Recent Rasmussen Poll Obamacare Advocates Breaking Ranks Over Contraception MandateContrary to what you (and others) are asserting, the vast majority of Catholics are unambiguously opposed to this assault on their religious freedom. Edited February 9, 2012 by selek1
LeSellers Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 As a side note, Selek, most Catholics seem to agree with me.Which is not germane: the Catholic Church is not run by the members—it's run by the Vatican and the Bishops.It's against the institutional Catholic Church and her official doctrines that this diktat has been issued.As many have said, the Catholic position does not preclude any woman, Catholic or not, from buying anything she chooses to, from birth control to abortions, but she cannot do it with Catholic money even filtered through an insurance company.I reiterate my position that the current administration knew the Catholic Church would react like this. (They're rather proud of the fact that, in the case of Henry VIII, she refused to kowtow to the king when he demanded an annulment of his marriage when the queen did not give him a male heir. This refusal was the direct cause of the loss of England to Rome.) Knowing this Sebelius could figure that the Catholic Church would take the only other legal option: stop providing coverage. The displaced employees would have no other recourse than to enroll in the governmental program, putting them directly under the control of the state for their health care, wih all the restrictions that will necessarily ential. It was a political move with the current administration holding all the power (in the form of more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than the Catholic Church has today).Lehi
ERayR Posted February 9, 2012 Author Posted February 9, 2012 But they aren't being forced to. There are several things here. One is, quite simply, that they are being asked to provide health insurance. What gets bought with that health insurance is up to the insured, not the Catholic church.Ben M.No! They already provide health insurance. They are being forced to provide additional benefits. Health insurance comes in many packages, some provide contraceptive and abortion services, some do not. The ones which provide the aforementioned sevices cost more than those which don't. The Catholic church is willing to pay for health insurance but do not want the one that provides the additional services. I will go out on a limb and say it is probably not the extra cost that is a problem but that is is going for services the CC can not condone.What would you say if it were required that the LDS Church were required to provide a quart of beer and a pack of cigarettes every day to its employees who wanted them?
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Selek:Between 98 & 99% of sexually active American Catholic women will at some point use birth control. That even goes back to when I was in Catholic HS where Catholic women used the claim that "You don't play the game. You don't make the rules".
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) ERayR:No it is no different than the state requiring minimal standards on automobile insurance coverage or the posting of a Surety Bond of equal value in case you have an accident while driving. Edited February 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint
selek1 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Selek:Between 98 & 99% of sexually active American Catholic women will at some point use birth control. That even goes back to when I was in Catholic HS where Catholic women used the claim that "You don't play the game. You don't make the rules".Which is utterly irrelevant to requiring the Catholic Church to pay for the private decisions of their membership. Let's assume for a moment (for the sake of argument) that 51% of American Catholic men will at some point visit a prostitute in Nevada.Would you argue that the Catholic Church is somehow required to pay for or otherwise subsidize the services of those prostitutes?No it is no different than the state requiring minimal standards on automobile insurance coverage or the posting of a Surety Bond of equal value in case you have an accident while driving. This analogy fails the snicker test.Driving is a privilege regulated by the various states, not a Constitutional right.There is in fact, no Federal requirement for universal automobile insurance of which I'm aware.As it stands, the Federal mandate for universal healthcare insurance is also on questionable (and increasingly shaky) ground.Except
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 No! They already provide health insurance. They are being forced to provide additional benefits. Health insurance comes in many packages, some provide contraceptive and abortion services, some do not.This isn't the case at all. The mandate is for all insurance policies and is not directed at specific employers. The difference is that up until recently, the Catholic Church believed that it would be allowed to be exempted from these rules for all of its interests. The government more narrowly defined where the exemption would occur, and included some of these interests where they were not directly religious in nature. The health insurance that you use (assuming you have some) is mandated in the same way to provide a range of services to women (including access to contraceptives).So this is not about the Catholic Church being forced to provide additional benefits, its about the various non-religious organizations run by the Catholic Church not being allowed to arrange for special insurance policies that exempt them from the rules that otherwise affect every other business in the country. I think that's quite reasonable.Ben M.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) And for the record: the First Amendment right of Americans to worship as they please, free of unwarranted interference by the State qualifies as a sound doctrinal reason to "interfere".No, it's not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not give one group of people (the Catholic church) a constitutional right to prevent the government from mandating reproductive health coverage for another group of people (the employees of Catholic owned businesses). Edited February 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70
krose Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Are we all aware that the current teapot tempest is mostly about co-payments?The EEOC ruled over 11 years ago that any company that covered prescriptions had to include contraceptives as part of its coverage. The most recent clarification is that prescription benefits can't have a co-payment for the birth control. It has to be fully covered. The president who held the office from 2001 to 2008 never tried to reverse the EEOC ruling, yet I don't recall hearing any of this over-the-top "war on religion" type of rhetoric during that period. I wonder why?
Cobalt-70 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Does BYU receive public monies? I only bring up the public monies because the Catholic Adoption agencies that made the choice to close their doors rather than provide adoption services to ss couples, closed their doors because the vast majority of their funding was from public monies. However, as I understand it, the agencies could have remained and not provided services to ss couples, if they were not publicly funded.I don't think the same reasoning applies here. As I understand it, the mandate does not apply to predominantly religious institutions, only businesses owned by religious institutions. Catholic Adoption agencies and LDS Social Services are not affected as far as I've heard. And I don't think the mandate has anything to do with receiving public money.
ERayR Posted February 10, 2012 Author Posted February 10, 2012 Selek:Between 98 & 99% of sexually active American Catholic women will at some point use birth control. That even goes back to when I was in Catholic HS where Catholic women used the claim that "You don't play the game. You don't make the rules".Irrelevent, the Catholic Church does not condone the behavior no matter how manny participat.
ERayR Posted February 10, 2012 Author Posted February 10, 2012 Selek:Between 98 & 99% of sexually active American Catholic women will at some point use birth control. That even goes back to when I was in Catholic HS where Catholic women used the claim that "You don't play the game. You don't make the rules".Irrelevent, the Catholic Church does not condone the behavior no matter how manny participat.
AddamS Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Does the Catholic Church have a stance on women who use hormonal birth control to reduce the symptoms of conditions like endo metriosis?It seems unfair the church wouldn't provide equal access to medical treatment based on what they deem to be "misuse".
Calm Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 It seems unfair the church wouldn't provide equal access to medical treatment based on what they deem to be "misuse".Not clear on what you mean here. Are you suggesting that if the same medical treatment can be used properly and misused in the view of the Church, that it's fair for the Church to pay for both proper use and abuse?
saemo Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) If it's used specifically so that a woman won't get pregnant, then it seems pretty obvious that the abstinence is being used as birth control. If a husband and wife only have sex when she is infertile, then the event of fertilization is very much being controlled.And abstinence in marriage for the purpose of not creating a pregnancy also interfers with the unity of a couple, even more so than barrier type birth control.I should have been more precise. The Catholic church is not against birth control. Humane Vitae, which remains the document that is sited for Catholic teaching regarding birth control, clearly states that married couples should be open to receiving children as a gift from God. It doesn't say, married couples should have as many children as possible.NFP is not the rhythm method, BTW, there are several NFP methods. It is simple, the couple, together, abstain for a period of time during the woman's cycle.Catholic teaching is, the marital conjugal act is both procreative and unitive. When one of the two is absent, then the couple no longer have what we call in moral terms, a chaste marriage. Abstaining for a few days every 28 days does not interfere with the unity of a marriage. NFP, as taught in Catholic churches, teaches the couples to be involved together. To not leave it to the woman to manage on her own. It is a joint practice.Humane VItae was released in 1963, three years after "the pill" became available. It is one of the documents from the Vatican Council. Pope John XXIII took the question of artificial birth control as a question that he would answer. His method was to form a council of theologians, bishops and lay married couples. He died before making use of the councils work. Pope Paul VI took their work and wrote Humane Vitae. Some consider the consequential portion of it to be prophetic, including one LDS OB/GYN: http://www.zenit.org/article-23713?l=englishI can only recommend that you read it. There is no clearer teaching on the Catholic church's position, as a whole, than given in that encyclical. Edited February 10, 2012 by saemo
saemo Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Does the Catholic Church have a stance on women who use hormonal birth control to reduce the symptoms of conditions like endo metriosis?It seems unfair the church wouldn't provide equal access to medical treatment based on what they deem to be "misuse"."Lawful Therapeutic Means15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)" (Humanae Vitae)Couples are councilled to abstain while ABC is in use for therapeutic means.There are whole forums devoted to Catholic couples. By and large, there is a general belief, based on scientific evidence, that hormonal birth control causes physical ailments, even death. Serena Williams is one of the more high profile cases reported in the media...the blood clot she had on an airplane being attributed to birth control, along with a recent surgery, prolonged sitting and air travel. Also, hormonal birth control works in some ways to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. This makes it an abortificant, which is completely against Catholic moral teaching.Most women, and their spouses, I know who use hormonal ABC are not aware of these "side effects". I know I wasn't before I became Catholic and stopped using ABC.
3DOP Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I should have been more precise. The Catholic church is not against birth control. Humane Vitae, which remains the document that is sited for Catholic teaching regarding birth control, clearly states that married couples should be open to receiving children as a gift from God. It doesn't say, married couples should have as many children as possible.NFP is not the rhythm method, BTW, there are several NFP methods. It is simple, the couple, together, abstain for a period of time during the woman's cycle.Catholic teaching is, the marital conjugal act is both procreative and unitive. When one of the two is absent, then the couple no longer have what we call in moral terms, a chaste marriage. Abstaining for a few days every 28 days does not interfere with the unity of a marriage. NFP, as taught in Catholic churches, teaches the couples to be involved together. To not leave it to the woman to manage on her own. It is a joint practice.Humane VItae was released in 1963, three years after "the pill" became available. It is one of the documents from the Vatican Council. Pope John XXIII took the question of artificial birth control as a question that he would answer. His method was to form a council of theologians, bishops and lay married couples. He died before making use of the councils work. Pope Paul VI took their work and wrote Humane Vitae. Some consider the consequential portion of it to be prophetic, including one LDS OB/GYN: http://www.zenit.org...23713?l=englishI can only recommend that you read it. There is no clearer teaching on the Catholic church's position, as a whole, than given in that encyclical.Hi saemo,I would like to make a slight, but possibly important correction for a few Mormons here who might be interested in the way Catholics arrive at our faith.Humane Vitae was promulgated three years after the Council closed, in 1968. It reiterates the traditional teaching of the Church, and as such, isn't a question about which their can be any doubt for a faithful Catholic. It is for this reason that the truths in the document are irrervisible and clear. But the document itself does not have the same authority as it would if it were a teaching on faith and morals from a dogmatic ecumenical council. The document was never reviewed by the bishops of the Church as it would have been if it were a document of the Council. Please carry on. I am glad you stepped in. I don't know anything about an ABC hormone. Regards,3DOP
Calm Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I don't know anything about an ABC hormone.The "Pill" is based on hormones which inhibit ovulation, using the hormones estrogen and progesterone alone or in combo to produce the desired effect and to attempt to avoid the undesired side effects (such as mood swings and depression, potential increase in cancer rates, etc.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 The "Pill" is based on hormones which inhibit ovulation, using the hormones estrogen and progesterone alone or in combo to produce the desired effect and to attempt to avoid the undesired side effects (such as mood swings and depression, potential increase in cancer rates, etc.) http://en.wikipedia....traceptive_pill The leader of my youth group is a nurse and well versed on the subject. There's no problem for a Catholic to use the pill as long as the purpose of using the pill is NOT for birth control.I strongly suspect that I'll be putting my 18 yo on the pill since her cycle is once every 6 months right now. I have no issues with putting her on the pill since I believe she will on honor her vows she made with her purity ring that she chose of her own free will.
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Well, it appears that President Obama has taken a half a step in addressing the issue.http://www.latimes.c...,0,426614.storyIn the article, it statesAs currently proposed, the rule would exempt churches and houses of worship, but not religiously affiliated institutions like Catholic hospitals and universities. I predict the RCC will still not be quiet on the issue until President Obama takes a full step in granting the exemption so unfortunately for him, this will remain an issue for Catholic voters who have predicted the election of every president for the past 4 decades as a voting block. If he would have taken a full step, the RCC would have fully endorsed his health care plan. but he apparently wants to keep it as an issue. The priests in my diocese will be making known of the Bishop's wishes during this Sunday's Mass. Most other diocese have already done this but we just got our new bishop installed on Feb 2nd.President Obama's choice here in continuing to make it an issue. Edited February 10, 2012 by blueadept
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I love this comic strip David Horsey / Los Angeles Times
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) ERayR:Is It? A few ago the LDS faced a similar problem when some of its Bishops began asking married couples the intimate details of their sex lives. When it came to light it embarrassed the Church and quickly was abandoned. Edited February 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 SEE http://chicagoist.com/2012/02/10/depaul_offers_birth_control_in_heal.php
Mark Beesley Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Well, it appears that President Obama has taken a half a step in addressing the issue.http://www.latimes.c...,0,426614.storyIn the article, it statesI predict the RCC will still not be quiet on the issue until President Obama takes a full step in granting the exemption so unfortunately for him, this will remain an issue for Catholic voters who have predicted the election of every president for the past 4 decades as a voting block. If he would have taken a full step, the RCC would have fully endorsed his health care plan. but he apparently wants to keep it as an issue. The priests in my diocese will be making known of the Bishop's wishes during this Sunday's Mass. Most other diocese have already done this but we just got our new bishop installed on Feb 2nd.President Obama's choice here in continuing to make it an issue.According to an article on cnn.com, a slight majority of Catholics favored the original requirement of full coverage.
Recommended Posts