blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 SEE http://chicagoist.co...rol_in_heal.php Good article TSS This doesn't necessarily change my opinion of what will be spoken at the pulpits though. That said, I still don't want to predict in which direction the Catholic vote will go in the upcoming elections even if Santorum wins the Republican nomination.
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 blueadept:Thank you. I'm not a Republican or a Catholic so I don't have any skin in the game so to speak. Back when Romney was a moderate Republican I could see a Republican even a conservative Democrat voting for him. But I feel as Santorum is so far to the right of the moderate Republicans and Catholics to make him not a viable candidate even in Primary season. I don't give him a snowballs chance in a hot oven in the General Election. But we will see. But we shall see.
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 TSS:If you balance this issue versus Mitt Romney among the Catholic voter block, I give the edge to the democrats. Like I said, I'm not even sure they would vote for Santorum. I just know that the Catholic vote HAS predicted the winner for the past 4 decades.
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) blueadept:I'm going to put on my sociology hat now. Catholics form the second largest voting block in this country. I would expect them in the aggregate to have good predictive power. We've only had one Catholic President, so I don't see block voting as such. The LDS are such a small minority of voters I don't see us has having the ability by just numbers to have any real effect. So we must make our arguments of the basis of politics rather than religion.Romney's whole appeal was that he is the only one electable in the General. The question of Romney is; Has he gone so far to the right in search of the nomination in the Primaries that he becomes unelectable in the General? Edited February 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 This issue is just getting started...http://catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=44728Two major Catholic ministries announced that they have - or soon will - file Federal Lawsuits
AddamS Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 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?I personally don't believe the church's opinion on the matter enters into it any more than the church should be able to decide if the insurance they provide will cover what they consider to be misuse of pain medication or asthma inhalers. It seems to me this is a medical decision that should remain between the doctor and patient.I can see how someone would see otherwise.
AddamS Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 "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)Thanks for the clarification!
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 They'll probably loose.http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-scalia-helped-obama-defend-the-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Jaybear Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 They'll probably loose.http://tpmdc.talking...?ref=fpnewsfeedNot probably. They will lose.If the Catholic Church is entitled to a religious exemption from the law applicable to all employers, so would any employer who is Catholic. Not going to happen.
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Jaybear:While I'm a Court watcher there has been enough times that the Court has changed its mind that I can't exclude that possibility.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Oh, I think she and the government both have that right. The church, of course, also has the right to stay out of secular ventures. But the moment that the church involves itself in communities and hires non-member employees in secular positions that are unrelated to the religious nature of the church, they expose themselves to this very thing. A church claiming that they find some action unconscionable doesn't somehow allow it to ignore the legal actions of the government. And I don't believe that churches should be allowed to simply expand what can be considered protected by the separation of church and state in an unlimited fashion.Ben M.So a church caring for the sick is now merely a secular venture unrelated to the religious nature of the church? Far from churches expanding what can be considered protected religious activity, it seems to me that the government is expanding what is to be considered secular. On the other hand, it has been declared that even the display of a memorial cross at the side of a highway or a microscopic cross amid the clutter of the official seal of Los Angeles County (as an historical reference) violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Why is the definition of “religion” so expansive when we are talking about the “establishment of religion” and so restrictive when we are talking about the “free exercise thereof.?”What value is a wall of separation between church and state if the government can move the wall whenever it wants? 4
Libs Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Interesting article out of the Seattle Times over this debate. I think he makes excellent points.Little Late For the Birth Control Debate
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Sleeper Cell:That is an easy one. The government can not promote one religion over another. Catholics have the cross occupied, Protestants have an empty cross, LDS have no cross at all. Which one would you make the government use? Edited February 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Cobalt-70 Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 So it looks like the administration has come up with a compromise now, which I think is pretty brilliant: religious employers do not have to offer plans that cover contraception, but insurance carrier will themselves be required to pay for contraception for employees of such religious institutions. So actually, it's the way it would work anyway, but since the Catholic businesses do not actually have to actively choose a set of plans that pays for contraception, the Catholic church can now pretend that it has washed its hands of the "grave" responsibility of allowing employees of Catholic businesses to make their own healthcare choices.
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) the Catholic church can now pretend that it has washed its hands of the "grave" responsibility of allowing employees of Catholic businesses to make their own healthcare choices.The RCC will be "pretending to wash its hands of this 'grave' responsibility". That's funny :rofl: I suspect that many individual Catholics may be 'washing their hands' though. Edited February 10, 2012 by blueadept
LeSellers Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I thought handwashing was a Muslim rite.Also pagan. At least, Pontius Pilate practiced it.Lehi
frankenstein Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I see no reason why a catholic business should be allowed to thumb his noise at the law, but say a libertarian, who holds his libertarian beliefs as deeply as the Catholic holds Catholic beliefs, is not permitted to thumb his noise at the law.If the Fed uses a definition of religion that includes non-religious entities (Ca. includes non-religious entitites in one of its definitions for relgion), then I could support a "religious" exemption; I do not believe only religious people should be permitted exemptions, but that the exemptions should accomadate all.
Calm Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) 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.From an above post:Couples are councilled to abstain while ABC is in use for therapeutic means.Wouldn't this amount to totally abstinence if a woman had to be on them for many months or even years? Would the same counsel apply in extended or open-ended (not knowing how long it would take) therapeutic treatments?I suspect this kind of stuff is probably handled on a case by case basis, Catholics going to their priest for instruction? Edited February 10, 2012 by calmoriah
krose Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 The fact that several politicians and religious representatives have rejected the president's new plan of shifting birth control coverage to insurance companies, and that they have not eased up on their rhetoric of a "war on religion," tells me this never was about religious freedom, but pure politics.As a supporter of the president's re-election, I'm crossing my fingers and hoping they ride this issue hard, all the way to November.
Calm Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) I personally don't believe the church's opinion on the matter enters into it any more than the church should be able to decide if the insurance they provide will cover what they consider to be misuse of pain medication or asthma inhalers. It seems to me this is a medical decision that should remain between the doctor and patient.I can see how someone would see otherwise.And I see the optional use of birth control is about as much of a medical issue as the use of recreational drugs or alcohol....if all are used for their nonnecessary physical effects on the body.I would make an exception where pregnancy puts the woman at risk for out of the ordinary health issues. Edited February 10, 2012 by calmoriah
AddamS Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) And I see the optional use of birth control is about as much of a medical issue as the use of recreational drugs or alcohol....if all are used for their nonnecessary physical effects on the body.I would make an exception where pregnancy puts the woman at risk for out of the ordinary health issues.There are plenty of non-necessary medications most insurance covers.In a great deal of cases medicines like blood pressure medication and insulin are prescribed when the patient chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle. The wages of their sins of gluttony and sloth are covered by the church's insurance. I just don't see the difference.But again, I can see how someone would. Edited February 10, 2012 by Expositor
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) From an above post:Wouldn't this amount to totally abstinence if a woman had to be on them for many months or even years? Would the same counsel apply in extended or open-ended (not knowing how long it would take) therapeutic treatments?I suspect this kind of stuff is probably handled on a case by case basis, Catholics going to their priest for instruction?ABC is typically an easy option to take care of your examples as shown, but I'm led to believe that there are other medical options to treat the woman's issue so that she can have normal marital relations.A priest will (should) never bend the rules though even on a case by case basis. If ABC is the only possible choice (which would surprise me), I imagine the priest would suggest abstinence. Personally, I would suggest in finding another Catholic doctor. Edited February 10, 2012 by blueadept
blueadept Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I received this email in regards to this issueCatholic Legislative Network [leginfo@cacatholic.org]Public Policy Insights for the Diocese of Fresno - California Catholic ConferenceFebruary 10, 2012, Vol. 5, No. 5 U.S. Bishops Studying White House ‘First Step’ on Religious Liberty The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today modifying his Health & Human Services (HHS) mandate. But the Conference continues to express questions. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB. “The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said. “Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”
Sleeper Cell Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Sleeper Cell:That is an easy one. The government can not promote one religion over another. Catholics have the cross occupied, Protestants have an empty cross, LDS have no cross at all. Which one would you make the government use?As far as I know, neither the RCC or the LDS churches raised any objection to the use of the empty cross as a generic memorial symbol. But let that pass. What about removing the tiny cross from the LA County seal? Since I doubt that one person in a thousand even knew it existed, how could its existence be said to have promoted one religion over another? As I understand it, the cross symbolized the important role the Catholic church played in the early history of California. (Ironically, the seal used the “empty cross” to do so). In my opinion, its removal was far more Orwellian than Jeffersonian.But that was not my original point. Even if such generic uses of the cross were violations of the separation of church and state, they were trivial compared to forcing a church to violate its deeply held religious doctrines -- especially since the state’s secular objectives could have been easily achieved without doing so. One obvious way would be for the government to pay the costs of the objectionable services it mandates, rather than require the RCC to do so. Another solution would be to ask the recipients -- absent financial hardship -- to choose their own insurance plan and pay for it themselves. (They could be given the choice to accept the medical plan provided by the church entity or accept the cash equivalent and buy their own insurance plan to suit themselves).
Recommended Posts