RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Edwynn -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 8:02:57 PM)


That was a great article dc.

And it is obvious that the flock decided in this era that waiting on the Vatican was an exercise in futility and proceeded on their own in this matter thenceforth.





dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 9:18:13 PM)

quote:

if the Catholic church had its way, everyone would be Catholic


That is certainly true! This is, after all, the institution that gave us the inquisition and which prayed every Good Friday, till John XXIII intervened, for "the faithless Jews." Against that backdrop, I beg forgiveness if I'm a little slow to embrace the Catholic hierarchy as champions of religious freedom.



dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 9:28:42 PM)

quote:

If there's a Glatt Kosher deli that actually hires a non-Jew (Because of working with food, they're allowed to exclude non-Jews from employment, I think), should the deli be forced - by law to provide ham sandwiches every Wed. for those employees that want them? Of course not! Jewish people think eating pork is a sin. Why can't we respect their wishes? When I go to a Jewish person's house, I eat off a paper plate and plastic utensils. I do so without complaint.


I'm having trouble with that analogy, Michael. Two reasons:

(a) Fond as I am of ham sandwiches, I don't see them as medicinal. Birth control, in contrast, is often prescribed for various medical reasons, and I would also argue that being able to number and space one's pregnancies has health impacts both physical and mental.

(b) I'm not sure that Jews see their law as binding for non-Jews. So they might not view the ham sandwich as a sin at all. Think, after all, of the custom of the Shabbos goy, a friend or neighbor who helpfully turns on lights and TVs when observant Jews can't do so themselves.

Perhaps a better analogy would be a Southern Baptist church that considered AIDS a punishment from God (it happens) and thus sought an exemption from paying for HIV drugs or Jehovah's Witnesses who balked at paying for blood transfusions.






dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 10:11:51 PM)

quote:

It's really funny, to me, that people talk about tolerance and love your enemy and free speech. There appear to be caveats to those:

1) I believe in tolerance and I'll start being tolerent to them, when they start being tolerent to me. Impasse. Helps no one.
2) I'll love them, when they start loving me. The only kind of true love of which I'm aware is unconditional love. Spread it around. It'll come back to you.
3) I support free speech, as long as you agree with what I say so you don't "offend" me.


Fair point. I always say, "Free speech doesn't get interesting till somebody disagrees." And not for a minute have I denied the bishops their right to speak out about the issue. I'm simply exercising my own right to do so as well.

quote:


Ever since birth control has been on the radar, the church has been against it. It is doctrine of the faith.


My prep-seminary days are long past, so my sense of these things is rusty. But I'm pretty sure the proscription of birth control is a moral teaching rather than a full-fledged doctrine. It doesn't appear to have made it into Paul VI's Credo of the People of God, a lengthy summary of Catholic belief.

When the pill came out, John XXIII formed a pontifical commission to explore the ethical issues of contraception. His successor, Paul VI, greatly expanded the group. The majority report of the commission, supported by all but a handful of members, said that birth control was not intrinsically evil and recommended that Catholics be allowed to use it. In response, a minority report argued, among other things, that changing the teaching would be tantamount to admitting that the Protestants had been right on the issue! Paul VI ultimately chose to discard the majority report and reaffirm the ban on contraception.

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/new-birth-control-commission-papers-reveal-vaticans-hand



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 11:15:58 PM)

The Catholic Church ceased to occupy the moral high ground when they not only protected child molesters, but then took advantage of the bankruptcy laws so individual dioceses would not have to pay the judgments owed to their victims. Now they don't want to be subject to the laws that govern secular organizations? Kind of a one way street in my opinion. Take advantage of the laws that work in their favor and then scream bloody murder about laws that interfere with their "religious beliefs."



DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 11:50:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
I'm having trouble with that analogy, Michael. Two reasons:

(a) Fond as I am of ham sandwiches, I don't see them as medicinal. Birth control, in contrast, is often prescribed for various medical reasons, and I would also argue that being able to number and space one's pregnancies has health impacts both physical and mental.

(b) I'm not sure that Jews see their law as binding for non-Jews. So they might not view the ham sandwich as a sin at all. Think, after all, of the custom of the Shabbos goy, a friend or neighbor who helpfully turns on lights and TVs when observant Jews can't do so themselves.

Perhaps a better analogy would be a Southern Baptist church that considered AIDS a punishment from God (it happens) and thus sought an exemption from paying for HIV drugs or Jehovah's Witnesses who balked at paying for blood transfusions.



It doesn't have to be a medicine. It's something that makes your life enjoyable/pleasurable/easier (BC pills for BC purposes is not, technically, a "medicine") and it doesn't matter if they think it's sinful for others to eat it¹, they damn-sure would rather not have it in their restaurant. You can choose to identify or compare.

From Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae²:

quote:



Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.



It looks like it condemns birth control to me. "... human and Christian doctrine ..." and "Equally to be condemned ..."

¹I looked it up and serving pork is not specificly mentioned in the Talmud but there is a rabbinical exortation to not benefit from meat cooked in milk. They do go on to mention that most Jews who "keep Kosher" would not work in a restaurant that serves non-Kosher food (just to be on the safe side). So, I'm guessing if they own the restaurant ham wouldn't be a first choice.

²For the modern Catholic Church a Papal encyclical, in the strictest sense, is a letter, usually treating some aspect of Catholic doctrine, sent by the Pope and addressed either to the Catholic bishops of a particular area or, more normally, to the bishops of the world



Peace and comfort,



Michael



tazzygirl -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 12:13:26 AM)

quote:

(BC pills for BC purposes is not, technically, a "medicine")


Then what is it? Because as far as physicians, the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, along with the law, its considered a medicine

medicine /med·i·cine/ (med´ĭ-sin)
1. any drug or remedy.
2. the diagnosis and treatment of disease and the maintenance of health.
3. the treatment of disease by nonsurgical means.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medicine

Even tylenol is a medicine



searching4mysir -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 3:33:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr



ETA: I need to add something here. While I am for abortion remaining legal. I hate it and I think it's an American tragedy. One of the reasons I have always been pro (that's pronounced: heartily endorse) birth control is because I think that it must reduce the number of abortions.



If you actually look at the numbers, though, that doesn't come to fruition. As the use of birth control rose, so did abortions.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 3:51:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr



ETA: I need to add something here. While I am for abortion remaining legal. I hate it and I think it's an American tragedy. One of the reasons I have always been pro (that's pronounced: heartily endorse) birth control is because I think that it must reduce the number of abortions.



If you actually look at the numbers, though, that doesn't come to fruition. As the use of birth control rose, so did abortions.


I'm still sure that of all the pregnancies the pill prevents, some of them would have been abortions. I think that's a fair assumption. Someone posted some numbers on one of these threads; 22% of all pregnancies in this country, are aborted (non-spontaneous).

I don't know how many ladies take the pill for birth control reasons but, let's say it's only 100,000. I think we can assume that since they're on the pill, they don't want children. If those 100,000 ladies conceived, by the numbers, we'd have 22,000 more abortions.

AGI (Gutmacher Institute) Stats

quote:



Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]





Peace and comfort,



Michael



Lucylastic -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 4:22:01 AM)

The United States rate of unintended pregnancies is higher than the world average, and much higher than that in other industrialized nations. Almost half (49%) of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, more than 3 million unintended pregnancies per year. Over 92% of abortions are the result of unintended pregnancy, unintended pregnancies result in about 1.3 million abortions/year. The rate of abortions is high in the United States than in other developed countries because of the higher rate of unintended pregnancies in the US. In 2001, 44% of unintended pregnancies resulted in births, and 42% resulted in induced abortion and the rest in miscarriage.It is estimated that more than half of US women have had an unintended pregnancy by age 45.
So... its 42% of 49% ...
wikipedia is the source with the following sources for figures and more info

http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(08)00410-1/abstract
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/unintended-pregnancy.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/archive/Sharing-Responsibility.pdf
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html



Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 5:23:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

One of the reasons I have always been pro (that's pronounced: heartily endorse) birth control is because I think that it must reduce the number of abortions.



And for the record, I'm also very pro-birth control. I'm just also equally for giving the choice whether or not it should be covered when not used to treat medical conditions, and ideally for the consumers being able to have the choice of what services they are willing to pay for.



farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 5:50:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

To be fair, fighting against the HHS mandate isn't about trying to control reproductive lives.

It's about not wanting to pay for it.


But isn't that rooted in their belief that contraceptives are wrong and that no one should use them?

Also I don't like paying, through revenue loss by tax exemption of churches, for antigay advocacy, but I deal with it.


No. It's rooted in a serious lack of education into how finance, the economy, capitalism, insurance, and privacy work.

1) Insurance Companies (INSURER) contracts with the INSURED to provide benefits in exchange for premiums paid. This contract MUST adhere to all requirements of the law and of insurance company regulators at all levels.

2) Insurance Companies deposit the checks into their income fund. At this moment, the FUNGIBLE ASSETS are indistinguishable from any of the other dollars in their bank account.

3) When a claim is presented by the INSURED, the INSURER pays the claim according to their contract terms. Since it's fungible, there's no way to tell one dollar from the other. THAT ASIDE, it overlooks the entire purpose of RUNNING an insurer. To take the premium dollars collected in your income account, and INVEST THEM to obtain investment income.

NOTE: The insureds are actually secondary to the process. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of running an insurance company is to make investment income from other people's money. If your UNDERWRITERS are worth what you're paying them, then you'll be able to pay off claims from the premiums collected. Those are fungible assets. If your underwriters suck, then you need to dip into your investment income (also fungible). If your underwriters REALLY SUCK, then you need to his your actual mandated reserves (and again, fungible) -- but at that point, you've already lost the game, suck as a Capitalist, and should just hang it up and go home.

So. Given this overview about the financial management of insurance companies ( 10 years experience! ), exactly where is it that YOUR money is involved?

Do you, like the communists, think that you "own" the means of production? ( in the case of an insurer, that would be their bank account, which as we've seen is used for investment primarily... )



dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:03:12 AM)

<fr>

So let's say, for purposes of discussion, a "conscience exemption" is indeed created. How would it work with other denominations? I'm particularly curious about the two examples I raised above:

(a) Would a congregation that professed that AIDS was a punishment from God be exempt from paying for HIV drugs?

(b) Would Jehovah's Witnesses be exempt from covering blood transfusions, even for non-JW employees?



farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:07:02 AM)

quote:

(b) Would Jehovah's Witnesses be exempt from covering blood transfusions, even for non-JW employees?


See how absurd it is when you pretend that the contract isn't between the insured and insurer, and that the SPONSORING GROUP has some sort of say in anything beyond:

1) calling up the insurer and saying "we have 250 employees and would like quotes",

2) passing the packets to the employees,

3) collecting the signed forms on behalf of the insurer, ( sometimes, many insurers just put in a sase for return directly )

and finally (4) forwarding the pre-tax deductions on behalf of the insured.

I'm always dumbstruck when people suggest that there's any reason to violate the privacy of a patient, their doctor and their insurer.



slvemike4u -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:09:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I know we've done this issue to death, but I ran into a devout Catholic friend tonight, and she was haranguing me about the Obama Administration's "war on religion." Exhibit A, of course, was the new HHS mandate to pay for contraceptives.

After we parted ways, I put my finger on something that's been bugging me throughout the whole fracas, and that's the role of the Catholic bishops in leading the charge. I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives.

It doesn't help, of course, that the institution in question also has a history of sheltering child molesters, so its "moral leadership" is a bit tarnished in my eyes.

This make sense to anyone else?

Yes......good lord almighty yes



slvemike4u -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:10:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I find myself thinking it's a bit, well, creepy for an all-male, all-unmarried elite to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives.


To be fair, fighting against the HHS mandate isn't about trying to control reproductive lives.

It's about not wanting to pay for it.

Bullshit,the "objection is rooted in their moral beliefs,it is not rooted or based on the finances of the matter.
So,no,that wouldn't in the least"be fair",not at all.



Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:16:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Bullshit,the "objection is rooted in their moral beliefs,it is not rooted or based on the finances of the matter.



That isn't in any way mutually exclusive from what I said. You can not want to pay for something for a moral instead of a financial reason.



slvemike4u -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:21:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

The Catholic Church ceased to occupy the moral high ground when they not only protected child molesters, but then took advantage of the bankruptcy laws so individual dioceses would not have to pay the judgments owed to their victims. Now they don't want to be subject to the laws that govern secular organizations? Kind of a one way street in my opinion. Take advantage of the laws that work in their favor and then scream bloody murder about laws that interfere with their "religious beliefs."

This...QFT and the only reason I will ever need to justify my stance where my church is concerned.



aminal -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:48:13 AM)

When people have kids that they don't want, aren't ready for, or aren't willing or able to support financially, then it's wider society that picks up the tab.

Orphanages, adoption agencies, kids needing special schooling because their parents aren't bothered or are too busy working multiple jobs to be involved, absentee parents, kids dropping out of the educational system or feeling that they don't owe society anything, delinquency, crime (a significant proportion of prison inmates have poor literacy and poor job opportunities outside crime), policing costs, prison costs ... if we're arguing about our right not to pay for other people's decisions in the form of taxation, then perhaps subsidising contraception or planned parenthood for those who want it is the lower cost option.




slvemike4u -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/17/2012 6:54:09 AM)

Please do not try to inject common sense into a discussion about church policy.
It simply confuses the matter and infuriates the true believer, [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875