quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

<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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I gave a really good analogy on one of the threads:
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I gave a really good analogy on one of the threads:
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.

To be quite fair, I don't think a Kosher deli would be able to call itself a Kosher if it served a ham sandwich. The Maneschevitz wine company in upstate NY has a separate building on the grounds of another winery (can't recall exactly which...Bully Hill, Taylor, something). They do not use the same trailers as the other company, and they do not allow visitors into the actual winery area. The off-chance that a trailer has had any pork product in it, or that a visitor has eaten a pork product that day is why they do that. If either of those things were to occur, they would lose their kosher status. There is always at least one rabbi on the grounds 24/7.

After going on a tour of both wineries there, I do believe that a ham sandwich in a deli would disqualify that deli from being able to be certified kosher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
The rights of conscience of particular Catholics, and of the Catholic Church collectively to believe and worship as it wishes, should not extend to a right to encumber the free exercise of conscience of everyone who they employ for non-religious functions.

I don't believe it does encumber the free exercise of conscience of anyone. Their right to obtain contraceptives would not be tread upon, nor their right to choose a provider that covers the contraceptives if they want it covered rather than paying the 15-50 dollars themselves.

quote:

Meaning that a law, mandating serving of a ham sandwich would violate their religious freedoms. No?

quote:

In other words: HIV drugs are "life saving" well ... well, life lengthening/saving, if you will and blood transfusions are life saving. BC pills for BC purposes are neither. BC pills for other purposes are required to be covered .

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I gave a really good analogy on one of the threads:
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.

To be quite fair, I don't think a Kosher deli would be able to call itself a Kosher if it served a ham sandwich. The Maneschevitz wine company in upstate NY has a separate building on the grounds of another winery (can't recall exactly which...Bully Hill, Taylor, something). They do not use the same trailers as the other company, and they do not allow visitors into the actual winery area. The off-chance that a trailer has had any pork product in it, or that a visitor has eaten a pork product that day is why they do that. If either of those things were to occur, they would lose their kosher status. There is always at least one rabbi on the grounds 24/7.

After going on a tour of both wineries there, I do believe that a ham sandwich in a deli would disqualify that deli from being able to be certified kosher.

Meaning that a law, mandating serving of a ham sandwich would violate their religious freedoms. No?



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

In other words: HIV drugs are "life saving" well ... well, life lengthening/saving, if you will and blood transfusions are life saving. BC pills for BC purposes are neither. BC pills for other purposes are required to be covered .

quote:

If you looked at my excerpt from Paul VI; you will note that even abortion is only condemned when it is for the purpose of birth control. Read it carefully.

quote:

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and of the child.

It is one of the finest and most noble aspirations of the medical profession to search continually for new means of ensuring the life of both mother and child. But if, notwithstanding all the progress of science, there still remain, and will remain in the future, cases in which one must reckon with the death of the mother, when the mother wills to bring to birth the life that is within her and not destroy it in violation of the command of God - Thou shalt not kill - nothing else remains for the man, who will make every effort till the very last moment to help and save, but to bow respectfully before the laws of nature and the dispositions of divine Providence." Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951. (15)

Source: Catholic Apologetics

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I read the passage again, twice, and the key words seem to be these: "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" (emphasis mine).

What Paul seems to be saying, in his ornate, Latinate way, is that any abortion, even a therapeutic one, is excluded from the (short) list of "lawful means of regulating the number of children." In other words, abortion is absolutely forbidden.

quote:



"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"

quote:

Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

Emphasis mine. Source: Catholic Answers

quote:

JP II wasn't a pope (as far as I was concerned, back then) because he allowed the heretical teachings of V II to continue.

quote:

I am telling you, when I was in tears with my priest, heart-broken at the possibility of my (then) wife dying or condemning us both to hell, he almost smacked me in the head for mis-understanding church teaching.

quote:

There's an earlier encyclical (although it may have been a bull) from the 20s that puts forth that a mother's life shall not be endangered with any certainty that removing the fetus would save her life. I'm paraphrasing, obviously.

quote:

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and of the child.

It is one of the finest and most noble aspirations of the medical profession to search continually for new means of ensuring the life of both mother and child. But if, notwithstanding all the progress of science, there still remain, and will remain in the future, cases in which one must reckon with the death of the mother, when the mother wills to bring to birth the life that is within her and not destroy it in violation of the command of God - Thou shalt not kill - nothing else remains for the man, who will make every effort till the very last moment to help and save, but to bow respectfully before the laws of nature and the dispositions of divine Providence." Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951. (15)

Source: Catholic Apologetics