Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (Full Version)

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



Message


dcnovice -> Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 6:11:37 PM)

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?




Lucylastic -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 6:17:45 PM)

Your opinion does:)
nothing else about it does tho




Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 6:21:13 PM)


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.




dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 6:34:17 PM)

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.




Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 6:42:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

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



Different issue. I was referring to the fight against this one mandate. I see no requests to ban the contraceptives in this fight; just that they shouldn't have to pay for them.




dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 6:49:54 PM)

Well, why don't they want to pay for them?




Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 6:53:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Well, why don't they want to pay for them?


Because they don't want to pay for something against their religious beliefs.

This is not the same thing as trying to enforce it on people not of their religion.




tazzygirl -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:05:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Well, why don't they want to pay for them?


Because they don't want to pay for something against their religious beliefs.

This is not the same thing as trying to enforce it on people not of their religion.


They arent paying for it... the insurance companies are.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:08:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Well, why don't they want to pay for them?


Wait a minute. "Tax exempt" is not the same as you, paying for it. That's just not fair. In fact, that's weak.

True, they don't pay taxes. You're right but, the money that they collect goes to humanitarian efforts, schooling, soup kitchens, all kinds of other things besides an anti-gay rights crusade (By the way, in view of the 14th amendment, could I start calling it gay-equality without being offensive?)

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.

Ever since birth control has been on the radar, the church has been against it. It is doctrine of the faith. They are asking that the beliefs of others don't get shoved down their throat.

They're not even asking to be able to fire any employees that use birth control. They just don't want to be an enabler.

I've made the analogy, before; I think street drugs should legal. I don't care what you put into your body. Why would you come knocking on my door and ask me to go buy you some drugs? Why would you come to my door and ask me to give you a ride to go "cop"?

Technically, the church wouldn't (*usually) even be paying for the birth control (although some med plans are partially paid for by the employer. Not so much, now-a-days) but they are being asked to be a conduit through which sin (in their mind) would flow.



Peace and comfort,



Michael




dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:10:29 PM)

quote:

Because they don't want to pay for something against their religious beliefs.


Specifically, the belief that contraception is wrong, no?

quote:

This is not the same thing as trying to enforce it on people not of their religion.


True. But non-Catholic employees, and there are more than a few, at hospitals and universities would, if the Catholic Church had its way, be deprived of benefits other Americans received because we privileged the employer's "religious freedom" over the employees'.




tazzygirl -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:15:29 PM)

Which is all to say that when President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius issued preliminary statements on how the contraception mandate would be applied to religiously-based institutions like hospitals and universities with a primarily public purpose, the Republican Party pounced on the situation with the hopes of exploiting it for political gain.

Never mind that 28 states had already instituted similar regulations with no fanfare or uproar from religious conservatives. This was different.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/yes-there-is-republican-war-on-women-voters/#ixzz1pKttpyEe

(borrowed from Lucy's link on another thread)




Edwynn -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:16:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Well, why don't they want to pay for them?

Because they don't want to pay for something against their religious beliefs.



Doesn't matter. Asking for permission of a religious group to enact a law or regulation is in violation of the first item in the first amendment "regarding the establishment of religion," and no, the "free expression thereof" does not negate the first item else it thus would have been stated explicitly. "Free expression" means being able to go to whatever church you wish and read from whatever prayer book you want, neither to be determined by the state. It does not mean expression of faith by way of interfering with the law making process any more than it would mean interfering with or breaking the law.






DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:23:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

True. But non-Catholic employees, and there are more than a few, at hospitals and universities would, if the Catholic Church had its way, be deprived of benefits other Americans received because we privileged the employer's "religious freedom" over the employees'.


No. if the Catholic church had its way, everyone would be Catholic and be in a constant state of grace.

The Catholic church has already made the concession that they must hire "sinners" (in that; they have to not turn potential employees away based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof). They've done that. But, a little bit at a time, the people (with the help of the government) have come back wanting them to weaken their stances on what they consider to be the path to hell.

I understand that there is animous toward the church because of some of their beliefs. I have no use for the Masons. You don't see me, picketing the Shriner's Hospital. The building does good works.

Where's the "tolerence" that so many expect but seem un-willing to give?

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.

When I enter a hindi's house, I leave my (leather) shoes outside. It's respect. It's tolerence. It's live-and-let-live.



Peace and comfort,



Michael




searching4mysir -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:24:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Well, why don't they want to pay for them?


Because they don't want to pay for something against their religious beliefs.

This is not the same thing as trying to enforce it on people not of their religion.


They arent paying for it... the insurance companies are.



Many churches and Catholic organizations are self-insured.




dcnovice -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:37:11 PM)

An interesting perspective from a member of the pontifical commission on birth control, which recommended to Pope Paul VI that the church revise its teaching:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n8_v30/ai_14682970/




DaddySatyr -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:39:30 PM)

Yes, everything changed after VII. That was also the church "acquiescing". The current Pope has mentioned that he would like to see some of the damage done to Catholicism by VII be reversed.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

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.

I think the church's stance on birth control is ridiculous but, I'm not a Catholic and it's their church. Let them do as they please.




tazzygirl -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:41:10 PM)

quote:

Many churches and Catholic organizations are self-insured.



From my understanding, this involves universities and hospitals and the like, not churches.

Many states have required the coverage for a number of years.. and we never heard a fuss.

HIGHLIGHTS:
 28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDAapproved contraceptive drugs and devices; 17 of these states also require coverage of related outpatient
services.

 2 states exclude emergency contraception from the required coverage.

 1 state excludes minor dependents from coverage.

 20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate. 8 states have no such
provision that permits refusal by some employers or insurers.

 4 states include a “limited” refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to
provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so.

 7 states include a “broader” refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously
affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to
refuse, but not hospitals.

 8 states include an “expansive” refusal clause that allows religious organizations, including at least
some hospitals, to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with
moral or religious objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows
religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states exempt insurers in addition to employers.)

 14 of the 20 states with exemptions require employees to be notified when their health plan does not
cover contraceptives.

 4 states attempt to provide access for employees when their employer refuses to offer contraceptive
coverage, generally by allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own, but at the group rate.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

While churches are exempt, hospitals and schools with religious affiliations must comply. The new policy goes into effect on August 1, but religious groups will have a year-long extension to enforce the rule.

Catholics, whose teaching opposes abortion and the use of contraceptives, have especially railed against the plan.

Several Catholic clergy members have denounced the policy from the pulpit, while on the campaign trail, Newt Gingrich used it as a heavy attack line against President Barack Obama, saying the president has “declared war on religious freedom.”

But O’Malley, who identified himself as a Catholic, noted Sunday that 28 states already enforce such a policy.

“This is not about abortion, it's about covering contraception as part of the health care coverage - mandatory basic coverage,” O’Malley told CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley.

He noted some European states with high Catholic populations have also mandated the coverage.

“These same rules apply in countries like Italy, which have overwhelming numbers of Catholics, and yet we did not see the reaction in those countries to these sorts of things,” he said.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/05/omalley-too-much-hyperventilating-over-contraception-controversy/




Edwynn -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:45:52 PM)


Vatican II, you mean?

PS edit

Ah, I see now. The no space between the V and II made it read like VII- i.e. 7.







Raiikun -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:48:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Because they don't want to pay for something against their religious beliefs.




Doesn't matter.



Which again, is a different issue (and already addressed by others quite well here). My issue was in characterizing not wanting to pay for them as "to be so hellbent on controlling other people's reproductive lives."




Edwynn -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/16/2012 7:51:23 PM)


It may well be a different issue, but was a direct response germane to the quoted statement.

But in any case it is inescapable that the Bishops have objections that are beyond secular, technical matters of coverage aside. Were it a matter of perceived fairness to employers and nothing else, there would be no need for the Bishops' input at all.





Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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