As I was cruising around the blogosphere, I came across this post. I hope to clear up some misunderstandings. I have boldened her words. She deserves to be boldened for she is the Queen of Victoria blogdom.
“Someone somewhere started the rumor that the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 is going to cause Catholics to not be able to be Catholic anymore, and this rumor is being perpetuated by folks at the grassroots level all the way up to some candidates for President of the United States. Some folks are so persistent in this rumor, they are calling it an all-out assault on the Catholic religion! This could not be further from the truth, but it makes for great political stuff, especially when you are not fond of the guy in charge, our President.”
It is not about being Catholic, it is about the State forcing a Catholic institution to buy insurance coverage that it teaches is intrinsically sinful use. Can the State force a Catholic person (me) to buy anything? Yes, it mandates that I must pay for it. How? Well the money comes from somewhere right? The Church doesn’t just print out more like our faithful producing money tree called The Federal Reserve Bank. In effect, I will be paying for insurance coverage (a product) that is sinful for me to use. It would be the equivalent of me being forced by the State to pay for pornography because it helps teens read.
“This rumor has caused folks to scream about their religious freedoms being taken away. I even heard presidential candidate Rick Santorum say that the AHA attacks religious freedom. How? How does the requirement that all insurance companies cover the cost of contraception attack someone’s religious freedom? It doesn’t! But try telling that to the Catholics! They are insistent that it somehow prevents them from being Catholic. I tried and tried over the past few days to get an explanation, but I never could. These folks who are screaming about this are not being prevented from practicing Catholicism, and so their religious rights are not being violated. They are still and will still be free to walk into any Catholic Church and do all things Catholic.”
As noted above, it attacks religious freedom because Catholic institutions are forced to buy a product that Catholics are not morally permitted to use. As Catholics, our Faith is not just Hail Mary’s and Church Sundays. It is also entails the moral life according to natural and divine law. Why should I have to pay for coverage that goes against my Faith?
“All of this nonsense has made me have questions. I’d be happy if anyone could convince me that requiring a Catholic insurance provider to cover the cost of contraception prevents Catholics from being Catholic. Because that is what denial of religious freedom is—not allowing folks to practice their religion. So, I ask you to ponder the items below and help me out here with some discussion—“
Exactly, we cannot practice our Faith because we are forced to provide a product that is immoral. The Catholic religion believes there are some things that are immoral. Denial of religious freedom entails not be able to practice our Faith or being forced to do something against your Faith. Our Faith teaches that certain things are immoral, paying for immoral things is one of them. For example, I am just as guilty for committing abortion if I pay for a person to have one or if I perform the abortion myself.
“1. If a church decides to go into the insurance business, then their religious protections cease as they are now a business, right? So, get out of the insurance business.”
They will probably do so if She is forced into that position. I am already coming up with products that will compete with this mandated coverage. That is besides the point that it is the State telling a private institution how it will perform. Do you think this should be the State’s job?
“2. Requiring an insurance company to pay for contraception will not cause previously faithful Catholics to abandon their religion in favor of contraception use.”
Except for having to pay for a product that goes against their conscience, I would agree. I don’t think anybody is making the argument that this will force me to call myself something different or force me to think a certain way. It is forcing a private organization to buy something it deems immoral. Remember, this mandate is not only contraception, but includes sterilization and abortafacients.
“3. Why are the anti-abortion folks spending their time and effort trying to convince the rest of us that their way is the best way? For everyone, Catholic or not.”
Who is doing this? The bishops have been speaking on this for Catholics with a call to others to understand the problem. Interesting you bring this up because there are actually non-Catholic organizations that are supporting the Church. It is a prime example for other religions though. It is the Church today and yours tomorrow which is the problem with positive law namely that is a power play. It is actually the opposite of what you said. As a non-Catholic EA, you can choose to work for a Catholic institution or not.
“4. Why aren’t the anti-abortion folks concerned with the 97% of sexually active Catholics who use birth control of some kind? I would think this situation would be the priority, wouldn’t you? I mean, if you can’t get your own group to follow the rules, what makes you think you have any right to tell the rest of us how to live? Talk about arrogance and presumption!”
Who is telling you how to live? This present moment with the HHS is about the State telling a private organization that it must offer a product or be penalized. I don’t see what Catholics using contraception has to do with the argument. So what if 99.9% of Catholics don’t follow the Church’s teachings, the Catholic Faith is not a democracy. She simply passes on what has been given to Her. That is not arrogance, rather that is humility, She makes nothing up. The arrogance is that an outsider (the State) uses an internal issue (unfaithful Catholics) to mandate a private institution how it will deal with it.
“5. Why do folks yell ‘separation of church and state’ over the AHA 2010, yet demand a ‘religious right’ to post the Ten Commandments in a courthouse? Do you see where my confusion comes in?”
This is a great question though a red herring. I would simply say, “The Ten Commandments are also natural law.” If the legal law is not based on the natural law, then it is all a power duo and might makes right. What would you rather our legal system base itself on?
“That’s it. These are the things I get confused over. And because folks can only regurgitate talking points, I think others are confused, too.”
With all those you mentioned that are against this mandate, it seems the “others that are confused” are minimal. Seldom has there ever been a single issue that has had the reply of 90% of bishops; this is a prime example of solidarity.
“Since we haven’t seen a whole lot about the other side of this issue, I’ll share this statement from the Obama Campaign.”
The following is a letter that EA quotes. My response is not the bold.
“Friend --
I want to set the record straight on some things the other side's been saying about the Obama administration's decision on contraception.
Tuesday night, after the Florida primary, Newt Gingrich said that President Obama's administration has "declared war on the Catholic church and other religious organizations," and Mitt Romney said the President is forcing "religious organizations to violate their conscience."
Why? Because last month, President Obama and his administration announced the simple decision to protect women's health by making sure all women have free access to contraception. No one will be forced to buy or use it, but for women who use it, it will be available.
No force? So Catholic institutions will be able to opt out of coverage? Inform the USCCB because I think they haven’t seen this part of the mandate (sarcasm).
The attacks just don't hold up.
First things first: There will be an exemption for churches that mainly employ and serve members of their own faith. But to make sure women of all faiths can get the care they need, other religious-based institutions that serve the general public will be included in this new law.
Ahhh, the rub. Yes, see Catholics don’t discriminate. We have an open door policy for those we aid. In fact, a good friend from about 2000 years ago recommended we go out of our way to help those that are different.
It is the “other religious-based” part that is the problem.
There's been a lot of misinformation out there, so I put together 6 things every woman and person of faith should know about this decision:” I am looking forward to hearing this.
“#1 Contraception is important for women's health
Scientists and medical experts agree that contraception is important for women's health. The fundamental belief behind this decision is that women should have access to this care, without having to worry about cost.”
Is contraception medicine? What disease does it prevent when prescribed as such? Next point, so some scientist and medical experts agree, should they decide what a private organization has to buy?
“#2 Churches are exempt from the new rules
Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt. Other religious organizations that serve women regardless of their faith, like hospitals and universities, will have one year to transition to the new rules.”
See, religious institutions. That means hospitals, day cares, food and home shelter, social health centers, pregnancy centers, Mother Teresa nuns in the Bronx, schools, etc. will have a year to transition, read “A year to violate their conscience.”
“#3 Individual religious beliefs will be protected
Just as no woman will be forced to buy or use contraception, these rules will also cover the "conscience clause," meaning no doctor will be forced to prescribe contraception.”
That is good news. I hope it stands.
“#4 More than 75 percent of Catholic women are actually behind this
There's widespread support for covering birth control at no cost: 71 percent of Americans, and 77 percent of Catholic women, support it. And 98 percent of Catholic women have reported using contraception.”
The problem is that those 75% of Catholics aren’t the owners of these places. The Catholic Church is. There might be 99.999999% of Catholics, it matters little for the Church is not a democracy.
“#5 This will reduce employer costs
The National Business Group found that employers would pay 15-17 percent more not to provide contraception coverage.”
The Church is also not in the business of saving every penny so that She can violate Her conscience.
“#6 The President stands with the faith-based community
These new rules are consistent with the President's commitment to religious liberty. The President is proud of his administration's partnerships and strong support of faith-based organizations.”
Really? Many of the Catholic big names that supported Obamacare are now against this HHS mandate.
“Read more about each here -- then help spread the word: http://my.barackobama.com/Contraception-and-Faith
Thanks, Stephanie Cutter Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America
There, you have it virtually straight from the horses’ mouth.
So, until next time, Edith Ann
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”--Thomas Jefferson”
But it does injury to your neighbor when the State forces a person or organization to provide a good or service that a formed moral conscience cannot accept.
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
33 Comments
- •
-
Flag
-
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Close
-
- •
Follow Jared
Comments
There is no answer to this situation because there is no middle ground as such. Therefore why continue to beat a dead/dying horse. I don't think either side will convince the other of anything other than if the numbers are correct there are very few "true" American Catholics who strictly follow the Vatican line.
February 8, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.Patrick Barnes
Is sex "without the procreative natural ends desired" a sin?
February 8, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.I saw on tv yesterday that they are trying to come up with a workable solution to this. Maybe a rider that the women would have to pay for themselves, or something to that nature.
February 8, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.It will get resolved.
holein1, and that is more than likely what will happen if forced.
February 8, 2012 at 9:09 a.m."On the other hand, the same woman goes to the same doctor at another time and wants to take the bc pills to keep from getting pregnant. How does anyone know what it is being used for except the doctor and the woman, since no one is permitted to look at personal files?"
That is a good question. Others must know what it is prescribed for like pharmacy and I assume the insurance company would be informed. The doctor could lie I presume, but that would not be good because his reasoning for doing would be on record and could cause problems elsewhere.
"Are you saying that it is OK to open those records to "check" to see what the medicine was used for by a third and fourth party?"
I don't if having a medical record investigator would be the best route to take. So my answer is "No."
"Do you disallow the use of all contraceptive medicines/devices for any reason, or do you let a doctor decide the best treatment for his patient?"
Treatment is different than contraception isn't it? Treatment is to cure a disease. Contraception is for license to have intercourse without the procreative natural ends desired. Children are not a disease. However, if a doctor thinks a medication can cure a disease and this med so happens to cause in a secondary effect a temporary/permanent infertility, the doctor would have to weigh the action. It could possibly be justified in those cases when it is necessary to cure an illness and this cure outweighs the harm of the effects of the medication.
"When, in your opinion, is it ok to question a doctor's medical expertise?
I just cannot see where it's ok on one hand, and not allowed on another hand."
I question a doc regularly until I trust them. We all do this and call it "Second opinions." That means the first also an opinion right?
February 8, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.When did the Catholic Church expand the business of saving souls to include insurance? Seems like a highly profitable/questionable business for a tax-exempt entity to be involved in. Considering some of the things insurance companies do to their policy holders, I would think that the church would try to distance themselves from those kind of people.
Here's a thought, if the rules change and you don't like them or are forced to do something you don't agree with, then get out of the game.
February 8, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.Sorry Jared, I missed your request to restate the question.
One woman is having physical troubles that require her taking the hormones that are in bc pills to straighten out her system or treat whever ailment she has. I think what you said is that would be perfectly allowable because it wasn't being prescribed to stop/end a pregnancy, right?
February 7, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.On the other hand, the same woman goes to the same doctor at another time and wants to take the bc pills to keep from getting pregnant. How does anyone know what it is being used for except the doctor and the woman, since no one is permitted to look at personal files? Are you saying that it is OK to open those records to "check" to see what the medicine was used for by a third and fourth party?
Do you disallow the use of all contraceptive medicines/devices for any reason, or do you let a doctor decide the best treatment for his patient? When, in your opinion, is it ok to question a doctor's medical expertise?
I just cannot see where it's ok on one hand, and not allowed on another hand.
Kyle, Except for those things for the common good, I stand next to you in solidarity.
rollinstone, my name would be right after yours.
February 7, 2012 at 5:50 p.m.Kyle, I think you may have hit on something there, where can I sign up?
February 7, 2012 at 5:32 p.m.If my religious belief was not to pay taxes, would I be justified in feeling irate that I pay taxes?
February 7, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.Another caveat – what if I as a small business owner have religious beliefs that financing birth control, etc. is not right – I don’t want to do it. I receive no government support – but now I am mandated to have my health insurance that I provide my employees pay for something which I strongly oppose.
So does the government now have the right to force me to go against my religious belief? Isn’t the government now dictating what my belief will be?
February 7, 2012 at 4:13 p.m.Excellent post, Jared. Good discussion of the issues and point-by-point rebuttal.
February 7, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.Hey, this is all my opinion. I don't have all the answers, but if the Church accepts public finds of any kind, it makes it more public, then Catholic. If the Catholic Church, or any other Church, wants to make it's own rules, then it must not take public funds, which are being paid by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
February 7, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.If they want it entirely their way, they foot the entire bill entirely.
Good point about the public aspect, Born.
However, the line "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof" from the 1st Amendment comes into play.
When the Church is providing a public good, primarly from its own pockets, I think that in our country historically church and state been able to work together with minimal regulation- i.e. religious schools.
This, IMHO, is going too far.
Jared, thanks for your hospitality. I don't care to monopolize the conversation. Hasta luego.
February 7, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.Born if the Catholic church did not hire people because they were not Catholic...wouldn't they then be in violation of many Employment laws? Your alternative bites many other federal mandates, thus the catch-22. My argument would be King Obama wants it both ways. He wants the seperationist of church from the State but not the State from the church. Which is not founders intent.
February 7, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.I understand what you are saying, but what you are saying is that the US government shouldn't have a say in "public" things, where there is separation of Church and State.
February 7, 2012 at 2:20 p.m.The Catholic Church, or any other Church, cannot have it both ways when what they offer is for the "Public's" good.
I think it will go to the courts, and it should. Rules have to be created for things like this.
Born, I respect your personal opinion, but for this to happen, "They don't hire anyone that is not Catholic, do not treat anyone that isn't Catholic.." the religious rights of Catholics guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause would be severely restricted. It's Christian belief that we treat all, not just those of our own faith. Also, the Church does hire those of other faiths for various reasons.
For a requirement to be placed that we would be exempt from the mandate because we hired only Catholics, that would be tantamount to the state forcing the Church to employ only certain people. The state should not be picking church employees or severely restricing the pool. Again, religious freedom comes into play here.
Besides, public funding is a not an issue here, as any religious affiliated employer is under the mandate if they receive public funds or not.
I really believe this will end up in court if the administration doesn't see what's happening and modify its position soon.
February 7, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.An exceptional post Jared! Thank you!
February 7, 2012 at 2:05 p.m.Well Jared all I can tell you is this.... Didn't Read!
February 7, 2012 at 1:51 p.m.LOL I'm not even sure what you just asked me.
February 7, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.My personal opinion is that if a Catholic institution wants to be exempt from public rules, they need to be "strictly Catholic" in every way. They don't hire anyone that is not Catholic, do not treat anyone that isn't Catholic and do not in any way accept public money of any kind, whether it be tax breaks, incentives, or anything that is construed at public support.
Would you consider that all public/private institutions or private employers that don't utilize public funds directly should have full conscience rights concerning contraception and sterilization?
February 7, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.I think it's more about the description of "public". The public is protected under government regulations/rules.
February 7, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.Now if these institutions decided to ban the public from all services, employment, etc., and make it strictly Catholic in every sense of the word, then the case would be a little stronger.
Born, if an employer receives taxpayer money or not, he will still be required to subsidize the abortifacient birth control and sterilizations. So a religious affiliated employer of say, a college, that receives no federal or state $$ will come under that mandate as well as the one which does take public money.
Shouldn't these guys get a "choice" on the matter? ;-}
February 7, 2012 at 12:58 p.m."Nonsense" ? Let it be proclaimed across the land.....by who?
February 7, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.Kyle, I love when you quote Scripture! I woud be using the typical 10 Commandments and the typical natural law. I would reference former atheist and University of Texas political philosopher J. Budziszewski, http://www.amazon.com/What-We-Cant-No...
UT bio:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/gove...
"So, where does a woman's right to have a medication to help with medical problems other than bc, separate from the same medicine that prevents pregnancies? Is the Catholic Church going to get between the doctor and patient in one case and not the other? Is it ethical to get in the doctor's business at all?"
I don't understand your question. Can you re-word it? I think you are asking how a doctor would prescribe a medication that normally is b.c. In that case, he would do as normal, write a prescription. Just like if he were operating on me, I lost my legs and in the process he had to remove my reproductive organs and my sterilization becomes a secondary unintended consequence. Let me know if I answered what you were asking.
"And tell me another thing, because I truly do not know the answer to this. Are these places supported by the government in any way? Either through tax exemptions, tax breaks, or any other kind of public funding?" I really don't know. I suspect they would get the same as any non-profit. What were you thinking about in relation to this?
February 7, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.So, where does a woman's right to have a medication to help with medical problems other than bc, separate from the same medicine that prevents pregnancies? Is the Catholic Church going to get between the doctor and patient in one case and not the other? Is it ethical to get in the doctor's business at all?
And tell me another thing, because I truly do not know the answer to this. Are these places supported by the government in any way? Either through tax exemptions, tax breaks, or any other kind of public funding?
February 7, 2012 at 12:23 p.m."“The Ten Commandments are also natural law.”
Which version of the commandments and which interpretation of natural law? And, do these really sound like natural law:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Nonsense.
February 7, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.born2bme, yes, I am aware. If the bith control pill is prescribed for a real illness, it seizes to be birth control and becomes a medication with a secondary side effect.
rollinstone, and so says Bastiat as I am reading and only a 9 pages in.
February 7, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.This is what socialism does, it interferes with everyone's rights sooner or later. Everyone must be equal (except for the politically connected of course) and there is no way to do that without some coercion by the state. Ahh yes listen, and you will hear that faint staccato rhythm of hob nail boots - just four more years.
February 7, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.Jared, I understand your position on this, but just letting you know there are other medical reasons that contraceptives are perscribed, other than birth control.
February 7, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.Great response, Jared.
February 7, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.Amen! Thank you brother.
February 7, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.Archdiocese of Boston and HHS mandate, as I mentioned in the post, is considering cancelling employee healthcare: http://radioboston.wbur.org/2012/02/0...
February 7, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.