VIAGRA YES, CONTRACEPTION NO! So says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (huh! I wonder why a bunch of old, mostly white men, who have no use for a V@gina, are OK with Keeping a Penis Hard, but unconcerned with women's health?)
According to Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and reported to NPR: "Procreation is something the Catholic church encourages. And Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs can be of help."
That would seem to eliminate any Viagra coverage for a man who is single... or a man who is not with a woman of child bearing age, or a man who... well, just wants to have fun!
Doing Gods Work now entails getting a penis hard, then insuring that any available V@gina it finds is fertile and able to procreate! (I won't even go into the facts of those Holy Viagra Laden penises that are penetrating young altar boys)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
First, it is not challenging the bishop nor the Catholic hierarchy's right to teach that artificial contraception is morally impermissible in marriage. Many faithful Catholic theologians, both before and especially since the promulgation of the encyclical "Humanae VItae" (196, have presented well reasoned refutations regarding its morality, but this is an entirely different debate.
Secondly, this is not a challenge based on the history of Church approved contraception. The Vatican has permitted the use of artificial contraception when there was a danger of pregnancy through rape. In 1963, it was permitted for nuns to use diaphragms and pessaries during the civil war in the Congo and again in Bosnia in 1990 because in those circumstances, intercourse would be an act of "transgression" and therefore did not have to be open to procreation as it did, according to its reasoning, in the meaning and partial purpose of marital intercourse. Nor does it address that the "value" or moral judgement in this case has been reserved to the Vatican rather than the women most affected.
Thirdly, this does not argue for or against the morality of the use of contraceptives in the currently accepted "rape protocols" that are used at Catholic health care institutions wherein, if fertilization of the egg has not presumably occurred, women can receive the medication to prevent fertilization for the same reasons as noted above.
Fourthly, it does not address the fact that some 14% of prescriptions for "birth control " are for problems that are not related to preventing conception, but as the standard treatment to correct other medical issues which may not be covered if an exception in this coverage were to be made.
Fifth, although approximately over 40% of fertilized eggs do not implant, it does not address or challenge the Catholic teaching that a fertilized ovum (egg) is sacred from the moment of conception.
Sixth, it does not seek to argue its legitimacy in noting the fact that over 2/3 of practicing Catholics in America do not believe this teaching that artificial birth control is always morally wrong and that over 90% of Catholic women of child-bearing age have utilized an artificial form at some time in their lives. Nor does it address the related theological argument that, in this common place non-acceptance, it does not have what theologians call the value of the "sense of the faithful."
Finally, it does not speculate on the wisdom or value of the policy itself in providing care, the political motivations of the administration, or the reaction by the hierarchy.
Thus, with these issues addressed, I believe that the core reasons why this is not a threat to religious freedom are the following.
First, no one is being told that they must accept or use artificial birth control or modify one's beliefs to accept that this type of contraception is immoral. Therefore, there is demanded no change in practice or faith-stance required for those whose faith compels them to accept this teaching. (This could be contrasted with the decision that was forced upon the Mormon pioneers in Utah Terrotory 1890 to achieve statehood. They had to renounce what they had believed was their God-given right and even mandate to practice "plural marriage" (polygamy). That change seemingly did modify religious practice of what might have been to be "religious liberty.")
Secondly, this policy is not applicable to institutions that are DIRECTLY involved with the exercise or promulgation of religion. In other words, parishes, parish and parochial schools, dioceses in their own employees, and some select others would seem to be exempt because they have a manifestly religious purpose and expression of faith and exist only because of service in faith. Although in some ways open to all, parishes and the diocese have a direct purpose to serve "co-religionists." These entitities will not be mandated to provide coverage even though they may employ others who are not believers in the same faith and therefore not subject to its rules.
Thirdly, institutions that seem to be affected will be hospitals and universities and perhaps some social service agencies. They may have Catholic values, roots, some funding from expressly Catholic sources, and perhaps even varied and complex governing structures which include some diocesan oversight. However, they do not have the principal function the exercising and/or spreading of the faith, but are largely expressions of faith-based charity, education, and health care. While their value is immense to their clients and society as a whole, their particular functions are not "religious" ones in a strict sense of the word.
They have no religious qualification or standards for employees or clients and do not demand that either group comform to Catholic religious expression. Therefore they are not primarily "religious" institutions, even though their vision or values are rooted in the Catholic sense of mandate to to the needy, sick, or some other group meriting apostolic work. This is a motivation within its mission, but its actual service is more described by health care, education, or social service. Naturally, this policy will apply to every faith's institutions and not to Catholics only.
Fourthly, the bishops have complained that "Catholic institutions" will have to fund something that they consider immoral. This has sometimes been called "remote material cooperation" with evil. This seems inexact. As citizens, we have all been expected to support national policies to which we may be morally opposed. For example, both the Popes and American bishops have denounced the production of and the threat to use of nuclear weapons. Many Catholics concur that this these weapons are inherently immoral and that spending our tax dollars on them is an abomination that impoverishes all and whose use would threaten the entire planet. Yet the course of resistance suggested has been to attempt to change policy while living with this tension --or leave the country to completely detach oneself from any cooperation. However, as objectionable to many as this is, this policy has not been denounced as a threat to one's religion or expression of religious freedom through taxation.
Most concretely, I have understood that although Jehovah's Witnesses forbid blood transfusions as an article of faith for its members, its health policies have not had any "carve out" of this coverage and thus members (or if there are other employees) have that option but must make their decisions known.
Fifth, there are options available for institutions. One is to pay a fine to allow some other means of funding; another is to not offer health care plans and perhaps pay employees a salary that would allow them to purchase another plan. This is obviously problematic, but it is not punitive. This merits much more commentary.
Finally, in the course of American history, there have been many instances in which religious freedom has been challenged and litigated. The general welfare of the country and the rights of individuals are always in tension and this health care reform may continue to test that, but it seems to me not to impinge on the fundamental first amendment right that says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither Catholicism nor any other religion is less free or has this fundamental right attacked or is less able to practice its faith in a conscientious way due to this proposed policy.
I hope that locally and nationally we can continue to have a respectful dialogue as we sort through these issues and that a fundamental "with charity to all" may be our motto.
As has been true for probably a hundred years... THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS REGULATED BY THE GOVT! The reason that THE US CONGRESS PASSED THIS LEGISLATION:
The primary purposes of insurance regulation is (1) to maintain the insurers' financial solvency and soundness so they can carry out their long term obligations to policyholders and pay claims. (2) to guarantee the fair treatment of current and prospective policyholders and beneficiaries by both insurers and the people who sell their policies.
If you don't like the answer Buckey, then take it up with your Congressman since Congress passed this legislation.
Your answer doesn't make any sense has nothing to do with regulations. You seem to think that it's ok that Obama can just come out, wave his hand, and decree that a private entity can just give away something for free.
So why not toothpaste.
No, seriously, toothpaste.
If you think that it's 'ok' for the POTUS to do what he did, why doesn't he decree that insurance companies must offer toothpaste,free of charge?
Tooth decay and gum disease can lead to bigger health problems in the future and thus it would be cheaper,overall, to have toothpaste made availible.
I won't even start to ask you what the Church should do if it's self-insured because you can't even answer a very basic simple question
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
Your answer doesn't make any sense has nothing to do with regulations. You seem to think that it's ok that Obama can just come out, wave his hand, and decree that a private entity can just give away something for free.
So why not toothpaste.
No, seriously, toothpaste.
If you think that it's 'ok' for the POTUS to do what he did, why doesn't he decree that insurance companies must offer toothpaste,free of charge?
Tooth decay and gum disease can lead to bigger health problems in the future and thus it would be cheaper,overall, to have toothpaste made availible.
I won't even start to ask you what the Church should do if it's self-insured because you can't even answer a very basic simple question
WOW! Buck actually had a good idea.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Free toothpaste would actually SAVE insurance companies money based on the study conducted in 1973. It makes complete sense! But you can't stop at toothpaste. You would have to mandate tooth brushes and dental floss also. Free of charge.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- U.S. Catholic leaders spoke out Wednesday to affirm their support for President Barack Obama's insurance reform on contraception coverage.
Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America, said Friday's announcement of the revision to the regulation "by and large resolved the religious liberty concerns."
"I am confident this accommodation creates mechanism to establish greater moral distance between Catholic institutions and contraception than we have had before," Schneck said in a statement.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
I've been holding my breath waiting for Stephen Scheneck to give the Church's official position on this. 400 years of the church's teaching left up to Scheneck.
As has been true for probably a hundred years... THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS REGULATED BY THE GOVT! The reason that THE US CONGRESS PASSED THIS LEGISLATION:
The primary purposes of insurance regulation is (1) to maintain the insurers' financial solvency and soundness so they can carry out their long term obligations to policyholders and pay claims. (2) to guarantee the fair treatment of current and prospective policyholders and beneficiaries by both insurers and the people who sell their policies.
If you don't like the answer Buckey, then take it up with your Congressman since Congress passed this legislation.
really? and who draws that plumb line....if those CATHOLIC people think they should get contraceptives, they can leave the church....NO ONE SAID THEY HAD TO STAY.....
HOLY CRAP.....AND I MEAN HOLY......HOLY F'EN CRAP......what stupid people sheople.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
VIAGRA YES, CONTRACEPTION NO! So says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (huh! I wonder why a bunch of old, mostly white men, who have no use for a V@gina, are OK with Keeping a Penis Hard, but unconcerned with women's health?)
According to Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and reported to NPR: "Procreation is something the Catholic church encourages. And Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs can be of help."
That would seem to eliminate any Viagra coverage for a man who is single... or a man who is not with a woman of child bearing age, or a man who... well, just wants to have fun!
Doing Gods Work now entails getting a penis hard, then insuring that any available V@gina it finds is fertile and able to procreate! (I won't even go into the facts of those Holy Viagra Laden penises that are penetrating young altar boys)
that's why you LEAVE the church if it doesn't FIT.....god doesn't live there......either way....viagra/abortion/contraception are all out there if one want to access them....and if you're knocking on the wrong door for the answer that tickles your ears,,,they by golly,,,that's not the F'EN door you go in.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
really? and who draws that plumb line....if those CATHOLIC people think they should get contraceptives, they can leave the church....NO ONE SAID THEY HAD TO STAY.....
HOLY CRAP.....AND I MEAN HOLY......HOLY F'EN CRAP......what stupid people sheople.....
Senders seems to have a fetish for blessed feces? Strange!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
that's why you LEAVE the church if it doesn't FIT.....god doesn't live there......either way....viagra/abortion/contraception are all out there if one want to access them....and if you're knocking on the wrong door for the answer that tickles your ears,,,they by golly,,,that's not the F'EN door you go in.....
Catholics have been leaving the Church for decades... Look around at all the closed and merged Catholic Churches in the area.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Catholics have been leaving the Church for decades... Look around at all the closed and merged Catholic Churches in the area.
shrinking and crying to the government to 'make them equal with equal access etc'....that's funny.....atleast the mormons keep the door open, but once in you are to stay in....once you leave you have left.....
if one doesn't like their religion no one makes them stay......the government doesn't even make them stay, they may insidiously manipulate but they dont make you stay in your 'chosen' yes, CHOSEN church....you get to leave, leave it, leave the dogma, leave the rules, leave the worship all of it....and you can move on to another.....and you dont even have to 'register'.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Ahhhhhhhh...Pasinski............who is a member of the 'spiritual care' committee!!! And a former board member of InterFaith Works!! He is a new age guru!
Quoted Text
http://blog.syracuse.com/cny/2.....veryday_reality.html Americans are said to be much more interested in the practical, the "way things work," rather than in contemplating the "why" of how they work. Yet, there are great souls who bring contemplation to the world of action. This practical mysticism encourages us to not only reflect on the Divine in everyday reality, but also to dive into our gritty world with a serenity and detachment that will simultaneously benefit others as well.
Spoken like a true follower of the Catholic's GOD ALMIGHTY!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Re Feb. 9 AP article, “Republicans vow to stop Obama’s birth control plan”: Why all of the maligning of the Catholic Church? It provides education for more than 2.6 million students who are not in our public schools. It has 230 colleges and universities with an enrollment of more than 700,000. The church operates 630 hospitals that treat almost 20 percent of all people in the United States, including non-Catholics. Catholic Charities is the foremost “faith-based” organization in the country serving the poor. We should be proud of the accomplishments of the church and cite it to spur other organizations to do likewise. Are these bad things? So when the Obama administration decided to attack the church on some of its core doctrinal beliefs, it came as a shock. The government requires the church to change to current secular views regarding contraceptives, sterilization and morning-after abortifacients for its employees’ insurance programs. This has caused an awakening of the threat to our religious freedoms outlined in the Constitution. A frontal attack on the Catholic Church is no small “shot across the bow.” It is one thing to acknowledge that a particular religion has different beliefs, and perhaps even make fun of it (Islam excluded), but it is another for the government to demand that a religion get in order with secular views. This is overstepping the bounds on religious liberty. Our government is not in the business of requiring changes to religious doctrinal views. The Catholic Church will never agree that abortion is OK. For the church, a life is a life. In January, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Lutherans have a right to dismiss clerics who are out of line with their beliefs, even though the government supported the individual. Don’t be lulled into the talk that the church takes government money. During the previous administration, there was agreement from all involved that faith-based groups are already on the ground providing services to the needy. Now it appears that if these groups don’t knuckle under to the total secular view, they must be brought to heel — i.e., Catholic Charities in Boston must provide adoption services to gays and the ruling that the church is not fi t to provide services to victims of human traffi cking. Bishop Howard Hubbard points out in his Jan. 31 letter to area Catholics that other religions, specifi cally, Amish, Christian Scientists and Quakers, aren’t under the same dictate. The Catholic Church seems to have been picked because if it can be subdued, all others will follow. In today’s world, where everything is constantly changing, there is value to having an organization stand up for its beliefs. The history of the church has over 2,000 years of people being martyred for their beliefs — not caving in to the powers that be. The cover story in the Feb. 6 Newsweek outlines what is happening in the Middle East, with the mass exodus of Christians (mostly Catholics) who will not bend to those in power and their thugs. There are many who may be able to articulate supporting and dissenting views more clearly. However, let us stick to the Constitution and its protection of religion.
Logged
, have presented well reasoned refutations regarding its morality, but this is an entirely different debate.
