Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[RunInRed 16,487]

Um, so what? I bet in 1955 you could have gotten a nice poll on civil rights that you wouldn't have cared for either. The majority, when it's wrong, is simply a mob.

And in this case, it's wrong because you think it's wrong? That's a pretty big "I know what's best for all" statement.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Titan's points ring especially true since acquiring birth control isn't cost-prohibitive. We aren't talking about some wide sweeping epidemic of super high priced life saving critical care drugs (like the cocktail for HIV/Aids patients). We're talking about something you can get for $10-15 a month.

If people are having babies now when they shouldn't have, it's not because they couldn't afford birth control. So please stop framing it as some critical healthcare issue.

No one is saying it is cost prohibitive. But it's an issue.

Another thought: If it's so cheap, why is the church making such a big deal about having to pay for it? So see, cost really isn't the underlying issue even though most who support the church's position want to use it as a counter in your argument... interesting.

[RunInRed 16,487]

I'm not Catholic either. Neither am I opposed to birth control. But our wants don't trump constitutional freedoms our Founding Fathers were wise enough to put in from the beginning. And government is not the granter of these rights. Our Creator is. The Constitution merely reflects what already exists.

There's a reason the freedom of speech and freedom of religion were put into the 1st Amendment. They are our dearest freedoms. If we cannot speak our minds nor practice our faith according to the dictates of our consciences without government coercion to violate them, what good are the other freedoms?

I could be wrong here but I'd be willing to bet most religious folks would be just fine with the government trampling on the constitutional freedoms of all as long as they did it in a way that supports their POV? e.g., where was the outrage from you guys when Bob McDonald and the GOP in VA were trying to pass mandatory ultrasounds, 'personhood' definitions and other government-dictated intrusive measures?

[arnaldoabru 11]

I'm not Catholic either. Neither am I opposed to birth control. But our wants don't trump constitutional freedoms our Founding Fathers were wise enough to put in from the beginning. And government is not the granter of these rights. Our Creator is. The Constitution merely reflects what already exists.

There's a reason the freedom of speech and freedom of religion were put into the 1st Amendment. They are our dearest freedoms. If we cannot speak our minds nor practice our faith according to the dictates of our consciences without government coercion to violate them, what good are the other freedoms?

I could be wrong here but I'd be willing to bet most religious folks would be just fine with the government trampling on the constitutional freedoms of all as long as they did it in a way that supports their POV? e.g., where was the outrage from you guys when Bob McDonald and the GOP in VA were trying to pass mandatory ultrasounds, 'personhood' definitions and other government-dictated intrusive measures?

Don't forget the red state of Mississippi recently defeating the anti women legislation. The majority of the people in this country know what all of this is about.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The church isn't preventing one single solitary soul from getting contraception. They just don't want to be forced to pay for it.

Read this back to yourself again...

I know you don't think contraception is cost prohibitive but by not providing coverage, the outcome is clearly less access. That's undeniable IMO.

"Access" is not the same as "gifted to you." Definitions matter.

It isn't hyperbole just because you don't like it or think they won't have the balls to do it. It is bullying and the result I point out is what's going to happen if the Obama Administration insists on these juvenile election year tactics instead of employing common sense. In the end, the Administration's move will hurt the very people it pretends to help. Which if it weren't so typical of government these days, would kill us all with the irony.

Do you really think it's Obama who is the one playing election year politics with social issues? Because I don't.

Side note: Have you been keeping up with what's going on in Virginia?

A bit. And I don't believe intra-vaginal are necessary to accomplish what they want to do. But personhood measures? I don't have a problem. Science has advanced to a point where the viability measures under Roe are woefully inadequate. We know so much more about fetal development and we know that the human being inside the womb is not merely an extension of the woman's body but a separate being with it's own brain, heart, nervous system and DNA. We need to recalibrate our understanding of human rights as it pertains to them.

I've never heard of a small contraception supplement plan. Have you?

Again, sure they can purchase in other places but the church is adding an unnecessary hurdle IMO.

Actually, yes I have. And it's not just a small contraception plan, though politically I know that's what you like to focus on to minimize the perceived weight of intrusion. It's about contraception, surgical sterilizations and abortifacient drugs. And yes, those supplemental plans can easily be added by people who have insurance that doesn't cover it currently. It's something people have done for years.

And while you may deem it "unnecessary", sometimes there are extra care and steps that must be taken when the Bill of Rights comes into play. It's part of valuing our Constitutional freedoms.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'm not Catholic either. Neither am I opposed to birth control. But our wants don't trump constitutional freedoms our Founding Fathers were wise enough to put in from the beginning. And government is not the granter of these rights. Our Creator is. The Constitution merely reflects what already exists.

There's a reason the freedom of speech and freedom of religion were put into the 1st Amendment. They are our dearest freedoms. If we cannot speak our minds nor practice our faith according to the dictates of our consciences without government coercion to violate them, what good are the other freedoms?

I could be wrong here but I'd be willing to bet most religious folks would be just fine with the government trampling on the constitutional freedoms of all as long as they did it in a way that supports their POV? e.g., where was the outrage from you guys when Bob McDonald and the GOP in VA were trying to pass mandatory ultrasounds, 'personhood' definitions and other government-dictated intrusive measures?

I would say that most people haven't paid close enough attention to something happening in one state versus a federal mandate that affects everyone nationwide. I was only aware of it because a pro-life friend of mine told me and we discussed how intra-vaginal ultrasounds are a step too far. But the notion of taking personhood and human rights seriously in this area instead of wishing the concerns away so you can keep abortion as a convenient birth control method? Untenable.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

No one is saying it is cost prohibitive. But it's an issue.

Another thought: If it's so cheap, why is the church making such a big deal about having to pay for it? So see, cost really isn't the underlying issue even though most who support the church's position want to use it as a counter in your argument... interesting.

The cost isn't the problem and has never been put forth as the problem. They aren't balking because it's expensive, they are balking because they are being required to materially participate in something they find objectively wrong. It might not cost me more than a dollar in gas to drive a woman to an abortion clinic or pay for her bus ticket there, but I still wouldn't do it. I shouldn't be required to participate with my time or money, whether it's 50 cents or a million dollars, in something that violates my religious beliefs and conscience.

Cost is only brought up because you guys make it sound like the Church not paying for this creates some enormous financial burden on people. The facts completely undermine that notion.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Um, so what? I bet in 1955 you could have gotten a nice poll on civil rights that you wouldn't have cared for either. The majority, when it's wrong, is simply a mob.

And in this case, it's wrong because you think it's wrong? That's a pretty big "I know what's best for all" statement.

And it's right simply because you say it's right? Simply because a lot of people agree? In exactly what way is your position different from what you just accused me of?

Gotta admit, that's a nice little pivot you did there. Put forth a poll as if it gives weight to the rightness of your cause, then when I give an example that shows polls don't determine whether an action is right or not, make it look like I'm the one making the assertion.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Cardinal Francis George weighs in, and is spot on.

…This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society. The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

…Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are proper medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

…Since 1915, the Catholic bishops of the United States have taught that basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society. Two years ago, we asked that whatever instruments were crafted to care for all, the Hyde and Weldon and Church amendments restricting funding for abortion and respecting institutional conscience continue to be incorporated into law. They were excluded. As well, the present health care reform act doesn’t cover entire sections of the U.S. population. It is not universal.

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.

http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/0226/cardinal.aspx

[Grumps 3,704]

Cardinal Francis George weighs in, and is spot on.

…This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society. The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

…Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are proper medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

…Since 1915, the Catholic bishops of the United States have taught that basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society. Two years ago, we asked that whatever instruments were crafted to care for all, the Hyde and Weldon and Church amendments restricting funding for abortion and respecting institutional conscience continue to be incorporated into law. They were excluded. As well, the present health care reform act doesn’t cover entire sections of the U.S. population. It is not universal.

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.

http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/0226/cardinal.aspx

Great article! Thanks for posting. I agree, he is spot on.

[RunInRed 16,487]

So ... the state has no business telling the church what to do because the First Amendment clearly designates the separation of church and state, giving the church free rein to do whatever it wants—discriminate against gays, deny health care to women...

But that separation is clearly a one-way street, and if the church is denied its "right" to have "influence" and "involvement in the operation of the state," why, that's downright un-American!

In other words, separation of church and state makes some of you want to throw up because obviously, the Constitution requires that we live under Catholic sharia law. Unless, of course, the state tries to meddle with the church by requiring it to adhere to the laws of the land. Then the church goeers are all about that precious one-way separation. How convenient, eh?

http://dailykos.com/story/2012/02/27/1068744/-Rick-Santorum-very-confused-about-how-separation-of-church-and-state-works?via=blog_1

[autigeremt 6,686]

I'm for both the seperation of church and state AND the government/POTUS living within its constitutional boundaries.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

So ... the state has no business telling the church what to do because the First Amendment clearly designates the separation of church and state, giving the church free rein to do whatever it wants--discriminate against gays

How? By not hiring them as priests or bishops? Yeah, see that's part of getting to live according to your religious convictions and teachings. The government doesn't get to use the force of law to coerce you into accepting behaviors you believe are wrong or tell you who to hire.

, deny health care to women...

Laughable. First of all, this is a lie; no one's denying anyone anything. However certain elective procedures and treatments are not going to be provided by these organizations to everyone (guys can be surgically sterilized to, you know) because they go against their religious beliefs to materially participate in them.

But that separation is clearly a one-way street, and if the church is denied its "right" to have "influence" and "involvement in the operation of the state," why, that's downright un-American!

Again, not so much. First of all, the religious organization isn't trying to have these drugs or procedures outlawed. Second, there is nothing in the Constitution that says a religious person is obligated under the 1st Amendment to abandon their faith when in the public square. Third, the reason the 1st Amendment is written the way that it is is because only the government has the force of law at its disposal. What is the church going to do to the government in retaliation that comes even close to what the federal government can do to a private organization or its members?

This is a lazy rebuttal and you're a better thinker than this to have posted it as if it wasn't a big pile of fail.

In other words, separation of church and state makes some of you want to throw up because obviously, the Constitution requires that we live under Catholic sharia law. Unless, of course, the state tries to meddle with the church by requiring it to adhere to the laws of the land. Then the church goeers are all about that precious one-way separation. How convenient, eh?

See above. This writer is a blithering idiot and Daily Kos should be ashamed to have posted such drivel.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Laughable. First of all, this is a lie; no one's denying anyone anything. However certain elective procedures and treatments are not going to be provided by these organizations to everyone (guys can be surgically sterilized to, you know) because they go against their religious beliefs to materially participate in them.

The definition of elective is in the mind of the beholder. Bottom line, what some consider basic healthcare, the church is against providing. Call it what you will.

Again, not so much. First of all, the religious organization isn't trying to have these drugs or procedures outlawed. Second, there is nothing in the Constitution that says a religious person is obligated under the 1st Amendment to abandon their faith when in the public square. Third, the reason the 1st Amendment is written the way that it is is because only the government has the force of law at its disposal. What is the church going to do to the government in retaliation that comes even close to what the federal government can do to a private organization or its members?

You know, there are some people who think the church has bleed too much over into state already...

Again, the sword cuts both ways on church and state.

This is a lazy rebuttal and you're a better thinker than this to have posted it as if it wasn't a big pile of fail.

Titan, I have an immense respect for you man but your willingness to so easily name-call and otherwise attack those who disagree with you is a tad disturbing. I'll carry this conversation on via PM if you wish...

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The definition of elective is in the mind of the beholder. Bottom line, what some consider basic healthcare, the church is against providing. Call it what you will.

By any definition, birth control, sterilization and various abortifacients are elective in nature, as were the activities that precipitated them. Only someone indulging in the worst sort of Newspeak could say otherwise.

Also note, we're not talking about oral contraceptives (estrogen/progestin) used for hormone imbalances or ovarian cysts. Such treatments are permitted in Catholic teaching as they are for a legitimate medical purpose. Similarly a hysterectomy would be permitted when the purpose is for another medical condition, not for the purpose of sterilization. The uses the Church is opposed to paying for are elective. Period.

You know, there are some people who think the church has bleed too much over into state already...

Again, the sword cuts both ways on church and state.

You assert this, yet give no examples. I pointed out that the state is the only one with a sword in this scenario already.

And while I'm aware that some cannot stomach religion in public life to any degree whatsoever, I take their arguments about as seriously as I do talk of little green men in Roswell.

Titan, I have an immense respect for you man but your willingness to so easily name-call and otherwise attack those who disagree with you is a tad disturbing. I'll carry this conversation on via PM if you wish...

I didn't name call, I "tactic called" if you will. That reply, which I know you didn't write, was weak. Poorly thought-out and full of logical holes. But you did choose to post it.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Why do people continue to go to the alarmist position of the catholic church obstructing women's healthcare?

They aren't denying anything. They don't want to make contraception illegal. They just don't want to subsidize what you do in the bedroom. Why is that so hard to understand? (It's not hard, and they understand it. It's just more effective to spin it. Painting something as a "women's health" issue: it's the new race card.

It's not a "church and state" issue either. If the catholic church was trying to make it illegal for all citizens, sure. But when the government is trying to tell private companies they must violate their own religious beliefs, especially to subsidize someone else's sex life, that's a scary situation.

[Grumps 3,704]

"A big pile of fail."

What a great description! That cracks me up!

[RunInRed 16,487]

Meet the slippery slope...

Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on a bill—backed by Mitt Romney—that will allow employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable." This is not about religious organizations—they're already exempt. This is about any employer having the power to decide what's best for you.

http://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10150602581476749

Any one want to guess who votes in favor of this bill? Would you?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Meet the slippery slope...

Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on a bill—backed by Mitt Romney—that will allow employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable." This is not about religious organizations—they're already exempt. This is about any employer having the power to decide what's best for you.

http://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10150602581476749

Any one want to guess who votes in favor of this bill? Would you?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The real compromise will come when the pushers of this come to their senses and reinstate a real exemption for religious organizations.

But if we have to choose between all or nothing on this one, I'll take nothing. Serves the administration right for their arrogance and contempt for people of faith. When firing shots across other people's bows, it's silly to act surprised when they have the gall to fire back.

Truth is, something like this would have come up even with a true exemption for religious organizations because there are a number of hardcore economic libertarians in the Congress that balk at forcing private businesses to pay for or cover things like this anyway. All Obama's arrogance did was give them an emotional wedge to work with.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Titan, how similar to the federal rule is the one in MA?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Titan, how similar to the federal rule is the one in MA?

No idea specifically, but I do know that all of the states that have such laws, even the most restrictive ones which if my memory serves me right were NY, CA and one other one, had exemptions in place for organizations that self-insure. The federal version doesn't even have that provision in place.

But I'd say if you're going to serve all the people with a federal version, choosing the most restricitve one that is furthest to the Left in terms of who is makes happy is not the way to go...much less making it even more restrictive than that.

[Grumps 3,704]

Meet the slippery slope...

Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on a bill—backed by Mitt Romney—that will allow employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable." This is not about religious organizations—they're already exempt. This is about any employer having the power to decide what's best for you.

http://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10150602581476749

Any one want to guess who votes in favor of this bill? Would you?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The real compromise will come when the pushers of this come to their senses and reinstate a real exemption for religious organizations.

But if we have to choose between all or nothing on this one, I'll take nothing. Serves the administration right for their arrogance and contempt for people of faith. When firing shots across other people's bows, it's silly to act surprised when they have the gall to fire back.

Truth is, something like this would have come up even with a true exemption for religious organizations because there are a number of hardcore economic libertarians in the Congress that balk at forcing private businesses to pay for or cover things like this anyway. All Obama's arrogance did was give them an emotional wedge to work with.

I agree with you completely, Titan. This bill is obvious an attempt to protect the rights that the Obama administration is trying to take away. I think the bill would be stupid and unnecessary if the Obama administration had not decided to deny freedon of religious expression. Now we potentially get stupid laws to protect us against a stupid administration...NICE!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Speaking of slippery slopes, what happens when someone at HHS decides that abortions are "essential health care" too? Don't act like that's far fetched.

[au2004ece 30]

Meet the slippery slope...

Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on a bill—backed by Mitt Romney—that will allow employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable." This is not about religious organizations—they're already exempt. This is about any employer having the power to decide what's best for you.

http://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10150602581476749

Any one want to guess who votes in favor of this bill? Would you?

Your quoted article is funny.

Barack Obama thinks it is ok for the government to decide what is best for us, but it is not ok for employers to decide what is best for us. I would ask him what he thinks the difference is.

[BamaGrad03 0]

This adds even more absurdity to the employer-insurance-employee model. We need to blow up that whole system.