Vanessa Gonzalez Kraft tries to balance her traditional Mexican-American cultural heritage and Catholic identity, personified by her grandmother La Lupe, with her roles as a young wife and mother.
Click this banner to see the entire series.
The Government’s Attack on Consciences
- (52)
- Follow us:
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and President Barack Obama at the White House in 2010. (CNS photo/Reuters)
I voted for President Obama in the 2008 election. Leading up to that election and after it, I’ve fought an uphill battle trying to explain how I could be Catholic and vote for a president that so obviously has pro-choice goals. In my argument, I kept coming back to the USCCB’s statement, “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.” There are 7 principles of Catholic Social Teaching. When I weighed how many of the principles McCain stood for and how many Obama stood for, my tally was overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. Just to name a few, Obama is in favor of the DREAM Act and more comprehensive immigration reform. Obama wanted to reform healthcare (an issue I have written about at length). Obama’s economic policies were intended to directly help those at the bottom as opposed to using the trickle-down effect. And on and on. Even though Obama is pro-choice, I couldn’t ignore all those other extremely important issues that I agreed with. And even when it came to FOCAor other pro-choice issues, I guess I just didn’t believe that he would rock the boat too much.
Then a couple weeks ago, I read an article in The Wall Street Journal: “Obama Offends the Catholic Left.” I’ll ignore for a second how I hate the terms liberal Catholic and conservative Catholic. The amount of discord and division between Republican Catholics and Democrat Catholics is disgusting, and the disdain that both groups have for one other is just plain depressing since we’re all on the same team. As Catholics we do not fall perfectly in line with either party. But that’s for another post.
The new Department of Health and Human Services ruling has people reeling over how the President could make a move that would obviously anger lots of people, including the Catholic Church. The rule “will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible.” All employers that hire people of different faiths will be required to buy, as part of healthcare coverage for their employees, contraceptive and sterilization services. This means parishes that buy healthcare for their employees wouldn’t have to provide contraceptive services in their insurance plans because most of these employees are all the same faith. However, other Catholic employers like Catholic schools, charities, or hospitals, because they hire people of all religious backgrounds, will be forced to provide these services in their healthcare plans even though it violates one of the church’s basic moral teachings.
I, for one, am not just offended by the recent HHS ruling, but incensed about it. This whole time I’ve constantly had to defend why I support Obama and then he turns around and does this? And it’s not just Catholics that are angry but also non-Catholics who see this ruling as a defiance of conscience protections and an infringement on our Constitutional freedom of religion.
Plenty of people have written about why this ruling is bad and why they disagree (like here and here and here and here and here). That’s not really what I want to talk about. What has upgraded my anger to the level of fuming is how some Catholics have been writing about the decision and the Church.
1. “I am Catholic and I don’t agree with the Church on contraception but I do believe in the principle of conscience protections and I believe in the freedom of religion.”
I get it. Not everyone agrees with everything the Church teaches. But don’t treat the Church like your old Aunt Tilly who you smile at when she is talking to you, but roll your eyes at when you think she’s not looking. The Church is an institution that has wisely guided its flock for thousands of years. It doesn’t just make up its beliefs because a Bishop made a specific decision a long time ago. It uses hundreds of years of thinking, reasoning, and guidance from the Holy Spirit to come to its beliefs. Please don’t dismiss such a central teaching of the Church so easily. And it doesn’t make anyone more apt to agree with the Church about the HHS ruling by being so flippant about it. We don’t need the disclaimer to help get people on our side.
2. “This will not affect the Catholic vote.”
Don’t underestimate Catholics and their ability to get mad. People would have you believe that no one really cares what the Church teaches. If no one cared what the Church taught, then churches would be empty. Catholic schools would all be closed. And there would definitely not be new vocations. My church on Sunday was packed. The school I work at has plenty of students. And in May a new group of seminarians is being ordained to the priesthood. Please don’t be so condescending to presume that Catholics will not mobilize and try to fight this ruling.
3. “Obviously the Bishops don’t trust Catholics to not use the new options that would be added to their healthcare plans.”
This comment is so annoying to me. It is not that the Bishops want to trick people into not using birth control. Some say these Catholic institutions should pay for contraceptive services in their healthcare plan and then just tell their employees not to use it (except in cases of medical necessity). The Bishops getting mad about this is not a sign that they don’t trust people. They don’t want the Church’s money to go toward something that they see as morally wrong. What else could the government require the Church to pay for in their employees’ benefits? Euthanasia? Abortion? The Church knows that people use contraception. They are not trying to outlaw it; they just don’t want to be a party to it.
This issue is a deal-breaker for me. I can’t continue to follow Obama down this path. I still support the same immigration reform policies and economic policies and such. I don’t regret voting for him in the first place. But I can’t in good conscience vote for someone who would force the Catholic Church to violate its moral teachings so blatantly. Even with the clarification the government issued about the new HHS rule, it still is clear that they don’t understand why the Church and so many others are mad.
In the end, this is an issue that people need to rally around. Giving the Church the option to violate its own conscience or stop providing healthcare for its employees is unconscionable. And there are a lot of people that agree with the Church, whether by being faithful to Church teachings or just agreeing ideologically with the freedom of religion. If all these people came together, it could make a difference. What upsets me is that people on the Church’s side keep saying things that hurt the Church’s credibility. People have the right to disagree with the Church and to voice it, but when we’re all trying to come together and form a united front against a bad ruling, all these asides only cause further division. They are going to weaken the effect that people can have in getting this ruling changed. There are about 80 million Catholics in the United States. All of us united could make a difference.
- (52)
- Follow us:
this is a great piece, Vanessa. thank you for writing it.
as a strong Obama supporter and a Catholic i haven’t been sure where i stand with all this but your argument here helps put a lot of things into perspective.
Catholics should band together and deliver a signed petition to the administration saying if you want our votes in November, get rid of this mandate — and then honestly vote for him if they get rid of it.
the problem is how many total Catholic votes can Obama really expect? so many in the Church have spoken downright terribly of he and his presidency even before all of this. i’m still of a mind to support him come election time if only to stop the Republicans who typically wear faith for more tactical reasons than anything else.
it brings me back to that same old question: why can’t we have a political party that is pro-life (in all matters including abortion, war, death penalty, etc.) and supports the very poor.
You cannot be anti-abortion and anti-birth control, unless you are a misogynist. How can you defend this centuries old rule, when it has been a well known fact that for as long as the Pill has been available, the majority of women of child bearing age have used this type of contraception? The church still enjoys a tax exempt status, yet lends its voice to politics. As an employer, it should receive no exceptions from any other employer. Why does the Catholic Church refuse to join the 21st century when it comes to women’s health issues? And women in general? Why do you think the Catholic Church has had ascending attendance rates in the last few decades? Its all related. I attended 12 years of Catholic school, and I find the continued threat to women’s rights exacerbated by the Catholic Church astounding. If an employer was an arm of the Jehovah Witnesses and they refused to cover any type of blood transfusion or blood based therapy. If an employer can deny health care coverage based on “conscience” its opening up a door that won’t be a good one to have opened. Instead of putting my envelope in the church collection this week, I am sending a check to Planned Parenthood. Because taking care of the poor who can’t afford their own healthcare was one of Jesus’ messages.
I meant to say the majority of CATHOLIC women of child bearing age have been using The Pill for decades.
Vanessa, this was a well written article as always. I am just as incensed by this ruling, just on the opposite side. I find it ludicrous that people are against this ruling. Why should any one group (in this case Catholics) be allowed to make policy decisions that affect the lives of non-members?
Should businesses run by Jehovah’s witnesses be allowed to not cover procedures that require blood transfusions because it goes against their beliefs? Should Muslim or Jewish store owners be allowed to forbid their non-believing employees from purchasing pork with their pay checks? The fact that this argument is being spun as an assault on Catholic religious freedom is insane. It is an attempt to keep Catholic institutions from taking away the freedoms of their non-Catholic employees. Catholics are bound to do what their conscience dictates, they are not bound to dictate the conscience of others.
And last but not least yes, many people do treat the Church like their great aunt Tilly; because the Church provides no effective forum for Catholics to do otherwise. Without a say in the leadership of the Church lay people are left to pay lip service to the Church policy while quietly doing what they think is right. If lay people had more say in the Church leadership this would be a non-issue, because contraception would be allowed.
While I hope that an amicable solution might still be found, it seems that this issue might be a breaking point for many people.
Is President Obama wrong about this issue? Yes.
Does that make me want to turn the presidency over to someone who will be wrong about many more issues? No.
Elizabeth,
Actually I don’t think you can be pro-abortion and pro-birth control UNLESS you’re a misogynist.
Telling women that they have a right to kill their children (that their children are not people but property) isn’t that far removed from how women and children were considered chattel by men.
Telling women that they need to chemically (or physically) alter their healthy bodies in order to have sex, is not about being kind or loving toward women. On the contrary, it is so deeply disrespectful of the personhood of women. Instead of being the most welcoming, intimate, and complete acceptance of another person it becomes merely an opportunity to use someone. Instead of a women’s body being celebrated, her fertility a gift, it becomes something she needs to be ashamed of, something to hide, something unlovable.
Do not be fooled. Birth control and abortion are not about helping or empowering women. They’re about controlling and dehumanizing them.
Good post! I’m one of those Catholics who doesn’t fit in with any party…
The thing about Parishes not having to buy the insurance that Obama prescribes is wrong, though. The requirements that he puts forth for the institutions that will be exempt from it include that we only minister to people in our own congregation and that the only work we do is teaching the faith. Our St. Vincent de Paul Society, food and goods collections, and other outreach programs (even the Seder we have every couple of years draws members of the Jewish community) serve anyone in our community regardless of faith background. My parish (at which I am employed) does not qualify. Plus, we do have non-Catholics working with us. If this sticks, our parishioners will be forced to bear the burden of paying whatever fines we’re assessed, while I get no insurance because the Church couldn’t supply it. I stand with the Church, even if it means I loose my insurance, but the whole thing is just very, very wrong. To say that a Church only qualifies as a Church if we don’t care for the community is messed up. This bill goes beyond contraception and abortion–it’s trying to re-define Church in a way that no Catholic community could ever live down to.
Adam – This isn’t about businesses run by Catholics. It is about church institutions. If I worked for an institution that was operated by a religious congregation, I would expect that some aspects of their religion would impact me. If I worked at a Jewish school, I wouldn’t expect them to serve pork in the cafeteria just because I’m not Jewish.
You’re right that a Jewish employer shouldn’t be able to stop an employee from buying pork with their paychecks. The church isn’t asking for that either. In Hawaii, there’s a compromise that allows religious institutions the exemption, but insurance companies can offer supplement plans that provide medical treatments that are not included in the “Catholic” plan.
If you want to work for a Catholic institution AND want insurance coverage for birth control, you can use your paycheck for that.
What I don’t understand from the pro-fully-covered-contraception side… so if I need blood control medication to live, I have to pay a copay and a drug detectable. Under the new law/rules, if I want birth control, I should be able to get that with zero cost?
Vanessa, first I usually enjoy your articles. However, your dismissiveness of my conscience objection to the Church’s ruling on birth control bothers me. The decision I made, primarily for health reasons, is not a result of me thinking of the Church like “my Aunt Tilly”. Rather, it was a conscious decision to do what is right for my family. Plus, the Church did not always so explicitly condemn birth control until last century. And, the Pope did it by going against the majority of theologians on his own committee. While, there is a tradition in the Church of emphasizing the hierachy & obedience, there is also a strong tradition of conscious & freedom.
An assault on Catholic “religious freedom”??? Give me a break. Shouldn’t that “Catholic religious freedom” be the same for the millions of Catholic women who USE birth control? I thought one of the main teachings of Jesus Christ was to NOT judge! So why does the Catholic Church do NOTHING but judge? If a woman has an abortion or uses birth control, that is between her and God, not her and the Church. And Jesus died for all of our sins. This is a ridiculous, man made rule just trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant and second class citizens, as usual.
Deanna, you make absolutely no sense at all. Telling a woman they are “allowed” to kill their child? Are you for real? Do you have any idea what it is like to have an abortion? Have you ever been raped? Have you ever been in a situation that was hopeless? Just the fact that you used the term “allowed” shows that you have no clue about this issue at all.
Malinda – your last line is key. The church’s teachings are against contraception, whether or not you’ve discerned your situation to be serious enough to merit something different.
This ruling *forces* the church to subsidize birth control through insurance premiums, paid by the church and not only individuals. It removes the freedom of exercise to not subsidize something against the tenets of the church (whether or not those tenets are followed is not the point).
A rule that required work to be done on the Sabbath wouldn’t matter to many Jewish people who don’t follow that tenet to the letter, but it would impact many who, in light of their conscious, follow it.
Where is the line to be drawn? The freedom of religion only applies to tenets that a certain percentage of members of that faith practice? No matter your opinion on an exclusively male priesthood, is the next step for the government to require women ordination as a matter of equal opportunity? (ignoring the SCOTUS ruling for the sake of argument).
Where was this “Conscience” of the Church during the decades it protected pedophiles? Oh right, that was about the rights of the men it was protecting.
The law is not requiring the Church to provide insurance that covers contraceptives when it is acting as a Church. However, when it is a hospital/university/etc. it needs to follow the law. The Church may not like it, however, in 28 States they’ve figured out how to deal with it. And that’s where the Church’s tradition of practacility comes into play.
And, this is not the same as women ordination. A priest is acting as a minister/leader to Catholics. He may have other roles, i.e. University President, etc. However, his ordination as a priest is to fulfill a very specific role that the Church has decided women are ineligible to fill. However, there is nothing against a women being president of a Catholic school.
My parish, as an example, serves more people via homeless ministry, food pantry, etc than we have coming to Mass on a Sunday.
My understanding is since one of three qualifications for exemption (that those that we serve are a majority the same faith tradition as our own) may not hold true, we may not be exempt.
Same goes for an inner city Catholic elementary school that serves 51% non-Catholics.
(Granted, my understanding that all the conditions must be true for exemption may be wrong).
In many of those states, there are other types of exemptions (e.g. the church providing a self-funded insurance operation for example).
Either way, if the church has to exist under these rules, we will, but we still have the right to protest it.
My point on women ordination was to point out how far this could go. If a Catholic university (Notre Dame, for example), per their by-laws, required the president to be a priest, could that be challenged as discriminatory?
The issue happens to be on contraception, but I’m more concerned with what this could snowball into further into the future.
Gage- I’m more worried about what allowing the church to dictate public policy (that affects EVERYONE, not just a religious sect) could snowball into. And, I would consider priesthood a qualification: something that can change. Discrimination applies to what one cannot change about themselves.
Vanessa- your article here is well-written, but I am baffled as to why a woman would want to allow a bunch of old, white men to dictate what she is/isn’t allowed to do with her body.
The freedom of religion is not under attack. No one is trying to close any churches. If a church chooses to expand beyond its walls in whatever form: school, charity, business, then those entities are going to be subject to applicable rules and regulations. I already disagree with churches being wholly tax-exempt, now they want to be law-exempt, too?
If health care allowed for people to opt-out of what they didn’t want to pay for, then what would we end up with? All of our premiums go into the same pool. I don’t approve of the lifestyles of many of my fellow-insured, such as smokers or those who are overweight and obese who eat fast and junk food all the time, but I am forced to cover their ailments which most certainly cost payers more than contraception and other family planning services.
Elizabeth,
If you refer back to my original post I actually never used the word “allowed” so I don’t know where you got that from.
It is precisely because I care about women who have been raped or had abortions that I would never, ever condone abortions. Women who have suffered so much do not need more suffering heaped on them. Abortion hurts women. Besides physical side-effects, the emotional, mental and spiritual trauma are devastating.
“have a right to” = allowed Deanna.
Unless you have had an abortion, I don’t think you’re in any position to talk about what a women in that position would do. The decision to have an abortion or not is not something that is taken lightly, and it is intensely personal and the choice of the woman alone. I know.
Thanks for this article and the lively debate! One question I haven’t seen addressed anywhere: what about non-contraceptive uses for oral contraceptives? For example, does the Church also want to be exempt from providing access to the pill which has been used for decades to treat or prevent ovarian cysts, endometriosis, and uterine fibroid tumors, along with many other conditions? I am a little disturbed that this debate has focused SO exclusively on the moral rather than legitimate medical issues.
I think their is a difference in a Church and a Church-affiliated institution. Gage, I imagine the volunteer work your parish does is done as members of the Church, not as a Church-affiliated institution. However, it is still unclear which is why it is good there is a year to do so.
Of course, all this would be unnecessary if the Church went back in time and took the recommendation of its own committee & acknowledged that contraceptives have a place in a marriage.
Eliana, good points. I think it’s important to remember to many people this is a women’s health issue.
Exactly Eliana. I was on “The Pill” for years due to severe Endometriosis. But it seems the Church has made no exception for these instances.
I think other medical uses should be discussed. It is a very valid point. I know there are some (extremely few) doctors that use alternative treatments from birth control for those conditions, but that is not the norm and hard to find.
I would be interested in hearing more about what the philosophical view of “preventative medicine” that HHS is taking.
Charlie– Respectfully, the exemption being requested by the church isn’t impacting everyone. It would impact those who are employed by a religious sect and only those sects with moral opposition to birth control.
I’m unsure of your point regarding the priesthood qualification issue. Is your point that if Notre Dame requires the priesthood qualification for their president, they could not be cited for discrimination? Even though the priesthood is only male? Or is your point that Notre Dame can change their qualifications to allow a non-clergy president?
Interesting comment just heard by someone from American Conservatives. He says the way the Church gets around it in other countries is the single payer system, like in Britian & Canada.
Here’s an editorial from the National Catholic Reporter on this issue.
Lots of great discussion!! More of this needs to take place in Catholic circles. Thank you Vanessa for your honest article which prompted the discussion.
I would like to add one item that I know will not be popular…
The Church is not “run” by a few elected old white men in Rome. Ultimately my faith requires me to believe that the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit with Christ as Her head. The lay people, the Bishops, a council committee, can not determine what is moral or immoral. The Church can not change it’s stance on birth control because it is not up to us. Whether we like it or not, God made us in his image to love. Birth control can lead to use, which is the opposite of every human’s purpose – love.
God bless you all! May we all (including me) always strive to know and love Truth.
I think that people are forgetting one essential point: the church has a right to handle questions of its conscience in institutions that are religious, such as monasteries and convents and whatnot. It does NOT have a right to impose ecclesiastical strictures on institutions that are not exclusively religious, particularly if those institutions also serve people outside of that religion.
A hospital is a medical institution, and as such, medicine should be the primary focus. If it is not, then something is seriously wrong.
Unless the hospital is within a closed religious community, exclusively for religious such as monks or nuns (and even then it’s a matter of debate, however it isn’t one I’m going in to), it has no right to impose its prejudices on anyone else. Do non-catholics go to the hospitals? Are non-catholics employed there? If so, I seriously doubt that they go there for any reason other than medical care.
Thank all the powers that be, this is not a theocracy. So please stop trying to pretend that any religious institution has the right to behave as though it were.
Does the current insurance have a prescription plan? I don’t know. Does it cover sildenafil, better known as Viagra? I’ll betcha! The church can be a church or a business but it can not be both. If you have people working for the church itself fine. But if we’re talking about hospitals and schools then they need to join us here in this century.
Jeff, there are numerous examples in the history of the Catholic Church where the Church has been wrong. And, what I love about the Church is we are able to disagree and have discussions around these issues. It worries me when people stop questioning. We are a Living Church.
Wonderful piece. Thank-you.
I am in a quandry as to who to vote for –
if at all — I had six beautiful, healthy children using the rhythm method — it is hard, but life is hard — I trusted God and my husband, and we were very blessed. Unfortunately, now our children have joined the ranks of the unbelievers, and think the mandate is a good thing. I appreciate your article and all the good comments. We will just have to pray and hang in there. Love
Where was their outrage with the pedophilia by their priests? Do the bishops require that all employees of their secular institutions practice Catholicism (i.e., Jews must be baptized)? The law only applies to secular, church related institutions, not congregations. Must all employees of Catholic-related colleges be bound by church doctrine, even if they are not Catholic?
As an EMPLOYER, the Church must abide to the law governing ALL employers, period, such as OSHA and workmen’s comp. And this is a matter that has been law for 12 YEARS! And interestingly, in December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.”
That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the following month, is still IN EFFECT TODAY.
Way to go, Vanessa! Well written and an important thought for those who voted for Obama. Remember, this requires the church to pay the copays for birth control, that is provide it free to those who want to use birth control. This is unlike almost all prescriptions for noncontroversial medicines which actually promote health and healing, such as an antibiotic which almost everyone pays at least a copay for.
Hey Vanessa-
Take a deep breath. You are adding to the division between Republicans who happen to be catholics, and catholics who happen to be Democrats. The Republicans are praising your post, the catholics are raising issues with it.
Take time to load your brain before you shoot your mouth off-the reputation you save could be your own.
Just as a point of fact-both parties are pro-choice on abortion. The Democrats are more open and straightforward about it. Press a Republican-like John McCain, Herm cain, et al., and they will say something like it’s ultimately up to the woman and her family and conscience.
Mark, I’m sure you are doing the best you know how to do, but please try very hard to stick to the issues. If you have a logical argument, by all means, state it. Otherwise, let it go. It does nobody any good to add patronizing comments.
Dear Friends:
Vanessa is right and those who disagree with her are flat-out wrong.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
What is at stake here is the “free exercise thereof.” In essence, the government is telling Catholics that it is OK to believe whatever you want, but you better not act on it. Requiring the Church to foot the bill for services they regard as immoral tramples on the Church’s First Amendment rights. (Yep, even we Catholics have rights.)
What is more, the “contraceptive” lingo is a smoke screen. In fact, under this regulation, the Catholic Church, one of the staunchest and most vigorous Pro-Life organizations in the world, could end up shelling out for abortions. People can quibble over birth control, but on abortion the evidence is clear: in every abortion, a human being is killed.
When there was a draft, Amish and Quaker youth were accommodated due to religious objection. Under the precedent set by this rule, that would not be allowed. “Sorry kid, here’s your M-16, there’s the enemy. Get to work.”
Everyone who cares about the Constitution and the legitimate rights of Americans should be protesting this rule.
I urge the Bishops, if we are not accommodated, refuse to offer the insurance. If we are fined, refuse to pay the fines. Remember the example of St. Thomas More and the other great saints who paid the ultimate price for resisting evil even when sponsored by governmental power.
Chris
In the United States, civil law takes precedence over religious law. There are many religions in this country, and among them are mutually contradictory rules. So you are allowed to follow whatever religious rules you like, as long as it does not conflict with civil law.
Ms. Hagan Bloch -
1. The only law here is the First Amendment. The Church has a moral teaching, but it is not a law, like a provision of Canon Law.
2. One of the bedrock principals of our system is that even the government must obey the law.
M. Brune — yes, indeedy. And your point?
Perhaps Chris Brune you need to be emailing the Supreme Court. They did rule against native Americans a few years back regarding a spiritual ceremony & civil law in the workplace.
Allow me to explain just how the Affordable Care Act will make health care better for you; I am forced to buy contraception insurance which I do not need nor want, so someone who is currently paying for contraceptives that they do want can now afford to pay for said contraceptives. This “preventive care” is essential to the user. Should the user become afflicted with pregnancy, a result of the preventive care having failed, the afflicted will also have available, with no deductible or no co-payment mind you, a remedy to restore the afflicted to health, which I will also pay for. For those that fail to take advantage of these preventive services and by chance become afflicted with pregnancy, or after taking advantage of the services unexpectedly become afflicted with pregnancy and decide to endure the acute health effects of childbirth, any associated costs will include a deductible and a co-payment, eventually, of course, subject to the discretion of the secretary of Health and Human Services.
Those that fail to take advantage of the services and by design become afflicted with pregnancy shall have no recourse to bring suit against the government for failing to properly inform them of their right to such service. This proviso excludes those that become afflicted and then chose to take advantage of the services by becoming cured of pregnancy.
In the end, I still do not need nor do I want to purchase such a policy, but the government requires me to stop my insistence and my resistance and to allow them to do what is best for me.
Next: Why I do not buy motorcycle insurance.
And those who do not become afflicted with cancer have to bear the cost for those who do. That’s part of the deal. We all pay, for the benefit of all.
I have to pay taxes, some of which have gone to fund stupid wars. I would rather not have paid for that, but it’s part of the package deal. We can’t have everything we want.
Let’s not forget how our Catholic hospitals will be affected. This will be a stepping stone to some horrible changes. They are trying to get their foot in the door and destroy morality all together.
Cancer is a disease- pregnancy is not. It has a 100% cure –abstinence.
Some might argue that protection against poverty in old age is a valid security concern. But those efforts can all be accomplished by responsible individuals and families who plan for the certainty of old age. No family can plan for or handle the threats of domination by a foreign power. That is why a government was formed in the first place, for mutual protection.
I am Catholic, and that first ptcuire is one of the most, ahem, unfortunate angles the photog could’ve chosen. It also made the cover of “Vermont Catholic” unintentionally hilarious.
“Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. ”
“In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence”
“In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2)”
Lest not forget “Genesis 38:8-10
New International Version (NIV)
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also. ”
Finally from the 4th chapter of James
“15 You ought to say instead, “If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that.” 16 But as it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17 So whoever knows what is good to do and does not do it is guilty of sin.”
“God is not a feeling”
Isn’t it strange how many people resort to quoting one scripture or another when rational thinking and logic won’t support their argument?
Tough issues. Great posts. For me, when I consider the “big picture” and Catholic Social Teaching and what I’m hearing from the Republican candidates regarding the poor, immigrants, tax policies, the wealthy, and “these least brothers of mine” (Mt.25:40), my vote still goes to Obama.
This policy goes in the face of all religions, not just Christians. Simply read the 1st amendment to the Constitution.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, think about it a little bit.
If it were not the case that civil law trumps religious law, then we’d be burdened with death penalties for drawing pictures of Mohammed, for example. Try to remember that different religions have different laws.
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.