Comments for Busted Halo

Comment on What a Tablecloth Taught Me About Relationships by Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:22:45 +0000

She doesn’t mention the hours of prayers that were said while crocheting. I know those will bless the family for generations.

Comment on What a Tablecloth Taught Me About Relationships by Sherry Bower

Sherry Bower — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:43:00 +0000

Nice thoughts – but even more inspirationsl is the 4 years it took to make – now I am truly inspired to finish the projects I have procrastinated on and set aside! Thank you Sr.!

Comment on What is a Deacon? by Michaela

Michaela — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:36:16 +0000

Wait what’s the other kind of deacon? I’m not Catholic or Lutheran and my religion just has Pastors. I have no idea what was just said…Someone help me with the second kind of deacon?!

Comment on Tears for the Life of Jenny Sooter by Casey

Casey — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:00:03 +0000

I have searched for years to find the “real” story of this tragedy. I met Tom Sooter at a church I attended. He came in with great accolades and with mystery surrounding his move. We were led to believe that this tragedy lie completely in his wife’s lap. I never bought it. I was in the what I call extreme IFB group. The kind where suicide was an easier path to take than divorce. The kind where the pastor withdrew himself as your pastor because your ex divorced you and yet the pastor persisted that your place was with him. The kind that turned a blind eye to the abuse going on in a home and still expected you to “hold on”. Legalism is NOT adding anything to salvation…that’s the definition we were taught. Legalism is anything you do to earn God’s favor. It’s where laws and codes are kept to ensure God loves you and accepts you. Look it up!! Mr. Sooter married a dear lady I knew from a prior church. She was vibrant and loved the Lord and her first husband had died. She had prayed for years to marry a man in the ministry so when Mr. Sooter came along she felt her prayers had been answered. Go talk to the lady today and see how vibrant and happy she is. I know her daughters…I know she is NOT happy but is miserable. She suffers in silence. She has been cut off from some of her children because they live a lifestyle considered contrary to their world. Her children have always been her world and that’s what these people are known for doing…cutting people off from family. They call it separation. People are willingly blind and when faced with truth they will defend a lie simply because they can’t even fathom questioning anything outside the box. If I sound angry…I am…I knew in my heart of hearts that this man is NOT the man of God everyone thinks he is.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Malinda

Malinda — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:59:35 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Gage Blackwood

Gage Blackwood — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:25:33 +0000

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?

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Elizabeth Frederick

Elizabeth Frederick — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:58:10 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Malinda

Malinda — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:18:40 +0000

Eliana, good points. I think it’s important to remember to many people this is a women’s health issue.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Malinda

Malinda — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:31:30 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Eliana

Eliana — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:24:25 +0000

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.

Comment on What a Tablecloth Taught Me About Relationships by James Leo Oliver

James Leo Oliver — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:15:37 +0000

Thank you for sharing! So true!!

Comment on ‘Tis the season for family, faith, fellowship—and fat by Hyacinthe, pilules pour maigrir

Hyacinthe, pilules pour maigrir — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:55:10 +0000

Somebody necessarily help to make critically posts I’d state. That is the very first time I frequented your web page and so far? I amazed with the analysis you made to create this particular put up incredible. Excellent task!

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Elizabeth Frederick

Elizabeth Frederick — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:53:52 +0000

“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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Deanna

Deanna — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:14:08 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:18:43 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Gage Blackwood

Gage Blackwood — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:53:10 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Malinda

Malinda — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:21:04 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Elizabeth Frederick

Elizabeth Frederick — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:50:37 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Gage Blackwood

Gage Blackwood — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:16:27 +0000

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).

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Elizabeth Frederick

Elizabeth Frederick — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:04:34 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Elizabeth Frederick

Elizabeth Frederick — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:02:44 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Malinda

Malinda — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:01:09 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Gage Blackwood

Gage Blackwood — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:58:30 +0000

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?

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Jennifer Schlameuss-Perry

Jennifer Schlameuss-Perry — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:28:51 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Deanna

Deanna — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:15 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by James

James — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:06:14 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Adam

Adam — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:59:54 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Elizabeth Frederick

Elizabeth Frederick — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:56:05 +0000

I meant to say the majority of CATHOLIC women of child bearing age have been using The Pill for decades.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by Elizabeth Frederick

Elizabeth Frederick — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:52:44 +0000

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.

Comment on The Government’s Attack on Consciences by joe

joe — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:32:58 +0000

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.