Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-11-2012, 07:26 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Bishops call Obama's contraception compromise 'unacceptable'

Seems they get their frock in a bundle more on birth control than state sponsored torture. I find that odd and disturbing........
Bishops call Obama's contraception compromise 'unacceptable' - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
QuoteQuote:

But they made it clear that a “lack of clear protection for key stakeholders — for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals — is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.”
and war is just too darn "complicated".........




Theologians see need for broader discussion on conscience | National Catholic Reporter
QuoteQuote:
Why does it seem that the bishops -- and even Catholics in general -- more seriously engage questions of sexual morality, while leaving many questions of social sin unanswered?

Look at the lack of outcry over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said David Cloutier, associate professor of theology at Mount St. Mary's University in Emmitsburg, Md. While Pope John Paul II clearly opposed that war, U.S. bishops did not instruct their faithful to refrain from paying their taxes, which might fund the military, or to express disagreement in other ways.

Examination of social issues like war is typically the subject of "lengthy inquiry," focused on "different circumstances," Cloutier said, in contrast to the seemingly straightforward nature of Catholic teaching on sexuality.

Rubio said she tried to explore the subject of cooperation with evil in a paper about the morality of buying clothes that may have been made in sweatshops.

But, she said, "it was really difficult to draw out the lines of connection" on that subject, considering the "limits of knowledge" and other ethical questions about whether it is better for people in impoverished countries to have low-paying jobs than no jobs at all.

"It gets really complicated," she said. "It seems much more complicated than 'Am I cooperating with the evil of contraception?' "

In the same vein, Rubio said one of her colleagues wanted to evaluate the morality of meat-eating in light of the conditions of those working in meat factories and had the same difficulty.

Despite that difficulty to discern clear-cut answers to morality in some areas, Rubio said the attempt to do so emphasizes that in the Catholic tradition "there is definitely an affirmation that there is such a thing as structural sin, and we participate as individuals and we can be guilty of that."

That's why, although the bishops' statements on moral issues -- particularly sexual ones -- can sometimes seem blunt, Rubio said she appreciated their attempt to "talk about cooperation with evil," particularly when they bring up the issue in regard to voting.

"Although it tends to be focused on just a few issues," she said, "the idea I think is very useful: What do I do when I vote? What am I cooperating with?"

Theologian Daniel Maguire of Marquette University in Milwaukee comes to the topic with more fundamental questions: Who is the church? And how does the church discern morality?

The bishops' positions on the health insurance mandate cannot be separated from U.S. Catholics' widespread negligence in following the church's teaching on contraception, Maguire said.
QuoteQuote:
"Conscience is such a hugely important topic," said Lisa Fullam, an associate professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif. "The fact that it tends to only be discussed in the light of sexuality is unfortunate."
QuoteQuote:
In fact, a study by the Guttmacher Institute last April estimated that some 98 percent of Catholic women in the U.S. who have had sex use contraception.

When considering the position of the church on any issue, Maguire said, it's important to remember that the bishops are not "the entire picture."


02-11-2012, 07:34 AM   #2
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,861
Religions are still playing the numbers game. If you can make your followersthe majority of any country you can make your religion the quasi official state religion as the Catholics did in Ireland. More babies means more followers. More responsible religions will have lower birth rates, opening the door for democratic oppression by church leaders. The crazy thing is Catholic leaders in the US and Canada trying to impose their religious values without even having a majority. Ignoring the Christian imperative to lead by example they choose to lead by influencing legislation. The corruption of many of the Christian faiths that leads them to try and to legislate their agenda leads to inevitable counter attacks, which they characterize as persecution and use as an excuse to circle the wagons. Typical cult behviour.

It's all part of the plan.
02-11-2012, 07:58 AM - 1 Like   #3
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,872
And now the Bishops are the ones who look unreasonable. It's not surprising given that they are giving their full support to Rick Santorum "The finest mind of the 13th century".
02-11-2012, 10:15 AM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,409
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
And now the Bishops are the ones who look unreasonable.
The bishies got pwned--big time.

02-11-2012, 12:44 PM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,100
Why should any religion or special interest group, interfere or attempt to sway government decision ? There was a good reason for the development of the democratic ideal, of separation of state and religion.

In a democracy all should be regarded and treated equally.

There shouldn't be a special dispensation or consideration, for certain groups.

If all were considered and treated equally as they should be in a democracy, there wouldn't be a debate on this matter, right now.

It's that simple.
02-11-2012, 12:59 PM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Why should any religion or special interest group, interfere or attempt to sway government decision ? There was a good reason for the development of the democratic ideal, of separation of state and religion.

In a democracy all should be regarded and treated equally.

There shouldn't be a special dispensation or consideration, for certain groups.

If all were considered and treated equally as they should be in a democracy, there wouldn't be a debate on this matter, right now.

It's that simple.
That isn't a very good strategy. How can this specific church impose it's will and control on others if it doesn't have control of the government? This church must also have direct control over it's growth and since it isn't able to win over the minds of others through merit, it must control reproduction in individuals to promote large quantities of good Christian babies (preferably boys) that can be converted to Catholicism.
02-11-2012, 01:20 PM   #7
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,872
Rick Santorum Disagrees With Catholic Church... On Health Care Reform | Crooks and Liars
02-11-2012, 02:47 PM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,100
QuoteOriginally posted by SteveM Quote
That isn't a very good strategy. How can this specific church impose it's will and control on others if it doesn't have control of the government? This church must also have direct control over it's growth and since it isn't able to win over the minds of others through merit, it must control reproduction in individuals to promote large quantities of good Christian babies (preferably boys) that can be converted to Catholicism.
...you make some good points.

02-11-2012, 03:51 PM   #9
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
I have listened to a lot of bad analogies and overreaction on this issue. No one has told a Catholic hospital or doctor they must perform services against their will or faith--and no, buying health insurance that covers all commonly-used services chosen by the user based upon her personal conscience is not the same as a Kosher butcher selling pork.

Church-affiliated businesses compensate their employees, and their employees can spend their compensation as they see fit. To me it is as simple as that. Health coverage is one more form of compensation the employee receives, just like a check. If the hospital doesn't want to "pay" for things they don't believe in, then they best pay their employees in scrip which can only be used at a Catholic store. They are already "paying for" countless things which would offend the Pope. From a free market perspective, if their plan doesn't cover something that 90% of women want, and they want (for example) to compete for qualified female nurses which are currently in short supply, they will end up paying those nurses more and "paying for" these disfavored services that way.

The real answer is a national health care program with full coverage. This is just reason number 97 why it is a terrible idea to have employers picking the health care for their employees. If by eliminating pre-existing conditions, the PPACA helps to remove health insurance from the grip of the employment relationship, it will have gone a major step in the right direction already. (Unfortunately, there are provisions which go the other direction, but I'll leave that for another thread)

Last edited by GeneV; 02-11-2012 at 04:08 PM.
02-11-2012, 04:16 PM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
...you make some good points.
Just to be clear, part of my response is in jest to some policies that I do not agree with. I think for the most part the church does a lot of good.

QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I have listened to a lot of bad analogies and overreaction on this issue. No one has told a Catholic hospital or doctor they must perform services against their will or faith.

Church-affiliated businesses pay their employees, and their employees can spend their compensation as they see fit. To me it is as simple as that. Health coverage is one more form of compensation the employee receives, just like a check. If the hospital doesn't want to "pay" for things they don't believe in, then they best pay their employees in scrip which can only be used at a Catholic store. They are already "paying for" countless things which would offend the Pope. From a free market perspective, if their plan doesn't cover something that 90% of women want, and they want (for example) to compete for qualified female nurses which are currently in short supply, they will end up paying those nurses more and "paying for" these disfavored services that way.

The real answer is a national health care program with full coverage. This is just reason number 97 why it is a terrible idea to have employers picking the health care coverage for their employees.
I agree with your premise that it is a terrible idea to have employers involved in deciding health care coverage. Your example identified market conditions where the employee has the upper hand. This is not always the case, and as some of the "minimizing" strategies work their way through the professional services industries in North America, this will become less common.
02-11-2012, 06:53 PM   #11
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
The thing is these hospitals are not necessarily self supporting. A lot of them get state and federal grants to run and yet they still want to have full jurisdiction over any policy regarding the supplying of certain medications, doing certain procedures etc. While I sympathize with their wanting to keep to the rules of their religion I feel that if they are going to do that then they need to run entirely on their own funds and not collect state and federal grants. It's that simple. They can't be a private charity hospital system and collect funds elsewhere.

As for the employer issue that entirely another matter. I don't feel that every employer should be required to even offer health insurance let alone be forced to cover things that theologically they are against. That's absurd. People forget that health coverage is a BENEFIT not a right. It's a nice thing that they offer it, when they do, that they cover what they do, IMHO. My parents, grandparents and so forth never had health coverage except via the military when the men were enlisted during war. You got sick you went to the doctor and you paid him or her with chickens if necessary. If you couldn't afford to pay right away most of the time the doctor would treat you anyway, and work it out with you. That little thing called The Hippocratic Oath, that seems so archaic to doctors these days pretty much covered that contingency or if your local doctor wasn't so inclined there were charity hospitals that ran on their own funds. Or worse case scenario you simply did without and prayed you wouldn't die.

I'm living without health insurance as I type and that's despite having a couple of major health issues I should be taking daily meds for. I'm not taking them because I can't afford them. I can't get state or country help and the drug company programs haven't been much help either. People who have insurance of any kind are way luckier than a lot of people like me and yet they still want to vetch about their religious employers/hospitals not wanting to cover their birth control pills? Their abortions? Please. Give me a break. It just makes me want to slap somebody the sense of entitlement that some people have when it comes to this stuff. All this health care BS it's mostly about politics and posturing anyway. I sincerely doubt that this plan of Obama's will stick and/or that even if it does it will make one iota worth of difference to people like me.
02-11-2012, 08:10 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,476
Well, Mags, doctors can't live on whatever chickens people do or don't have, the corporate profits and student debt and cost of education and other business are too high, and have been a long time. There won't be a 'good old days' of country doctors any time soon under a profit-based system. As always, we should have been on the single payer system the Right and corporate profiteers are so afraid of.

As for the Church and the rest of the Religious Right, this obviously isn't even about the will of Catholic voters or Catholic people, just their religious authority they want to use the government and government money to impose, even over corporations, ironically.

Which is one thing that gets left out in all this: the churches aren't paying for this contraception, ...frankly, the employees are, really, with their time and labor. None of it passes through the churches' hands, and its' on the health insurers' dime.

Which is one thing to mention: for health insurance companies, they *make* more money providing contraception than it costs... Because they would have to pay out a lot more on more pregnancies and STDs and complications and illnesses, so it's not even like there's money to pay for it even passing through the church's hands: the churches just aren't allowed to use the government to say that people shouldn't be covered for this in corporate insurance.

Ie, they just want control over what's *literally* taken out of their hands. That is, our lives.


And of course to use this for another Religious Right extremist wedge issue. To elect the people that have been screwing us all, our country, our rights, and trying to put religious-political power in our personal lives.
02-11-2012, 09:24 PM   #13
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
Well my point is people who work for religious organizations know when they sign up what the supposed beliefs of their religions are. If they want to go against those beliefs, fine, that's their prerogative, and actually I'm usually all for it myself, but to then demand that their religiously oriented employer then violate said stated beliefs of said religions to provide birth control is a bit hypocritical I think. I mean you're going against your religion doing your own thing, fine, but what should your church then pay for you to be doing it? Think about it. Religious people in this situation have an ethical choice to make here. Many people chose to be members of certain religions and yet when it comes down to it they don't want to follow the beliefs of that religion? Then why be there at all? Why even work for said church or one of it's charities if you really deep down don't believe what they are teaching you?

They're NOT going to change. They've had centuries to change. Guess what? 2000 years later they still think women's bodies are basically incubators for God. Big news, right? So leave already. Find a sane religion and a sane employer who will let you have autonomy over your own reproductive organs. But don't sit there and bitch, moan and complain when they won't pay for your birth control pills. That's just totally useless and yes, hypocritical in the extreme. I don't get people who take that shiz actually. It's like my one gay friend who insists he's Catholic, and sings in the choir, even though he can't even bring his lover of 25 years to church with him, and admit to their relationship for fear of being tossed out of the choir and probably out of the church. I mean my goodness WHY would you ever stay with a religion that makes you lie about who you love to be accepted? Who needs that kind of religious masochism? Certainly he deserves better, but NO, he's Cradle to the Grave Catholic and that's just how it is apparently. He'll wait another 2000 years apparently if he has to for his church to change. Not that it will likely happen but still he will...

People can be such sheep sometimes, and no, I do not mean that in a flattering kind of way....
02-11-2012, 09:26 PM   #14
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,872
Bankruptcy Petition Reveals More Than 8000 Sexual Abuse Victims In Milwaukee Archdiocese | Crooks and Liars
02-11-2012, 09:49 PM   #15
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
Again, I don't get why people stay in certain religions at all sometimes. Between all the autocratic rules and the abuse, of every kind, I would think that the last thing people would have loyalty to is these organizations, but some people do cling. Like I said it must be some kind of religious masochism that goes with the faith. There's just no accounting for it otherwise...
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bishops, catholic, contraception, questions, rubio, subject, theology, u.s
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In Latest Compromise With GOP, Obama Agrees He Is a Muslim Nesster General Talk 27 12-10-2010 10:38 AM
A call for help! flyer General Talk 5 04-10-2010 04:24 AM
the middle ground and compromise - E-P1 nostatic Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 07-22-2009 07:11 PM
Is it a compromise? A50/1.7 vs. DA40/2.8 John Araki Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-21-2008 08:52 PM
One way to compromise, Playing with Shadows. A Peregrine Falcons pictures little laker Post Your Photos! 19 11-08-2007 02:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top