Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[Annie]

It didn't 'forbid' circumcisions.

Except the part where it explicitly denounces the practice of circumcision, and explicitly disclaims any concern for whether one "puts your hope in it," and where it explicitly states that the practice of circumcision "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

So, explain to me this: what does "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation" mean, if not "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation"?

Again, you fail to understand what you are reading and the language usage of the times. Respond if you like, but you are boring me.

 

[Intense]

I'm so glad you shared a reasoned and unemotional tirade with me. Thank you.

As for your opinion that this is a matter of conscience, I have some doubts. I suspect the Catholic Church and other competing religious orders need numbers, abortion and birth control would restrict the number of new followers. Telling someone of faith that they will go to hell for using contraception seems to me little different than the exercise of power and control of an abuser.

That is likely far fetched to you and probably to most of the Bishops. However, for anyone to suggest that the history of the Catholic Church as a political institution is absurd hasn't an inkling of history.

nice strawman. barley?

The fallacy is Straw Man, del, and defined thusly:

Straw man

Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man (like a scarecrow) isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponent's argument isn't very impressive either.

Stirke two!

Technical Foul! You are out of the game Sonny.

You want to go on the Church being against Abortion and Birth Control because it's worried about it's numbers and you talk to me about Straw Man arguments? Are you serious? Ideal and Ethics has nothing to do with the Church's position? Really? You have doubts, so it must be true? You are starting to sound like RDean and TruthMatters. Is that what you want?I bet you don't spend much time around Spiritual Communities Wry.

 

[syrenn]

I should add most insurance companies don't cover circumcision anymore, including state funded health care. My son was getting state paid health care through Group Health when he was born and they would not pay for it.
I am not sure what people are arguing on that, but most people have to pay out of pocket theses days.

Exactly, so why force the church to pay for something that they do not offer? If the women want birth control... pay for it out of pocket like the rest of us.

I pay a premium, and so my companies health care plan covers it.

My biggest problem with this is, these Bishops are playing politics. A majority of Catholics are for them covering birth control, and many Catholic Hospitals and Charities already cover birth control. Look up how many Catholic Women actually take birth control.
You say you don't want big government running you life, but you have no problem with male Arch Bishops running yours?

Yes, you pay a premium for what the company health plan covers and offers. Anything other then what it covers you pay for yourself. That is all the church wants. They offer X and not Y. You are paying a premium for X coverage.

If omaba wants to play religion, then why cant the bishops play politics? It works both ways.

I have no issue with catholic women taking birth control and having abortions. Screw the church if they don't like it. The church need to stay the hell out of women's choices and not preach to them what they should and should not do with their bodies.

However that being said....none of that has anything to do with what the chruch offers in the way of health benefit coverage. The church should not be forced to offer anything they they do not already cover. If someone wants it... they can pay for it just like you and i would pay for something that is not covered.

The bishops, by not offering birth control within their health care plans...does not in any way mean they control my life or body. All it says is that they are ass holes who don't cover or approve of birth control for religious reasons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You produced an extreme example as a refutation of the general concept of compromise, antagonistically to the my comments about the fact that our country nowadays is crippled by an incessant refusal to ever compromise on anything. You are clearly arguing in favor of extremism. Oh, and you're committing fallacy by accident in doing so. Either way, your position is completely without merit, both logically and ethically.

Extreme or not, it still makes the point that compromise is not always right. Sometimes principles matter, which is why King refused to accept anything less than total capitulation when he was fighting for civil rights. Or is that another extreme example that is also an accidental fallacy? Can't see how it is since I am not actually saying it is always wrong to compromise, just refuting your position that refusal to do so is always a problem.

No, I expect the church to stop acting like a toddler who wants more candy. This has nothing to do with you.

Actually, it does, because I think it is wrong myself, and I refuse to accept the compromise, even if it does not directly affect me. Guess that makes this all about me.

Then your position is absurd. Every law is a mandate on the citizens. I know that you hate the government and you hate America. So get the fuck out already.

Every law is a mandate on citizens? Every law? is that seriously your position? Does that mean a law that makes it illegal for a government official to accept bribes is a mandate on me?

A lot of laws are actually mandates, but good laws are not mandates. Laws that lay out punishments for violating another persons rights are not mandates, mandates impose an obligation on people that exceed their normal duties as a free moral agent. A law that lays out punishment if I kill someone is not a mandate, one that infringes on my rights is.

No, that's not my position. But you know it all, don't you? Anyone who disagrees with you even 1% has to be 100% something else, isn't that right? You simply can't wrap your mind around the fact that I am opposed to the health care law, but that I'm further opposed to the church receiving special exceptions just so that it can force its twisted ideology down the throats of people who don't want it. I'm opposed to the idea that any religious institution has any place to tell its followers what kind of medical treatment they can receive, and I'm opposed to the idea that ANY employer, including a religious organization, has any right to have that kind of control over the personal lives of its employees.

Didn't you just say this is not about me? I guess you were wrong, weren't you?

For the record, the church is not trying to force their ideology down anyone's throat, they are trying to stop you from forcing your ideology down their throats. Feel free to divert the argument into another rant about me distorting your position and that you don't actually believe the government has the authority to impose mandates that you think promote the common good. I so enjoy it when people contradict themselves in the very same paragraph, it saves me having to point to something else.

Great. So you going to argue the moon landing was fake now, too? If you don't have evidence, then don't make claims.

Talk about strawmen. For the record, the government is not my source of evidence about the moon landing, I can actually bounce a laser off a reflector left on the Moon by the astronauts, that proves that someone was there.

The government is telling me this is free, and that the insurance companies will pay for it. That alone is a contradiction, but we will ignore that for the purpose of the argument, just so you don't get confused. Here is my evidence that what Obama, and the White House, is saying is an attempt to cloud the issues.

Here's where the magical thinking comes in. The following is from the fact sheet the White House released Friday:
Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more.
Making everyone in a pool carry coverage whether they need it or not spreads the cost, saving money for those who really do need it and who'd choose to carry it if it were merely optional. But costs faced by the insurer are the same -- and when the care is provided with no out-of-pocket costs, the insurer's costs are likely to go up because more people will use it. Such is likely to be the case with contraception.
The administration's bet is that the cost of all those birth-control and morning-after pills, among other forms of contraception, will be more than offset by a reduction in other healthcare costs. A report by the Institutes of Medicine backs up the White House; it found that contraceptive use would save $19.3 billion a year -- far more than the estimated $5 billion annual cost of unintended pregnancies.
But whether this particular mandate produces that kind of result is something only time will tell. Although 28 states require insurers to cover contraception, the new federal rules are the first to require that contraceptives be available at no cost. The only certain result is that more women will get prescriptions filled for contraceptives. There will be a short-term cost to that, unquestionably; the administration's hope is that there will be long-term savings.

The White House wishes away the cost of contraception coverage - latimes.com

I actually posted this already, but I enjoy rubbing pretentious fools noses in facts that they did not think I had.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FYI, the key part of that paragraph is the part I highlighted in red. The issue they are talking about is not circumcision, it is the reliance on following the Mosaic laws to achieve salvation.

Mosaic law? Really? Well color me tickled. I had no idea! Fucking idiot.

Perhaps you should read a little more than a single sentence. You know, at least up to this part:

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Like I said, context. The issue is whether following the law will lead to salvation, and the church ordered people not to get circumcised, even if they don't think it will lead to salvation, because it is a false doctrine. It is an obscure point of theology, not an order not to get a circumcision at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess you dont get the bit about .... the church is not denying them birth control... they are just not covering it in health care THEY offer. The chruch is not saying that they cannot have, procure it on their own, or use it.

Classic twist and spin coming from the left.... they can't deal with the facts so they lie, bullshit and spin. SOP. I doubt even they believe the shit their throwing out.

Did someone say the church is saying their employees cannot take it?

And we all know Catholic women do not listen to them, so I am trying to figure out where we said they told them not to take it?

If the church is not, as you admit, telling employees not to take birth control, then the argument that they are trying to impose their beliefs on others is a lie. Nice to see someone who actually thinks for themselves on the other side of this debate for a change.

 

[washamericom]

where i come from women wait untill there wedding night then pretend to enjoy sex.

they don't go around waiting for the socialist government to buy their pills so thay can frolic around like bunnyrabbits without the express purpose of making a baby.

if people could keep their primal urges in check a little better we would have all of these problems.

 

[Inthemiddle]

where i come from women wait untill there wedding night then pretend to enjoy sex.

they don't go around waiting for the socialist government to buy their pills so thay can frolic around like bunnyrabbits without the express purpose of making a baby.

if people could keep their primal urges in check a little better we would have all of these problems.

Spoken like a true lying sack of shit who hates human nature.

 

[del]

where i come from women wait untill there wedding night then pretend to enjoy sex.

they don't go around waiting for the socialist government to buy their pills so thay can frolic around like bunnyrabbits without the express purpose of making a baby.

if people could keep their primal urges in check a little better we would have all of these problems.

Spoken like a true lying sack of shit who hates human nature.

tissue?

 

[Ravi]

It's not a valid question Ravi. We are not dealing with what ifs, we are dealing with the actual fact that the first amendment may be under attack.

Now I am not a very religious person, and I am not a catholic, but I'll be damned if i will allow the constitution to be broken. And this may be doing it.

Wait...wut? This was not what you posted this morning and my reply to you and your reply to me have been disappeared???

 

[Rinata]

What you think the Church should be or not be is irrelevant.

Reading comprehension Cali Twit.......apparently that's a foreign concept to you as I didn't say anything about what the church should or shouldn't be.

As usual, your posts lack anything of substance, just lame ass insults and bullshit.

Bad picture of you, you look tired.

 

[Rinata]

Obama's probably wandering around the Oval Office, muttering and cursing, and sobbing on the BlackBerry to Biden.

I wonder if Biden will say 'told ya so' to him? LOL

ha...he should, one of the times biden was spot on.

Had to happen sooner or later. Law of averages and all that.

I am so proud of my Church. Way to stand up for religious liberty Bishops! YAY! Go Team God!

Oh, brother. Knowing you, you're probably an atheist.

 

[California Girl]

Exactly, so why force the church to pay for something that they do not offer? If the women want birth control... pay for it out of pocket like the rest of us.

I pay a premium, and so my companies health care plan covers it.

My biggest problem with this is, these Bishops are playing politics. A majority of Catholics are for them covering birth control, and many Catholic Hospitals and Charities already cover birth control. Look up how many Catholic Women actually take birth control.
You say you don't want big government running you life, but you have no problem with male Arch Bishops running yours?

Yes, you pay a premium for what the company health plan covers and offers. Anything other then what it covers you pay for yourself. That is all the church wants. They offer X and not Y. You are paying a premium for X coverage.

If omaba wants to play religion, then why cant the bishops play politics? It works both ways.

I have no issue with catholic women taking birth control and having abortions. Screw the church if they don't like it. The church need to stay the hell out of women's choices and not preach to them what they should and should not do with their bodies.

However that being said....none of that has anything to do with what the chruch offers in the way of health benefit coverage. The church should not be forced to offer anything they they do not already cover. If someone wants it... they can pay for it just like you and i would pay for something that is not covered.

The bishops, by not offering birth control within their health care plans...does not in any way mean they control my life or body. All it says is that they are ass holes who don't cover or approve of birth control for religious reasons.

Actually, mo chara, the church has every right to 'preach' to females who CHOOSE to be members of said Church. It's members are at liberty to make their own choices.... however, telling a church not to 'preach' is not exactly an intelligent argument.

No one forces anyone to attend their church. That too is a choice.

And.... standing by one's faith does not make one an 'asshole'.

 

[JoeB131]

Del, I'm going to see less of your posts because you are now on ignore ,having little to add to any conversation.

But to the point, the courts will find in Obama's favor on this because the denial of treatment based on gender violates the civil rights act.

 

[del]

i may never recover

 

[California Girl]

The following is a list of the issues raised by the Conference of Catholic Bishops on the 'birth control' mandate. It is a blog... but it is a source blog, not a media blog - it solidly represents the position of the Catholic Church.

1. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.”

2. The rule leaves open the possibility that even exempt “religious employers” will be forced to cover sterilization. In its August 2011 comments, USCCB warned that the narrow “religious employer” exemption appeared to provide no relief from the sterilization mandate—only the contraception mandate—and specifically sought clarification. (We also noted that a sterilization mandate exists in only one state, Vermont.) HHS provided no clarification, so the risk remains under the unchanged final rule.

3. The new “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. Also on Friday evening, HHS issued regulations describing the intention to develop more regulations that would apply the same mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that are still left out of the “religious employer” exemption. These policies will be developed over a one-year delay in enforcement, so if they turn out badly, their impact will not be felt until August 2013, well after the election.

4. Even if the promises of “accommodation” are fulfilled entirely, religious charities, schools, and hospitals will still be forced to violate their beliefs. If an employee of these second-class-citizen religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. There can be no additional cost to that employee, and the coverage is not a separate policy. By process of elimination, the funds to pay for that coverage must come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.

5. The “accommodation” does not even purport to help objecting insurers, for-profit religious employers, secular employers, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, USCCB identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Friday’s actions emphasize that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn, all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the “accommodation.”

6. Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the bishops are partisan. The bishops and their staff read regulations before evaluating them. The bishops did not pick this fight in an election year—others did. Bishops form their positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of every human person—not polls, personalities, or political parties. Bishops are duty bound to proclaim these principles, in and out of season.

USCCB Blog

 

[JoeB131]

My name is not Guy.

The courts have ruled that religious employers who provide certain services have to apply them equally. This allows the church to not actually provide the service, or allows them to set up a copay where the employee can pay for the service themselves. States also have much broader definitions of religious institutions that are exempted from the laws. Obama, in his infinite wisdom, decided to require all employees to provide contraception, period, and narrowed the religious exemption to the point that the only places that qualified were churches, and a strong argument could be made that if a non Catholic wen to a Catholic church and asked for help to get to the nearest gas station no one would be able to answer the question legally without making the church exempt.

Please, keep proving you don't know anything, I enjoy the feeling I get when I mock you.

Yawn.

Sorry, hospitals owned by the CHurch are not "religious employers".

And as I've said, the "Fig Leaf" will just allow the insurance companies to offer the services by going around the church.

The men in dresses are going to lose this argument. ANd it will be funny when they do.

 

[California Girl]

i may never recover

Tissue?

 

[JoeB131]

I find it amusing these Bishops were all for ObamaCare when they thought they were going to rake in tons of money, but now that they are going to have to give up on one of their silly superstitions, they are soiling their dresses.

 

[California Girl]

I find it amusing these Bishops were all for ObamaCare when they thought they were going to rake in tons of money, but now that they are going to have to give up on one of their silly superstitions, they are soiling their dresses.

They supported it because Obama lied to them. But don't let that fact get in the way of your rabid hatred of all things not Obama-fied.