So Obama care will force Catholic churches who employ people

[JohnA]

Why is the Catholic power structure against abortion prevention?

Yet they support child molestation....not many violators of children go to jail.

How many commentators on this thread are Catholic?

The Catholic church is more concerned with preventing birth control than preventing pedophilia.

Why?

Because no birth control means more Catholics and more power and more money.

No pedophilia means no sex for the priests.

How do I put this in words that stupid people will understand. The Catholic Church does not support any intervention with the procreation of life. People who disagree are welcome not to be Catholic.

And, again - for the stupid - the number of priests accused of pedophilia is 0.03%. Lower that professions such as teachers, sports coaches, etc. I appreciate the desperation that makes you think this is somehow relevant but it isn't. Twit.

Oh, and, without the Catholic Church, we'd all be paying considerably more taxes - because the Church funds massive social programs in the country - and around the world - and asks for nothing in return for that service.

Moron.

any % of pedophilia is unexceptable
link as to the % of pedophilia is higher in *other * professions would give more validity to that statement .
one difference i see is when that crime is bought to light in other professions a penalty is paid sometimes by others then the actual perpetrator ( the recent football scandal comes to mind ) with the catholic church when and IF a priest is found to be a pedophile no actions is taken against who try to cover it up or ignore it ....
big difference



10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia


in this articule it refers to priests being NO MORE LIKELY TO BE CHILD ABUSERS THAN ANY OTHER GROUPS OF MEN

nowhere did i find % of priest pediphilia stated to be MUCH LOWER THAN OTHER PROFESSIONS

 

[Annie]

I don't know if this has already been cited, but it's a powerful editorial on what has happened here:

Obama’s radical power grab on health care - The Washington Post

Obama plays his Catholic allies for fools
By Michael Gerson, Published: January 30

In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients...

Catholic leaders are still trying to process the implications of this ambush. The president had every opportunity to back down from confrontation. In the recent *Hosanna-Tabor ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed a broad religious autonomy right rooted in the Constitution. Obama could have taken the decision as justification for retreat.

And it would have been a minor retreat. The administration was on the verge of mandating nearly universal contraceptive coverage through Obamacare without public notice. There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men:

Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.

Consider Catholicism’s highest-ranking elected official, Vice President Biden. Biden had encouraged engagement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on conscience rights. Now he will be remembered as the Catholic cover for the violation of Catholic conscience. Betrayal is always an inside job.

Consider Catholicism’s most prominent clerical leader, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Dolan had pursued a policy of engagement with the administration. In November, he met face to face with Obama, who was earnestly reassuring on conscience protections. On Jan. 20, during a less-cordial phone conversation, Obama informed Dolan that no substantial concession had been made. How can Dolan make the argument for engagement now?

The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-*clericalism...

 

[Ravi]

I don't know if this has already been cited, but it's a powerful editorial on what has happened here:

Obama’s radical power grab on health care - The Washington Post

Obama plays his Catholic allies for fools
By Michael Gerson, Published: January 30

In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients...

Catholic leaders are still trying to process the implications of this ambush. The president had every opportunity to back down from confrontation. In the recent *Hosanna-Tabor ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed a broad religious autonomy right rooted in the Constitution. Obama could have taken the decision as justification for retreat.

And it would have been a minor retreat. The administration was on the verge of mandating nearly universal contraceptive coverage through Obamacare without public notice. There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men:

Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.

Consider Catholicism’s highest-ranking elected official, Vice President Biden. Biden had encouraged engagement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on conscience rights. Now he will be remembered as the Catholic cover for the violation of Catholic conscience. Betrayal is always an inside job.

Consider Catholicism’s most prominent clerical leader, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Dolan had pursued a policy of engagement with the administration. In November, he met face to face with Obama, who was earnestly reassuring on conscience protections. On Jan. 20, during a less-cordial phone conversation, Obama informed Dolan that no substantial concession had been made. How can Dolan make the argument for engagement now?

The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-*clericalism...

The next time someone forces a Catholic to take birth control call me.

 

[Annie]

I don't know if this has already been cited, but it's a powerful editorial on what has happened here:

Obama’s radical power grab on health care - The Washington Post

Obama plays his Catholic allies for fools
By Michael Gerson, Published: January 30

In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients...

Catholic leaders are still trying to process the implications of this ambush. The president had every opportunity to back down from confrontation. In the recent *Hosanna-Tabor ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed a broad religious autonomy right rooted in the Constitution. Obama could have taken the decision as justification for retreat.

And it would have been a minor retreat. The administration was on the verge of mandating nearly universal contraceptive coverage through Obamacare without public notice. There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men:

Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.

Consider Catholicism’s highest-ranking elected official, Vice President Biden. Biden had encouraged engagement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on conscience rights. Now he will be remembered as the Catholic cover for the violation of Catholic conscience. Betrayal is always an inside job.

Consider Catholicism’s most prominent clerical leader, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Dolan had pursued a policy of engagement with the administration. In November, he met face to face with Obama, who was earnestly reassuring on conscience protections. On Jan. 20, during a less-cordial phone conversation, Obama informed Dolan that no substantial concession had been made. How can Dolan make the argument for engagement now?

The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-*clericalism...

The next time someone forces a Catholic to take birth control call me.

Totally unrelated to the war against religion, you know, the point of the article.

 

[Ravi]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

 

[GuyPinestra]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

It's about the Catholic Church not wanting to finance behaviors that go against their religious beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

Obama is WRONG, and this will cost him a LOT of votes come November.

 

[California Girl]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

Bullshit. The Church has never forced non Catholics to follow their dogma. It is very happy to employ non Catholics.... but it cannot provide things like funding for abortions for those employees. Can't happen.

This is just another example of you totally not understanding anything other than your own drug fueled idiocy.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

Bullshit. The Church has never forced non Catholics to follow their dogma. It is very happy to employ non Catholics.... but it cannot provide things like funding for abortions for those employees. Can't happen.

This is just another example of you totally not understanding anything other than your own drug fueled idiocy.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of basic birth control, not abortions.

But............it's you, so I expect a lot of hyperbole.

 

[California Girl]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

The Catholic Church does not want to keep anyone 'barefoot and pregnant', it wants to be allowed to practice our religion in peace. Non Catholics have the choice - they can not work for the Church if they dislike the benefits provided.

 

[California Girl]

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

Bullshit. The Church has never forced non Catholics to follow their dogma. It is very happy to employ non Catholics.... but it cannot provide things like funding for abortions for those employees. Can't happen.

This is just another example of you totally not understanding anything other than your own drug fueled idiocy.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of basic birth control, not abortions.

But............it's you, so I expect a lot of hyperbole.

The Church is against birth control. It - we - believe that it is God's decision. That is our right to believe - we don't ask you to believe it. If the Government force the Catholic Church on this one.... Obama can kiss bye bye to significant votes.... There's 69 million Catholics in the US.

 

[Stephanie]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

It's about the Catholic Church not wanting to finance behaviors that go against their religious beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

Obama is WRONG, and this will cost him a LOT of votes come November.

lets hope so...

 

[The T]

I'm not 'belittling' it, I'm putting it in proportion. I grew up a Catholic, so did my brothers... all of us hung out with our priest.... he ran a baseball team. Were any of us abused? No. Has he ever been accused of molesting kids? No.

Fact remains: 400,000 priests - 0.03% have ever been accused. That's considerably less than many other professions that have access to children. And yet, we are the ones who are hammered. I find that to be disingenuous.

Oh I absolutely agree it's a very small minority of priests, and also that people tend to paint Catholic all priests (or many) as being perverts. I guess my point was that the way the church protected the ones who did molest children was pretty disgusting in my opinion. That's all.

I don't know any Catholics who would disagree that the way the Church initially reacted was exceptionally wrong. Utterly and completely wrong. The argument of the Bishops was that it was not protecting the priests, it was protecting the Church. I found that unacceptable - as did most Catholics. You probably are not aware but hundreds of thousands of Catholics around the world petitioned the Church about it.

However, the fact remains, non-Catholics use this as a weapon... and point blank refuse to recognize the stupidity of labeling all priests with the actions of a very small minority.

Indeed. Thos priests are individuals regardless...and have been dealt with...abnd those that haven't will in due course. The church will take care of it.

 

[The T]

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

It's about the Catholic Church not wanting to finance behaviors that go against their religious beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

Obama is WRONG, and this will cost him a LOT of votes come November.

lets hope so...

OT a bit...Obama will lose alot of other religions as well...particuliarally Jews after the way obama has treated Israel.

/OT

 

[The T]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

What is it with you leftist assholes that think those with religion here in America will FORCE you to belive or else? The only one I can see that plays on your fears is radical Islam...but so far the left refuses to talk about that..but rather attack others like Baptists, Catholics and others that do NOT have taking over the world as part of thier theology.

YOU need to wake the Hell up.

 

[California Girl]

It isn't unrelated at all. The employees are free to make their own choices regarding birth control and they can certainly choose not to take it.

This is more about the Catholic Church wanting the government to help them keep their women barefoot and pregnant than it is about anything else.

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

What is it with you leftist assholes that think those with religion here in America will FORCE you to belive or else? The only one I can see that plays on your fears is radical Islam...but so far the left refuses to talk about that..but rather attack others like Baptists, Catholics and others that do NOT have taking over the world as part of thier theology.

YOU need to wake the Hell up.

Well, now that I have exposed the myth regarding 'pedophile' priests, they have to find another weapon against the Church.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's about the Catholic Church not wanting to finance behaviors that go against their religious beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

Obama is WRONG, and this will cost him a LOT of votes come November.

lets hope so...

OT a bit...Obama will lose alot of other religions as well...particuliarally Jews after the way obama has treated Israel.

/OT

Leftist Jews are stupid and will continue to pretend Obama is really pro-Israel.

 

[Steelplate]

Ok... so the Plan B pill and Birth control is part of the AHA. So? If you are opposed to Plan B and/or Birth Control... don't use them.

Oh.... I forgot...the religious right are the only people that matter in this country. Note I didn't say "religious"... I said religious right.

 

[Steelplate]

I'd say this is more of an example of the Catholic church forcing their employees to follow their dogma, regardless of their beliefs.

What is it with you leftist assholes that think those with religion here in America will FORCE you to belive or else? The only one I can see that plays on your fears is radical Islam...but so far the left refuses to talk about that..but rather attack others like Baptists, Catholics and others that do NOT have taking over the world as part of thier theology.

YOU need to wake the Hell up.

Well, now that I have exposed the myth regarding 'pedophile' priests, they have to find another weapon against the Church.

What have YOU exposed? Let me guess... it was a Communist Plot and none of those priests did anything wrong.

To T: What is it with you right wing assholes that you think your religious beliefs should set the tone for a free country?

 

[California Girl]

What is it with you leftist assholes that think those with religion here in America will FORCE you to belive or else? The only one I can see that plays on your fears is radical Islam...but so far the left refuses to talk about that..but rather attack others like Baptists, Catholics and others that do NOT have taking over the world as part of thier theology.

YOU need to wake the Hell up.

Well, now that I have exposed the myth regarding 'pedophile' priests, they have to find another weapon against the Church.

What have YOU exposed? Let me guess... it was a Communist Plot and none of those priests did anything wrong.

To T: What is it with you right wing assholes that you think your religious beliefs should set the tone for a free country?

I'm not in the habit of repeating myself for the idiots who can't read. But.... 400,000 priests in the Catholic Church. How many are even accused of pedophilia? 0.03%. 0.03% - that's considerably less than professions such as teachers, sports coaches, and a variety of other professions with open access to children.