???

 

I'm assuming he is speaking of "us" as we who believe in all Catholic doctrine as truth.

Yes. I can tell you that for fact. I was working on the case for the Diocese of Covington when I worked for their general council in college. It would be false to say that their wasn't knowledge of some of the goings on in diocesan offices back in the late 50s and the 60s, and there were some actions taken that did not address the problems and made attempts to cover them up, but those actions were not taken on the basis of any policies, nor were there any such policies that existed. They were all decisions made by individuals on the basis of what they wanted to do and have done - they were not made according to any policies.

 

It was very trying, both emotionally and morally, to learn the things that I did while the problems were being addressed in court, but I can tell you positively, they were all actions taken by individuals without any official orders or policies to do so.

 

I suppose, but it sure leaves a person scratching his head when he notices that dioceses all around the country independently chose the cover-up route, and none went the "let's turn out the rapists" route.

I suppose, but it sure leaves a person scratching his head when he notices that dioceses all around the country independently chose the cover-up route, and none went the "let's turn out the rapists" route.

 

I agree, and I believe that is why they have all made clear policies to address the matter now.

So you TRULY believe the Catholic church would have prayers every Sunday and signs in parishoners' yards supporting an issue that another religious supports even if it goes against Catholicism? Come on.

 

If Obama tried to pass another stupid law which infringed on rights, this one which would require pork be served in all retirement homes for "health reasons", I believe, scratch that, I know the church would support Jewish run homes who felt this violated their dietary laws.

Frankly, I find it a joke for the Catholic Church to get so worked up over this, considering how few of its followers are strict adherents to the "no sex before marriage" plank. If the Church was to get all medieval and go booting out all of its followers who violate this rule, there'd be no Catholics left, including my father, who I'd argue is as devout a Catholic as anybody on this board. Guess I was a preemie ...

It's not only the Catholic Church who discourages the "no-sex before marriage" plank. Check out Judaism, Muslim Faith, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.

 

The Church has already shown itself extremely malleable on multiple issues, so that horse has already left the barn. The Republicanization of the Church has led to a loud silence on the Church's efforts to fight capital punishment, since the Church's biggest donors now seem to be those ridiculous hypocrites who claim to be "pro-life" while nodding in approval at the abomination that is the capital punishment system in America, a very "pro-death" stance.

 

 

Again, I ask, if the Catholic Church was really, truly serious about this issue -- and not actually bending to the will of its hardcore right-wing donors -- would they not have excommunicated my father some 41 years ago? My father, who spent his formative days in Catholic school, who I would again argue is every bit as devout as anyone on this board if not moreso, the same guy who had a 9-pound, 13-ounce preemie some 5 1/2 months after his marriage to my mother (who remains his wife to this day). I may go to Hell for my lifelong transgressions, but I feel very secure in that my father won't be there with me to cook. He has more than balanced the ledger with his life of public service.

 

In my humble opinion, the Church is being conveniently flexible in its application of its rules by seizing upon this particular plank issue so as to not upset its biggest donors.

 

On the other hand, let's focus on what your devout Catholic dad did, 41 years ago: He did not use contraceptives, and he did not encourage an abortion. BGP would not be the same if he had! Plus, he did not get a divorce.

If the govt said that the new law forbids ANY and ALL healthcare plans from covering birth control the Catholic church would not do a thing to protest religious freedom even though there are some religions that do not forbid said birth control.

 

You agree or disagree?

Agree. In this situation, you have not made it illegal to obtain birth control, it is just illegal for healthcare plans to pay for it.

 

 

You're suggesting that the Catholic church should support a hypothetical law that makes all contraceptives legal. Clearly, this makes no sense, because the Church sees this as an abomination. Morally and ethically, there would be no grounds for them to support such a law. And it would in NO WAY be hypocritical, since (as has already been discussed) it would not infringe on anyone's religious liberty.

Clyde was not talking about a hypothetical law to make contraceptives legal/illegal, he was talking about a hypothetical law forbiding healthcare plans to pay for it.

I agree with Birdsfan that not paying for it does not take away from anyone's religious liberties. Each individual's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as each religion's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, are still in tact.

Here is the door that now has cracked open...

If the Government can pass a law that all healthcare plans must pay for contraception, then shouldn't the Government begin paying for all education, (including paraochial), via vouchers, etc?

Jut because you fail to understand does not make it asinine. :lol:

 

You're suggesting that the Catholic church should support a hypothetical law that makes all contraceptives legal. Clearly, this makes no sense, because the Church sees this as an abomination. Morally and ethically, there would be no grounds for them to support such a law. And it would in NO WAY be hypocritical, since (as has already been discussed) it would not infringe on anyone's religious liberty.

 

I didn't say anything about contraceptives being illegal or legal.

 

My hypothetical AGAIN said that the law said a plan could NOT provide coverage for contraceptives. That doesn't mean they would be illegal. They just couldn't be covered. Not all religions view contraceptives like the Catholic church does so those that do not would INDEED have their religious rights impacted by the govt.

 

So, AGAIN, would the Church rally the troops?

If Obama tried to pass another stupid law which infringed on rights, this one which would require pork be served in all retirement homes for "health reasons", I believe, scratch that, I know the church would support Jewish run homes who felt this violated their dietary laws.

 

Let's stick to something a little more real world. Stick with my example since there is no issue with Catholics and pork. I picked contraceptives for a reason.

Here is the door that now has cracked open...

If the Government can pass a law that all healthcare plans must pay for contraception, then shouldn't the Government begin paying for all education, (including paraochial), via vouchers, etc?

 

I'd be curious to hear how you got from A to B.

I'd be curious to hear how you got from A to B.

My goal was not to thread-jack, so apologies there.

I'm not as eloquent at debate as some are on this site, but here goes.

If Catholic organizations who do not want to have to pay for contraceptives for their employees are legally bound to now pay for it, then why can't the Government have to provide some parochial school funding or vouchers to tax paying parents who send their children to Catholic schools? It is a stretch. But the idea is that Government is getting involved and writing the script ignoring Catholic doctrine on contraceptives.

So to the Government, please also ignore the religious aspects of paraochial schools and focus on the fact that these children are being educated without any Government dollars, and also saving taxpayer money.

I didn't say anything about contraceptives being illegal or legal.

 

My hypothetical AGAIN said that the law said a plan could NOT provide coverage for contraceptives. That doesn't mean they would be illegal. They just couldn't be covered. Not all religions view contraceptives like the Catholic church does so those that do not would INDEED have their religious rights impacted by the govt.

 

So, AGAIN, would the Church rally the troops?

 

No. I don't believe they would. Who would "rally troops" to fight for something they teach against? I agree, the religious freedom title does seem to come off as a misnomer, but isn't their fight against being forced to provide something they believe is a sin about religious freedom?

My goal was not to thread-jack, so apologies there.

I'm not as eloquent at debate as some are on this site, but here goes.

If Catholic organizations who do not want to have to pay for contraceptives for their employees are legally bound to now pay for it, then why can't the Government have to provide some parochial school funding or vouchers to tax paying parents who send their children to Catholic schools? It is a stretch. But the idea is that Government is getting involved and writing the script ignoring Catholic doctrine on contraceptives.

So to the Government, please also ignore the religious aspects of paraochial schools and focus on the fact that these children are being educated without any Government dollars, and also saving taxpayer money.

 

 

Gotcha. Would Catholic schools riding public school buses count? That happens today.

No. I don't believe they would. Who would "rally troops" to fight for something they teach against? I agree, the religious freedom title does seem to come off as a misnomer, but isn't their fight against being forced to provide something they believe is a sin about religious freedom?

 

Yes with a caveat.....if it is something we believe in. Again, just fight for what you believe in and don't hide under a broader umbrella that you're not always going to hide under if it doesn't impact you.

My goal was not to thread-jack, so apologies there.

I'm not as eloquent at debate as some are on this site, but here goes.

If Catholic organizations who do not want to have to pay for contraceptives for their employees are legally bound to now pay for it, then why can't the Government have to provide some parochial school funding or vouchers to tax paying parents who send their children to Catholic schools? It is a stretch. But the idea is that Government is getting involved and writing the script ignoring Catholic doctrine on contraceptives.

So to the Government, please also ignore the religious aspects of paraochial schools and focus on the fact that these children are being educated without any Government dollars, and also saving taxpayer money.

 

By the way, if I remember correctly the govt's reasoning for the order to require contraceptives to be provided had nothing to do with religion but it had to do with the Commerce clause(which I would be lying if I could tell you I fully understand that clause). So they'd argue this has nothing to do with religion.