The church's war on women's health and child welfare

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH KATHY - SHAME, SHAME, SHAME...

it is beyond shame, it is criminal.

Virtually any medical breakthrough could come from stem cells, eg material that promotes regrowth for badly burned soldiers to cells that target cancerous tumors and cut off their blood supply - something that has been worked on but with min results for 10 years.

the catholic church's message not just to women but to all of us - go die.

I wonder when they will tell us to eliminate our armies that defend us. Stem cells are protolife, our armies are full of real people who risk their lives every day for us.

Perhaps the RATZInger church is moving to what we occaisonally see in Xtian people. They pray over their sick children and refuse medical care for them. Two years ago a case came to light in that psychopath Bachmanns state of MN. A xtian couple prayed over their very sick daughter, and refused med care for her.

the girl died of diabetic shock - ultra low blood sugar - not uncommon in diabetic paitents. a simple blood test and the cure - a candy bar or couple cubes of sugar would have saved her.

the couple lsot their other kids and were indicted for manslaugher

Stem cell research - the real reason the church opposes it is that it is proto life.

From stem cell research we almost certainly will discover more of the workings of life, and how life came to be in primordial oceans

Blowing up the creation story and another part of how the church controls minds.

BTW dont hold your breadth on skin cell research for stem cells. First of all, my sons friend is a Johns Hopkins PHD reserher on this subject. He says that skin cell to stem cell is a bogus line of investigation, leading nowhere.

Second - can you see the church going ape if we could turn skin cells into stem cell equivalents - they'd say "thats life"

Reminds me of the days of the Inquisition, when the church burned books on the human body. They are very bright people, and their fear may have been that with medicine, people would go to their doctor, instead of the church to pray.

Do they really think women still listen to them? Let's face it they can pontificate all they want, women are not the sheep they think they are. My prayers go out to all the impoverished women in the world who are victims to their wicked ways directed towards them. Could this also be a form of indirect homicide to deny women the care they need? And they are supposed to represent God on earth. My God loves women.

Please, find me your "bazillion other organizations" that are doing the SAME work ~ in fact I challenge you to find 100 organizations that are doing the SAME work as the Komen Foundation.

Episcopal statements about moral theology are not "doctrinal." The Church never has, and never will, issue any infallible moral "doctrines." It can merely issue what the current hierarchy believes are the best moral arguments, which are often wrong (cf. Pius IX's document defending slavery as in keeping with natural law, issued a year after the American Civil War!). I suggest we argue the merits, not supposed "doctrine."

Glory, where have you been for last few decades.
The doctrinal concerns of Bishops have certainly been misplaced during that time, regardless of what country of residence.
They are prone to grandstanding, as a deflection for what they have done and what they have failed to do.
Just look at all the committee's the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference are affiliated to, look it up.
They may soon be looking at a Parliamentary Inquiry for over 30 suicides, where young Catholics have taken their own lives, unable to live with consequences of the sexual-abuse/s of their clergy, whom I may add, they covered up for ... for decades.

I wish Anonymous had the courage to give her/his name.

Instead of a "bazillion" how about half a dozen examples? Organizations with the same respect, credibility, reputation and result records as the March of Dimes, Amnesty International, UNICEF?

Claire, this brings to mind the release of investigative journalist Carmelo Abbato's findings, where among other things, women are being used in the Vatican for the satisfying of the sexual appetite of those unable to maintain the celibacy dicipline.
Paid to shut up, have abortions or live a lie with off spring unable to call their fathers "daddy".
What a shame on that City of God.
Melbourne Australia, has had their trangessions indirectly made public, thanks to well respected journalist, Peter Costigan.

I don't think so, We also have had and electorate here in the U.S. who have continually voted against their self interest. Or, as an economist friend said "the middle class voting Republican is like the chickens voting for Cornel Sanders". So much really is simply in how something is sold, with truth, often times, not even part of the equation.

I am a Catholic woman who believes that the Church has my best interests at heart. The Church's teachings on contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage are not new and should not surprise any member of the Church. They are for the benefit of all men, women, and children. I'm happy to be a Catholic and to live by the teachings of the Church.

Couples could try using the method my husband and I did when my last two babies died and the doctor told me I couldn't live through another pregnancy. He had a vasectomy. Of course the good sisters teaching back in the '40's and '50's told us all kinds of tales about men having that procedure and then God taking away the children they already had by killing them in a bus accident. And people actually wonder why I don't practice my faith any more. I have since been diagnosed with MS and wonder what I would do if they came up with a cure for it that involved stem cells. The jury is still out on that one. I'm divorced now and have not felt welcomed at a Catholic church since the divorce while my ex and his new wife grace the pew every Sunday, except of course, for the Sundays his "ox is in the ditch". I sometimes think he drops that ox off in the ditch every Saturday night.

As will gays and lesbians. Leave this archaic institution. Come to independent Catholicism, join the American National Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church will always and forever see women in terms of 'Eve in the Garden of Eden' particularly, as the myth goes, Eve duped Adam into taking a bite of the apple.

Thus women can never suffer enough for the sins of the world to this day since, according to the Roman Catholic Church, they (women) are to blame for all the evils committed in this world. Fear and hatred of women are staples of the Roman Catholic church, particularly with respect to pelvic issues and thus what they perceive as their right to literally control women's bodies.

Despite the prose and poetry with respect to women, the church will retain iron clad control of women, as long as women are willing to give them that power.

Unfortunately there are those women who are only too eager to render themselves helpless before their beloved hierarchy.

It is a pathetic, sad and continuing situation not to be ameliorated any time soon.

And while we're talking about it let's consider the thousands of women with hematologic malignancies who have been SAVED from life-threatening hemorrhage by Depo-Provera!

That argument feeds right into the idea that women somehow are children who cannot make the trade-offs between the risks of certain procedures or drugs and the risks of the conditions they seek to treat.

By this reasoning, I should not have statins covered by my medical insurance because they may damage one's liver. Instead, I should just have to live with the increased risk of coronary artery disease my cholesterol-producing genes make. After all, God made me that way! Nor should I be allowed drugs to lower my blood-pressure; serious side-effects have occurred.

When I wandered in the cemetery at Gettysburg Pennsylvania last week (the civilian one, not the national one next door) I was struck by the number of big/little head-stone pairings from the 18th and 19th centuries. Women and children with the same dates of death. Just as one of our esteemed Catholic bishops would have had it happen just a few months back.

You see, pregnancy has "side-effects" as well, and in many women those complications can be predicted but they cannot be avoided except by avoiding further pregnancies. And, as mentioned above, for not a few women the lingering complications of earlier pregnancies are relieved by contraceptive drugs.

That is why religious authorities, particularly male religious authorities, step upon a slippery slope whenever they attempt to control the decisions women make about their bodies.

There are no "cheap shots" in this article.     The author is rightly pointing out legitimate counter-arguments and episcopal inconsistencies.     The RCC bishops are attempting to practice medicine without a license entirely based on their medieval notions of 'procreate until you drop' — the supposed "only purpose" of the "misbegotten Eve's".     They want to impose their doctrine on Catholics and non-Catholics alike by withholding insurance coverage for certain treatments,   which would have the effect of making that treatment unavailable for lower income women.     BTW,   when was the last time you heard a bishop making a big fuss over the standard insurance coverage of vasectomies?     What about insurance coverage for Viagra or Cialis?   (That ain't "natural" either,   but those treatments are specific to men.)
.
As for pharmaceutical side-effects and risks — ALL medications,   both prescribed and OTC,   carry risks...   even the commonly used acetaminophen (Tylenol) can cause irreversible liver damage to some individuals.     A licensed physician who knows his/her patient always assesses risk versus benefit for that particular individual,   and is required to inform the patient who can then accept or refuse treatment.     Furthermore,   prior to the advent of modern medicine, pregnancy itself carried a high risk of maternal mortality (death),   even in the United States.     Even today for some women with serious chronic medical conditions,   pregnancy is absolutely contraindicated due to risk of serious complications and death.     The risk of pregnancy and associated mortality is greater than the risk associated with birth control pills or other artificial contraceptive methods...   and that should be entirely between physician and patient.
.
The bishops of the RCC have a right to preach their doctrine.     They do not have a right to practice medicine without a license or codify their doctrine into secular law which pertains to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.     Insurance coverage per se is neutral...   you can choose to use the coverage,   or not.     Insurance exclusions take away the ability of many patients to make any choice of their own and to exercise their own conscience in medical matters.
.

Pregnancies can put many women in precarious health situations, including symptoms as you described, Emily, particularly when pregnancies are repeated year in and year out.

Emily, why haven't the clergy who absolve women in the Confessional been taken to account, by the women of course.
Disobedience causes death, one way or another the Church tells us, with it's ongoing inconsistancies.

That is the same "just say no" logic that for decades opposed distribution of condoms in Africa to stop the spread of AIDS from husband to wife to child. Now millions are dying and millions are orphaned in a pandemic the likes of which that continent has never seen.

Ryan, your comment neglects the other half of the sexual equation. Off hand I can't think of too many men who get married with the idea of practicing sexual continence. I'll consider your argument when the USCCB rants and raves about the US military providing condoms to service men.

Shouldn't Catholic hospitals be just that ..... hospitals?

Careful now. There is no "constitutional right" to defy whatever law one's religion deems as in conflict with its doctrine.

The Catholic Church, as an institutional employer, must conform itself to the laws regarding the treatment of employees.

For example, if Monsignor sexually harasses the parish secretary, then fires her for complaining, she is entitled to legal relief both for the hostile work-place and the wrongful termination. If the same Monsignor decides arbitrarily that none of his employees are to be married to Jews, and fires one for that reason, he similarly should be liable.

If the leader of an orthodox Mormon sect has the "revelation" that females of the age of 13 are marriageable and furthermore that it is the obligation of wives to fulfill their husbands' sexual demands, and he acts on that doctrine with a 13-year-old in contravention of the laws of his state, he goes to jail. That is regardless of whether 100, 1000, or 10,000 of his followers agree with him.

If the People decide that employers who provide health insurance are to have no say concerning what legal and medically-accepted procedures and drugs are to be covered, than that is the law of the land and it is constitutional.

In a way, it's a good thing for religious institutions, because it relieves them of the burden of trying to control by force of compulsion the behavior of their employees outside the context of the work-place. That always gets complicated and messy, and if you can stay away from it and focus on the real business of running a religion, you're probably much better off.

Paul outside the church writes: "Jamie,

The Church's primary concern is for the next life, not this one."

So why did Jesus continually repeat and model for us:
Feed the hungry!
Clothe the naked!
Love the enemy!
Shelter the homeless!

Heal the sick!

THIs is not other worldly
THis is here and now.
Whom do we love today and how, in truth and substantially?

And there'll be pie in the sky when you die (that's a lie!).

By this logic, we'll be doing the poor a favor by letting them die of their poverty, as it'll hasten their way to their Eternal Reward.

Thomas Malthus, anyone?

Paul outside the Home writes:

"If a woman or a child or (gasp!) even a man should innocently suffer and die because of the results of original sin he or she will have a place at the banquet table of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Suffering during this short life is as nothing compared to the glory of the life to come."

This is the most appalling thing I have ever seen written on this website. The belief that our lives in the here and now are inconsequential is not only NOT biblically based, it is anti-God and anti-creation. Such dualistic thinking belongs back in the darkest hours of the middle-ages.

Paul, if you think shrugging off the suffering of, for example, a young child with cancer or a child starving to death in Somalia, or a child beaten black and blue from parental abuse while you point your upturned nose to "eternal life" is what being Christian truly is, then you need psychological help.

I challenge you to meet with a child in all three of my examples above and tell them what you spouted off about word for word. Come back and tell us how the meetings all went, Paul.

Shame on you.

Your disdain for humanity itself is breathtaking, Paul, and you are ----simply---- and I mean --simply-- twisting yourself into a convoluted pretzel, all for the hierarchy and their approval of you. And your post here has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Question: Do you know what secondary gains are??

Maybe do some serious soul searching and and gain some insight into what you are really involved in, particularly with respect to where your religiosity and your where your own humanity begins and ends.

I truly pity you.

Paul outside the Home on Aug. 16, 2011.

You stated:

"Jamie,

The Church's primary concern is for the next life, not this one. The Church has as Her prmary concern the salvation of souls, NOT the alleviation of suffering. This can be a hard lesson for us to hear nowadays, concerned as we are with political fairness and modern conceptions of liberty. The Church existed before these concerns and Her primary concern (that of salvation of souls) includes and transcends them.

If a woman or a child or (gasp!) even a man should innocently suffer and die because of the results of original sin he or she will have a place at the banquet table of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Suffering during this short life is as nothing compared to the glory of the life to come.

The bishops are simply guiding our consciences so that we may not absolutize human wisdom and forget the wisdom of God. Jamie, I pray that soon you will give up demanding what you think is yours and instead recieve what is truly yours: a life of peace amid suffering leading to the eternal life earned for us by the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
---------------------------------------------------
If what you stated was the case, then why did Jesus spend so much of his time healing the sick and why did he raise the dead? If our bodies are only protoplasmic shopping bags holding the much more precious souls---then Jesus wasted too much of his time healing sick, injured, and deformed bodies.

Jesus, also, should not have been interested in hungry people to feed them. Just let them die---they'll be better off. And why, oh why, bring the innocent little girl, the daughter of Jarius, or the young adult son of the widow, or bring Lazarus, his good friend, back to life? Jesus should have left their souls dining at the heavenly Wedding Feast.

BTW, the concept of Original Sin did not exist in Jesus' time here on earth. It became the element of sharp focus in Augustine's debates with Pelagius (who was condemned by the Synod of Carthage in 418 CE). But Original Sin was NOT the reason for baptism in the 1st Century---the Apostolic Age--nor for the next few centuries.

The Church teaches that humans are unions of body and soul and that we are incomplete beings without both. We are not 'souls' walking around---we are persons---ensouled bodies--human beings. God created the angels as creatures that are pure spirit--who may 'assume' a body for a temporary period (note appearances of Gabriel or Raphael {Book of Tobit}, or the angels that shepherds or the holy women saw). But humans cannot dispense with their bodies without a catastrophic change in their own existence, in their own being.

The Church has, throughout its history, been enriched by groups (in past times many religious orders of women and men) dedicated to caring for the sick, the poor, the crippled in hospitals, caring for orphans, caring for the aged, caring for travelers, etc. Why all of this concern, effort and time put forth, if the body was not so important?

What Jamie was stating was that the official Church is cutting off its nose to spite its face in referring to these agencies. If 80% to 90% of the funds raised aid the sick and the poor---why is the hierarchy (who have no experience living the life of either a woman or of the poor) condemning these agencies?

In reading your comments, it seems that you are tainted with neo-Jansenism---so popular with fundamentalists. Accept suffering, privations, and injustice in this life(especially if you are a poor man, woman or child)---so that you can have 'pie in the sky when you die'.

To all those shocked by what I said I ask you this: will a man, woman, or child who innocently suffer and die because of the results of original sin NOT go to heaven? What sort of cruelty is this? Why is it so terrible to remind everyone that Jesus preached the Kingdom WHICH IS TO COME? A kingdom which will definitively arrive only when Christ returns? This is most biblical, and most Christian. To feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc is a means to an end, not the end itself. We will know the end has come when we do not have to perform these works of charity anymore. We will all live in perfect communion with God and with each other. Justice will cease, because perfect love includes and surpasses justice.

And people wonder what gave rise to the Theology of Liberation. Read "Paul Outside the Home"'s post. This is it in a nutshell.

--Andy Jo--

and with your Holy Spirit

Hi, Sister. My best friend belongs to a Latino gang, all of whose members are murderers. There are an estimated 500,000 members of this gang. Is this what you mean by the sensus fidelium? (Because your idea is not what theologians mean, in case you're interested.

Your Spirit is indeed a bird of prey! Liberals like to talk about the Spirit a lot but they mistake the Spirit for what is really a fallen angel, a demon, the serpent, the evil one, Lucifer! Lucifer after all, was the first Liberal!

Thank you for your comment to such a relevant article! I begin to think that, nowadays, only women have the courage to speak loud and clear about some matters! Perharps because they are more compassionate than men...

Allow me, a simple layman, to share some thoughts:

1) Humanae Vitae was the biggest blunder of Vatican II (at the last minute, the Pope chose not to listen to his counselers, as we all know), and started the biggest dissent among the faithful: how many Catholics have you met that follow its obnoxious recomendations?

2) Strangely, to the ones who intend to return to the pre-Vatican, it became the only ralying banner. They use it to kill all the rest, as if it was an infalible dogma.

3) To those "holy warriors" life doesn't matter at all. Since you are born, you can die from starvation and all kind of preventable conditions and diseases.

4) Whoever listen to Blair must be considered insane: it was he who, together with George W. Bush, fabricated the proofs that "justified" the invasion of Irak. The war costed thousands of lifes - and will cost most more -, but what it matters, if Blair's only belief is in getting richer and richer?

5) I never understood what's the diference betwheen avoiding the woman's fertile period and the pill. Do you? And why unfertile couples can have sex?

6) If you extend the argument to its limits, celibate people, by chance or by choice, are not pro-life, since they don't reproduce, for same the only reason for God creating humans.

Excuse me my simplistic arguments. But I need to use my brain now and then...

God bless you, both!

Southern Catholic,

As a female catholic i am patiently waiting for the day that the catholic church will become a welcoming and accepting place for women. Until then I will continue to only listen at the door for that time to come and pray that it comes sooner than later.