The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIt's not (only) about contraception
by Phyllis Zagano on Feb. 15, 2012
There are several issues in the ongoing saga of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). While the problem is painted as a collision of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' views on religious liberty and the federal government's stated belief that "contraceptive services" are preventive health care, it's more than just that.
It is not only about contraceptive measures, abortifacients and sterilizations. It is not only about freedom of religion. The White House says the policy is set and the issue is behind us. The bishops are still all riled up. Most folks haven't the vaguest idea why.
Unraveling the skein gets quite confusing. The immediate response of some Catholic groups to the announced "compromise" was positive: Here's a solution that provides health care to all. Some, like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the Catholic Health Association of the United States, even issued supportive statements. Unfortunately, nobody asked the bishops.
In a brilliant political move -- do remember how important the Catholic vote can be in national elections -- the Obama administration appeared to cave. There would be an "arm's length" between the objecting employer and actual insurance company payment for "contraceptive services." So your employer would not tell you your employee-benefit insurance covers these things. Your insurance company would tell you. Then you and the company have a secret deal whereby it provides the services and no one knows anything. Rather like a Prohibition-era speakeasy.
It gets more confusing when you consider that the newer entry from the government side still seems to exempt churches and the "exclusively religious activities of any religious order."
What does that mean? What is a church? What are "exclusively religious activities"?
The main joist underneath the Obama administration's religious exemption platform is its own determination of what constitutes a "religious employer." Federal regulations say a religious employer:
- has as its purpose the inculcation of religious values;
- primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
- primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets;
- is an IRS nonprofit.
So, Mother Teresa would not qualify. That is, despite her motivation, Mother Teresa's works of caring for the sick without first obtaining their baptismal certificates and giving a sermon would disqualify her as a religious employer. According to PPACA definitions, she was not involved in "exclusively religious activities."
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
That's scary. While there will be a lot of back and forth over what constitutes a "religious employer" -- Bridgeport's Bishop William Lori said it would have helped if the White House included the bishops in the discussion -- I think the sky has already fallen. Lori said the bishops would have explained that Catholic "ministries of charity, health care and education flow from what we believe and how we worship and how we are to live." As he told the Catholic News Service, "These are not side businesses that the church runs ... they flow from our discipleship. Therefore I do not think the government should be intruding in these things."
But to argue that a Catholic agency -- say, a hospital or social service provider -- is indeed a "religious employer" could make it ineligible for public funding. Either way, the bishops -- and by extension, all members of the church -- lose. If feeding or healing are your ministry and you want to be considered a "religious employer," fine. Do your feeding and healing with your own funds. Don't provide "contraceptive services." And don't get public funds.
It's not a stalemate. It's a checkmate. It is beginning to seem like if you want public funds then you need to slide over to the other category and provide "contraceptive services" through the speakeasy approach.
The fracas has less to do with private moral choices and religious liberty than with rewriting the First Amendment's first freedom, religion. The new code words used by major and minor administration officials are "freedom of worship," and the free exercise of religion is being reduced to free speech inside church buildings.
It comes down to the government defining "exclusively religious activities" as preaching, teaching catechism and providing sacramental services.
The bottom line: Just about anyone will have access to "contraceptive services" (including abortifacients) in one way or another. In dense government-ese and buried in the pages and pages of PPACA documentation is the fact that all insurance companies still must provide the three things Catholic teachings oppose: contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization.
So the bishops, it would seem, can talk all they want. They are perfectly free to do so. Meanwhile, government regulations will require just about everyone to pay into an insurance pool that ignores them.
[Phyllis Zagano is senior research associate-in-residence at Hofstra University and author of several books in Catholic studies. Her most recent books are Women & Catholicism, published by Palgrave-Macmillan in June, and Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future (with Gary Macy and William T. Ditewig), newly released by Paulist Press.]
Editor's note: We can send you an email alert every time Phyllis Zagano's column, "Just Catholic," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: Email alert sign-up. If you already receive email alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Phyllis Zagano" to your list.
Ignoring the bishops seems to
Ignoring the bishops seems to be a pretty popular past time these days--first inside "the church" and now outside.
FREE THE BISHOPS
FREE THE BISHOPS ............. What is really scary, Phyllis, is a hierarchy that has too often practiced religious tyranny for over 1,500 years now wanting to con a democratically elected government to coerce women by enacting the Rabbit Rule (BREED, BREED, BREED,...!), all in a religious liberty disguise.
A female NCR blogger has just incisively commented, if bishops could become pregnant, contraception would be a sacrament. A provocative thought.
As usual, the pope has picked the wrong issue and the wrong time. We may have to wait until some bishops become pregnant before we have a hierarchy that can really speak for and to most Catholic women.
For more on the pope's contraceptive ploy to replace Obama with a docile Republican like Santorum as US prosecutor-in-chief, please note the comment, "Apologists Applaud, So?", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/letter-decrying-contraception-compr...
I would argue the Bishops are
I would argue the Bishops are looking out for the best interests of women when they hold to the Church’s teaching on contraceptives. The proliferation of contraceptives has turned the beautiful marital act, meant to be experienced between a husband, wife, and god, into a recreational activity devoid of any meaning beyond physical pleasure. This has led to the objectification of women. Look at the statics post legalization of contraceptives. Unplanned pregnancies are up, divorce is up, and abortions are up. Motherhood has been reduced from a noble profession to a disease. Women have been convinced that unless they act like men (get a job, sleep around, ignore their kids) they have no worth. In reality motherhood is the most sacred professions and it’s the one profession men can not participate in. If the Bishops could get pregnant, they would still hold the same beliefs on contraceptives because they don’t view pregnancy as a disease to be avoided at all cost. They know the true value of the most sacred profession, motherhood. It’s sad that we Americans fail to see this.
And what, pray tell, is wrong
And what, pray tell, is wrong with "physical pleasure"??? I recall listening to a female co-worker (mother of three boys) more than thirty years ago. She noted that if couples did not derive pleasure from "the act", they would not put up with poopy diapers, colic, temper tantrums, etc. from the young'uns :-) She suggested the human race would die out.
I share your concerns about the "objectification of women".
If men cannot participate in motherhood, it is also true that women cannot participate in fatherhood. It's an economic fact of life today that couples must often both work outside the home.
I must strenuously disagree with your assertion that motherhood is "the most sacred profession".
Fatherhood is :-)
Even Jesus, still a young lad, told his mother that he had to be about his Father's business!
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz, " It's
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz, " It's an economic fact of life today that couples must often both work outside the home ". My mother and father parented eight children. Mom did not go outside to work to earn a livlihood until dad died. Of course we did not have extra stuff however that is not what life is all about. My mom and dad understood parenting and the importance of the sustenance derived from discipline and home life. GOD was good to all of us and we are all grateful for HIS care.
Nothing is wrong with
Nothing is wrong with physical pleasure in the right time and place, UNLESS it ends in CANCER. Oral contraceptives are a Class I Carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization. According to the Mayo Clinic in a recent study, oral contraceptives increase the incidence of breast cancer by 44%.
You choose not to use
You choose not to use contraceptives if you want.
But let me decide how many children I will have and when. I am the only who knows what is in my mind, heart, what are my wants and fears, what is my health and my willingness to risk it. The decision is mine - not yours.
I would not presume to tell you what you should do. It is presumptious to think that you know me well enough to make decision for me.
The Church is NOT advocating
The Church is NOT advocating the banning of contraceptives. If you say the decision is yours, then go buy your own contraceptives with your own money. No one is saying you cannot.
No one is making a decision for you either. You're buying into the same old crap that the lame stream media is foisting on you. Contraceptives are not a right, but you have a right to purchase them if YOU choose.
After this wall falls, how long do you think before Big Government will be requiring the Church to fund actual abortions? This is only a matter of degree. It will come first as prohibition to speak against the evil of baby killing. We will be classified as "haters" to those who want their freedom from their own actions. We won't be allowed to march on the death centers or pray the Rosary in front of them.
Keep in mind that you are still bound by the decisions you make. The bishops are finally stepping up to their responsibility of tending to the souls in their care. If you choose otherwise, you're own your own with God.
Uh, a quick question here,
Uh, a quick question here, Dromig10:
What's wrong with one being on one's own with God?
Just as in the Garden of
Just as in the Garden of Eden, Adam tried to blame his disobedience on Eve, God would have none of it. He expelled both from there, not just Eve.
If the bishops had been doing their jobs for the last fifty years, rather than looking for human respect, our Church may not be in this pickle right now.
When I go to meet my Maker, I cannot blame my sins and omissions on my wife, my friends, or even my government. I will be there alone.
Uh, no, Dromig, re-read my
Uh, no, Dromig, re-read my comment and answer my question:
What's wrong with one being on one's own with God?
Nice attempt on your 'method' of diversion, btw.
Martin Luther thought it was
Martin Luther thought it was okay.
Submitted by Dromig10 on Feb.
Submitted by Dromig10 on Feb. 17, 2012.
You stated:
"The Church is NOT advocating the banning of contraceptives. If you say the decision is yours, then go buy your own contraceptives with your own money. No one is saying you cannot.
No one is making a decision for you either. You're buying into the same old crap that the lame stream media is foisting on you. Contraceptives are not a right, but you have a right to purchase them if YOU choose.
After this wall falls, how long do you think before Big Government will be requiring the Church to fund actual abortions? This is only a matter of degree. It will come first as prohibition to speak against the evil of baby killing. We will be classified as "haters" to those who want their freedom from their own actions. We won't be allowed to march on the death centers or pray the Rosary in front of them.
Keep in mind that you are still bound by the decisions you make. The bishops are finally stepping up to their responsibility of tending to the souls in their care. If you choose otherwise, you're own your own with God."
----------------------------------------------------------------
For many women---it is heartbreaking to see women's health being treated as political football by both the clergy and GOP politicians. The out-of-pocket costs of 'effective' contraceptives (not the WalMart brand), can cost over $3,000. a year.
Although women's health clinics provide vital medical services, many are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services---and they close (documented by the Guttmacher Institute). While Congress consideres allowing even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage then responds that non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis---and then, these same legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics.
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire conquences. For example, a woman suffering from polycystic ovearian syndrome would need to take a form of perscription birth control to stop cysts from growing on the ovaries. In many places---there would be NO requirement that there would be an exception made for such medical needs---and no contraception made accessible.
The bishops, and many GOP senators and representatives want to take the place of the doctors---and dictate the particulars of a woman's health---and do the policing of a woman's body.
As far as your last statement is concerned about being "on your own with God"----that would be far better than to be an arch/bishop or legislator who has to face Jesus who called people 'who lay heavy burdens on the backs of people and lift not one finger to ease the burdens---a pack of hypocrites.
Dromig10 If you are so taken
Dromig10
If you are so taken up with the first amendment, let's do this: Have the women in the Catholic Hospital, the University, and so forth, vote by secret ballot, administered by one of the big three accounting firms, as to whether they want to have contraception paid for. I don't care if you limit it to just catholic women, you will likely get the same result. If the Bishops don't want women using contraception, let them convince them. I frankly do not want a cultural christianity which people think that the political establishment culturally supports our Christian point of view. If we want to do something or not do something, let's do it out of our convinctions rather than because it has become socially desirable. Early Christians refused to go use violence to save the temple or fight back against martyrdom. After Constantine, violence and power became the coin of the realm with even warrior Pope's. When the culture "supports" Christianity, it no longer is Christianity. Let's drop the culture Wars or leave them to self serving politicians and get one with living things out properly ourselves.
You keep forgetting, the
You keep forgetting, the Church is not a democracy. I suppose you would be up in arms if Obama had required all adherents of Islam to eat pork, or Observant Jews to eat shellfish. It is a matter of religious freedom. Obama, that clever man, tried to change this to freedom of "worship", just as long as our faith does not enter into our politics.
Taken to its logical conclusion, murder, kidnapping, pedophilia, sodomy would be okay. We have laws against most of these. Other proscriptions have been relaxed, to the detriment of society.
We are a Judeo-Christian nation. That cannot be denied. All other faiths do not have objective truth. If you're a muslim, it's wrong to lie unless you are lying to a non believer.
Lastly, when you say "living things out properly ourselves", what do you mean by properly? This is where objective truth cannot be whittled and malformed by our whims.
Dromig10 on Feb. 20,
Dromig10 on Feb. 20, 2012.
You stated:
"You keep forgetting, the Church is not a democracy. I suppose you would be up in arms if Obama had required all adherents of Islam to eat pork, or Observant Jews to eat shellfish. It is a matter of religious freedom. Obama, that clever man, tried to change this to freedom of "worship", just as long as our faith does not enter into our politics.
Taken to its logical conclusion, murder, kidnapping, pedophilia, sodomy would be okay. We have laws against most of these. Other proscriptions have been relaxed, to the detriment of society.
We are a Judeo-Christian nation. That cannot be denied. All other faiths do not have objective truth. If you're a muslim, it's wrong to lie unless you are lying to a non believer.
Lastly, when you say "living things out properly ourselves", what do you mean by properly? This is where objective truth cannot be whittled and malformed by our whims."
----------------------------------------------------------
The Church is not a democracy, you stated. You really don't know your Church history. There is not a dogma, doctrine that we have in the Church that was NOT VOTED upon----in a democratic process. The popes are selected by majority vote during a conclave.
Just pick up the nice little laminated cards in your church this Ash Wednesday and look at the Nicene Creed. Every dogma in it---was voted upon in the early councils of the Church:
1) How do we describe God, the Creator?
2) How do we define Jesus' relationship with God
3) Where does the Holy Spirit come in?
4) Is Mary the Mother of Jesus as man, Jesus as God or Jesus as God-Man?
Every phrase, all with wording was determined by democratic vote.
In addition to that, the laity voted in the early Christian Church for their presider (presbyter), bishop, and in Rome---the people voted for the Pope.
And Jesus NEVER said a thing against democracy. But he surely had some strong ideas about his followers NOT living the life of nobility (which the popes, curia, cardinals, arch/bishops do today).
Your other comment----that we are a Judeo-Christian nation---is not accurate. This is hardly true today. According to our Constitution---people have the right to practice their religion or free NOT to practice any religion.
Your comment that Muslims do not have an 'objective truth' was interesting. You have never studied the tenants of other faiths. Have you picked up the Koran to read it. Does it state that lying is right? Does it state that the 10 Commandments are to be abrogated? And here is one for you---The Annunciation of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary is described in beautiful detail. "Thou has found favor with Allah, Maryam."
Have you studied the 'Verdas' of the Hindus? Or the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha)? These are not simplistic religions by a long shot. And there are so many other religious faiths beyond these. And there are Americans professing all of them.
And how do you define Judiasm today? They do have the Hebrew Bible---and other books that define their faith. Are you stating that they do not have "an objective faith"?
Unfortunately, some of our politicians are trying to turn politics into a religious struggle. And our bishops are trying to turn issues of individual religious conscience into politics.
"On your own with God" That
"On your own with God" That is exactly what Thomas Aquinas said when he said the last judge of sin was individual conscience. Organized religion can be a dangerous as no religion at all. Jesus said the "spirit" of the law was what God expected when accused by Jewish leaders for letting his disciples pick and eat grain on the Sabbath due to their long journey without eating.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Jesus understood humanity, and his compassion for even the worst sinners was what he lived by. Just follow the scriptures and Jesus' words. The Church is an institution that has created laws to follow which may not always be infallible. So yes, "you are on your own with God." People who want to follow the "letter" of the law rather than the "spirit"
may be doing so not out of love but fear they will go to hell if they don't. They answer to, not a God of mercy, but a vengeful God.
Someone please explain this
Someone please explain this rationale to me. Is the reason for all this fuss about women's contraceptive pills being part of a health insurance package, because it is partly funded by the federal government? Because the catholic church teaches that birth control is a sin, thus they will not allow the government to provide this coverage. What about all of the other medical care provided by the insurance companies to cover veneral diseases, Aids, effects of smoking and drug use (including socially acceptable alcohol), obesity (gluttony), just to name a few. Many of our health issues are a direct result of our humanity/sin (?), and why birth control is at the front and center of controversey is beyond me. Nothing that I can think of should be as planned as a new life coming to engage in this existence and it should at least enter into this world as a planned and loved child.
ATF, For Catholics, the world
ATF,
For Catholics, the world is bigger than themselves.
Just a point of order.
Just a point of order. Teenage pregnancies (unplanned) and abortion rates have declined since the "proliferation of contraceptives" according to all the research studies I could find. There is even a recent study in the medical journal, Obstetrics and Gynecology, that says if low income women are provided contraceptives yearly, the abortion rate in that population would decrease somewhere between 30-46%.
"The proliferation of
"The proliferation of contraceptives has turned the beautiful marital act, meant to be experienced between a husband, wife, and god, into a recreational activity devoid of any meaning beyond physical pleasure. This has led to the objectification of women."
Dear JM56,
I know you feel you understand the words and party line given regarding this issue but as a Catholic women, wife, and mother of 6 children. Four of whom died through both miscarriage or stillborn births and two of whom are healthy gifted(spiritually) young men. I can tell you that my husband and I were always open to God's will for us in ways you would not have approved of but were never taken lightly or for pleasure alone. I never for one minute left God out of my sacramental marriage, but that does not mean that I agree with your views. We are to always act with God, the grace of the Holy Spirit and discern for ourselves with support from church guidelines what is in the best interest of all and our conscience. Please take some time to reflect that not every situation is a cookie cutter black and white issue and leave God to decide how best to shape minds, hearts, and souls.
Concerned, You are definitely
Concerned,
You are definitely right when you say that "not every situation is a cookie cutter black and white issue." This is why we have a conscience (again, you are right). But following one's conscience immpies that we have correctly formed our conscience in light of divine revelation and natural law. And the moral teachings of the Church, including those teachings on sexuality, are not "guidelines." They are much more definitive than that.
Just be aware of that.
Respectfully yours,
JPB
JM56 on Feb. 16, 2012. You
JM56 on Feb. 16, 2012.
You stated:
"I would argue the Bishops are looking out for the best interests of women when they hold to the Church’s teaching on contraceptives. The proliferation of contraceptives has turned the beautiful marital act, meant to be experienced between a husband, wife, and god, into a recreational activity devoid of any meaning beyond physical pleasure. This has led to the objectification of women. Look at the statics post legalization of contraceptives. Unplanned pregnancies are up, divorce is up, and abortions are up. Motherhood has been reduced from a noble profession to a disease. Women have been convinced that unless they act like men (get a job, sleep around, ignore their kids) they have no worth. In reality motherhood is the most sacred professions and it’s the one profession men can not participate in. If the Bishops could get pregnant, they would still hold the same beliefs on contraceptives because they don’t view pregnancy as a disease to be avoided at all cost. They know the true value of the most sacred profession, motherhood. It’s sad that we Americans fail to see this."
----------------------------------------------------------
You sound like the speechwriter for Rick Santorum---who has been labeled as a 'nice, smiley, fanatic'.
Actually, if you look at the history of the Catholic Church and its teachings, you would not find the either the Sacrament of Matrimony or looking out for the best interests of women.
From the time even before St. Augustine---the Church had developed a deep distaste for sex itself. Early Fathers and later medieval theologians considered sex unworthy when not actually sinful. And that is why Virginity and Celibacy was touted to be far above matrimony.
Around the year 1000, simpleparish priests could have 'wives'---not sacramental matrimony (this was reserved for the 'nobility')but commonlaw marriages. St. Thomas Aquinas stated that priests must not be married since
'those in holy orders handled the sacred vessels and the sacrament itself, and therefore it is proper that they preserve, by abstinences, a body undefiled.'
You see, marriage makes for 'defilement'. The ban on contraception is a hangover from the period when the body itself was considered unclean. In fact, at the time of Vatican Council II---marriage was considered an acceptable 'remedy for concupiscence' [sexual desire] (this was the conservative churchmen's understanding of marriage 1) procreation of children 2)mutual aid of the spouses and 3)remedy for concupidence). There was absolutely no mention of love for these guys.
Finally, when it is said that Catholic who do not accept the phony argument over contraception are "going against the teachings of their church" is
NONSENSE! The people ARE THE CHURCH. The Second Vatican Council defined the church as "The People of God". The 4% who make up the hierarchy/clergy of the Church are not MORE CATHOLIC the 96% who are laity.
"if bishops could become
"if bishops could become pregnant, contraception would be a sacrament. A provocative thought."
This is what is called an "ad hominem fallacy." It implies that bishops are unable to think intelligently on the issue of family planning simply by virtue of their sex. Like any ad hominem attack, it avoids having to address the opponent's agrument.
Instead of resorting to such a tactic, why not simply address the substance of the Church's teaching on the matter? Then perhaps we can get somewhere.
What do you think, Jerry?
O My! I am not sure why
O My! I am not sure why Bequette needed to place the "PhD" behind his name but if that is important, for the first time, I place my academic credentials behind my name.
However, with or without academic credentials, I think bishops are handicapped in discussing family planning, contraception, etc, because of their sex. They are further handicapped because of their celebacy.
To address the bishop's arguments, they have no biblical basis for their position. They say it is so because Paul VI in 1968 refused to accept the counsel of the theologians, physicans, etc on the panel he chose. They are afraid to admit the Pope was wrong as popes have been wrong on occasion throughout the ages.
The Catholic laity are the Church too. They have made conscientious decisions based on their faith, their prayers and the realities of modern life. I say listen to those 98%!
In embracing the all-male
In embracing the all-male hierarchy the bishops, in effect, are saying they don't need the counsel of women.
The bishops are not women. Their brains are different. Robert Bly once observed that women have a 'superhighway' connecting both side of the brain and men have a 'raggedy path.' Among other things, this means that in times of tumultuous change women can reason much more rapidly. All of which means to me that the bishops' learning curve will continue to be slow and inept. Not enough real diversity in the room.
But one does not get promoted in the Catholic church by listening to women. Their embrace of patriarchy runs counter to the current direction of global society: the mutually respectful partnership of men and women and the empowerment of women, both economic and political.
As I recall, the last bishop to do listening sessions with women was Rembert Weakland and the Vatican took great offense at that. (Archbishop Weakland said he learned a lot, by the way.) What kind of a Christian church do we have when listening to Catholic women constitutes a revolutionary, even heretical act?
CALL THE WAMBULANCE BISHOPS R
CALL THE WAMBULANCE BISHOPS R BEING IGNORED! Throughout Christian history women have always been systematically ignored. In the name of balance this turn about, (wahn wahn) is good medicine.
CATHOLICS AS RABBITS .......
CATHOLICS AS RABBITS ....... Thanks (I think?), anony.
For more detail on how we got here, please read the comment, "Catholics Are Not Rabbits", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/what-about-contraception
Today's news on the
Today's news on the congressional all male panel of religious men hearing on religious liberty re contraception depicts NOT A WOMAN TO BE HEARD. This is EXACLY how women have been and will continue to be ignored by patriarchal religions unless they stand up and fight this tyranny.
Our REPUBLICAN REPS are aiding and abetting the malevolent will to disenfanchise the voiceS of women regarding their own bodies. Sign the Pelosi petition online to demand the Speaker of the house include women equally on questions re religious liberty vs contraception coverage.
There were two or three women
There were two or three women who were set to give testimony. The only problem, for the Libs, was that they were not pro-death, I mean pro-choice. It was pointed out by that West Coast loon, Barbara Boxer, that only pro-choice women are actual women.
This argument is about religious liberty, nothing more, nothing less. It is the first item of the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers thought it to be the most important of rights which we are given by our God. Contraception is not a right, but the right to purchase is not being infringed by ANYONE.
P.S. Nancy Pelosi is a poor excuse for a Catholic, and an idiot.
Nancy is hated by patriarchy
Nancy is hated by patriarchy across the board because SHE IS FEARLESS AND POWERFUL. Most fragile male egos would cave if they had to endure the lies and verbal abuse Nancy Pelosi has had to endure. She is a lightning rod for the ire of many irrationally sexist men. Nancy Pelosi for that reason alone is a GREAT CHOICE!!!
Mrs. Pelosi is eyed with
Mrs. Pelosi is eyed with great scepticism by the Church because she says she's a "devout Catholic" but acts in exactly the opposite way. Words mean things, and if she is going to use them, but not back them up with similar actions, those words mean nothing.
If only her mother had been pro-choice?
As a clever politician, Nancy
As a clever politician, Nancy Pelosi, is playing cat and mouse with the bishops. They are no match for her. As long as she describes herself as "a devout catholic" woman, she represents the millions of catholic women around the world who also disregard what the bishops say. I say "good for her".
Women need religious liberty
Women need religious liberty from the religious liberty of righteously sexist men who have a long and nasty history of oppressing and denigrating them.
Really? So, women being told
Really? So, women being told that they have (GASP!) buy their own birth control is "oppressing and denigrating"? Please. As has been pointed out, and is abundantly clear to anyone who views this situation objectively, no one is saying women cannot buy birth control, no one is saying birth control should be banned. All we are saying is, if a woman wants to buy birth control, then she needs to be the responsible party and fork over her own cash.
As for oppression, it is the Church and those who are faithful to her teachings who are being oppressed by this administration, not women.
Just remember brother the
Just remember brother the Church is a Her and She is really objectively tired of you guys telling HER like SHE is an OBJECT/Puppet what She can or cannot do. She can figure that out without the failed moral leadership of Patriarchy that think they can always and every where speak for Her.
If a woman needs birth
If a woman needs birth control it is because she is having sexual relations with a man. So where's the man's responsibility?
The Church doesn't oppress women; they just act like we don't exist. We have no representation and we cannot be "Christ-like" (the reasoning we cannot be priests solely because we do not possess the correct anatomy). Let me see any church in America run without the assistance from the women in its community! Jesus valued the women in his life and ministry, it's is strange that it didn't follow over into the church that Peter founded.
And you know that for certain
And you know that for certain because...wasn't there something in the story of Jesus about casting the first stone....might want to go back and read it.
Contraception is not a
Contraception is not a women's issue. It's a men's issue. Men want the convenience and comfort of sex and having a woman around, but don't want to pay for children and don't want responsibility. Women often accept this only because they think that's all they can get, since virile men are so hard to find these days.
Virile men are hard to find,
Virile men are hard to find, you say? Do you not realize it is birth control itself which has reduced men to hedonistic dolts? Such is the effect a life spent in instant gratification has. The Boy Scouts recognized this fact and set out to produce young men with goal achieving mentalities, clear paths to survival and an immense public service mentality. That public service mentality has long ago gone the way of "What's in it for MEEEEE???"" and effeminated men are your result.
You don't want wimpy men? Don't take birth control and tell him if he wants it, to marry you and live up to the responsibility. Make him earn it, DON'T GIVE IT AWAY.
Not that this will impact you in the least. My own daughter heard it from me, but still had to learn it the hard way.
Thanks for the column,
Thanks for the column, Phyllis. I would just add that even if the Catholic Institutions did not accept government funds, and some few don't, they are still under this mandate. It is not limited to those receiving grants, exemptions, etc. It applies to all. It is total, and some have referred to it as totalitarian, in that it leaves no room for others to dissent. I wonder if even the churches that open their doors to the public and hire those outside of their membership will be forced to pay what goes against their consciences, such as life-taking abortifacients.
Jane Gilroy
Maybe I'm simplistic and
Maybe I'm simplistic and thickheaded but the bishops are putting up a smokescreen when they claim violation of Constitutional religious rights.
==================================
Correct me if I'm wrong. Institutions don't exercise conscience for people. People exercise conscience themselves. Catholic women are exercizing their right of conscience by opting use of contraceptives. If bishops carried babies, their voice might have weight, even then only personally. Since they don't need contraceptives but women do they shouldn't unravel when government policies try to balance access rights for all women.
Bishops should get over it, they have no skin in the game (only money). Their constitutional rights are not at issue. Maybe their money is. But when they treat women employees with dignity and comparable pay their voice might be better heard.
Okay, you're wrong. Catholic
Okay, you're wrong. Catholic Christianity absolutely impresses upon the layperson solidly established commandments, precepts and catechization. Without those guidelines, a conscience cannot be properly formed.
Christ Himself said the path is narrow and few there are who find it. He also said, when the Son of Man returns, think you He will find faith? Sounds pretty dim and, judging by the widespread self-justification going on in this nominally "Catholic" website, we can see plenty of souls are going to Hell due to personal conscience unrestrained by the key elements of Catholic faith, as well as the smorgasboord of choices modern CAtholics believe is theirs to embrace.
www.olrl.org for a LOT more information. Pay attention to the Cure of Ars.
Ignoring the Bishops is
Ignoring the Bishops is directly caused by the Bishops lost integrity in not responding in appropriate ways to their sexual and their financial scandals. Their blabber continues to decreases their respect and the respect of even their offices.
Phyllis -- well sorted-out,
Phyllis -- well sorted-out, but I think we all need to answer two questions: who is the Catholic Church and who defines Catholic teaching? The bishops obviously think that this is determined by them, either individually or in councils. The problem is that the rest of us, by and large, reject that understanding, at least to the extent that we believe we have a say in defining what Catholics believe and teach. In the latter (majority) view, the great majority of Catholics want access to contraception and don't see why our employers shouldn't pay for it. We also want our bishops to consult us before they announce what we believe and want taught in our Church. I'm a university professor, but neither I nor you (I presume) was consulted before the bishops began making pronouncements. They're not willing to consult, even when it is obvious that their "consistent teaching" on this issue has been and is soundly rejected. Thanks for your essay. - robert.
Who defines Catholic
Who defines Catholic teaching?
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. Dei Verbum (10) and...
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. Lunem Gentium 25.
Who wrote this stuff that you
Who wrote this stuff that you quote--bishops? That says it all.
Wow! This sounds like the
Wow! This sounds like the people not only don't need to think, they aren't even PERMITTED to think! No mind and no conscience necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven . . . Just park your wits, follow the leaders, and you'll be just fine! Why doesn't that jive with the Gospels??
Wow, this sounds just like
Wow, this sounds just like the Sermon on the Mount. My spirituality has now been enhanced one-hundredfold.
All of you "Vatican II
All of you "Vatican II Catholics" on here do know that these words come directly from Vatican II, don't you? I guess you aren't faithful to the Council after all.
The Magesterium is really
The Magesterium is really composed of Three parts:
1) The Magister-- This indicates the authority to teach. This belongs only to the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would "lead all men toward truth
2) The theologians who search their entire lives for understanding from the Spirit. These expets are know as the "petri." In a sense the term magisterium properly applies to theologians since they give a lifetime of though and teaching abut the mind of God.
3) It is the job of the pope and the bishops to administer policies reflecting truth. There is and never was any indication that this was to be authoritarian power. If so why have the Holy Spirit to help all men.
4)The most important part is the laity (laos) of God. it is all the people who constitute the Church. The popes and bishops are the political administrators who job it is to shepherd the People of God and bring them together. (not act as an authoritarian wedge who pretends to understand the Mind of God or all Truth) The People of God are the most important part of the Magisterium for they are the ones that must live by what the spirit is saying. When it is impossible to live by the ideas of the Bishops or Theologians the laity not only have "the right" but they have the "authority" not to receive false teachings.
Please see:
1) The Pope Alone by Gary Wills, Papal sin 163,
2) The "M" word, Father BEde Griffiths, OSB, in the Tablet, August 11, 1990 http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/magister.html
3) John Cornwell, the Financial Times, September 2010.
4) "The Commendation of Peter...." Robert W. Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, "The Five Gospels: What did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004) 207
5)IBID Of Course Jesus did not speak Greek P36 (petrus or stone is a Greek word. Christ did not use this word)
The Catholic Church is
The Catholic Church is actually Christ's Church - not "Our Church". We are all blessed that He invites us to it. The Pope and Bishops consult with God about how He wants His Church served, not parishioners. This is why the teaching is consistent. Man's laws change, Christ's laws are constent.
Certainly the receipt of
Certainly the receipt of government funds is an extremely significant issue. Another is the employment of non-Catholic persons to carry out the mission. What is most significant is whether opposition to contraception is essential to "Catholic identity." It's pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not consider this essential to "Catholic identity." If the Bishops can't convince their own "faithful" of this, why should the government listen?
What the government has the
What the government has the power to give, it has the power to take away.
Leviathan has its claws in too many things, and the Church for a very long time played with the money given it. That bill is now due.
All people of faith should disobey this illegimate directive, which is the restriction of religious freedom.
Yes of course "nobody asked
Yes of course "nobody asked the bishops" ... the fact is that nobody pays any attention to the bishops. And why should we? The bishops have lost all moral credibility in their mishandling of sex abuse within the Church and the obvious fact that they still don't "get" it as they continue to obstruct victims and protect the institutional church. They lost all moral credibility with their obsession to control women's bodies that is exceeded only by their obsession to prevent women from exercising a vocation to ordained ministry. They lost all moral credibility in their continuing fight to deny basic rights to certain segments of the population. And they lost all moral credibility when they turn from matters of the Spirit and the Way to matters of influencing politics.
How dare they take a position that the entire society, regardless of faith, must follow the tenets they define as "Catholic teaching."
They're irrelevent. Except they're dangerous because they've teamed up with other fanatics who want to deny rights to a portion of our brothers and sisters. Shame on them!
Well said Kathleen!
Well said Kathleen! However, feeling shame is probably out of the question for a group that has pronounced themselves to be "infallible. They ARE irrelevant--they just don't realize it. But we know.
Ms Segano quotes: “Lori said
Ms Segano quotes: “Lori said the bishops would have explained that Catholic "ministries of charity, health care and education flow from what we believe and how we worship and how we are to live." As he told the Catholic News Service, "These are not side businesses that the church runs ... they flow from our discipleship. Therefore I do not think the government should be intruding in these things."
Horsepuckey. They flow initially, originally and intrinsically from the human capacity for and obligation to compassion, ethical behavior and benevolence. They are acts of religion only because of the belief of the delivery and do not become less human.
“Having religious value” does not mean that they are religious acts, they are acts of human value - “enriched” if you will or believe, by the religious belief or tenet. As a religious person, as a Catholic I believe this. I am also reasonabley educated to understand that Jesus did not invent the “golden rule”, nor did He "create" “charity”, “love”, “compassion”, “ethic”, “morality”. Yes, Jesus “pushed the envelope”; He told us to do more, go further, and by his death and resurrection elevated these acts to be “holy” as well as good. In delivering charitable and social services the church is primarily commissioned by the community of humans, the state, where the interests of both overlap.
The values of charity, compassion, etc., the obligations of the better off to help the less-well off are imbedded in the nature of man – of course by God in creation – but they are human values. The church, no church can claim sole or independent ownership for these, nor privelige which excludes them from the law of the land except by concession, not, I would insist, by right. No sect can claim exclusive right or privelige to what is commonly held. The bishops are wrong. They are using a misguided morality, unfairly raised to a theology, which is largely ignored, as a lever to manipulate the public and influence the political shape of government to their institutional, not Christly, purpose.
"It comes down to the
"It comes down to the government defining "exclusively religious activities" as preaching, teaching catechism and providing sacramental services."
Actually, I think the Church should do just that.
Social services funded with taxpayers funds are going to be subjected to governmental oversight.
The Church's good works are often almost exclusively funded with governmental grants, entitlement program funds etc, and while certainly useful, these same monies could go to other service providers and folks would be served.
The double whammy . . .
The double whammy . . . that's the rub. PZ writes, "Either way, the bishops --and by extension, all members of the church -- lose." Actually, we've lost. The government has the right to define, e.g., for tax purposes, what sort of institutions they'll give what sort of breaks to and what regulations apply to which sorts of institutions. OSHA regulations, zoning codes, public health regulations, etc., apply to all institutions. Yet some "charitable" institutions that are "non-profit" get tax breaks, e.g., the New York Philharmonic. That ship sailed.
For a group of celibate men to be perceived as fighting against contraception is a loss. And if they win, then their institutions are pervasively sectarian and are extremely vulnerable to losing all federal funding. The NARAL groups will make sure that happens.
Rather than working with the administration, and despite what Abp. Dolan said, the bishops are coming off as Republican-loving Obama haters who have abandoned any work for justice for the poor, preferring paternalistic charity for those who have not.
And the notion that there are political issues, including public health issues, that the "other side" values deeply seems entirely lost on them as they attempt to impose their standard of Catholic truth (which most Catholics don't buy) on the nation as a whole.
God save us.
Well done. Zagano has done a
Well done. Zagano has done a good job clarifying a complex issue.
Consult the bishops? Are you
Consult the bishops? Are you kidding?
The bishops have been planning for months for this feigned outrage against "religious freedom."
Since when does the president of the United States have to or even should consult the Catholic bishops for anything.
The US Catholics don't even consult the bishops on anything. Why would the president consult a group of men who really think that they are direct decendents of the apostles , have a direct pipeline into the mind of God, and are therefore never wrong?
You can't have a discussion with another group who start with the premise that they are always right and the only valid outcome would be to totally agree with them .
Let the bishops continue their destruction of the institutional church, which they are doing very well, and let the really important matters that affect everyday life, be left to people who really listen and understand others.
A group of men, dressed in dresses and wearing funny pointed hats, have lost all relevance to the modern world. Let them stay in their palaces , with their cooks and maids and let the rest of us alone.
Consult the bishops, indeed! What lunacy.
Mother Teresa would be exempt
Mother Teresa would be exempt to the extent that her work is done by avowed sisters (who one hopes would not need contraceptive coverage but may need other preventative services) - although lay staff who may or may not be Catholic should be covered. Opposition to sterilization started as an objection to mandatory eugenics - which is not what we are talking about here. Sterilization for health reasons - because becoming pregnant would endanger the woman - must be covered and the use of sterilization for other reasons is none of the Church's business, especially if the employee is not Catholic. Ella and Plan B do not end life, because blastocysts are under the genetic control of only the mother's DNA - and presumably her life force - rather than the DNA of both parents and its own life force - which happens at Gastrulation. With no life argument, the only objection has to do with the sexual ethics of employees - and that is most definitely not an employer's business - even if the employer is a Church.
Mother Teresa's organiztions
Mother Teresa's organiztions would NOT be exempt--your claim "Mother Teresa would be exempt to the extent that her work is done by avowed sisters" begs the question--every organization will be required to give free abortifacient and non-abortifacient methods of birth control.
Mother Teresa would be fined
Mother Teresa would be fined for not complying with Federal Health care codes under the affordability Act until she and her sisters provided mandated coverage. If she did not pay the fine, she would be shut down and eventually prosecuted for not meeting her Legal obligation to the Government. After a Judgment is recognized the Government could then seize any other assets the Missionaries of Charity hold. If you think this is fantasy then you have not been following the debate very closely and you need to do a little research. This policy effectively divides the Church into religious and non religious elements forcing those parts that are not exempt to provide contraceptive coverage for their employess. It will not end there for by defining Catholic agencies as non religious entities for the Health care act this will also have implications for Tax authorities in the future as well. Pandora’s Box has now been opened on the Church.
Sounds great to me. As a
Sounds great to me. As a taxpayer I don't want to pay for any religious activities of the catholic church or any other church for that matter.
And as a Catholic taxpayer, I
And as a Catholic taxpayer, I not only pay taxes, but tithes to support those Catholic institutions which take up the job the Almighty Gummint can't and won't do. Not only do I pay for public schools, I pay massive tuitions for Catholic schools whose tuitions have skyrocketed since the wholesale destruction of the religious orders has left those schools void of religious teachers. Abject atheists often are employed in them, much to the religious decimation of our children, already spiritually voided by the relentless onslaught of the media. Ever even notice you can't escape its influence?
Marital relations without
Marital relations without contraception is true lovemaking. Is that hard to believe?
Ummm ... "Anonymous" ...
Ummm ... "Anonymous" ... (Catchy name, that): Not a few women would find it difficult or impossible to engage in "marital relations" ("marital relations"??) without taking these multipurpose medications.
No Anonymous, it is not hard
No Anonymous, it is not hard to believe - not at all. What is hard to believe is that it is the only true lovemaking.
You could rephrase that to
You could rephrase that to say: Apostolic Lovemaking doesn't need any contraception. Is that just as hard to believe?
Post new comment