To be fair, it’s been somewhat of a recurring problem in all religions, Catholicism included. It is, after all, part of what actually defines an organized religion, i.e., that part of their raison d’etre is to inculcate mindless obedience and conformity.
2 Likes
So you support single payer, like in civilized countries?
2 Likes
"after she’d had her fourth boy in four years, one of the sisters at her church came to her and talked to her about getting on the pill. She said the nun told her that it didn’t make sense for her to lose her mind and continue causing harm to her body by continuing to have children she didn’t want, need, or could afford to take care of. "
Exactly. Presumptively among believers, a brain is a gift from God. So why don’t they think he intended them to use that brain?
1 Like
So telling the government that you don’t approve of birth control forces the Catholic Church to do something which does not comport with their faith?
You do realize that making employees jump through hoops to obtain birth control because of the religious faith of others burdens the workers’ free exercise of their religious beliefs?
1 Like
Well, we all know this is BS as most Catholics use birth control. And my response to the moral huffiness of an organization that hid and facilitated the abuse of young children for decades is, “Cry me a river.”
That said, I find their reasoning behind not submitting the opt out forms to be odd. I can understand their reluctance to pay for contraception coverage (although I disagree), as they don’t want to provide their employees with the ability to “sin.” But are they obligated to prevent them from accessing contraception by not allowing a third party to provide it? Because it seems like that would open a big can of worms. Is the Church obligated to actively prevent people from getting a divorce, or having premarital sex, or committing adultery? And how would they go about this?
2 Likes
Who knew signing a form was such a huge burden?!
They are all just a bunch of meddlesome busybodies.
2 Likes
It’s funny how the crotch-doggies don’t mind sticking their noses in your crotch to make sure you’re doing “right” by their religion, but they get really upset when they think anyone else is sniffing around their nether regions.
Government is going to be regulating how it’s done even after we no longer rely on employer-provided healthcare. Again government is the mechanism that enforces the most control on one’s life. And pregnancy is not an illness, your last line seems to imply that it was.
Yes
I understand their logic. Their logic is "no birth gets provided unless I perform “action 1”. Therefore I am helping to provide them with birth control.
Government should just say “eff-it, since birth control is important to me, all policies provide birth control, and nobody has to do anything, period.”
No it doesn’t. If they want it they can get it on their own. This whole argument is about having someone else get it for them. i.e. trying to make their employers pay them in birth control instead of in dollars.
There reasoning is not odd at all. Their reasoning is that there is a clear cause and effect chain between their action and the employee being provided with birth control. And their is a duty on them to take some action.
They should have an option to do “nothing”, to not sign a form, to not pay a premium, to not do anything else related to birth control. Now government still is making them do something that results in the provision of birth control. Either they have to provide birth control or sign a form so someone else will pay for it, either way there is a duty on the employer to take action.
Guess they weren’t following the Bible when they covered up the fact that priests were having sex with little boys but maybe that was just practicing their “freedom” of religion.
1 Like
Whose taxes? The churches don’t even pay them! I would truly love to put an end to that, but it’s not gonna happen.
3 Likes
Well, it DOESNT require anything from the church. It doesn’t require the government to fund it either. The insurance company premiums are not going down for those who work for the churches that don’t allow contraceptive coverage.
This is all such a bogus argument! No employer should insinuate itself into the health care decisions of their employees. Period. And they can’t claim that they are supporting it since the cost for them will be the same regardless.
2 Likes
Another ex-catholic here and Catholics have been practicing birth control for a long time. I remember once finding a diaphragm in my mother’s dresser drawer and was astonished. I was the last of 4 and there was 12 and 14 years between my two brothers and me and 5 years between my older sister and me. Admittedly the diaphragm wasn’t the most fail safe method, but it was better than nothing. We were poor growing up and it was difficult to feed 6 mouths. Most Catholics I knew felt they could be “good Catholics” and still practice birth control Lord knows my mother was one of them. She never missed church on Sundays or any holy day - no matter the weather - and we walked to church which was a mile away in real shitty weather too.
I love that comment. I must steal it. It is too good not to repeat.
Agreed. And doing nothing should include keeping their noses out of their employees’ medicine cabinets.
Is contraception really the ONLY moral issue that gets Cataholics in high dudgeon? Not war? Not pedophilia? Not the suffering of others? No? They are just beyond small-minded and toxic.
But Oh Boy, they will go to the mat over not wanting to sign a pice of paper? What a sanctimonious bunch of hypocrites.
Your religion does not trump my Constitutional right to my own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Employment is not bondage.
1 Like
Power of the pulpit? They used to control members via the power of life and death: torture, imprisonment, banishment, execution. The attitude is still there, but their power of enforcement is not.
1 Like
It’s not logic – it’s sophistry. Everyone already knows what the Catholic Hierarchy’s position is on contraception: the woman must be open to new life even at the risk of or cost of her own life. In order to prevent that stance from ‘triggering’ the provision of contraception through another means than employer-mediated insurance they’d have to conceal their position.
The same trigger could be accomplished by having all the employers willing to provide contraception so state and then using the other means to provide contraception to the employees according to the religious beliefs of those employees. If you can see a moral difference in that outcome versus requiring the Church to say that they oppose contraception you would have been a prime disputant as to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
1 Like
Evidently, the plaintiffs want to avoid allowing those employees under their shadow who wish to use contraceptives direct access to the government that protects their liberty to ignore the cherubic sexual protocols of the Catholic hierarchy, so bound to eternal yearning by a hypocritical celibacy.
No, it’s logic. An action is required on behalf of the religious institution before the birth control can be provided, therefore the institution is a participant in the process. If the institution chooses to sit on its hands and not send any form to anybody then the process stops and the employees don’t get birth control. It’s a design flaw.
The government should make it so that the birth control gets distributed even if the institution sits on it’s hands and does nothing. Then we could spend this time talking about something else.