Earlier this month, the Council of Catholic Bishops (CCB) and other Catholic organizations flipped out at the potential for new health care laws to require them to offer contraception to employees and their insured dependents. This is not a bad point. A law requiring that was bound to cause controversy. Fortunately there was a simple workaround. The administration altered the rule to allow religious organizations to refrain from paying for or providing employees with any information about birth control, but insurers are required to offer it at no additional cost to any insured person who requests it directly or through a doctor. Since every insurer on the planet covers some kind of contraception, this would seem to be a fair compromise.
Shockingly, neither Bill Donohue or the U.S. CCB were satisfied. They retain "grave reservations" and remain convinced that Catholic organizations will end up having to pay for contraception indirectly. Their concern is somewhat odd, though.
buy diflucan generic gaetzpharmacy.com no prescription
I mean, what contraception would they be paying for? Catholic doctrine proscribes it, so we can deduce that the (overwhelmingly Catholic) workforce covered by Catholic churches and non-profits wouldn't use it anyway.
Take a minute to finish laughing. Let me know when you're ready to continue.
online pharmacy priligy best drugstore for you
With so much attention focused on the Vatican, the Bishops, and other people in visible positions of leadership in the Church, the media end up overlooking the reality that few Catholics beyond a devout minority adhere very closely to its doctrine. As I assume is the case with all religions, most people who identify as Catholics, even if practicing actively or semi-actively, treat the rules of their faith as a buffet. They choose the parts they want to follow, disregard the rest, and overlook the resulting inconsistencies between their creed and their actions.
To wit, a recent survey concluded that 98% of Catholic women use or have used modern (i.e., not Natural Family Planning) methods of birth control. Even if we assume that this is an overstatement, it underscores a real gap between church doctrine and the beliefs of the faithful.
This raises the question of why exactly Obama is supposed to care what the CCB or other "Catholic leaders" have to say. Those people, by definition, are the strictest, most hard-line adherents to Catholic doctrine – which is to say that they are not representative of the U.S. Catholic population. Let's be frank: anyone devout enough to care about this decision isn't voting for Obama anyway. For the casual Christmas-and-Easter Catholic it's a non-factor.
online pharmacy clomid best drugstore for you
And of course there's nothing on Earth that Obama could do to please Catholic bishops, the Catholic League, and other religious right groups.
So why exactly is he supposed to care what they think or respond to their criticisms? These people are so used to being treated as important that they expect an elected official whom they will refuse to support anyway to dance for little more than their amusement. If he completely caved and gave them exactly what they wanted, they would declare victory and give him some kind of backhanded compliment before going right back to telling people not to vote for him. But the media need a narrative and something to fill airtime, so contrived drama about "losing the Catholic vote" and the bilious discharge from Bill Donohue's facehole will continue independent of facts, data, or logic.
J. Dryden says:
You know, where I come from, we have a word for Catholics who like to exercise personal preference/conscience when it comes to doctrinal obedience: Protestants. I kid! I joke! But not really. Seriously–you're either In or you're Out. And being In means doing a whole lot of stuff you don't want to do, and not doing a whole lot of stuff you do want to do. That's the nature of most religions, if you're taking them at all seriously. Now nothing says you have to take religion seriously, but then you lose the ability to get pissed off when other people don't. It's remarkable, the number of Catholics I've known who considered themselves "good Catholics" because…well, apparently because they *said* so. Of *course* they didn't follow *every* doctrine, just the important ones. And which were they? Well…the ones they followed. If nothing else, parochial schooling gave them a mastery of tautology that was breathtaking.
But here's the thing: I liked 'em. I liked them a lot. And the ways in which they followed doctrine (mostly variations on the Golden Rule) *did* make them nicer, happier people. And they were no more hypocritical than, oh, say, every single other Judeo-Christian-Muslim I've met. It seems to me that that's the key to being a good person: be religious enough to achieve humility, and be hypocritical enough to be fun. (Works for me, at least.)
What scares me about people like Donahue is that they are neither religious enough for humility, nor hypocritical enough to fun. That's a recipe for a pogrom…
cromartie says:
In the year of someone's lord 2012, it's difficult to believe that any independent voter is taking any of this crap seriously.
It's just the Sky Wizard Molesters Cult blowing off steam, trolling for new members and helping squeeze the existing believers wallets a little bit drier, while a complicit mass media films the show live. Plus, it helps push the kiddie diddlers a little bit further offstage for the time being, anyway.
Nothing to see here, moving on.
A.B.A.B.D. says:
I really don't understand the majority of self-identified American Catholics.
They don't actually believe a large percentage of the crap (oops–doctrine) the Church requires that they believe in order to qualify as good Catholics. Their sexual conduct is completely at odds with the the teachings of the church. At the same time, they often feel that it's so important to be married in a church by a priest that they're willing to lie their sinning pants off during the Pre-Cana process.
I often think that it's largely done due to a reluctance to anger, alienate, devastate, etc. their families, or due to some deeply-engrained, conditioned response to submit to ecclesiastical authority, but in many cases it seems to be the case that it's very important to them to feel like they're an exemplary member of an institution that would excommunicate them if they were honest about their true beliefs and conduct.
Can any Catholics (lapsed or practicing) out there help me better understand this phenomenon? I'm certain it's a complicated chain of causality and influence, but I'm curious to get the perspective of some insiders.
I was tempted to say that I don't comprehend the conduct of Catholic priests in allowing this charade to continue, but then I realized that since their flocks (and their financial support) would dwindle by 90% or more were they not to look the other way, their complicity in this is rather easily understood.
blahedo says:
I'm a practicing Catholic who is at odds with the RCC on the current holy trinity of social issues: birth control, legalized abortion, and gay marriage.
The first thing to know, if you're an outsider to the church, is that Catholicism defines membership in the church (both de jure and de facto) somewhat differently from most Protestant churches: once you're in, you're in. You may be lapsed, you might have fallen out of communion with the church for one reason or another, but you're still Catholic. (In this respect, Catholicism is similar to Judaism, which takes this idea even further.) Narrowing the set somewhat to what you might call "good" Catholics, if you keep your commandments and buy into the dogma (I use this term in its technical sense—essentially, the beliefs laid out in the Creeds, *not* including the social stuff and other teachings), you're a good Catholic, even if you disagree with the church on some of the other stuff. The church will say you're *wrong* but not that you're a bad Catholic.
That's on paper, at least. I've had it confirmed by priests. I'm not making this up.
American Catholicism is weird in two interesting ways, though. One is that it has a *lot* more exposure to Protestant theology than in other parts of the world; in particular, a lot of American Catholics have the idea that if you disagree with the church then you're not a member. The other is that the American Catholic population is, on the whole, more educated, more affluent, and more free-thinking than Catholics nearly everywhere else in the world. So you have this basically unique clash here where a huge percentage of the national congregation disagrees with the leadership, but aren't automatically kicked out (and haven't been inclined to leave); the minority that agrees with the leadership likes to accuse the rest of us of not "really" being Catholic, even as the leadership keeps us around and acts as if they're speaking for us. (If the lay folk that are accusing us of not "really" being Catholic were right, they would be set back in the long run, because the "we speak for 25% of Americans" shtick only works if you include all the lapsed Catholics and the Catholics who don't buy the party line!)
With a few high-profile exceptions, the bishops have not been trying to kick out the disagreeing Catholics (and the exceptions who try to politicize Communion usually get told off by a bunch of other bishops, although this doesn't typically make it into the mainstream press). Most of the bishops and nearly all of the priests understand their primary job to be pastoral, and they're not in the business of driving people away.
Xynzee says:
@bladeho: would the mixed demographics of American Catholics also play a role? Eg. A Catholic of Northern Irish descent would have a much different view than an Italian Catholic, who are different from the Latin American experience (eg the motivation behind Piss Christ). Or is that all rubbish?
Thanks for getting rid of the sociable bar. It really fouls up the iPhone interface.
Middle Seaman says:
What the hack, most religious denominations who ignore the fact that their religion is socially progressive are heretics. In particular, all the GOP voting bishops are spitting on Jesus' shoes. Other right-wing denominations or individuals aren't any better. (This includes, of course, Jews and Muslims.)
As for Obama: thinking is not his forte and a backbone is part of his body.
Bears Fan says:
If you ever get a chance to speak with an actual Catholic Theologian, I'm not talking about a priest or bishop etc. but someone that studies the bible from both a historical and cultural context, i advise you to take advantage of such an opportunity. I had the good fortune of having many discussions with a Franciscan professor of theology, and it was really quite illuminating. Quite a divergence from what you get from going to church or bible study. Much more pragmatic and based in reality than you would expect.
Runner Up says:
What is *always* ignored in this debate is the fact that birth control is used to treat a variety of conditions, from mildly annoying conditions like acne and cramps to severe conditions like endometriosis (with endometriosis the choice is treatment with birth control or a hysterectomy -if you want to have children in the future like a good Catholic, you should opt for the former). Women who don't ever get pregnant can lower their risk of ovarian and uterine cancers by taking birth control (it has been recommended for nuns by some in the medical community).
I believe that even "good" Catholics should have access to treatment for their medical conditions. If they choose to use it to actually prevent births… well, as my Pre-Cana nun (with whom I was 100% honest) told me, "birth control is a matter of conscience."
c u n d gulag says:
If alter boys could get pregnant, contraception would not only be encouraged, free, and mandated by the church as part of every health care plan, it would be preached every day – and twice on Sunday.
Until you can stop playing hide-the-sceptre with young boys (and girls), don't tell women what they can do regarding their bodies.
I'm not a Catholic, but if I was, I'd quit the church after reading about 8,000 victims of sexual abuse by predatory members of the Catholic Church:
"Sealed documents filed in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee bankruptcy identify at least 8,000 instances of child sexual abuse and 100 alleged offenders – 75 of them priests – who have not previously been named by the archdiocese, a victims' attorney said Thursday."
So, Pope Rat-face, and your cardinally knowledgeable Cardinals, your boy-banging Bishops, and perpetually pecker-packing Priests, until you can control your own dicks, don't you dare tell women what they can do with their vagina's – or any other body parts.
So, STFU!
You look like worse than fools and hypocrites.
You're not "Shepherds of Christ."
You're predatory wolves in shepherd's clothing, eyeing your flock for your next tender lamb chop. I guess you must figure that schtupping the sheep tenderizes their souls.
Here's the story, if anyone's interested:
http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/archdiocese-bankruptcy-judge-allows-two-claims-to-stand-me44pue-139044534.html
c u n d gulag says:
Oh, and about the term "lay priest" – you might want to refrain from using if for a couple of centuries.
Also too: "laity" – people might get the wrong idea.
Who did the "lay priests" lay?
The laity.
See?
xynzee says:
Having a chance to read up on some of this issue I find it rather hypocritical of the GOP to back this position:
“We note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions,” the bishops said, while also urging Catholics to write to their representatives in opposition to the policy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/12/white-house-no-more-compromise-on-contraception/?mod=WSJBlog
For the GOP to now get all antsy over this encroachment on 1st Amendment Rights is utter BS!!
I used to work for Meier & Frank (May Co) that made it *mandatory* for part-timers to work on Sunday. This didn't suit as A) I had church in the mornings and B) I ran the youth group for the church in the evening. So to show up after dealing with rat-faced customers all day and not being able to properly prepare for the lesson made the studies less than optimal. I brought this up, and was told take it or leave it, that's the rules. One would think that the organisation would understand as the majority of management were Mormon.
A more glaring example was about 20yrs ago a franchise owner of a Portland area Texaco didn't want to open on Sundays as that was the day for church and rest. He was ordered by the Courts to open as that was a condition of the franchise agreement.
So it appears that being religious only suits in America provided that it doesn't get in the way of big money.
Sluggo says:
Is there anyone on the planet less qualified to discuss a woman's reproductive issues than celibate/unmarried/closeted gay?/ seventy year old men?
doug says:
I just figured the Oman did this to drum up support for Santorum.
ladiesbane says:
The Church, Inc., is obliged to take a stand on this. Given their hardline position on this under the current Pope, they kind of have to.
And while a lot of followers might be using artificial birth control (and even, yes, having abortions), they might still be offended if Obama rebuffed the church by requiring them, as an employer, to be held to the same standards as other employers.
Obama is also perceived as anti-Christian by the ignorant right, and perhaps doesn't want to add fuel to their fire. Even fire-breathing, condom-using Baptists will hold him accountable for that.
What burns me is all the people who say it's an infringement on religious freedom. I haven't heard that warcry this loud since the Church said it wasn't required to report felonious sexual assault on children or open its records to investigating bodies. The robes don't make you exempt from the law of the land. It's time you started paying taxes, by the way, and were subject to audit.
Last: would some Catholics feel paying out-of-pocket for contraception amounted to a sort of penance? "The price you pay," literally and figuratively? Or might they think their employer the Church would be unscrupulous and view their medical records?
deep says:
Most of the devout Catholics I know are also strongly opposed to the exclusion of divorcees and homosexuals from Communion. Many of them are also strongly anti-war (even though some Cardinals have called the Iraq war as a "Just" war.) They rationalize their continued faith for the same reason that blahedo said of Priests:
Their relationship is with Jesus only, with the assistance of their local priest. Any problems with Cardinals or Bishops are an issue of the institutional church and not with any individual's Catholic faith.
acer says:
I sometimes wonder how powerful the "religious right" really is in this country. Both parties have to appease them Or Else, although they never get much of what they want from the Republicans and they'll presumably never vote for Democrats even if Obama nominates Pat Robertson to the Supreme Court. I'm sure earthstains like Donohue loving having Obama and Joe Scarborough suck up to them in pretty much equal measure, and voting for outliers like Huckabee and Santorum must make them feel all special and powerful, but what can they expect to accomplish? They seem to be permanently on the defensive.
Elle says:
It's not a great point either.
The balancing of people's right to manifest their religion, and people's right to both health and non-discrimination is a question that is likely to run for some time.
Religious bodies are given fairly sweeping exemptions from anti-discrimination law in the jurisdictions I work in, with regard to their core functions. No one could win a sex discrimination case against the Catholic Church because they refuse to employ women as priests. No one could win a sexual orientation discrimination case against the Catholic Church because they refuse to employ gay men as priests. No one could win a religious discrimination case against the Catholic Church because they refused to marry a Protestant and a Jew. I think all of these things are defensible.
These special exemptions require to be increasingly well evidenced the farther a religious body steps outside its core functions. A care home catering to older Catholics, for example, could require care staff to be practicing Catholics, because they are tending to the spiritual well-being of its residents, but the religious affiliation of the receptionist or cook should not be stipulated. Catholic adoption agencies cannot discriminate against gay couples, in selecting adoptive parents. The Bishop of Hereford lost a case because he discriminated against a gay youth worker in not appointing him for a job.
I appreciate that my point is made from within a European legal paradigm, and probably doesn't align with the law in the US, but I don't understand how the Church's position would not be indirectly discriminatory against its female employees. (Although a contraception ban would presumably cut off men who wanted vasectomies, it would impact more women.) "We don't believe in contraception," would not be a sufficient defence to explain the activities of the Church in places it wasn't doctrinally required to be in, like hospitals.
acer says:
Here's a slightly OT open question.
I've heard a lot of wingers cite studies supposedly proving that self-identified conservatives give more money to charity than self-indentified liberals. It comes up A LOT.
How many of those "charities" are, how you say, "faith-based?"
Keifus says:
They choose the parts they want to follow, disregard the rest, and overlook the resulting inconsistencies between their creed and their actions.
Absolutely true, although it's not really any worse than a couple millennia of church hierarchy imposing the parts they expediently want people to follow, and disregarding the rest. It's true of any organization, of course (just ask your nearest "Constitutional originalist"), but religion gets extra points for basing all those convenient interpretations on books that are already pre-selected, vague, and contradictory, and do so with the chutzpah to label it as infallible.
The Roman Catholics are the ones who think good stewardship is overpopulating the earth to the point of destitition, which is cool, cuz poverty's a virtue, right?
bb in GA says:
All the personal animosity of the atheist, agnostic, anti-cleric Left aside…quite a load – it eventually is going to come down to the 1st amendment's breadth on this subject.
Do religious organizations have the right to implement their doctrine in the para-religious related organizations, charities, and enterprises? This has nothing to do with the percentage of believers' adherence to any particular doctrine and everything to with that right or "right" of the leadership.
I think, as usual, the Robed Rocket Scientists of the Constitution will decide, maybe along with a little 'meddling' from the Legislative Branch.
//bb
bb in GA says:
@acer
Total charitable giving in the US in 2008 was approximately $310 billion and about 1/3 of that was to “religious congregations and other religious organizations” or about $110 billion.
//bb
Southern Beale says:
This raises the question of why exactly Obama is supposed to care what the CCB or other "Catholic leaders" have to say.
Indeed. I immediately had a flashback to when conservatives fearmongered against JFK because of his Catholic faith. He wouldn't listen to the people or the U.S. Congress, they said; no, he'd be beholden to the Pope and the Catholic bishops! And now they are complaining because Obama isn't doing that? Guess they were against it before they were for it. So typical!
So I looked up that speech Kennedy gave during the campaign where he explained his religious beliefs, and found his words remarkably resonant today:
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
[…]
"But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
"Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. "
My how times have changed.
Chris says:
"Is there anyone on the planet less qualified to discuss a woman's reproductive issues than celibate/unmarried/closeted gay?/ seventy year old men?" +1
The catholic church needs to stick to what they do best: molesting kids and making money.
Elle says:
As a kind of sidenote, this exemplifies the dangerous futility of engaging with minority groups on the basis of their religious identity, through soi-disant 'religious community leaders'.
A particular feature of UK community engagement, post 9/11 and 7/7 (the bombing of the London underground), has been to shift funding, and space at the table, from black organisations, to explicitly Muslim /Sikh /Hindu organisations. This has had the effect of distancing women from political spaces, because they are vanishingly unlikely to be 'religious community leaders'.
Zak44 says:
I'm sure Donohue and the Bishops see this whole tempest as a gift from you-know-who. Anything to change the subject from boy-banging.
But it just won't go away. Last week, just a day after a judge ruled
celiadexter says:
The problem for Obama is simply that the bishops' objections to the contraception compromise give the Republicans and Fox an (unjustified, but so what?) excuse to pretend it's a First Amendment issue and argue that Obama and the Democrats oppose religious freedom and are anti-religion, and the voters who are susceptible to brainwashing by Fox, Santorum, etc. may fall for it. Basically it gives the wacko right one more lie to throw out there.
Gboggs says:
Just to clarify: Churches and houses of worship are specifically exempted from this rule. It is Church businesses who are required to suppy insurance policies with contraception with no co-pay to their employees, just as all large employers are now required to do.
Think about Church businesses: large hospitals and universities with 100s to 1000s of employees many or most of whom are non-Catholic.
This is an employment issue. Any religious discrimination is coming from the Church by denying their employees a perk based on the employer's religion.
There has been a Federal employment rule in place now since the late '90s which requires insurance policies which cover prescription drugs to also cover birth control drugs. Upwards of 30 states also require this.
The only difference here is the new rule which requires no co-pay.
I think the bishops saw this as a way to slam the Affordable Care Act and Obama, as well as to take a stand against contraception for anyone and everyone. Viva the Holy Roman Empire and the 14th century!
joel hanes says:
Do religious organizations have the right to implement their doctrine in the para-religious related organizations, charities, and enterprises?
Not if they accept tax monies to support public purposes.
eau says:
If the same priests who supported the invasion of Iraq, or have been protecting child molesters, are worried about the moral culpability of *this*, that's pretty funny.
You know, in that if-you-didnt-laugh-youd-have-to-cry kinda way.
bb in GA says:
@ladiesbane
"It's time you started paying taxes, by the way, and were subject to audit."
If y'all want to have that conversation, maybe it is time to change the relationship between Church and State. But please do it straight up. Amend the Constitution or Legislate something that is Constitutional in this regard.
//bb
bb in GA says:
@joel hanes
Let's swing around to a different part of the 1st amendment.
Suppose we have you as the publisher of the "Hanes Daily Spectator" and you put out both a print and internet edition.
For the print edition, your trucks distribute the paper partially using roads that were/are paid for by the Federal motor fuel tax (I think its still 18.5 cents per gal.)
For the internet edition, you use network infrastructure partially paid for by Federal Tax monies.
Therefore, I as the Federal Gov require you (at no charge) to publish advertisements for certain designated products and services without regard to your editorial judgment at all.
The roads and internet both seem to me to pass the test of "accepting tax monies to support public purposes" and you have consented through your local government and accepted those $.
How much control for how many dollars?
//bb
JazzBumpa says:
@ ABABD
Can any Catholics (lapsed or practicing) out there help me better understand this phenomenon? I'm certain it's a complicated chain of causality and influence, but I'm curious to get the perspective of some insiders.
I'm lapsed. The explanation is actually pretty simple. Forget the dogma, forget the angst, cognitive dissonance and conceptual conflicts. Going to the church you grew up in is comfort food for the soul. That's it.
You compartmentalize serious religiosity away from what you actually do in your life, and go to church and receive communion if you're so inclined.
I'm divorced and remarried. (Gasp!) But I can receive communion any time I feel like walking into a church. (Not often, I'll grant you.) Nobody ever checks the current account balance of my sin ledger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp3aAvorZcw
Cheers!
JzB
blahedo says:
@bb: The difference there is that the money spent on the internet and the roads were not spent for the exclusive use of the publisher, so the claim, if any, is much weaker. If the gov't were giving the publisher money directly in their budget for some reason, the analogy would be stronger (and the gov't would have a much stronger claim on making requirements of the publisher).
And I'm pretty sure that taxing churches would not be a violation of the First Amendment.
bb in GA says:
@blahedo
good points, but on that taxing churches thang (if you mean everything they own, not just the auxiliary enterprises) I believe that one will be fought till the last dog dies.
See you in court…
//bb
eau says:
RE: Church taxes.
I'd like the various churches and such either pay taxes like the rest of us, or get out of the political space.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'd settle for the "auxilary enterprises" paying taxes, at least the ones who exist only to influence the political space.
Cue laugh track (x2).
Fiddlin' Bill says:
That 98% stat is exactly what burns the tiny all male cadre that runs the Catholic Church. This issue is a way for them to force that 98% back into line, among other things.
Art Peasant says:
uterine cancer is now preventable through vaccines. '
<a href="Check out all of the newest piece of writing on our online site
http://www.melatoninfaq.com/liquid-melatonin/
tax attorney says:
Why users still use to read news papers when in this technological world all is
existing on net?