It was perfectly proper for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to order all employer-provided heath insurance plans to cover birth control service. The furor over the issue stems partly from the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s understandable but expansive assertion of its right to teach its version of morality. But conservative politicians, evangelicals and other conservative groups have seized on the issue as a political lever in the obvious hope of overturning the new national health-care act and possibly make Barack Obama a one-term president.
The blustering campaign against the contraception mandate flies in the face of the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee, the long American tradition of the separation of church and state and the right of every woman to have access to birth control if she wants it. Almost all American women have done so at some point, including Roman Catholic women.
The Supreme Court dealt with the general issue in a 1990 case involving workers who were fired for using peyote, an illegal drug, as part of a religious ritual. It held that they could be denied unemployment benefits. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote then that to “make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land” would permit “every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
Maine’s Attorney General William Schneider has jumped into the fray on the contraception issue, joining 12 other state attorneys general in a letter threatening a lawsuit if the Obama administration enforced the mandate. Mr. Schneider did not immediately join a seven-state suit, but he said that didn’t mean he had changed his mind on the issue.
Leading the charge against the mandate is Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He called the initial order “a terribly misguided judgment” and an intrusion “into the inner life of a church.” He urged Catholics at large to speak out in protest.
Invoking the First Amendment, he said: “Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”
He was wrong there. The mandate only makes birth control available. It does not promote contraception or force its use.
All 181 Catholic bishops have now publicly denounced the contraception mandate, joining a campaign to force the Obama administration to reverse it or to terminate it by law or court action. Having lost control of the faithful on contraception — 95 percent of Catholic women report they have used it — they are in effect turning to the government for help.
In a conciliatory move, the president ordered that employees of religiously linked schools, hospitals and charities would still have access to free contraception coverage, but that those organizations would not have to pay for it. Instead, health insurance companies would be required to provide it free of charge. The Catholic bishops, evangelicals, other conservatives and the Republican candidates for president all have dismissed the modification as meaningless.
The bishops’ anti-mandate campaign is stronger here than in some other parts of the country, but so is a countercampaign favoring the universal insurance coverage of birth-control services. About 25 percent of Mainers are Catholics, according to the 2010 Official Catholic Directory, compared with 22 percent nationally.
The Maine Democratic chairman, Ben Grant, commented on the anti-mandate campaign after his communications director, Lizzie Reinholt, had said simply, “It won’t work.” Mr. Grant predicted that the Republican Party would fail to attract Catholic votes this year. He said: “The reasons are simple. Most Catholics do not agree with their church hierarchy on the issues the GOP wants to promote. In addition, research shows that the ‘Catholic vote’ is concerned with the exact same issues as the rest of the public — finding jobs and putting money in the pockets of struggling Americans. The GOP doesn’t have a good message for those voters, whether they are Catholic or otherwise.”
For all its moral and constitutional trappings, the anti-mandate effort should and probably will fail.
http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/8838-reports-us-troops-killed-5-children-in-iraq-raid – Iraqi family of eleven possibly murdered.
So, uh, are Catholic soldiers excommunicated for Canon 1398 too?
BDN is wrong on this as usual. Hey you liberals in the press always cry about separation of church and state..when it suits your need though I guess its an antiquated notion.
Any statute that applies across the board to all parties and affects conduct, not beliefs, is valid. We can ticket a priest for violating the speed limit and not be accused of violating the separation of church and state. We have outlawed bigamy, but Mormons can still believe in plural marriage.
I think birth control violates the beliefs of the catholic church.
Need to qualify this a bit–natural birth control (the “rhythm method”) does not violate church doctrine. It’s not the end that matters, but the means. Human genius and science cannot get into the equation of regulating conception. Funny thinking, no?
I tried that
(the “rhythm method”)
Doesn’t work!
You just end up with a kid that can play the drums!
How do you define the “rhythm method”?
Good point! By the way, the Vatican recently has reluctantly conceded to endorsing the use of condoms (for HIV protection only, wink wink). In 2010 the Vatican called for universal access to health care for all, but I don’t see any Catholic GOP politicians running around trying to make that happen. Funny thinking, yes.
Stop making stuff up…the Vatican did not endorse the use of condoms. The Vatican issued a statement on the relative morality of using a condom versus exposing people to HIV through no condom use for those in the sex trade. They stated that if one is going to have sex anyway, it was a more moral choice to use a condom, than to infect another with HIV by not using a condom.
And yes, the Catholic Church does support health care as a human right.
I’m not making it up, you are splitting hairs. Why do you think the GOP doesn’t support the Catholic Church’s view that health care is a human right?
I am not splitting any hair. If you asked Obama, for example, who he would vote for in the Republican primary, he would start out by saying he isn’t going to vote in the primary, but if he had to, he would say Romney is the least distasteful candidate to him. If you then turned around and said Obama just endorsed Romney! You would have a sense of what you are doing to the Vatican’s pronouncement on condom use.
I think Catholic GOP candidates disagree with how that human right is to be secured. Nobody is saying health care isn’t a human right, people are arguing over health insurance. They are not the same. Nobody is saying: turn the sick person away from the hospital door if they can’t pay.
All right I’ll give you that I erred in using the word “endorse.” Health care means more than emergency treatment or hospital care. Which, as a mother of nine, I’m sure you are well aware.
It is funny thinking—and it is not the Catholic position on contraception.
The government isn’t mandating that Catholics use birth control. It’s mandating that birth control be available for those who choose to use it. Therefore, there is no violation of the separation of church and state.
Birth control is already available. The issue at hand is who pays for it?
The mandate, as the Archbishop stated is about FORCING individuals and religious institutions to buy an insurance product that violates their conscience. There is no legal precedence for forcing anyone to buy a product against their conscience. The case involving bigamy among Mormons was not about the state forcing the purchase of a certain product. Rather it was about the state prohibiting a certain behavior. Clearly here there is a big difference in both cases.
there is a easy solution for the church…STOP ACCEPTING FEDERAL MONEY. if you don’t want to play by the rules don’t play the game. Not EVERYONE who works for a religious institution shares there same beliefs. just because a teacher works for a Catholic school does not mean she/he is even Catholic. Why should that person be denied something that everyone else has access to because of their employers beliefs.
How can a person like the Catholic school teacher you mentioned be denied anything by his employer who is not taking anything from him in the first place? If I give someone a gift package without a wrapping, how can you say this person is being denied when he is on the receiving end? For sure, the person who is offered a health insurance policy without contraceptive coverage is not being denied anything, let alone real health coverage. Besides, nothing stops that person from buying contraceptives.
Think about, don’t be misled by what others who have an exaggerated sense of entitlement say!
So what are you going to do with people who oppose U.S. military actions on religious grounds? Are you going to offer those people a tax refund for their share of taxes that go to the military?
Are you making a rhetorical point or or are you asking me a question? Either way, I’m not sure what your are getting at. Please clarify if you can.
I remember a certain Pastor Stephens, in Lenox Massachusetts about 25 years ago, who cheated a wealthy parishioner out of $7 million. He claimed it was a separation of church and state issue, and should not be ruled on in court. The judge ruled that separation of church and state does not cover fraud, and ordered him to give the money back. Pastor Stephens had spent the money, so he skipped the state and the parishioner got possession of his bible school campus in lieu of payment.
There are limits on any Constitutional freedom. We are not free to shout “fire” in a crowded theater where there is no fire, despite guarantees of freedom of speech. Finding the correct balance between the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and the free exercise clause, is often a bit tricky. I think the BDN editorial found the correct balance, as did President Obama (although he stumbled a bit at first, before modifying his position).
Great editorial. The bishops have the opportunity to take a great moral stand by forbidding their institutions from accepting federal funds. Think it’ll happen?
Federal funds to religious organizations are payments for desired services. It’s a business deal where religious organizations don’t make a profit. The government is always free to stop this funding if it wants to for one reason or another. This funding is not attached to any mandates other than to provide a list of services.
Right. Let’s get the order right. The government came to the established Catholic charity/hospital and requested they provide services for the public. The Catholic church set up these hospitals and charities to care for the poor, not so they could milk the government of taxpayer money. The government came to the Catholic charity so they could avoid having to put a new program in place.
I’m with you. Any government funding that is misspent ought to be pulled back regardless of whom is getting the funding. Therefore, the government should stop funding of Catholic institutions, or any organization for that matter that is receiving funds for rendering services, if the government is being milked.
That’s not true Wandi. The government doesn’t “come to” the institution to give it money. The institution has to ask for the money, or it doesn’t get it. Stop making stuff up.
Okay, I will be more specific: The federal government solicits applications for grant money from established charitable organizations. These organizations apply for the grant money and provide services for the government. The organizations benefit through having a reliable source of funding for their programs. The federal government benefits through not having to set up its own charitable infrastructure, thus saving money.
Why don’t you apply your fact check to people who claim the church is getting billions of dollars of taxpayer money? That isn’t really true, is it?
No one claims “the church” is getting billions of dollars of taxpayer money. The subject of this debate concerns church-related hospitals, universities, and charities. If an organization receives Federal funding they have to sign a statement saying they adhere to U.S. anti-discrimination laws.
Okay…so I don’t see the church outraged over an anti-discrimination law. And lots of people on this message board have made the claim that the church gets billions from the feds.
People here have not made that claim. You would have to provide an example to back up your claim that they have.
Right. But, I wasn’t thinking about the “business deal” side of it. I was thinking about the opportunity the bishops have to take a “moral” stand and go it alone to maintain the independence of their institutions. Thanks for the comment.
The Church has always maintained institutions to help the poor as much as it can. Accepting government funding has been and continues to be a controversial matter withing its walls. By accepting government funding it is increasing its mission to help the poor on one hand while opening itself up to criticism and undue influence by the government on the other hand. Undoubtedly the controversy will continue as long as it continues to accept government funding.
Part of helping the poor is the right to self determination. Making contraceptives harder to get contributes to poverty
… and abortion!
If you accept the cash .. you accept the rules. It’s that simple.
Not at the expense of losing its 1st Amendment Right. The government does not have the right to buy out a church. “Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
What are you talking about, “buy out a church”?
As in “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Like you said, “It’s a business deal”. And businesses have to follow the law.
And those businesses do follow the law! They never even proposed to break it to begin with, as your comment suggests. By the way, since when is it illegal in this country to speak out against a legal mandate considered unjust? With that, I thought I’d shed a little light where needed to clarify some misconceptions.
So does the employer choose the method, because if castration is being offered………I think I’ll choose and pay for my own method of birth control, lol
The editor seems to be mixing eggs with oranges, insurance products with birth control. First, he correctly quotes the Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan:
” Never before has the federal government forced individuals and
organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that
violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free
exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”
Then the editor states:
“He was wrong there. The mandate only makes birth control available. It does not promote contraception or force its use.”
Contrary to the editor’s assertion the mandate DOES NOT “only make birth control available”. As the Archbishop says, it forces individuals and organizations to purchase an insurance product – not birth control – that violates their conscience. There is no precedence for that.
The Obama Administration seems to have backed down on its mandate out of a genuine fear of being embarrassed by a Supreme Court rejection of it after many independent groups had moved forward to challenge it in court.
If the CC created it’s own insurance company, the mandate could exempt them, solely.
Nice photo of Archbishop Dolan; sweats, warm-up jacket, finger-pointing and a beer. LOL
If that’s the only thing wrong with the Archbishop, he’s my guy and mentor.
Actually, I’m told he’s a very likeable guy — that’s what the mainstream media says.
A tad more humanity and a tad less inflexible and opportunistic theological extortion from the Catholic bishops would be welcome by most believers and non believers.
Nothing wrong with opposing views unless you’re one that doesn’t cherish free speech for everyone.
A tad more understanding of the Constitution and a tad less arrogant “I know how to live your life Better than you do” attitude on Obama’s part would be welcome by believers of all faiths.
Redsquirrel, WIKI Trinity United Church Chicago , Liberation Theology, and United Church of Christ and you will see that Obama is shoving his beliefs down all our throats.
A little more Home Work and Education on your part will give you a more Educated outlook on this Issue.
Sorry but the Constition is not Christian and cannot, by law, remove rights from individuals due to religious belies.
…..’I know how to live your life better than you do’……….
This sounds very familiar, but I can’t quite figure out where/when I’ve heard this before…………..
Aaaah, yes. Religion. The opinion that there is a magical person in the sky, dictating our every move. The opinion that humans must seek guidance and support from an imaginary figure, from above the clouds. An opinion that discriminates against other human beings……
I guess in Maine in the Winter there is nothing to do but sit around and write editorials without researching the facts and the law that apply and so you just spout out any old thing you can make up to support your Leftie Welfare State Views.
Sorry Editor, you make a fool of yourself.
And the Courts will prove you and the Over-Bearing, Chicago Gangster Obama wrong.
P.S. And tell your Leftist Women that they speak only for themselves and not for all women.
Geeez, Lefties think they have the answers for everyone. That’s a dictatorship.
I will speak for myself.
then speak sense
When the left mandates, it’ common sense. But when the right proposes it’s imposition. My, my.
That’s just the way it is whawell, You’re just going to have to accept it, just like you accept it when the Catholic Church imposes their beliefs on everyone and tells you it’s just common sense
When the right proposed the individual mandate (in health insurance reform) was it an imposition? If it wasn’t when the right came up with it, it wasn’t when Obama adopted the idea from the Republicans.
When the federal government says that insurance should cover birth control, it isn’t mandating that people use birth control. It’s only saying that insurance companies should pay for it if individuals want it. We then have the freedom to use it or not use it. How is that an imposition on us?
Catholic health plans pay for Viagra and Cialis — but far be it from me to suggest that this is because the Church is run by men.
“Most Catholics do not agree with their church hierarchy”…
This statement is true on a number of church teachings but because a number, even a majority, of Catholics don’t agree, does it invalidate church teachings? Is this not an example of what Pope Benedict famously spoke of, as the “dictatorship of relativism” ?
And to throw out the figure of 95% without any substantiation is irresponsible.
The American Catholic Church is now reaping what it has sown by cozying up in the past to the secular relativists who now want to move our culture into areas that even the bishops dare not tread.
Contraception is the personal decision of every person, male or female. But, this is not a matter of whether birth control is available. Contraception is available to everyone, mandate or not.
Contraception is not even the true issue here, What is at issue is whether a religious institution can be forced to pay for something that violates its beliefs.
They are not forced to do anything. I am sure the companies they use also cover blood transfusions, abortions, etc.
Those things you just listed is real health care, not contraceptives that do nothing to cure or lessen the effects of disease, heal injuries, or ameliorate physical defects. As the prior poster stated, the issue is whether a religious institution – or, for that matter, any institution or individual – can be forced to pay for something in violation of their conscience. A reasonable reading of the 1st Amendment Right is very clear to me that the government has no right to violate anyone’s conscience beyond what is absolutely necessary. 1st Amendment Rights are ‘first rights’ as the media often likes to remind us whenever they perceive the freedom of the press and speech is being threatened by the passage of legislation (Congressional laws).
For your convenience here is a reprint of the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”
Are you a woman? You have had to have it explained to you many times now that contraception is health care.
I’ve already made a case why contraceptives is not health care. I even made a case why it’s not health care. How many more times must I repeat myself?
Some contraceptives are health care. You can’t make up facts.
Some drugs can be used as contraceptives and for infertility treatment. The same drug that can be used as a contraceptive is not a contraceptive when used to treat a condition such as infertility. The use of this drug in this instance poses no moral objection. So the assertion that contraceptives is not health care is entirely accurate. This has been my understanding for many years.
Are you saying there is a drug that can be used both as a contraceptive and an infertility treatment?
Contraception is health care, unless one does not care about the health of women.
I think jersey’s point about blood transfusions is that blood transfusions are against the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But insurance companies pay for them anyway. Of course, if you are a Jehovah’s Witness you can refuse the transfusion; and if you are Catholic no one will force you to use contraceptives. Insurance plans should still pay for both blood transfusions and contraceptives — you just don’t have to use them.
Or do you think that there should be no insurance coverage for blood transfusions because one religious group objets to transfusions?
The Catholic Church continues to be hypocritical: don’t make us go against our religious beliefs but let us force everyone to believe what we believe by spending millions on anti-abortion television ads, candidates who will create legislation to ban abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Open you eyes a little wider please. After your comment above you must not see that only 1% of the population of the US claims to be gay yet they think the rest of us should bow down to their desire to change the law for us all. Where is the difference here ? By the way , your comment on candidates also shows your limited knowledge of these subjects as there are many candidates with opposing viewpoints who are encouraged and supported financially by the ” other side”.
But those candidates aren’t primarily funded by tax-free religious entities.
Doesn’t matter what percentage of people are gay, what matters is equality under the law.
But how do you propose to undo nature to make everyone equal under the law?
That same thing we’ve done to make religion equal under the law, as in no discrimination in employment, housing, and public and private services on the basis of religion. Not really “undo nature” situation there, now is it?
Down deep I think you know that a union of love between a man and a woman is very different than a union of two people of the same sex. Marriage is a celebration of that former union. This is well reflected in our culture and in other cultures around the world with a reception of the bride and the groom. It’s a celebration of the possibility of a new generation of life within a budding family. For reasons of nature similar reception is possible for the union of SS couples. Finally, and I know when I say this you’ll probably feel hurt, SS attraction is a disorder that arises from early childhood. It is not inherited even though it may feel like it with some individuals who are affected by it. Like alcoholism or any other disorder it should not be celebrated.
Yea… um… sorry to burst your bubble, but look at the D.S.M. – IV (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) you will see alcoholism listed, with some sub categories, however what you will not find listed is homosexuality. Homosexuality is seen throughout nature and is not an inherited flaw. Closed mindedness however, that is a learned behavior, and with a little cognitive behavioral therapy we can fix it. So don’t worry I have hope for you yet.
They are equal under the law , they just can’t and shouldn’t get married. This is not an issue of equality !
It most certainly is, some people have rights that others do not based purely on sexual orientation. Kind of the definition if inequality. It is like saying you aren’t allowed to marry because you are black or Muslim.
And they wonder why so many (including me) left the church. They are going to find that the further it swings to the right, the more will have left (pun intended).
Aren’t you free to believe what you want. Your apparent disagreement with the Church on some issues demonstrates your freedom. No one is being forced to believe anything here. It’s all in your mind.
Archbishop Dolan and the Catholic Church:
Why not focus your resources and energies on helping all of the unwanted children who have come into this world? They are already here, sometimes as a result of Catholic women being coerced by the Church–NOT GOD–to abide by edicts that force them to forgo the use of contraception. If the Catholic hierarchy had to get down and dirty–and not the down and dirty many priests are known for–and actually participate in the work of taking care of children, day in day out, they might quickly have a Divine Epiphany relating to birth control! If they were making choices between feeding the kids who are crying in hunger and the mother who is exhausted, pregnant and starving herself, they soon would see the Light. This is a world with limited resources and each family has its own microcosm of limitations. Only each individual couple knows what is best for their circumstances in regard to how many children they bring into the world and care for…Unless the Catholic Church is prepared to augment a family’s resources as more children are born than the parents themselves can care for, the Church should not be exerting influence in this arena.
As for the only Church sanctioned method of birth control, if your rhythm method actually worked, there would not be so many jokes about rhythm babies!! In the 21st Century you are still telling women they will go to Hell if they use another method of limiting fertility–a method that works?!
Why is it that within the Catholic Church, no women have a share in the decision making that perpetuates archaic and misogynistic policy relating to reproductive health and family planning? It seems particularly audacious that a group of MEN who are not married, who have never (in most cases) participated in married family life–much less in the care and nurturing of another human being, a baby who will need more than 18 years of guidance and financial support–should have all the say in how married couples are to conduct themselves!
Everyone, regardless of spiritual or religious affiliation, should be able to decide on an individual basis how many children they can care for and love, and how many they can SAFELY bring into the world. That is why birth control should be available to all people. Availability does not mean those people who have a qualm–whether personal, political or religious–would be forced to use contraception. They still can opt for the rhythm method and abstinence. An individual choice. But if, in their enlightened and educated conscience, couples opt to reliably limit family size with a safe method of birth control, the tools are available and covered by insurance. What is so wrong with that?!! Why is the Church so threatened by this?!
Because the CC is a Billion dollar industry that want more and more people so it can get stronger and take over the world.
How many armies does the Pope have? I still don’t see any take over by the Church anywhere. The only industry the Church has is one that is trying to save souls.
The Pope has an army, the Pontifical Swiss Guard of Vatican City.
Yah, they’re real dangerous alright. It’s my understanding they don’t even carry weapons, at least not modern weapons!
They carry weapons.
They are among the fiercest security forces in the world. They should be, they have been at it for centuries, since their first incarnation as the Knights Templar
You’ve been reading too much fiction. The Swiss Guard is nothing more than a very weak but effective, dedicated, and alert security force. It’s a model of how a police force can keep order without recourse to violence or the threat of violence. To call them “fierce” is by no means accurate.
See the following link for more info concerning their arms:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351640,00.html
I guess you missed the part about the “H&K submachine gun and the SIG Sauer 9 mm pistol.”
Really? Look at history, The Pope is one of the most influential leaders in the world. He has little sway here in the States because thankfully we aren’t all lemmings. Worldwide he is a very powerful and influential person. The church has constantly attempted to exert political power throughout history. At times they have even held absolute power in Europe. Look up the Dark Ages you will find it. The majority of all religions seek to control the masses and amass political power under the guise of “saving souls.”
I stand by my last statement. The fact the Church happens to have a lot of influence only reflects its widespread moral authority. There is nothing wrong using one’s influence to effect change, especially in people’s hearts. That is not what “control” is about. If the Church is attempting to coerce, then I’ll point the finger at it.
Not true, the “moral authority” that the Church claims to have, which has been evaporating due to its handling of several issues, is the result of the “believe in what we say or die” forced belief of the Dark Ages. The use of the Church’s power over the weak. You tell someone something enough they believe it, they teach this to their children, and on and on. You must realize without the conversion of the Roman Empire (which was for political gain, not spiritual gain) Christianity would have likely died out by now. Forced conversions during the Dark Ages, coin of the realm, and declaring a country a “Christian” one has more to due with the church’s power than their “moral authortity.”
Dane, what do you believe in? Rhetorically I mean, what hope do you have for the future? Christianity, in spite of its followers, offers a hope never before known by mankind. What we witness today is very fleeting. The temporal pleasures of the world will come to an end, but the love of God will remain. Either we choose God or we choose darkness. “What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?”
No, it’s control and future membership.
Please tell me how this diatribe against the Church has any to do with the editorial? I’m still scratching my head. Is it supposed to be an argument for or against the Obamacare mandate to force employers to buy an insurance product that violates their conscience? If so, what is the connection between your comment and this issue? I’m still scratching my head.
And, the leftist leaning editorial page editor has all of the right answers, evidently.
“it is the right of every woman to have access to birth control if she wants it” is an asinine statement in the first place, because every woman already has that right; it is the term “free birth control” at the expense of the taxpayer and insured people who will be paying for something to be “free” for others.
This is a convoluted, upside down, left-brained ideology being perpetuated by the likes of the above. In essence, this author is saying that the church leaders have no right to speak on the issues. Guess that the headline/article about the Tea Party group’s speakers and their trip to Cuba was not read by the editors here.
And although I agree with using the products, why am I required to pay for it if I don’t want to pay? This is a personal decision of every individual, so why should I have to pay for someone else’s indulgence? If they can’t afford a rubber, don’t do it. Also, the cath. hospitals, etc. can provide it, but it is the individual users who opt in or not. Further, I think the church has lost its moral authority in handling anything, so why the big deal on this? They really cannot control their congregations or priests.
It’s amazing to see how far the US bishops lag behind their colleagues elsewhere in the world. The Church lost the contraception debate decades ago in traditionally Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy and Ireland. The bishops there aren’t nearly as preoccupied with divisive battles and far more concerned about keeping people in touch with their faith.
The Church has the responsibility and the duty to pass on the oral and written traditions of Jesus Christ and his apostles regardless of rejection of its message by those who hear it. It is not so much concerned about growing a large membership as possible as it is about saving souls. Churches, like many mainline Protestant churches, that have been watering down the faith have been losing membership over the past several decades while the Catholic and Evangelical churches have seen steady growth.
The RC Church is growing in the 3rd world. In the US it is barely growing, directly due to Latin American immigrants. The Bible doesn’t forbid birth control, either directly or indirectly. The RC Church’s stance in the matter is based purely on its own interpretation.
Until the beginning of the last century nearly all Christian denominations had a proscription against artificial birth control based on God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 28) This proscription is obviously not without any biblical foundation.
Actually, no. Until about 1930 there were almost no available practical and effective forms of contraception — and most Protestant groups had no position at all on contraception (because without effective forms of contraception it was a non-issue). Beginning around 1930 the various Protestant denominations began moving from having no opinion to being in favor of the use of contraception. Today the Roman Catholic Church is the only major denomination that opposes contraception — a self defeating position, since the use of contraception lessens the incidence of abortion.
“Be fruitful and multiply” doesn’t say how fruitful we have to be. Do we have to be fruitful to the point of self-destructive stupidity? The same chapter of Genesis says we are to have dominion over the earth — and with dominion comes responsibility. If we are to be good stewards of this responsibility, we need to control our population. Otherwise we risk crowding out the rest of God’s Creation, and destroying what we have been entrusted with.
Exactly. It is absolutely foolish to interpret “be fruitful and multiple” as an edict that a woman has to be a human clown car. See, e.g., Michelle Duggar.
Should you ever be elected Pope, Whawell, may I suggest you take the papal name of Innocent. I truly hope your naive devotion is treated respectfully by your very worldly Church.
Sally, I keep losing respect for you more and more as you keep insisting on demonizing. That said, I believe I’d have to be a Catholic to be elected Pope.
It was a compliment to your unwavering faith in the goodness of the Church, what ever church. Sheesh!
You would have to be male to be “elected” Pope.
What a bunch of rubbish. The writer is still having flashbacks from the peyote ingested 20 years ago.
Non-covered birth control has been a pain in my backside for quite a while. My spouse and I choose not to have children, and are old enough to take permanent birth control measures. We have carried two separate insurance companies over the last 15 years, and neither would cover ANY COST of tubaligation or vascectomy – not even a fraction. We routinely do not have $1,000 to $3,000 offhand to cover this. So we continue to use the less effective methods, less costlier methods (do you realize even an IUD is hardly covered unless you have a medical problem??)
Yet, get pregnant, and they cover (or a percentage of):
checks for the mother through 9 months
vitamins
the hospital stay to deliver
c-section
well child checks for 18 years
vaccinations for child
insurance coverage cheaper for a child than to cover a healthy adult
If insurance companies cover the child, they should all offer the coverage to not have them.
I don’t suppose in this hyper steamed environment over birth control that anybody cares to remember that it was put into the health car bill is because contraception use gives the biggest health care bang for the health care buck. Insurance companies want it there. Unwanted pregnancies cost them money. The children resulting from unwanted pregnancies are much less healthy and more apt to need medical and psychological services.
The Blunt Amendment failed in the Senate. Praise jeebus!!!!