Contraception and the Catholic Church

Azdak

This whole "controversy" is just the haters of Obama. Insurance providers have been required to provide coverage for birth control for years, so long as they provide prescription coverage. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html

The difference now is that birth control is required to be FREE, not provided just free.

You beat me to it. Since you provided a link to the actual EEOC decision, I'll supply a quote from a similar story:

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today -- and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally -- but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now ... There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

Again--this is "contrived outrage" being cynically presented to promote a political agenda.

nehtaeh

This whole "controversy" is just the haters of Obama. Insurance providers have been required to provide coverage for birth control for years, so long as they provide prescription coverage. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html

The difference now is that birth control is required to be FREE, not provided just free.

Then how do you explain the liberals and Democrats who are against this but in all other situations support president Obama?

I don't really care about them. A lot of politicians have no idea what they are doing and don't have all the knowledge for most of the things they vote and legislate on. What I do know is that this HAS been law. Ok, so just look at the law - why is it that just now everyone is trying to make waves about this? Why didn't someone step up in, oh say 2001, and challenge the constitutionality of this?

If you feel that strongly about not wanting to allow the women who work for you to have contraceptives, eliminate prescription coverage. It's ridiculous, but there is a way around it...

nehtaeh

I read a reference to Obama offering a religious mandate, but it had no link so I have no idea if it's reality. Anyone?

nehtaeh

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

It looks like he's trying to make it so employees can have coverage if their religious employer decides they don't want to provide it.

Regmama

It amazes me (but doesn't surprise me) how many of you are quick to defend the freedom of speech but quick to go against the freedom of religion. Why is that? Because a good percentage of you do not hold faith in anything or anyone besides yourself? Seriously, I am interested on why the hypocracy?

Azdak

And there is nothing like a bunch of old guys who have never had sex demanding that they have exclusive rights to control the behavior of women.

No offense, but you are making quite the generalizing statement. I know quite a few priests who were (spouse died or there was a decree of nullity) or are married (pastors from other faiths who converted) married and have children. Then there are the permanent deacons who, a majority of them, are married. Maybe you should ask a deacon's wife what she thinks of it. I know that this wife of a candidate for the permanent deaconacy is 100% supportive of the Church's position. Also, as a daughter of a man who's written many amicus briefs for cases that went to the Supreme Court, I agree that this is also unconstitutional.

I didn't realize deacons were now in charge of making church doctrine. I guess things have changed more than I thought.

No, but they do work on the diocesean level with the bishop and issues are discussed. To think that the bishops listen to no one is very naive. And there are plenty of canon lawyers who are lay people who work out issues within the Church. It just isn't as cut and dry as you are making it out to be and to think that it is only the bishops who hold these views is naive. That is what I was referring to.

And I think you are parsing the issue, which is fine-I know your beliefs are every bit as strong as mine or anyone else's.

But I am going to stick with what I originally said--in essence, I don't think decisions like this are really about the minutiae of the catholic church's decision-making process. I think that, at the heart, these "doctrines" (and not only catholic, but a number of other religions as well) do stem from deep-seated fears of independent woman, and especially of independent, sexually-active women. In this case, the catholic church has had 2000 years to bury these fears under mountains of rationalizations and apologia, but it doesn't change the essential facts.

There is no mention that I know of in the Gospels of contraception. Therefore, any specific doctrine on this subject was developed by man, and thus was influenced by any number of psychological, historical, cultural influences, etc. So, in my opinion, these types of doctrines-again, whether catholic, orthodox jewish, etc--have their ultimate origin in some deep psychological need that some men had to control women.

Azdak

It amazes me (but doesn't surprise me) how many of you are quick to defend the freedom of speech but quick to go against the freedom of religion. Why is that? Because a good percentage of you do not hold faith in anything or anyone besides yourself? Seriously, I am interested on why the hypocracy?

It's only "hypocrisy" if you are taking a shallow view of the subject.

Human beings are not always consistent--and that goes for everyone. So, yes, in some cases people are going respond on one subject with opinions that seem at odds with their position on another subject.

But, in cases like this, one can trace a consistent line of ethical thinking. I'm just going off the top of my head here, but all of our individual rights are limited by the needs of the greater good of society.

You can yell "fire" in your own house, but not in a public theater.
You can walk naked in your house, but not out in public.
You can own pornography of adults, but not of children.
Christian Scientists can deny medical care for themselves, but not their children (I believe this is the law)
Other religious practices such as polygamy, use of illegal drugs, and certain types of animal sacrifice are also prohibited

As a rule, individual freedoms tend to be most "absolute" only in our own homes--they become more abridged, the farther we travel from our homes and the more we have to integrate with society in general.

That's pretty much how it has to be in a complex society.

So what we are discussing is where on the continuum individual rights should be superseded by the "rights" of society. That point is going to be different for different issues. There is never going to be 100% consensus, and, in most cases, the debate is a healthy part of democracy.

Which makes it not hypocritical at all. One just has to make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from.

Regmama

There is no mention that I know of in the Gospels of contraception. Therefore, any specific doctrine on this subject was developed by man, and thus was influenced by any number of psychological, historical, cultural influences, etc. So, in my opinion, these types of doctrines-again, whether catholic, orthodox jewish, etc--have their ultimate origin in some deep psychological need that some men had to control women.

"Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother.
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too." Genisis 38: 9-10, yes not the Gospels but the teaching believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims

atomiclauren

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

It looks like he's trying to make it so employees can have coverage if their religious employer decides they don't want to provide it.

It amazes me (but doesn't surprise me) how many of you are quick to defend the freedom of speech but quick to go against the freedom of religion. Why is that? Because a good percentage of you do not hold faith in anything or anyone besides yourself? Seriously, I am interested on why the hypocracy?

I'll ask again, though I don't know if it's possible to answer:
How many Catholics are hard-core against contraception in the first place?
And how many employees of those hospitals, universities, and organizations are anti-contraception Catholics?

If the Hawaii option becomes available, that might be a fair compromise for the folks above.

Azdak

I normally try to stick to original sources, rather than cite articles from obvious ideologically-oriented websites, but I couldn't find one for this and it's pretty straightforward news, so if you don't think you browser might become corrupted by going to a liberal website, I found this an interesting overview on the constitutionality of the federal guidelines:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-scalia-helped-obama-defend-the-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpa

I don't like posting entire articles, so you'll have to do the work.

If you make the trip, you will see that the constitutional issues are not cut and dried. But since this article is based more on FACTS, rather than ideological spin, it should be readily clear to anyone with an open mind that there IS constitutional precedent for this decision and it attempts to be consistent with previous SCOTUS rulings on law and religion, including opinions written by Scalia himself.

I make the point not to dismiss those who feel this ruling may be unconstitutional, or who disagree with it, but to dismiss what I consider the cynical partisan framing of this as an "attack on religion", or an "attack on Christianity". And to vehemently disagree with anyone who tries to play the "hypocrisy" card.

Whether you agree or disagree with the actions of the Obama administration (any of them throughout his term), EVERY contemporary inside account of the internal deliberations of this administration has shown them to be scrupulously researched, a wide-range of opinions considered, and carefully crafted to represent what the administration feels is the best overall solution to complex problems in a hyperpartisan political landscape. Doesn't mean the decisions are always right, doesn't mean there is not politics involved. But the idea that the administration is carrying out some secret extreme agenda, or "war on religion" is beyond absurd and not supported by the facts.

There are a lot of people who feel that religion has WAY too much inappropriate influence in our society and on our laws to begin with. Their opinions and their votes count just as much as anyone else's.

Bahet

Why aren't you raising these questions about the unions and McDonalds who are getting a 100% opt out for the whole healthcare bill mandate? They are getting special treatment and unions provide services to the government and also federal employees are members of these same exempt unions. Why the special treatment for them? I thought, afterall, this was about making sure everyone has health insurance, except if you are a union member or work for McDonalds. Talk about double standard.

You are misinformed. They don't get an opt out for the whole healthcare bill madate. They got a 1 year waiver. They will still have to obey the same laws as everyone else.

Fox is not news.

Elizabeth_C34

"Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother.
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too." Genisis 38: 9-10, yes not the Gospels but the teaching believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims

How the heck does this translate to "contraception is evil"? I fail to see this line of reasoning at all.

If spilling one's seed on the ground is grounds for death, I'm pretty sure there would be no men on the planet over the age of 14.

becoming_a_new_me

"Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother.
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too." Genisis 38: 9-10, yes not the Gospels but the teaching believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims

How the heck does this translate to "contraception is evil"? I fail to see this line of reasoning at all.

If spilling one's seed on the ground is grounds for death, I'm pretty sure there would be no men on the planet over the age of 14.

Not just for noses

Azdak

I know this topic has died down, but I thought these quotes were interesting --from none other than Antonin Scalia.

So this is historic--the first time (and possibly the last) that I will ever refer to Scalia's comments positively. On the issue and religion and the larger society, he wrote in a court opinion:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Tony!

KimmieBrie

There is no mention that I know of in the Gospels of contraception. Therefore, any specific doctrine on this subject was developed by man, and thus was influenced by any number of psychological, historical, cultural influences, etc. So, in my opinion, these types of doctrines-again, whether catholic, orthodox jewish, etc--have their ultimate origin in some deep psychological need that some men had to control women.

"Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother.
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too." Genisis 38: 9-10, yes not the Gospels but the teaching believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims

THIS is your example of why contraception is against Catholic teachings? Probably nothing to do with the fact Onan was an ADULTERER right? The pull out method, really? Pulling out isn't "contraception" and the Catholic Churches own preferred method is a natural birth control - basically monitoring the woman's cycle - which is known to fail miserably.

Years ago, the Church could make a case that birth control (actual birth control - not the epic fail pullout method) allowed men to take advantage of women with no consequences (children). This day and age, it hardly applies.

Azdak

These guys try to dress this up in terms of "religious freedom" but their view of the world is so distorted they can't even keep their own lies straight.

I present the words of one Rick Santorum:

(I don't care about Obama's compromise)..."This is simply someone trying to impose values on someone else using the arm of the government

followed by

As long as abortion is legal...we will never have rest because that law does not comport with god's law

and later

Rights come to us from god, and that when god gives us rights, he doesn't say "well, here are your rights, just do whatever you want with them"; but, in fact, he has laws that we must abide by

And how does Mr Santorum want to enforce his frothy mix of personal religious values and "god's laws"? You guessed it--using the "arm of the government".

So basically, in Rick Santorum's America, we are all free -- to live according to Rick Santorum's religious beliefs.

Bahet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

BrettPGH

"Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother.
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too." Genisis 38: 9-10, yes not the Gospels but the teaching believed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims

THIS is your example of why contraception is against Catholic teachings? Probably nothing to do with the fact Onan was an ADULTERER right? The pull out method, really? Pulling out isn't "contraception" and the Catholic Churches own preferred method is a natural birth control - basically monitoring the woman's cycle - which is known to fail miserably.

Years ago, the Church could make a case that birth control (actual birth control - not the epic fail pullout method) allowed men to take advantage of women with no consequences (children). This day and age, it hardly applies.

This is another example, to me, of why religion is on the decline.

You can't tell people in 2012, kids growing up with the internet and information at their fingertips, that the reason they have no say in their own reproductive cycle is because of something some backwards king or cleric said in the 2nd century.

The contraception we use today bares no relation to whatever was used in centuries past. So I think it's the height of arrogance for any earthly person to say that birth control is wrong because God says so. He didn't. Men did. And those men have their own motives and have been wrong consistently.

To apply such teaching to modern healthcare is laughable.

Regmama

There are plenty of non-moral reasons on why one should avoid medical contraceptives, especially those distributed and promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood and doctors, and that is the connection between them and breast cancer, especially for those who never had children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

And while you may not like the organization, the studies cited are not religious based.

KimmieBrie

There are plenty of non-moral reasons on why one should avoid medical contraceptives, especially those distributed and promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood and doctors, and that is the connection between them and breast cancer, especially for those who never had children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

And while you may not like the organization, the studies cited are not religious based.

There are risks with most medications. You take the information and make an informed decision whether that be based on religious convictions, health risks/rewards, financial implications. The Catholic Church is not against contraceptives because they "might" cause breast cancer.

Elizabeth_C34

There are plenty of non-moral reasons on why one should avoid medical contraceptives, especially those distributed and promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood and doctors, and that is the connection between them and breast cancer, especially for those who never had children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

And while you may not like the organization, the studies cited are not religious based.

You can make the same argument for aspirin.

nehtaeh

There are plenty of non-moral reasons on why one should avoid medical contraceptives, especially those distributed and promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood and doctors, and that is the connection between them and breast cancer, especially for those who never had children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

And while you may not like the organization, the studies cited are not religious based.

There are risks with most medications. You take the information and make an informed decision whether that be based on religious convictions, health risks/rewards, financial implications. The Catholic Church is not against contraceptives because they "might" cause breast cancer.

There are risks with most anything, including having a lot of children. Heck, I was considered "high-risk" simply for having two babies at once.

Regmama

There are plenty of non-moral reasons on why one should avoid medical contraceptives, especially those distributed and promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood and doctors, and that is the connection between them and breast cancer, especially for those who never had children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

And while you may not like the organization, the studies cited are not religious based.

There are risks with most medications. You take the information and make an informed decision whether that be based on religious convictions, health risks/rewards, financial implications. The Catholic Church is not against contraceptives because they "might" cause breast cancer.

You're right, they are against it because it severes the unitive bond and is also not open to life. One of the requirements for a sacramental (and valid) marriage is to be open to life. When one contracepts, they are not open to life and are playing "God".

In regards to NFP, that is to be discerned and is sinful if used in a contraceptive manner. One can abstain from the marital embrace for grave reasons (a real financial burden that another child would present, severe health conditions, etc.) but if not for medical conditions it would be wise to work the the discernment with a spiritual director in order to make sure one does not fall into the contraceptive mentality when using NFP. And, according to the World Health Organization NFP is more effective than most other forms of contraception. And NFP does not change a woman's normal healthy body patterns, does not pollute the environment either.

This all, from the Catholic POV

Regmama

There are plenty of non-moral reasons on why one should avoid medical contraceptives, especially those distributed and promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood and doctors, and that is the connection between them and breast cancer, especially for those who never had children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

And while you may not like the organization, the studies cited are not religious based.

There are risks with most medications. You take the information and make an informed decision whether that be based on religious convictions, health risks/rewards, financial implications. The Catholic Church is not against contraceptives because they "might" cause breast cancer.

There are risks with most anything, including having a lot of children. Heck, I was considered "high-risk" simply for having two babies at once.

Of course, to live is to risk dying (100% guarantee of that)

Regmama

There are plenty of non-moral reasons on why one should avoid medical contraceptives, especially those distributed and promoted by the likes of Planned Parenthood and doctors, and that is the connection between them and breast cancer, especially for those who never had children.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/pillcanc.htm

And while you may not like the organization, the studies cited are not religious based.

You can make the same argument for aspirin.

That's why I eat kiwi fruit

Azdak

I was raised Catholic and in the "pre-Vatican II" era, to boot.As conservative as the Catholic church was in those days, I am still amazed at how reasonable and sane it appeared compared to what passes for Church leadership today.

In a similar debate in the 1960s over whether states should help make birth control available to low-income women, the following testimony was offered by Cardinal Cushing in Boston:

“I as a Catholic have absolutely no right in my thinking to foist through legislation or through other means, my doctrine of my church upon others,” the cardinal said, backing — incredibly — a similar policy in Boston, adding, “It is important to note that Catholics do not need the support of the civil law to be faithful to their religious convictions.”

This certainly supports my memories of a church that, while fairly rigid and stern about its members following its teachings, was much more reasonable and secure with its place in a larger society.

poisongirl6485

My view on this is that if a church/religious entity wants to operate a secular business such as a hospital, then they need to be subject to the same policies that any other hospital has to abide by. If they don't want to do that, then they can stop receiving public funding from taxpayers.

I just find it funny that they'll gladly accept all funding from people of all faiths (or non-faiths even), but when it comes to actually helping said people that they take money from, they suddenly get a conscience and refuse it on moral/religious grounds. If they object morally to what these people want to do, then they should also be refusing funding from the public as well.

Azdak

My view on this is that if a church/religious entity wants to operate a secular business such as a hospital, then they need to be subject to the same policies that any other hospital has to abide by. If they don't want to do that, then they can stop receiving public funding from taxpayers.

I just find it funny that they'll gladly accept all funding from people of all faiths (or non-faiths even), but when it comes to actually helping said people that they take money from, they suddenly get a conscience and refuse it on moral/religious grounds. If they object morally to what these people want to do, then they should also be refusing funding from the public as well.

That has pretty much been the standard (see my quote above from a Boston cardinal 50 years ago and other quotes from an opinion written by Antonin Scalia a few years ago).

It seems only recently that there has been this outcry from religious fundamentalists (all faiths) that their personal "values" must be given absolute preference under all circumstances. Sometimes I think that a large number of people have just decided to give up on the whole Enlightenment/rational thought thing and go back to a simpler and more comfortable medieval mindset.

poisongirl6485

My view on this is that if a church/religious entity wants to operate a secular business such as a hospital, then they need to be subject to the same policies that any other hospital has to abide by. If they don't want to do that, then they can stop receiving public funding from taxpayers.

I just find it funny that they'll gladly accept all funding from people of all faiths (or non-faiths even), but when it comes to actually helping said people that they take money from, they suddenly get a conscience and refuse it on moral/religious grounds. If they object morally to what these people want to do, then they should also be refusing funding from the public as well.

That has pretty much been the standard (see my quote above from a Boston cardinal 50 years ago and other quotes from an opinion written by Antonin Scalia a few years ago).

It seems only recently that there has been this outcry from religious fundamentalists (all faiths) that their personal "values" must be given absolute preference under all circumstances. Sometimes I think that a large number of people have just decided to give up on the whole Enlightenment/rational thought thing and go back to a simpler and more comfortable medieval mindset.

yeah those times were called the Dark Ages.

Azdak

My view on this is that if a church/religious entity wants to operate a secular business such as a hospital, then they need to be subject to the same policies that any other hospital has to abide by. If they don't want to do that, then they can stop receiving public funding from taxpayers.

I just find it funny that they'll gladly accept all funding from people of all faiths (or non-faiths even), but when it comes to actually helping said people that they take money from, they suddenly get a conscience and refuse it on moral/religious grounds. If they object morally to what these people want to do, then they should also be refusing funding from the public as well.

That has pretty much been the standard (see my quote above from a Boston cardinal 50 years ago and other quotes from an opinion written by Antonin Scalia a few years ago).

It seems only recently that there has been this outcry from religious fundamentalists (all faiths) that their personal "values" must be given absolute preference under all circumstances. Sometimes I think that a large number of people have just decided to give up on the whole Enlightenment/rational thought thing and go back to a simpler and more comfortable medieval mindset.

.

yeah those times were called the Dark Ages.

I don't even mean that to be sarcastic. I really think that, for some people, the world has just become too complex, the pace of change too fast, and the problems seemingly unsolvable. They have lost faith in science, see research as either continually in conflict with itself or being "agenda-driven" and feel they have no control over their destiny. The other way they feel they can regain control is to revert to a kind of tribalism in which you only have to worry about being loyal to your tribe and its beliefs