Comments for A Symposium on Threats to Our Religious Liberty at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 25 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Mon, 20 May 2013 12:19:47 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9946 "I am quite aware of the amendment and its provisions. Especially with the new compromise, it is extraordinarily unclear how the mandate 1) establishes a religion or 2) prohibits the free exercise thereof." The government forcing individuals and entities to purchase insurance policies that will serve as the mechanism for their employees being provided with products the employers consider to be immoral is obviously a free exercise violation. "Again, you confirm my point. I am simply arguing that the issue here is NOT the government's power to regulate what goods or services should be provided by health care plans. The government clearly has the power and authority to issue such standards," That is a different issue, and it is not so clear that the federal government has the authority to dictate what has to be in virtually every single health insurance plan issued in the country. "The only issue here is the provision of universal access to contraception (some of which is abortifacient), but now religious organizations do not have to pay for such plans - they are provided directly from insurer to the employee." The plans under which the contraception will be provided are the plans payed for by the employers. An employee of a Catholic school will be provided with the contraception because her employer bought a plan with the insurance company that provides the contraception. The idea that the contraception is "free" and is unrelated to the Catholic school's policy is absurd. And by the way, the insurance companies, who were not even consulted about this grand compromise, are not too happy about it. - Brian English Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:25:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9939 @Brian "Apparently you are unaware of this thing we call the First Amendment." I am quite aware of the amendment and its provisions. Especially with the new compromise, it is extraordinarily unclear how the mandate 1) establishes a religion or 2) prohibits the free exercise thereof. "Can you show me where in the Catechism breast-exams are condemned? My copy must be missing those pages. " Again, you confirm my point. I am simply arguing that the issue here is NOT the government's power to regulate what goods or services should be provided by health care plans. The government clearly has the power and authority to issue such standards, and as indicated by your statement you agree that that authority in itself is not problematic. The only issue here is the provision of universal access to contraception (some of which is abortifacient), but now religious organizations do not have to pay for such plans - they are provided directly from insurer to the employee. - Scotty Ellis Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:59:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9938 Mr. Royal---excellent insight and you begin to tempt your readers toward understanding a deeper concern with Church bureaucracy. The bishops, and, downstream, the laity have been to be polite poorly served by the domestic policy staff at the USCCB which gives social justice a bad name. That staff consists of democrat party aparatchiks and sympathizers. I began following the USCCB agenda when the health care debate first emerged wand frankly was shocked to see the legislative agenda which over the years included advocacy for cap and trade, Obama tax increases, more welfare spending, and on and on. What was and remains unsettling is the lack of any temperance in the zeal of the USCCB staffers in pushing a leftist agenda on all fronts. It does not operate as a think tank for applied Catholic theology and magisterium teaching. It does operate as a partisan front group. The bishops need to understand that it is the constant capitulation by USCCB bureaucrats which has lead the Church in America to this point in time and this place in history. Until this reality is addressed by the bishops and the laity, we are not fully engaged in the momentous struggle facing us. The Church needs to return to its pastoral heritage of leading us to salvation through good works, and not farming out our responsibilities to the state to be charitable. The state is about compulsion and dependency. - Bob Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:50:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9936 "You may disagree about the prudence of this or the particular way it is framed (with which I too have disagreements) but I believe it is not sensible to state that the government does not have the power or authority to make these sorts of rulings." Apparently you are unaware of this thing we call the First Amendment. "I doubt hardly anyone (except maybe the insurers) would have put up a fuss about the government not having the right to do so; but, because this is a hot-button topic, people reach for whatever argument lies at hand, no matter how bad it is." Can you show me where in the Catechism breast-exams are condemned? My copy must be missing those pages. - Brian English Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:56:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9935 @Tony "Sorry, but you're out to lunch. Contraceptives had nothing to do with the sexual revolution?" That is not at all what I said. A lot of people commenting have difficulty reading what I write, typically by inserting nonsensical ideas into my claims. It is quite tiresome. I said that it is illogical to conclude that contraception is responsible for an increase in illegitimate births. There are a vast number of variables that contribute to illegitimate birth rates, including poverty, education, class, race, so forth and so on. It is a bit high-handed and unsupported to simply reduce such a complicated group of variables to "The Pill." Now, the Pill (a very specific form of contraception) does have a historical connection to the American sexual revolution of the 1960's, but, of course, there are other importance sexual revolutions predating that revolution, such as the revolution of the 1920's (which itself has connections to certain religious denominations' acceptance of contraception, among other factors), the Bohemian revolution, and so forth. Interestingly enough, the size of families has decreased since the introduction of the pill, suggesting that your claims are not as straightforward as you claim. I would be interested in seeing how many mothers with large numbers of children (Catholic or non-Catholic) actually consistently use birth control (I suspect they do not). "it is one thing if I buy a product from the guy down the street, who then uses the money to do something evil." No, I am talking about your patronizing organizations that you know for a fact supply goods and services you consider illicit. You shop at Wal-Mart? Then you are using your money to patronize an organization that sells contraceptives and pornography. You buy any kind of over the counter drugs? Those pharmaceutical companies may very well donate products you consider illicit to organizations you consider involved in sin. So forth, and so on. The Catholic organizations that ostensibly suffer "persecution" from this bill engage in the same sorts of transactions willingly; and now, you would reject the compromise that would not even require them to pay for those services in any way? "It is exactly as if the government were to require Quakers to sponsor ROTC companies." Now this is very flawed, especially considering the compromise. Under the new compromise, the Quaker school wouldn't shell out a dime for anything they consider illicit. However, the students are still have a legal right to get that service - just from a different party. "By the way, the "ninety eight percent" of Catholic women who violate the Church teaching -- I kind of knew that statistic was invented, and sure enough it was." I don't care how many do or do not. My wife and I have never used contraception; we follow the Church's teaching. That has nothing to do with the regulations. - Scotty Ellis Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:36:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9934 Scotty, Sorry, but you're out to lunch. Contraceptives had nothing to do with the sexual revolution? Without the Pill, there would have been no sexual revolution; and it is the sexual revolution that proponents of the Pill want to protect. And no, it doesn't actually, in the global sense, reduce the risk of pregnancy. It increases it, because it instantly "immiserates" all young men and women who wish to remain chaste. On the subject of my cooperation with evil: it is one thing if I buy a product from the guy down the street, who then uses the money to do something evil. It is quite another thing when you require me to spend money directly to finance the evil. You might as well make me sign on to pony up money for the couple's room at the Ol' In-and-Out Inn, with the hourly rates. It is exactly as if the government were to require Quakers to sponsor ROTC companies. The Leviathan brooks no opposition. By the way, the "ninety eight percent" of Catholic women who violate the Church teaching -- I kind of knew that statistic was invented, and sure enough it was. Apparently it doesn't bother to include women who are not sexually active, and women who are married and who don't want to prevent conception. OOPS -- caught in a baldfaced lie. - Tony Esolen Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:53:30 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9933 @Tony: "What compromise has there been? I will be compelled to participate directly (via the purchase of an objectionable insurance plan) in what I consider intrinsically evil." You will not be participating in evil any more than when you voluntarily buy goods or services from or otherwise patronize any organization whatsoever that also provides goods and services that you consider objectionable, something you probably do on a weekly basis. "The Pill has made for far more, not fewer, children born out of wedlock" I agree that illegitimacy rates have increased since the sexual revolution, but it is a failure in logic to assume either that contraception is responsible. Many things happened in the sexual revolution, and contraception has been in common use long before its advent. Additionally, properly used contraceptives do reduce birth rates. Studies have shown that many such pregnancies are the result of unprotected sex. @Francis: "The issue is not won or lost on the basis of cost." I was not saying it was. I was merely mentioning that the cost issue cannot be persuasively used as a talking point, since the cost of providing free contraceptives will be outweighed by savings. As to the calculations, just note that birth expenses alone (not even counting neo-natal care and childhood care) can cost 7-10 thousand dollars (that's if there are no complications). Compare this to the price of contraception. "that if an individual exercises his or her free will to have sex for pleasure without the fear or prospect of having a child, then they should pay for it, Catholics included." And if an irresponsible individual has sex without contraception and has a child they cannot support, we all have to pay for it. @Brian "Please. You're claiming slaughterhouse practices are the same thing as Church-affiliated employers buying insurance policies?" No, I am claiming that they are cases of the exercise of the same general power. The government has a right to set standards, and in this case they believe that health care should include access to contraception. You may disagree about the prudence of this or the particular way it is framed (with which I too have disagreements) but I believe it is not sensible to state that the government does not have the power or authority to make these sorts of rulings. Or, to put it another way: if the government simply mandated, "health plans must cover breast screenings," I doubt hardly anyone (except maybe the insurers) would have put up a fuss about the government not having the right to do so; but, because this is a hot-button topic, people reach for whatever argument lies at hand, no matter how bad it is. In general, it seems to me that this particular issue has become overinflated (by both sides). I imagine much of this is election year hurrahing. - Scotty Ellis Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:10:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9932 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me Matt 5:11 Let's not forget to remember those who are pushing this filth in our prayers. Their eyes are focused on the worst sort of wordly gain which can only ever be a loss to them. - Ben Horvath Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:19:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9930 Our Protestant brother-in-Christ, Rev. Rick Warren, has given all religious and pro-life Americans a CALL TO ARMS - either we unite against Leviathin to defend the religious liberty of every Ameican citizen, or we fall by cutting separate deals like the "Katholic Health Care Association." WAKE UP, STAND UP AND FIGHT...or live in bondage to AMERIKA NOVA. - Chris in Maryland Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:57:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9929 Obama has succeeded in moving the argument to the left if the USCCB shoots its wad on this single effect of Obamacare, rather than repeal the whole package. He will have us arguing every month on a new toxic tweak he wants to make regarding contraception, ivf, abortion, or euthananasia. No, the bishops should hold the line and oppose Obamacare on principle. Even if it means admitting they made the mistake of letting it be enacted in the first place. And rather than hiding behind the USCCB, which has no canonical mandate, the bishops, by which I mean *each individual bishop*, who do have grave canonical authority, should assess which Catholics in their own diocese are publicly scandalizing their faithful and are in need of Canon 915 application. Starting with Pelosi and Sebelius. The law may be a teacher, but heretical Catholic politicians are ever so much more effective teachers. To those who say we vote them out in November - this is too late (remember "Remember in November" in 2010, for all the good that did!), and not cognizant that we have already let the barbarian Marxist USCCB staffers and Republicrats in the gate. They praised into existence Obamacare with faint damns. Now that they have tasted its true totalitarian effects, let them now properly damn it to hell. - Sue Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:55:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9928 Grump has pointed out THE ELEPHANT UNDER THE RUG here. As George Will and Daniel Henninger have stated this week - the leadership of The Catholic Church has made a Faustian bargain with BIG BROTHER, and now, BIG BROTHER intends to show The Church just who the boss is. The Diocesan and USCCB bureaucracies have for so long been seduced by BIG BROTHER that they have now put in jeopardy the religious liberty of every pro-life Catholic American citizen, indeed, every pro-life American citizen. But the Church is so gullible, it has already let BIG BROTHER into its Catholic Grammar schools. Have we noticed all those "National Blue Ribbon School" banners popping up at the parish lately? Well guess what Bishop Smith and Monsignor Brown? BIG BROTHER is planning to tell you exactly what you can and can't do at THEIR BLUE RIBBON SCHOOLs. When is The Church in the United States going to grow up and face the fact that it can't cooperate with BIG BROTHER? Or are the majority of "college-educated" Catholics attracted to the European model, where no one has children, no one goes to Mass, and BIG BROTHER pays the bills for the Diocese? - Chris in Maryland Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:47:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9927 P.S. If we contintue the fight, what makes us think that the press will cover it? With 300,000 people at this year's March for Life, how much coverage was there on the national news on television or in your local press? The only photos I saw were of the pro-abortion protesters. We won't do any better, I'm afraid. - Louise Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:55:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9926 I have the feeling that someone is trying to overwhelm the discussion on TCT with false arguments and red herrings, sidetracking the discussion of the valid and important points of the essayists. That's too bad. I hope it won't continue for long, free speech notwithstanding. Too much time is wasted--to say nothing of words. To people of a certain age, the Constitutional arguments will fall on deaf ears. It is 40 or 50 years since civics has been taught in high schools or American history has been required in colleges, and at least that long since the word "think" has been replaced by the word "feel." (Thank you, Ira Magaziner.) That is the cohort who will be deciding our country's future. God help us. - Louise Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:49:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9924 "Is it not true that Catholic and other faith-based health care entities receive federal aid? And, if so, then such assistance must come with certain requirements or a type of quid pro quo." While there ARE government funds involved in the delivery of health care, and "certain requirements" MAY be tied to that funding, violation of our constitutional right to religious liberty and freedom from coercion is NOT one of the permitted "quid pro quo" requirements. - TomD Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:30:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9923 "Numerous studies have shown that free access to the women's health services provided by the act will actually save insurers money in the long run." Then why haven't isurers always provided free contraception? And if the study you are citing is the one in the Washington Post, that was a study of savings by employers. In reality, the insurance companies are already indicating they are leery of this. It is telling that neither the insurance companies, nor the Bishops were consulted on the grand compromise. "Additionally, it is clear that the government has the power, the right, and responsibility to regulate goods and services; unless you want even more sawdust in your meat, even more harmful chemicals in your food," Please. You're claiming slaughterhouse practices are the same thing as Church-affiliated employers buying insurance policies? "It is now the bishops who appear to be unwilling to compromise, and the trumpets of the political right have been quick to sound the battle cry "no compromise," to dredge up images of persecution, and to prepare itself for an unnecessary and self-imposed martyrdom while disparaging the faiths of any who disagree." Says one of the trunpeters of the political left. This "compromise" changed nothing. The regulation reads the same today as it did last Thursday. Only a fool would be taken in by it. - Brian English Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:59:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9922 I disagree Scotty. The issue is not won or lost on the basis of cost. It is enjoined on how much the government impacts the individual's right to make decisions about what effects his medical decisions. I hope all american's project what just happen to the limit, where we become like china, mandating one child per couple or like Britain where the government makes decisions about the gravity of a person's malady and the timeline of its treatment. On the cost effectiveness argument, I would like you to post the calculations and the assumptions that indicate the so called cost savings to which you allude. Are you maintaining that over the last six years, with the. Government adding more and more compulsory health services, that the cost of health care has gone down for the individual? Do your calculations include government money given to such organizations as planned parenthood and the money spent on over a million abortions/yr? Does it also include the monies spent in the education of youth on contraceptive use in our schools and their use in the increase of sexual intercourse amongst early teenagers. Using just one factor in the cost effective argument can't count for the annual increases we've experienced in health care. Like most of the so called mandated benefits, I think we should adopt the mantra, that if an individual exercises his or her free will to have sex for pleasure without the fear or prospect of having a child, then they should pay for it, Catholics included. - Francis DeBritz Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:34:30 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9921 These are well reasoned articles but I have one problem that has not been addressed. Is it not true that Catholic and other faith-based health care entities receive federal aid? And, if so, then such assistance must come with certain requirements or a type of quid pro quo. I would appreciate any of the three authors to clarify or enlighten me and others on this. Thank you. - Grump Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:33:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9920 The candidate who repeats the words, "Constitution, liberty, Constitution, liberty," will win in November. Scotty: You are employing false analogies. Obviously it is within the government's purview to protect people from fraud, as in the case of adulterated food (!). Here we are talking about the mandated free provision of contraceptives and worse, over the moral objections of people who will have to provide them. What compromise has there been? I will be compelled to participate directly (via the purchase of an objectionable insurance plan) in what I consider intrinsically evil. I will not be given the chance to purchase a plan that avoids these things. There is not a single founding Father who would not have considered this to be arrant tyranny. As for the social costs: you must figure in ALL THE COSTS OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION, and not just the cost of a particular package of pills and a particular pregnancy. The Pill has made for far more, not fewer, children born out of wedlock; for far more, not fewer, abortions; and for a devastated lower class and lower middle class. That's not taking into account, either, the proliferation of new forms of venereal disease, and the misery brought about by divorce. Again, this is a bald power play, to enshrine the sexual revolution forever -- and with it the Leviathan state. Those two go together. And the rule is as obnoxious as it would be to mandate that Catholic schools provide vending machines for rubbers ... - Tony Esolen Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:24:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9919 I am just wondering how you thought a man who finds nothing objectionable with infanticide would govern? - Just Wondering Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:09:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/a-symposium-on-threat-to-our-religious-liberty.html#comment-9918 Very interesting. Mr. Uhlmann is right to suggest that many Catholics may actually support the Sebelius/Obama health package. - Dan Deeny Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:01:49 +0100