It's about the Obama administration's decision to require as part of the new healthcare bill that religious institutions - colleges and universities, hospitals, charitable organizations - provide full insurance coverage for birth control, including IUDs and morning after pills in addition to those methods strictly defined as contraceptives.
The Catholic Church teaches that birth control and certainly methods like IUDs and morning-after pills, which they view as abortive, are morally wrong. Here they are here being required by law to pay for them; this is how the church sees it. And it is something the church believes it morally cannot do.
The conflict is between the right of the government to protect what it views as the public health and the right of a religion to practice its deepest moral beliefs in this free society, one in which the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom.
It is not about the right to birth control or the right even of abortion but, again, about the right of the Catholic Church or any religious organization to refuse to participate in it.
We are watching a real conflict here. It will be the duty of religious leaders to follow their consciences. It will be the work of politicians, the President on down, to do what they do: work this out.
There are millions of liberal Catholics who did not wish for this conflict but can see with powerful clarity its validity.
It's not about the number of Catholics who use birth control or the number of non-Catholics who attend Catholic colleges or universities or receive help from Catholic Charities. It's about what the Church itself teaches.
This regulation is telling it to do by law what it teaches should not be done. That's the issue. That's the conflict.
Leave a Comment:
The law also states that the Catholic Church must pay wages to its workers. Like health care insurance, that compensation may be used to pay for contraceptives. The church by law must pay for insurance that could be used for contraceptives.
I do not see how the Church being required to pay wages that can be used for contraceptives is morally different than the Church being required to pay an insurance premium for coverage that could be used for contraceptives. The Church in both cases is being forced by law to surrender resources which could potentially be used for sin.
1) Why is it infringement of religion in one case but not the other.
2) After the resources are transferred to the worker's bank or to the insurance company, the Church no longer has dominion over those resources. Why are they complicit in sin if the insurance company pays for contraceptives, but not complicit if the bank honors a check that pays for contraceptives? What is the qualitative difference between the two cases?
Unless Mr. Matthews and E.J. Dionne can answer these questions, it seems to me that they will be forced to agree that the Church's position is theologically unsound.
John -- I've seen your argument about this in several places now, and I essentially agree with you. But I think the bishops' real problem is that until now, they had the "right" to tell people who worked for them: you can have health insurance but you can't apply it to certain types of health care we deem sinful. In other words, they had a legal exemption -- rather as if they had been given the right to tell their workers: we'll pay you, but you can't use any of the dollars from your paycheck to purchase items from the following list of things we deem sinful ...
Which means that up to now they've gotten away with interfering in the private lives of their employees while claiming it was a matter of maintaining their own religious freedom. Now that HHS is saying that has to stop at least in this one tiny little area, the bishops are shocked, simply shocked, that the Obama administration would ever countenance such a dreadful encroachment on their fundamental right to practice their faith as they see fit. And lots of folks are buying this argument.
I think the basic issue is no different than a fundamentalist Christian who opposes race-mixing on Biblical grounds claiming that he has a first amendment right to refuse service to people of color in his soda shop. He would be wrong about that. In short: your first amendment rights do not extend to a violation of the common good as determined laboriously and painstakingly through the democratic process -- even if that process results in, hypothetically, a mistaken result now and again. Suck it up, bishops!
But *sigh* I think the bishops will win this round. Obama doesn't have the balls to hold his ground.
Sorry for the carpet bombing. I don't know if you have seen any of them on the conservative or religious sites. I suspect there is a weakness in what I am saying but so far I don't see it, nor have I read any rebuttals.
Until just now, I didn't see your analysis in response to the Up with Chris Hayes segment. A high quality piece of writing- interested readers on this subject should take a look at it. (link)
I can appreciate the power politics dynamics involved. In response to my language of "dominion", many conservatives in the Church undoubtedly feel that they should never surrender their dominion to directly block activities they regard as sinful. I am not arguing they should be shy about using their power to assert moral dominion over an immoral world, or that the faithful are not in fact called to do this. The exercise of power should respect liberties though. In theological language, it should respect the dominion of individuals. (After wages are transferred, the worker has sole dominion over those resources). That sort of libertarian respect for dominion of individuals is the basis of the religious pluralism Obama is attempting to advance, and it is a direct confrontation of the autocratic impulses of many churches (not just the Catholic church) to assert that the church has at least some dominion over the affairs of their parishioners.
I asked myself if my position weren't dictated by outcome. That is: what if the Church was trying to advance some good we agreed with? Say a Catholic affiliated bank refused to honor checks filled out to the KKK? Although I agree that the KKK is a heinous organization, there is no legal basis to prevent the depositor giving their funds to a legal entity.
This is not just Obama advancing a women's rights agenda. This is not just about males asserting dominion over their chattel (dominion over Eve). Sure it is a social justice issue and for people of faith I think we theologically have to reject that sort of attitude. Each individual has sole dominion and has free will to act for good or evil. Women shall have dominion over their uteruses.
As important as that level of the debate is, it is broader because it represents an alternative to the secularist ground rules for interactions between religions and society. This is the religious pluralism alternative that should more properly be thought of as belief pluralism since it should be inclusive of persons of agnostic or atheist world views. Some people view history as converging on their favorite view- whether it is Muslim, Christian or scientific realist fundamentalism. I happen to view it as becoming more and more individuated and fragmented. But whichever it is, the societal reality today is one of fragmentation and America is a nation of growing diversity of world views. It is unworkable to have each world view attempting to assert its moral dominion over activities of individuals who have not assented to that dominion.
This is why jury rigging exceptions as in the so called Hawaii compromise has no future. What exceptions shall be allowed for Muslim organizations? Markos Moulitsas was joking last night on twitter asking where is the respect for Christian Sharia law. Even if you worked out these compromises, is this a comprehensive solution? What about denominations or groups with fringe beliefs who do not have the political muscle to gain their favorite exception? Telling religious entities they must relinquish their dominion after a civil transaction- in this case after an insurance premium is paid- is not an elevation of secular civil law over a higher law. It is an expression of religious respect for the sanctity of the moral dominion of an individual in a pluralistic society.
Sorry for the ramble. It is late.
WOW....listen to the blah, blah, blah from pseudo intellectuals !
1) Out here in "the Hinterlands where we still cling to our Guns and our Religion"
we just happen to think it's about Freedom of Religion !
JRT- come one let's look at this issue. This IS about your freedom. Does someone get to tell you what you do with your wages? What if from your religious point of view, there is nothing wrong with your wife getting her IUD covered by your insurance. Maybe you have 3 kids and can't afford more. If you aren't catholic but work for a catholic corporation, do they get to dictate their religious views over yours?
This very much is about Freedom of religion brother.
Think about "Freedom of Religion!" If the Church required you to say a prayer as a condition of employment, would you do it? Handle snakes? The insurance is paid-for with the wages of the employee, and "grouped" to provide a lower cost. Who are they (a secular institution owned by a church) to tell their employees they must pay more for insurance because they want birth control covered.
So why can't my employer (a Catholic hospital) deny me "Family" insurance benefits, since I am a remarried Catholic and therefore my marriage is not recognized by the church ? Is the government forcing them to cover my non-wife and technically illegitimate children against their religious teachings? Exact same argument, different tenant of faith, and nobody has a problem with this issue.
Chris, I have so much to say about this issue, but I'll start with asking why are you so "conservative" about this issue? If 98% of Catholics use contraception what do the Bishops say about that in their campaign for respect of moral teachings?
I can't help wonder if this issue will make the church finally come to a modernization of it's belief that conception is God's will. If that is true, then the creation of all life is in God's hand and deserves equal respect. Where does that place issues such as warfare, eating meat, polluting waterways?
The whole issue of birth control strikes me as control of women. There is nothing about the Catholic hierarchy that discourages me more than the refusal to give full inclusion to women.
I would imagine that the consistency of covering contraception in health insurance follows secular logic. If all religions start yammering (and it seems they are) about their particular beliefs having exception under the law, there will be no end to it.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion for the rest of us. A single payor health insurance would solve this problem nicely.
Chris, even you as a Catholic admit to having used birth control. Why don't you call out the church on this, where the blame lies?
Well said.
My sisters are Catholic and they both are put off by the Church's lack of including women in its hierarchy and preaching against birth control and same sex marriage, etc. Yet they remain in the faith. I don't understand it other than it being a remaining influence of the superstitions that they were taught in parochial school about heaven and hell. They reject the Church's dogma inwardly yet outwardly they say their prayers and go to Mass.
As much as I respect where you come from as a Catholic, I must offer a relative position: I am a committed and highly moral Atheist who objects to my tax dollars being used to further war. This point can not be argued as contributing to the general welfare, as defined in the Constitution, unless you can counter that war is somehow "healthy"; either to "victors" or "vanquished.
PS: What are religious institutions even DOING in the health-care biz if "prayer" works?
If that were the case, all would be peace, love and health throughout the world.
This is being complicated way more than needed. If the Catholic church is allowed to be exempted from a law of the land then what would stop any church which may declare they do not believe in treating Cancer, Heart Disease, Aids, or any other health issue from also declaring they need to be exempt? At the end of the day if the church chooses to operate in the country, choses to use the liberties that come with that choice including being exempt from taxes, and all the other advantages of being in the country then they need to abide by the laws of the land. If they elect to not participate in tax exempt status and all the other protections that come with practicing in the US then they would have a leg to stand on. Let's see where their morals really lie. Choose to give up all the privaledges given only to churches for the freedom of choosing what parts of the society they do not wish to paricipate in? Personally I do not think they would however if they do then I would have more respect for them and be willing to accept their decisions more readily. In this case, anyone going to work for a specific church would know what they are getting into if they accept a position with them and know that they may not wish to participate in all the laws of the land.
Chris - I am a former conservative Catholic who was once one of the tiny minority actually trying to fyollow the Church's teaching on bc. It was the Church's --I should say the hierarchy's--willingness to go to the mat on issues like this and stem cell research, when for years they had been tolerating the abuse of children who consisted of more than a single cell, that was largely responsible for driving me to my current position on the fringes of the Church.
I'm writing to ask you and your media colleagues, whatever your feelings on this issue--please, please do the world a favor and don't continue to promote the Catholic hierarchy's line about IUDs and the morning after pill being abortifacient. More recent studies on copper IUDs suggest that they prevent conception, not implantation --which means that an IUD user may be less likely to be "aborting," according to the hierarchy's definition of abortion, than someone taking a low dosage bc pill. As for the "morning after" pill, my understanding is that the closer it's taken to "the night before," the more likely it is to prevent conception, not implantation.
The bishops know popular sympathy won't be with them if the spotlight stays on contraception; so they're trying to say that the problem is they'll be expected to pay for abortions. This is dishonest. Please, Chris, don't let them get away with it.
That being said--much as part of me would like to stick a finger in the eye of the bishops, I agree with you that the Administration shouldn't have done this. But only because I love Obama and I think it was a dumb political move to make in an election year. I feel as enthusiastic about defending the Church's right to deny its employees birth control as I would about defending a Taliban organization's right to require its women to wear burkas.
Sheesh....Mathews, Shields, Ej Dionne....all this paternalistic catholic men must have all sorts of guilt and are scared to death or scared of hell or something really arcane and stupid.
It's ridiculous. Just because insurance covers birth control pills does not mean one has to use them. But to take it away from ALL women who work at these institutions is simply sexist and stupid. You men are WRONG. But like the paternalistic bullies of all religions, these men are all about themselves. To them women's health is unimportant. If the pope, the same pope who protects pedophiles, if the church, the same church that allowed physical and emotional abuse of children for decades, says birth control is wrong, then these pathetic men are jumping to that tune.
But let's be honest here. Women's issues are rarely of importance to men, even the men of MSNBC.
I am a strong believer in the division between Church and State. This issue has gotten completely out of control. Here is the issue, we don't discriminate. Therefore women are entitled to health care if their employer provides the insurance. I believe the Church is within its rights to deny its church members birth control in the context of the Church. However, once the Church crosses over from Religion into Science and provide medical care which is mostly based on science, they take an oath "to do no harm." Now if a woman for what ever reason winds up in a Catholic medical/science facility and has been raped for instance and she is requesting the 'morning after pill' because she believes a pregnancy will do her harm; she should be provided with the scientific/medical care she desires. The Catholic Hospital is not unlike any other medical provider/business who makes money in order to stay in business. Now, they may donate their proceeds to the Church or to other Catholic charities...and they employ peoples of all walks of life. If they provide insurance to their employees and that insurance provides Viagra for men employees, then women should have the right to birth control. The divide here is more than church and state it is Religion/Science-Medical, it is Business vs. Church. Again, continue to insist that Catholics multiply and fill the earth...that is fine..the Church doctrine is fine....but once the Church crosses over into science, medical, and business....they have to follow the same rules as any other business.
Unless I am mistaken, the statute is not requiring the Catholic hospital to dispense the contraceptives. They are requiring Catholic institutions pay for insurance could be used to pay acquire contraceptives. The administration even allows the Catholic corporations to bar contraceptive coverage if there are no non catholics among its workers or people it serves.
The only requirement is that hospitals, colleges and universities provide a birth control benefit to their female employees (and their families) in their health insurance, even if these institutions are affiliated with a religion.
What's wrong is having employers pay for healthcare. This is both bad economics and creates artificial conflicts like this one.
What we should have is national, publicly-funded healthcare. That is healthcare that is paid out of federal revenues (which are largely designed so that taxes increase with wealth). All essential medical care, including birth control and abortions, should be paid out of public funds.
Economically, forcing employers to bear the cost of healthcare makes it more difficult for our companies to compete internationally. Other countries shift these costs away from their companies so they don't become a direct part of their product costs.
In addition, most companies pay for healthcare plans by purchasing them from private insurance companies. This means that money that ought to go to health care instead goes to profits, excessive executive pay, and unnecessary administrative costs. Any profits in health insurance are evil profits. They come at the cost of the lives and suffering of those that pay premiums. This is why the funding of healthcare should be a public enterprise (or at least a pure non-profit enterprise).
The so-called Affordable Care Act has many flaws. One of the most serious is that it does not move from for-profit care to public funding. As a result, hundreds of billions of dollars a year are wasted in the healthcare sector. Our healthcare is over 17% of GDP, while our competitors in Europe generally have costs around 10% and China and India have costs around 5%. The U.S. simply cannot compete in international trade if we laden an addition 5% on our healthcare costs that our competitors don't have to spend. The U.S. healthcare sector is not competitive. And the only way to get costs down to a competitive rate is to eliminate for-profit healthcare insurance as a means of funding healthcare.
It's time we moved to a full publicly-funded system in the U.S. This is the only option (short of socialized medicine, which would be cheaper and provide better outcomes) that will solve the national healthcare crisis. This is what's required to get costs down below 15% of GDP and cover everyone. In doing so, we remove the requirement for religious organizations to fund healthcare coverage at all. This eliminates the stated problem. Catholic hospitals and other religious groups won't be required to pay for any kind of healthcare they don't believe in. End of problem.
It's been obvious for a long time that for republicans, "The Handmaid's Tale" was not a book but was a goal. Seems to me some of our so called progressive public voices are on board for that.
When I read "The Handmaid's Tale" when it first came out, it has always been at the back of my mind as I listen/read/watch the political shows discuss what is going on. It seems that this book was more of a prediction/warning about what can happen.
Chris, Your positions are inconsistent. You think all institutions owned by the Church should be exempt from including birth control in the group health insurance policies they buy. But you say you and your wife strongly support marriage equality, which the bishops also strongly oppose. Why don’t you let the bishops do your thinking on that subject too? It sounds like one sermon changed your mind on the health insurance issue.
I doubt there is much premium difference whether policies include or exclude birth control coverage, especially if you factor in the expected higher costs of more pregnancy and childbirth and more resulting children to be covered. This is a simple matter of the bishops heavy-handedly interfering in the private lives and personal decisions of their employees, regardless of their religion.
Should employees of the Christian Science Monitor not be allowed to have group health insurance because that church doesn’t believe in doctors?
Your hero John Kennedy gave a great speech to convince skeptics that he would not be ruled by the Vatican. Rick Santorum said that speech makes him sick; apparently his conscience requires a theocracy. Which approach to government do you prefer?
I do not understand how Chris supports gay marriage, or unions as some people call them, Which the church dose not support. If you are going to go pro church then go all the way and not half the way. I do think their is a difference working inside a church and in a hospital for profit. The morning after pill should be the same rules as abortion. We have laws that have no federal morning going for abortion.. We sure can't make someone else can we?
I'm a liberal Catholic, and when it comes to gay marriage and abortion, I feel that the government shouldn't be forcing people to neither participate in gay behavior nor have abortions. It doesn't matter if I think they are immoral. This is because both of these topics are essentially about what you think is right or wrong, and when people are split in half regarding these issues, the government shouldn't be forcing things on one side just to satisfy the other side. This also means that the government shouldn't force people to take part in gay marriages or abortions if they don't want to. In this case, if a hospital doesn't provide insurance coverage for contraceptives because the employer believes that contraceptives are morally wrong, the government doesn't have the right to force that employer to do something that goes against his/her conscience. If you want insurance coverage for contraceptives, it's simple: either don't work for that hospital or go buy contraceptives yourself.
I am just saying if you are going to support the church for not having to cover birth control you should also support the churches position on gay marriages. Other wise you are just supporting the church when it is convent for you. If we like it or not the government forces us to do things everyday. I would like not to pay taxes. Guess what they force me to pay taxes. I didn't agree with the war in Iraq, but yet my tax dollars were spent their. Unfortunately / fortunately many hospitals are owned by religious organization. When that is the closest hospital to your home in a time of need I don't want to be restricted by anyone religious views but my own. One should never question another relationship with the lord. Separation between church and state is a grey area. If we had true separation then " in god we trust" would not be printed on out money.
What about the doctors who have privilages at Catholic Hospitals who may write scripts for contraception, I don't know any gyn's who don't prescribe BCP. There reproduction ailments that may require BCP to help control such as dysmenorrhea.
Correction "there are"
I assume that there are strict guidelines in Catholic hospitals when contraception medicine can be proscribed. Certainly not for birth control reasons.
Chris Matthews, what is wrong with you? Why ask a question of a person and not give that person time to answer. Are you one of those that love to listen to their own voice? I waited several minutes for your guest to answer the question but you were always there cutting the person off with your comments. I could tell from the guest's face she was aggravated because you did not give her a chance to answer the question. If you are going to ask a question and then answer it, do not have guests on the show. I wasn't interested in your answer I was waiting for your guest's answer.
Thanks for letting us know that banning birth control is on the horizon. This issue should have been long over. And what about Viagra?
Ha! Never thought of the Viagra thing...I wonder if catholic doctors prescribe it--for procreation only, I presume--ha ha ha. These doctors must make their Viagra patients sign a contract that once a baby is conceived, they will cease to use it. Barb, these republicans want to take us back a couple hundred years. And what in the world is a "liberal Catholic" which bluzre stated he or she was? Isn't that an oxymoron? Why is it that Catholic religious zealots are throwing a fit about having to include birth control in certain insurance policies, when 98% of all Catholic women use or have used birth control? Hypocrisy at it's finest! How can anyone who is Catholic claim they are a liberal when the religion is based on archaic traditions?
Viagra facilitates procreation so its allowed by the church.
1) Out here in "the Hinterlands where we still cling to our Guns and our Religion" we just happen to think it's about Freedom of Religion !
2) This particular provision was pushed for by Pres. Obama himself, and against advice from others he chose to put it in.
I think this is the most blatant example yet ....of his blatant LEFTIST ideology, and guys like Matthews (a Catholic)....are responsible for putting him in office !
It's about all the citizens (no matter who they work for), getting the same rights under the law (in this case, the new health care law.) You are suggesting that workers that work for Catholic-sponsored employers opt out of their rights under the law when they accept a job with such employers. What if the Catholic Church felt that the Social Security system was against their moral teachings, should they get to opt out of that too?
There is no 1st Amendment conflict here...The way the far right and Catholic clergy are hyperbole-izing this policy ruling makes it sound like the US government is forcing nuns to take birth control or have an IUD implanted within them against their will. This is the same anti-Obama "death panel" demagoguery as before. No, the government only requires that these plans cover access to these very popular family planning methods and for all employers to cover them. If these Catholic hospitals and universities don't want to provide the coverage, then let them stop taking Medicare and other federal aid. No one will force the Catholic faithful to take the pill (although 98% of Catholic women admit to the "sin" of using contraception). This is the 21st century; the un-biblical "let's out-populate the other religions" no-contraception policy of the Vatican is what is absurd, not the HHS ruling. How many good Catholics have died from AIDS in the third world because they blindly adhered to this policy? No one is forcing the pill down Catholics throats, HHS just demands that the health insurance they provide to their employees (Catholic and non-Catholic) provides the same financial benefit of subsidized (and responsible) family planning that all other large employers who receive federal monies provide. That's it...HHS should give these employees a voluntary "opt-out" from this coverage - but I bet most of them - including the "faithful" Catholics would still want the coverage; in 2012 it should not be denied to them. It's these Catholic institutions that are discriminating against their employees. The Vatican needs to focus on clearing the pervs and molesters from its priesthood and compensate their many victims rather than picking an absurd political fight over a "sin" that most of their followers have long since written off as pious B.S.
Chris, shame on you for helping to promote this red hearing. The health care insurance is a package of services and there is nothing in its provision that forces people to use every service provided under its umbella. The church is out of step, as usual, with modernity and you are dead wrong to promote this kind of misogynistic garbage. I hope that you will read these posts and at least use some airtime to recant your obviously biased support for this ridiculous Catholic position and give an airing to the vast majority who see this for what it is; an attempt to deny health services to women. We all know the GOP is shameless and through its conservatism has shown contempt for women but we all expect better of you.
Right MV. If option to sin meant encouragement to sin, then the lord never would have allowed the apple in the garden. But he did because he respected Adam's freedom to choose. And the Church is denying the father by doing as the father would not do. I appreciate you both may not be able to publically go up against the Bishops, but criminey- don't portray this as secular vs religious because it isn't. Have someone on with an honest opposing religious view.
So how about having Melissa Harris-Perry and E.J. on and devote a full block to a real hardball discussion not on the women's issues but the moral position the Bishops are advocating. She made the very point that MVOregon just made and further made the claim I did- that paying an insurance premium is the moral equivalent of paying a wage. You guys are in an echo chamber and there is a broader theological discussion here.
Also, if you seriously think the Hawaii compromise is possible think about it. The Catholic employer is required to pay for the coverage, and the worker is permitted the coverage. So how does going to a third party work? The Church will have to refuse to pay for that too. Sure, an elaborate charade could be constructed that might past muster with the Church, but the subterfuge is not going to make it past the Far Right, so why even engage in the exercise.
Oops, that is red herring.
Chris, I went to Catholic girls school. When we got the facts of life we were told abortion is wrong. Preventing pregnancy was not discussed as something "bad".
Later, all my Catholic friends, some very devote, all went to Planned Parenthood to get additional info and birth control. I have never met a Catholic woman who thinks birth control is a sin. We just ignore the Canon Law.
BTW, Canon Law has no place in our secular life so it should not be imposed on workers of all faiths at businesses run by a religion.
The voters are behind the WH on this one. The bishop are looking like fools since they were silent in the 28 states including Georgia that have similar laws.
Hope you have Catholic women with "guts" on to discuss this.
The Obama requirement does not affect "religious" institutions. It requires secular institutions, perhaps run by a religious group, to comply with long standing Constitutional principles. What's the difference? Religious institutions can't receive tax payer money (e.g. Medicare). So they have been "secularized." The Church needs to go back to what it does best...defending itself against assorted crinimal acts related to child abuse.
Stan, I have noticed the term "secular" is very difficult to control. You are using one political science definition, "Laïcité" which means insuring the government is neutral in religious matters- that there is no favoritism to any particular religion or sect. Turkey's government is secularist in this sense but it is quite different from that of France of India (more about Turkey's secularist policies here). Technically there is no favoritism to any particular sect, but this does not mean they are not religious or are separatist- there is a clear notion of separation of church and state. They even have a government agency the writes the permitted prayers- the "Presidency of Religious Affairs" (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığ). That this is a proper sense of "Secular" would come as a shock to a large proportion of Americans both on the left and right.
We are not having a very clear discussion about what the American form of Laicity should be. The far right enjoys casting the Left as taking a "European" (eg French active banning of crucifixes). To be honest some Dennet type atheist democrats probably think this would not be a bad idea. But it is hardly a fair representation of where most democrats stand. We are mostly live and let live pluralists.
When you say "it requires secular institutions" that is a dog whistle for the religious right. You do not mean "it requires godless institutions"- which is what they hear. What you mean, if I am not mistaken is, "it requires the Church to be neutral in not enforcing its moral teachings on those who do not share them".
Chris, it is not whether this law violates the rights of any religious group, it is whether any employer can dictate the religious practices of its employees. And I certainly hope that they may not, not here in America.
I rarely disagree with Chris M. but I think this is only an issue because we have employer based Health Care plans instead of Government based health care. I believe in separation of "Church and State", but since when should an employer be able to come between a Doctor and a patient, for medical coverage. And does your employer even have the right to know what medical attention you are receiving, as long as it does not affect your job? What is next, a church can deny coverage for an unmarried employee with a sexually transmitted disease? They can refuse medical coverage for your teen age daughter who becomes pregnant. The Catholic Church (and others) thought separation of Church and State also meant they could ignore laws and molest young children, lets not play the same game with peoples health issues.
I am a former Catholic who attended a Catholic High School
and while in college had to make a moral decision to leave the Catholic Church
because of its history of hypocrisy. The
church’s current stand in its objection to provide insurance coverage in support
woman’s health because it supposedly violates the Church’s teaching is an example
of that hypocrisy. The church does not endorse or recognize divorce, yet it
recognizes employee’s right to divorce and provides medical health insurance to
the families of those re-married employees and is silent about its objection
about re-marrying. The church has been on the wrong side of science and moral
issues for most of its history. They
accept federal tax money but act as if they are not obligated to comply with
federal law.
I agree, if they want to do their own thing, then they should not accept any federal money and pay taxes on all of their properties. Like you, I grew up in the Catholic Church, but I find that the hypocrisy runs rampant in organized religion. They tend to follow rules when it benefits them (normally the males) and what they want to preach at that time.
I hope Chris M. will clearify his stance on this issue.
I hope he allows the majority view to be expressed on his show.
Old men who still believe that man should spread his seed unhindered are not with the majority opinion.