It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Anyone will tell you that I'm the most confused person on ATS, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you.

A Catholic Hospital is only a Catholic hospital because of the principles it operates under. They have many principles identical with any other modern hospital and some are different. These principles are put in place, and maintained, by the men and women responsible for the hospital. Without them, they're just another hospital.

I would suppose that Catholic hospitals have different policies on withdrawing life support than other hospitals do. This difference comes about through the practice of their religion applied to medical care. While they have religious practices relating to end of life care, they also have them for considering the start of life.

Just as a Catholic hospital administrator won't issue a policy saying that a patient in a coma who can't feed himself and requires intravenous fluids should be unplugged, the administrators won't issue a policy saying we will pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. And as you see, they will fight a government bent on making them do it.

What if the government ordered all stores to be open seven days a week? I could make a good case for it. Then Orthodox Jews say "We're not opening on the sabbath." Do you force them to violate their religion? What will prevent the government from ordering religions to do whatever the state wants? In some countries preachers reading the bible in public have been condemned for hate speech when they criticise homosexuality. Should the state control the sermons?

Anyway, I hope I've explained some of my confusion, and I'm looking forward to talking with you.




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Still
. I get my opinion from my Catholic upbringing and understanding what a hospital is.

Your opinion is wrong. Period. I don't care if you were brought up Catholic.
Your education on what 'Catholic' is .. sucks.

I think you think you are thinking of a church. .

The Catholic Church builds, owns and operates the Catholic Hospitals. Just because they don't have stained glass on the windows, doesn't make the Catholic hospitals any less part of the Catholic church than the actual building where people worship in. It's ALL part of the Catholic church.

From the USCCB - Mission of the Church - providing health care while maintaining the distinctive Catholic identity. A 'Catholic presence" in health care. IT HAS TO BE CATHOLIC. Get it??

US Conference of Catholic Bishops - Directives for Catholic Health Care Services


These Directives presuppose our statement Health and Health Care published in 1981.1 There we presented the theological principles that guide the Church’s vision of health care, called for all Catholics to share in the healing mission of the Church, expressed our full commitment to the health care ministry, and offered encouragement to all those who are involved in it. Now, with American health care facing even more dramatic changes, we reaffirm the Church’s commitment to health care ministry and the distinctive Catholic identity of the Church’s institutional health care services ....

The second section is in prescriptive form; the directives promote and protect the truths of the Catholic faith as those truths are brought to bear on concrete issues in health care....

Catholic health care ministry bears witness to the truth that, for those who are in Christ, suffering and death are the birth pangs of the new creation ...

In faithful imitation of Jesus Christ, the Church has served the sick, suffering, and dying in various ways throughout history. The zealous service of individuals and communities has provided shelter for the traveler; infirmaries for the sick; and homes for children, adults, and the elderly.3 In the United States, the many religious communities as well as dioceses that sponsor and staff this country’s Catholic health care institutions and services have established an effective Catholic presence in health care ...


Etc etc etc

The whole purpose is health care in a CATHOLIC manner following the guidelines of the CATHOLIC church.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Still
. I get my opinion from my Catholic upbringing and understanding what a hospital is.

Your opinion is wrong. Period. I don't care if you were brought up Catholic.
Your education on what 'Catholic' is .. sucks.


In the spirit of POLITE and CONSTRUCTIVE discussion, can you please point out where I described my "education" on what Catholic is? I think you have mistaken a point for a dissertation. This might explain why your posts all seem so confused. I will await your response as there is no point going forward if you are really this far off.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

That's the whole point of the CATHOLIC Church hospital outreach operated in accordance with the moral , ethical, and social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Secular hospitals do not do that. Therefore, the Church can not operate an outreach hospital in that manner.


If that is the whole point, then you agree with me now? Or did you mean to make something besides healing the sick the whole point?



You are so wrong. Seriously ... so very, very wrong. :shk:


Unfortunately I am not. You are about to prove that for me.


Heal the sick ... following in the CATHOLIC spirit and teachings ...
Catholic Church Hospitals - some mission statements


Which is exactly what I have been saying this entire time. Heal the sick. Are you damaged?

Save your mission statements because you need to read them more than I do.

If you take the Catholic out of Catholic Hospital, is it still a hospital?
If you take the Hospital out of Catholic Hospital, is it still a hospital?
The whole point of a Catholic Hospital is to heal the sick. Just like I said.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 

Anyone will tell you that I'm the most confused person on ATS, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you.

A Catholic Hospital is only a Catholic hospital because of the principles it operates under. They have many principles identical with any other modern hospital and some are different. These principles are put in place, and maintained, by the men and women responsible for the hospital. Without them, they're just another hospital.

I would suppose that Catholic hospitals have different policies on withdrawing life support than other hospitals do. This difference comes about through the practice of their religion applied to medical care. While they have religious practices relating to end of life care, they also have them for considering the start of life.

Just as a Catholic hospital administrator won't issue a policy saying that a patient in a coma who can't feed himself and requires intravenous fluids should be unplugged, the administrators won't issue a policy saying we will pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. And as you see, they will fight a government bent on making them do it.


I am not at all disputing that there is a difference between a secular hospital and a Catholic one. What I am disputing is FF's premise that the Catholic Hospitals soul purpose for being is that difference.

Does it work with nonreligious items but the same logic?
I have a knife.
I also have a steak knife.
To me, both have the main purpose of being knives. They do things somewhat differently but are still knives.
According to FF's logic, one has the purpose of being a knife, and the other's main purpose is to be steak.



What if the government ordered all stores to be open seven days a week? I could make a good case for it. Then Orthodox Jews say "We're not opening on the sabbath." Do you force them to violate their religion? What will prevent the government from ordering religions to do whatever the state wants?


How are my tax dollars involved as that is my main concern.


In some countries preachers reading the bible in public have been condemned for hate speech when they criticise homosexuality. Should the state control the sermons?


I am not sure I understand how you arrive here. Of course not.



Anyway, I hope I've explained some of my confusion, and I'm looking forward to talking with you.


I am not sure you are so much the most confused person on ATS but I am a little confused now. I hope my response makes sense in case I missed something.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Thanks for responding, we may be close to agreement. Let me explore a couple of points.

How are my tax dollars involved as that is my main concern.
Do I understand you to be saying that since Federal dollars go to the Church, then Federal laws have to be followed? That makes a lot of sense, IF the Federal laws are constitutional. If the law isn't constitutional that pretty much ends the argument, doesn't it? The Church's position seems to be that they won't accept an law that unconstitutionally restricts freedom of religion.

Let me try to explain where I was going with the idea that the government might dictate sermon contents.

In that hypothetical, the government might institute a hate speech law saying that no individual or organization may (to put it quickly) say nasty things about any group. If a pastor's speech was about homosexual activity as a sin, he would be in violation of that law. In that situation, the Church would scream about violation of freedom of religion, just as it's doing in this hospital case.

I'm looking forward to exchanging a few more thoughts.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Do I understand you to be saying that since Federal dollars go to the Church, then Federal laws have to be followed?


Not the church, the hospitals.

That makes a lot of sense, IF the Federal laws are constitutional. If the law isn't constitutional that pretty much ends the argument, doesn't it?

Not exactly.

The Church's position seems to be that they won't accept an law that unconstitutionally restricts freedom of religion.

Yet the church has no problem using MY TAX dollars? How is that not government SPONSORING a religion? So giving them my tax dollars is unconstitutional if AND ONLY IF the use those tax dollars in accordance with their RELIGIOUS practices and beliefs.
They do not get to bend the rules their way and then hide behind those same rules.



Let me try to explain where I was going with the idea that the government might dictate sermon contents.


Thanks. I guess if you had more to it, I would much rather you take the time to explain it then to take my dismissal as an insult and walk away in a huff as so many are prone to do.


In that hypothetical, the government might institute a hate speech law saying that no individual or organization may (to put it quickly) say nasty things about any group. If a pastor's speech was about homosexual activity as a sin, he would be in violation of that law. In that situation, the Church would scream about violation of freedom of religion, just as it's doing in this hospital case.


I would be with him complaining about freedom of speech being violated. I do not see the correlation though. The hospitals take my money under the guise of helping sick people get better, then say they can spend the money any way they choose as a church? My tax dollars are not supposed to go to a church, are they?
That is what I care about.

Your example seems like a different discussion altogether to me.


I'm looking forward to exchanging a few more thoughts.

With respect,
Charles1952


Cool, me too.
And honest, much respect back. Please do not mistake terse for angry.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

You've never been insulting to me, I'm perfectly happy dropping by your place for a beer or two and solving the problems of the world.

Thanks for correcting me, we're talking about tax dollars going to the hospitals, OK, gotcha. I'm not as sure as you are though, that

Yet the church has no problem using MY TAX dollars? How is that not government SPONSORING a religion?
I can think of instances where I don't think it would be sponsoring a religion.

What if the government spends a million dollars of taxpayers money on flu shots and sends it to a hospital? Or what if the government gives $50,000 to every hospital that can recruit a doctor to work inner city for five years? Or gives a hospital $500 for every patient it treats in a poverty area? I don't see those as sponsoring the religion of the hospital.

Now, if the government gave the hospital money for hymnals or statues, sure, that's wrong. But there are strings and accounting rules on the money that gets sent to religious organizations (or hospitals) to make sure it's not spent for improper purposes. The Supreme Court hasn't had any problems with this and it's been going on for quite some time.


So giving them my tax dollars is unconstitutional if AND ONLY IF the use those tax dollars in accordance with their RELIGIOUS practices and beliefs.
I'm not sure that's the way I'd put it. Everybody does everything in accordance with their practices and beliefs. Giving them tax money becomes unconstitutional if it's used to establish one religion over others.

I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY HERE (Hooray for us!)

The hospitals take my money under the guise of helping sick people get better, then say they can spend the money any way they choose as a church? My tax dollars are not supposed to go to a church, are they?
They should not spend the money any way they choose, it should only be spent under the restrictions with which it was given, you're right. Money given to buy flu shots must not be used to buy statues, etc.

But now I have to ask, what is the government doing in this situation? It's not giving the Church any new money, but it's saying that it has to pay a new medical benefit. On top of that, the new medical benefit goes against their religious beliefs, so that if the hospital administrators go along with the government rule they have to violate their church rules. (And they're major, central rules.) So their response is, "No you don't, you're not messing with my religious beliefs. You can't make me do something against my religion." (And notice, it's not like the church is doing something the government wants to stop, like polygamy or human sacrifice. Here, the government is making them do something they're religiously opposed to, like making Amish buy cars.)

Anyway. I'm grateful for the chance to talk with you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Still
If you take the Catholic out of Catholic Hospital, is it still a hospital?
If you take the Hospital out of Catholic Hospital, is it still a hospital?
The whole point of a Catholic Hospital is to heal the sick. Just like I said.

TROLL ALERT
You didn't even read the USCCB statement on Catholic Church Hospitals, did you?
The Church hospitals have to retain their Catholic Identity otherwise there is no Catholic Hospital.
There is no reason for the Catholic church to operate a secular hospital.
The point of the outreach is to offer care IN A CATHOLIC MANNER following CATHOLIC BELIEFS.
And the Catholic church is not going to operate a secular hospital that goes outside it's belief system.
The Catholic Hospital is in the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Even a first grader can understand this.
YOU ARE JUST TROLLING



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

TROLL ALERT


How very mature.


You didn't even read the USCCB statement on Catholic Church Hospitals, did you?


You are basing that on...?


The Church hospitals have to retain their Catholic Identity otherwise there is no Catholic Hospital.
There is no reason for the Catholic church to operate a secular hospital.


So you plain just did not understand what I wrote even a little?


The point of the outreach is to offer care IN A CATHOLIC MANNER following CATHOLIC BELIEFS.
And the Catholic church is not going to operate a secular hospital that goes outside it's belief system.
The Catholic Hospital is in the CATHOLIC CHURCH.


Who suggested the Catholic church operate a secular hospital?


Even a first grader can understand this.


You would think but the stupidity I just responded to says otherwise. Nothing you wrote applies to what you responded to. Not if you understood it.


YOU ARE JUST TROLLING



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




The below video sums it up nicely...in essence, those ridiculous religious fundamentalists are trying to push their values on everyone else, basically spitting on religious freedom and liberties. And being the hypocrites they are, they accuse Obama of exactly what they're doing




What a bunch of clowns



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

You've never been insulting to me, I'm perfectly happy dropping by your place for a beer or two and solving the problems of the world.

Thanks for correcting me, we're talking about tax dollars going to the hospitals, OK, gotcha. I'm not as sure as you are though, that

Yet the church has no problem using MY TAX dollars? How is that not government SPONSORING a religion?
I can think of instances where I don't think it would be sponsoring a religion.


I can think of such instances as well but not here. This is a hospital. They receive tax dollars from people like me and you. Not all of us are Catholic. What is being done with that money? Healing the sick? Well, not exactly. Healing the sick but only in accordance with their religious values? How is it that my money magically gets to adhere to Catholic values? Where is my freedom of religion? My religion forbids me from giving money to any other religion. Now what?


What if the government spends a million dollars of taxpayers money on flu shots and sends it to a hospital? Or what if the government gives $50,000 to every hospital that can recruit a doctor to work inner city for five years? Or gives a hospital $500 for every patient it treats in a poverty area? I don't see those as sponsoring the religion of the hospital.


You do not see a distinct difference between this topic and your examples? What if the government spends a million dollars of taxpayer money on flu shots but will only give them out to people that eat halal diets? It is just healthier. Or what if the government gives $50,000 to every hospital that can recruit a Jewish doctor to work inner city for five years? Or gives a hospital $500 for every patient it treats in a poverty area while talking to them about Jesus' values? They are good values, right?


Now, if the government gave the hospital money for hymnals or statues, sure, that's wrong. But there are strings and accounting rules on the money that gets sent to religious organizations (or hospitals) to make sure it's not spent for improper purposes. The Supreme Court hasn't had any problems with this and it's been going on for quite some time.


So far.



I'm not sure that's the way I'd put it. Everybody does everything in accordance with their practices and beliefs. Giving them tax money becomes unconstitutional if it's used to establish one religion over others.


Is it not? If I work there and I need birth control, my access to it is lessened why? Because of someone's religious belief. Their religious belief stands between my tax dollars and that birth control. It is a little hard not to see that as being established when you are trying to get an IUD.


I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY HERE (Hooray for us!)

The hospitals take my money under the guise of helping sick people get better, then say they can spend the money any way they choose as a church? My tax dollars are not supposed to go to a church, are they?
They should not spend the money any way they choose, it should only be spent under the restrictions with which it was given, you're right. Money given to buy flu shots must not be used to buy statues, etc.


Nor should it be restricted to non-medical criteria based only on religious belief in my opinion. It is my non-Catholic money in there.


But now I have to ask, what is the government doing in this situation? It's not giving the Church any new money, but it's saying that it has to pay a new medical benefit. On top of that, the new medical benefit goes against their religious beliefs, so that if the hospital administrators go along with the government rule they have to violate their church rules.


I have to ask what you mean about no new money. Are they getting the exact same amount year after year? Does that money already have specific allocations that do not currently include birth control? How about the money they use to treat obesity? I thought gluttony and sloth were big deals too. I would need to actually see the budgets in order to properly understand the difference between "old" money and "new" money. I find it hard to believe they get a set amount of dollars year after year as inflation would have killed them long ago.

-continued next



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



(And they're major, central rules.) So their response is, "No you don't, you're not messing with my religious beliefs. You can't make me do something against my religion." (And notice, it's not like the church is doing something the government wants to stop, like polygamy or human sacrifice. Here, the government is making them do something they're religiously opposed to, like making Amish buy cars.)


We see this very differently. What you describe is the government going to a church and telling that church it has to violate it's beliefs in order to follow secular laws. That can get tricky enough but the reality here is a little more complicated.

This is the church going to the government and saying they want to operate a hospital. The problem is they have not the means to do that. So they ask the government to give them money in order to do their "charity" that they do with my tax dollars. So the government says sure, you can operate a hospital with our money but you cannot use our money to run your religion through your hospital. If you want to do that, you have to make your own money and since you do not pay any taxes and get your money by asking for it on Sunday, good luck!



Anyway. I'm grateful for the chance to talk with you.

With respect,
Charles1952





Back at ya!



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Still
Who suggested the Catholic church operate a secular hospital?

YOU did. These are your exact words -

Originally posted by Still
There is no reason those hospitals have to be religious in nature to do those good things.
It is THAT SIMPLE.


For a Catholic Hospital to be non-religious in nature would make it SECULAR.
It's just THAT SIMPLE.

My god .. not only do you not read what is posted, (it's very obvious you didnt' read the USCCB
statement on how Catholic Hospitals must be run) but you don't even read your own babbling.
And you tell me not to 'hide behind my religion', but then say you never inferred I was Catholic.
All your bunk is there for everyone to see. You are a total TROLL. It's just THAT SIMPLE.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

edit on 2/15/2012 by FlyersFan because: typo



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Still
Who suggested the Catholic church operate a secular hospital?

YOU did. These are your exact words -

Originally posted by Still
There is no reason those hospitals have to be religious in nature to do those good things.
It is THAT SIMPLE.


For a Catholic Hospital to be non-religious in nature would make it SECULAR.
It's just THAT SIMPLE.


Are you going out of your way to not understand such simple concepts? I never suggested the Catholic Church should operate a secular hospital. I pointed out that a hospital that takes federal money to help the poor need not be run by any church at all.

You really did not think you just proved I said what you claimed I said by posting a quote of me not actually saying it did you?



My god .. not only do you not read what is posted, (it's very obvious you didnt' read the USCCB
statement on how Catholic Hospitals must be run) but you don't even read your own babbling.


If you were not so busy name calling and insulting and took the time to actually read what I wrote, your response would not seem so ignorant and ill informed. I obviously read it, understood it, and made the point that no churches need to be involved. You assumed I suggested something I never even wrote and are calling me names over it?


Get a clue next time before you go off insulting people for what turns out to be your own misunderstanding.


And you tell me not to 'hide behind my religion', but then say you never inferred I was Catholic.


I never did, did I? You just really do not understand English very well do you?


All your bunk is there for everyone to see. You are a total TROLL. It's just THAT SIMPLE.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

edit on 2/15/2012 by FlyersFan because: typo


Intelligent posters understood me just fine and responded accordingly here, in similar threads, and in U2Us. All you did was not get what I actually wrote and then call me names. Cool.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Still
Who suggested the Catholic church operate a secular hospital?

YOU did. These are your exact words -

Originally posted by Still
There is no reason those hospitals have to be religious in nature to do those good things.
It is THAT SIMPLE.


Is this wrong on purpose or did you really not get it? Calm down and let's talk. You seem angry and just want to accuse and call names. How about we converse instead. Did you really not understand that what I wrote was exactly what I wrote and not what you imagined it meant?

There is no reason any hospital needs to be run by any church. How complicated is that?

So I have to know if you are trying to be argumentative and pretending not to understand or if you maybe a little understanding might help you discuss and name call a little less. How many times do you have to call someone a troll before that in and of itself is just trollish by definition?

Anyway, got me now?
You can apologize for your little rant as soon as you let me know you actually understand me this time. Or rudely respond with some arbitrary argument you imagined, again.

Either way it has been real fun.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Today is a strange one, my brain doesn't seem to be following your line of thought as closely as it should. Please allow me to suggest a quick side trip.

Put away, for a minute, the discussion of rights and constitutions and so on. What problem is this government action trying to solve?

People are being ordered around and feathers are being ruffled, why? Isn't Planned Parenthood still giving out free contraceptives to the needy? The Feds already give PP money, if there aren't enough contraceptives available why not just give them more money and say "Here, go buy some more and hand them out?"

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Today is a strange one, my brain doesn't seem to be following your line of thought as closely as it should. Please allow me to suggest a quick side trip.

Put away, for a minute, the discussion of rights and constitutions and so on. What problem is this government action trying to solve?


I will have to admit that I have never heard a clearly articulated reasoning for it. I am not sure exactly what issue is so suddenly important that this must solve. I would assume it was more mundane policy stuff to streamline or at least standardize certain things.

I am more confused by the uproar. Obama did not invent this policy. It already existed in more than half the states in this country with nary a complaint. I am confused about how the Catholic Church singled out this issue. Is everything else that is covered really in line with their religious beliefs? How about weight loss? Many health plans include some kind of weight loss treatment.

Well if you are not allowed to be horny without trying to procreate so you cannot prevent pregnancy,
then why should you be allowed to be gluttonous and then have someone fix you physically all while still holding onto your sinfully glutinous heart? How did they decide this was such a big deal? When 98% of US Catholics claim to use birth control? What about the fact that many women use birth control to control symptoms that accompany sometimes complicated menstruation. Why should these women not be allowed this coverage? It has nothing to do with sex or babies?

There was a guy I know who was arrested for molesting his stepdaughter. He went from full of himself to quite humble real fast. As much as people want to pretend the child rape scandal was not a churchwide scandal, it was. It went all the way to the vatican. I know of priests that are now in jail that came to my diocese AS IT TURNS OUT because the bishop had to get them to stop raping kids in another parish. This is not just child rape. This is institutionalized child rape. Seems kind of like the last people that should be shouting "WE NEED LOTS MORE CHILDREN!!!!!"
Maybe that is just me.



People are being ordered around and feathers are being ruffled, why? Isn't Planned Parenthood still giving out free contraceptives to the needy?


What if you are not needy because you have a nice job at a Catholic Hospital?


The Feds already give PP money, if there aren't enough contraceptives available why not just give them more money and say "Here, go buy some more and hand them out?"

With respect,
Charles1952


Not everyone can go get free healthcare. People that make decent money have a hard time.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Dear Still,

You know, there is a lot of hurt in people's hearts towards the Church and about issues like sex in it's various combinations. It's a real hurt and I wish that those in Washington, and everywhere else, would realize this isn't about power, it's about people. (I'm not sure why I wrote that, it just seemed right, somehow)

We talked in another thread about the 28 states issue. I've come to believe that the Church does have an exemption if they didn't supply prescription coverage at all. That may be a drastic choice, but it's a choice.

You're absolutely right that gluttony is a sin, a lust for food or drink, an insistence on only the finest, most expensive foods possible, all gluttony.

The difference is that the treatment for gluttony isn't anything that's against Church teaching. There's no problem with saying "Exercise more, eat less, take an appetite suppressant if you have to." A good doctor would also say "Change your life, get mental health care if you need it." But to say "Take this pill, it will prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the womb," that's a little tougher for Catholics.

I don't know enough to talk about birth control pills used for other conditions. I don't know if alternative drugs are available. I'm also not sure that the Church would disapprove in that case. Is there some reason you think they would disapprove?

You are right that people who make decent money are having a hard time. This is a crazy economy we're in. The suffering looks like it's going to grow wider and deeper before it's stopped. And I understand the desire to help everybody out. I just don't see that this is the best way to do it. Help pay for food, gas, housing, even cell phones, but condoms? I must be missing something.

Anyway, I hope you have a wonderful rest tonight.

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join