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.

 

Catholic Bishops: Obama's Solution 'Is Unacceptable'

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

edit on 12-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Hospitals are not religions.

What part of CATHOLIC hospital or METHODIST hospital or JEWISH hospital don't you get?
Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic orphanages are all part of the Catholic Church.
They are indeed 'religious' and part of the Church and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.

They have non-Catholics working there.

That's the choice of the non-catholic. They clearly see the word 'catholic' on the side of the building when they apply for a job. If they are that desperate for free birth control pills paid for by their employer, then they should work elsewhere OR keep their job and go to the local clinic that hands them out for free like candy.

What is the Catholic Bishops' position on Catholic priests poking young boys, again?

Deflection. The mark of a failing position ..



Love the way you say "then they should work elsewhere" when your place of employment is one of the biggest decisions people make everyday based on years of education and their training and skills. This is not as easy a thing to manage as you seem to think.

Deflection?

Since when does the past actions and criminal offenses of a group not matter when we consider the opinions and statements coming from that same group? Does that make any sense at all?

Consider your sources. I mean this President was compared with Bill Ayers just because of a minor association with him and almost lost the Presidency because of it. Now you say that pointing out the crimes and misdemeanors of this group issuing this decree doesn't matter at all? This is changing the subject? That's rich.

edit on 12-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
The Catholic Bishops are showing an energy and enthusiasm for trampling Obamacare that they never showed in the past 50 years for stomping out child molesters in the Church.

How about a rule that should satisfy everybody: Catholic Bishops don't get any birth control.
I'll even include Archbishops, Cardinals, and nuns with that ban.
But not the 98% of Catholic women who have used birth control at least sometimes.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Odd considering Catholic Homes for Women, Catholic Charities and Orphanages in the 60's used to give all female charges of child bearing age shots of Depo- Provera in the hip once a year so they did not get knocked up by the orderlies and men who came in and out of the facilities. It was an awful chore to get these women and girls, many who were retarded or handicapped shuttled away for secret abortions and so the shot of Depo-Provera in the hip was much preferred and widely used.

This is information provided by a doctor to my ex-wife when she questioned the safety of the drug for use herself back in the 80's....

"They have been using this drug in Catholic Orphanages and Womens homes for years" he told her.

And now we have Bishops saying other women cannot have access to birth control BASED ON BELIEFS????

It is more than a little disturbing. It is vile and despicable IMO.

That is if I am entitled to my opinion.

And maybe I am not.

edit on 12-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
Love the way you say "then they should work elsewhere" ...

Glad you love it so much. It's the truth. It says 'CATHOLIC' right on the building. If they don't like it .. go elsewhere. There are plenty of jobs in the medical field out there. The Church doesn't have to water down it's beliefs to accomodate those who simply don't have to work there. That's aburd to think they should.

Deflection?

On your part .. for trying to tie in that some pedophiles were in the Church when this is in fact a 1st Amendment issue.

Since when does the past actions and criminal offenses of a group not matter ...

When we re discussing the first amendment rights of the entire Church ... 24% of all Americans are Catholic .. and not the criminal activities of a handful. So deflection? Yes. By you.

reply to post by newcovenant
 

Sorry but we can't be sure of the validity or bias of that third hand source. Even if it's true .. the fact would be that they were using it by CHOICE. Those places would have chosen to use it .. not had it forced upon them by the government. Big difference.




edit on 2/12/2012 by FlyersFan because: typo



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Well the Church has..."watered down their beliefs" quite frequently in the past
so that is not entirely relevant.

Here is an interesting op-ed piece I agree with and might be included in this discussion:




Bishops should accept their victory


After weeks of tangling over new Health and Human Services guidelines requiring contraception services in new health insurance plans, the White House has offered what it describes as a "common sense accommodation."
It is aimed at ending the confrontation between the Obama administration and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The new language maintains the religious exemption for church entities such as parishes and dioceses, but nonprofit religious employers will no longer be required to offer contraception as part of insurance coverage, pay for it via insurance premiums or refer employees to contraception benefits outside their plans.
A senior White House official said the administration believes the changes reflect "a health care policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting women."



It would be helpful now if both sides could end the mutual vilification

and turn down the volume so that a more respectable and reasonable dialogue between government and faith communities proceeds in the future.

That would mean finding a way to resist political pressure blocs that have no interest in a negotiated settlement but in the absolute defeat of one side or the other.


It would mean talking instead of issuing more self-serving press releases.

articles.cnn.com...


edit on 12-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I'm back in my totally confused mode, and I promise not to attack anyone.

Isn't the issue simple? Why are we taking, what five threads? I want to be instructed, again I promise not to bite, just explain where I'm going wrong.

Prior to Obamacare, Contraceptive and Abortifacient (C&A) insurance was required, but if you didn't want to cover it for any reason, you simply covered no prescriptions at all, or provided no insurance. Churches, schools, anybody could get out if they wanted to.

With Obamacare, C&A insurance is required in every policy, and every employer has to have a policy or face big fines. There are no outs and this is a big change.

With the "accomodation," every employer has to have a policy, the policy will cover C&A, but the insurance co. will send the note to the policy holder that C&A is covered, not the Church. Finally the Insurance co. will pay the premiums for C&A. (Of course, they'll get the money from the premiums of the Church.)

And what if I were a Catholic writing insurance policies. No escape for me, I have to write C&A policies like it or not, or lose my career.

This seems similar to a regulation requiring every household to have an automobile in good repair so they could escape emergencies. The Amish say, "You can't force us to accept cars, that's against our religion." The president's response would be "Tough."

Please explain to me where I'm going wrong. This is an important topic and I don't want to be in error.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



And what if I were a Catholic writing insurance policies. No escape for me, I have to write C&A policies like it or not, or lose my career.


You bring up a very good point with the writers of insurance.

Many agencies have many Catholics employed and some owners too.

I think the whole issue is still whether or not this is unconstitutional.

The lawyers will have fun sorting this all out.

The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments soon and we will see the outcome.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

Dear xuenchen,

Thank you for returning me to sanity with your brief note. You're quite right that patience is required. My understanding is that the Supremes will hear the original Obamacare case in May. That result will be major news whichever way it goes. I can wait until then.

Blessings and peace for you and love in your heart.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Prior to Obamacare, Contraceptive and Abortifacient (C&A) insurance was required, but if you didn't want to cover it for any reason, you simply covered no prescriptions at all, or provided no insurance. Churches, schools, anybody could get out if they wanted to.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Actually, that is not quite true.
I had major medical before I left my job 10 years ago.
BCBS in fact.
My secular employer did not cover contraceptives, but did provide prescription coverage.
Birth control is not for an illness.
No wellness coverage, either...hence, you had to pay for your annual physical.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on Sun Feb 12 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

Dear DontTreadOnMe,

Thank you, and nice meeting you.

I appreciate the opportunity for clarification. I believe (and I'll look this stuff up if you're curious) that in 2001 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that it was sex discrimination to deny some prescription drugs to women, when none were being denied to men (Not that men wanted the contraceptive pills, but still.) They ruled that you had to supply full prescription coverage to everyone or no one.

But you are absolutely right, that prior to that the choice was wide open. Thanks again for setting me straight.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Originally posted by charles1952
With the "accomodation," every employer has to have a policy, the policy will cover C&A, but the insurance co. will send the note to the policy holder that C&A is covered, not the Church.


This is not exactly right yet.
The policy will NOT cover C&A. The individual will receive C&A, if they want, directly from the Insurance Co. The Insurance Company eats the cost, but they will save money in the long run because it's a lot cheaper to provide free birth control than it is to care for a pregnant woman, deal with complication of pregnancy and deliver a baby.





And what if I were a Catholic writing insurance policies. No escape for me, I have to write C&A policies like it or not, or lose my career.


Yes, if you are a Catholic and get a job at an insurance company, you'll have to write insurance policies that contain birth control. Just as if you got a job as a bartender, you'd have to serve drinks. Or if you took a job as a dealer, you'd have to deal cards. Or if you took a job at a pharmacy, you'd have to fill BC prescriptions.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Once more you show yourself as one of my heroes on this site. I'm grateful to you for watching out for me and help me avoid the pitfalls of my ignorance.

May I dispense with something that may be just a simple misunderstanding in words? It's not something I care much about and I'm willing to take your, or anyone else's wording. And that is the question of "policy."

I assume the insurance company will enter into a contract with a pharmaceutical company to supply contraceptive treatment to certain identified individuals. The pharmaceutical company will then get paid by the insurance company. We don't have to call that a policy, if you don't want to. It just seemed like a common use of the word. It sounds like any other policy with the insurance company paying the premiums.

But, does the insurance company pay for it? It's rather a commonplace to say that companies pass their costs along. And who can an insurance company pass it's costs to? Policy holders like Catholic hospitals. Unless someone is suggesting that religious institutions will pay smaller premiums than other policy holders? I don't think you or anyone else is suggesting that.

As an aside:

Or if you took a job at a pharmacy, you'd have to fill BC prescriptions.
that might not be 100%. I don't know if this is the latest word, I think it was about 2005 or so, but

APhA has had a policy supporting a pharmacist’s conscience clause since 1998, around the time when Oregon enacted its physician assisted suicide law. APhA’s two-part policy supports the ability of the pharmacist to step away from participating in activity to which they have personal objections—but not step in the way. The Association supports the pharmacist’s right to choose not to fill a prescription based on moral or ethical values. But recognizing the pharmacist’s important role in the health care system, APhA supports the establishment of systems to ensure that the patient’s health care needs are served.


Pharmacist Conscience clause

I don't know if I've touched sufficiently on your points, but you know I welcome any communication from you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Another good point charles.

Concerning the Pharmacist’s Conscience Clause, I assume there is no "built in" penalties for a Pharmacist (or technicians in some cases).

The HC laws have fines and possible jail time for failure to have insurance.
So, "opting out" could eventually violate a law.

Also, an insurance company employee writing policies could get penalized for refusing to do a job if they were to cite a religious objection to a boss.

Very big issues with the whole deal.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
if you are a Catholic and get a job at an insurance company, you'll have to write insurance policies that contain birth control. Just as if you got a job as a bartender, you'd have to serve drinks. Or if you took a job as a dealer, you'd have to deal cards. Or if you took a job at a pharmacy, you'd have to fill BC prescriptions.

... and if you get a job in the Catholic Church at one of their hospitals, orphanages, or schools, you don't get birth control paid for by the Catholic church. Same/same. If you take a job in a certain place, you know ahead of time what to expect and if you don't want to do those things, you work elsewhere. See .. you CAN get it if you take off the anti-Catholic glasses you are wearing.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
On your part .. for trying to tie in that some pedophiles were in the Church when this is in fact a 1st Amendment issue.


"Some pedophiles?"

What??????????????
Pedophilia was rampant and institutional within the Catholic church. This is not even in dispute by the Catholic church.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Just a quick clarification, if you don't mind. What do you mean by "rampant" pedophilia? Ignoring for a moment that pedophilia is not the correct word for the abuse going on, the John Jay studies indicated that in the US, about 4% or fewer of the priests were even accused of sexual misconduct. That is a number similar to that of accused American males in general, and the percentage of gays in the US.

Is it fair, then, to say pedophilia is "rampant" in the US? Or homosexuality is "rampant" in the US? It seems that you've exaggerated a bit here.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Just a quick clarification, if you don't mind. What do you mean by "rampant" pedophilia?

I mean that not only was it going on at a high rate, it was known, it was covered up, it was excused, it was allowed to continue, it was facilitated by members at every level within the Church.


Ignoring for a moment that pedophilia is not the correct word for the abuse going on, the John Jay studies indicated that in the US, about 4% or fewer of the priests were even accused of sexual misconduct. That is a number similar to that of accused American males in general, and the percentage of gays in the US.


You seem smarter than this. Do you realize what you just compared? The Catholic church is not a US institution so that 4% is of PART of the church, not the whole.
So you compared all American males, All gays in the us, and a portion of the church.
What happens to those percentages when you look at it fairly?
I am not sure why you would only look at the number of Catholic priests in the US.


Is it fair, then, to say pedophilia is "rampant" in the US? Or homosexuality is "rampant" in the US? It seems that you've exaggerated a bit here.

With respect,
Charles1952


With all due respect, I have gay friends. Not one of them belongs to an organization that conspires to help them perpetrate crimes or hide their sexual proclivity. I am having a hard time finding any such correlating structure for males accused of sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church on the other hand, has more than just sexual misconduct - which is a really pretty way of saying child rape.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Forgive me, I made two mistakes. One was asking about the issue of abuse in the Church, and the second was not writing about it clearly. I'm sorry for the errors and for any hurt I caused.

I was only commenting about what struck me as an interesting coincidence. The John Jay School of Criminal (something or other, I forget their full name) did the complete statistical study of the abuse problem in the American Catholic Church. they found that about 4% of American Catholic priests were accused of abuse. The study noted that that was the same rate as for American males in general. (Priests were accused at the same rate as all men.)

From some digging around I did because of another thread, I found that 3-4% is also a good estimate for the percentage of gays in America.

I don't happen to know much about the Church's abuse scandals in other countries, nor do I know much about the prevalence of homosexuality around the world. I picked the US only because I'm familiar with it. (By the way, could the scandal have been worse in other countries? I don't know, the thought just crossed my mind.)

There is also some evidence that sexual behavior is affected by society, so it may not be entirely wise to compare the US with, say, Zimbabwe or even Russia.

I'm not sure I'd like to go into the sex scandals in much detail here, it may be the wrong thread. But I do think the situation in that regard is wildly different then it was 25-50 years ago.

A pleasure to talk with you. And again, my apologies.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Forgive me, I made two mistakes. One was asking about the issue of abuse in the Church, and the second was not writing about it clearly. I'm sorry for the errors and for any hurt I caused.


No hurt at all here. Not sure what you feel the need to apologize for. You are the first person to not agree with me fully on here to not resort to simple name calling. It is nice.


I was only commenting about what struck me as an interesting coincidence. The John Jay School of Criminal (something or other, I forget their full name) did the complete statistical study of the abuse problem in the American Catholic Church. they found that about 4% of American Catholic priests were accused of abuse. The study noted that that was the same rate as for American males in general. (Priests were accused at the same rate as all men.)

From some digging around I did because of another thread, I found that 3-4% is also a good estimate for the percentage of gays in America.


I will not get too far off topic with this but I do have to wonder how accurate numbers of homosexuals could be reached when including closeted gays or gays to young to have understood any sexual feelings yet. How is such a count taken?


I don't happen to know much about the Church's abuse scandals in other countries, nor do I know much about the prevalence of homosexuality around the world. I picked the US only because I'm familiar with it. (By the way, could the scandal have been worse in other countries? I don't know, the thought just crossed my mind.)


Why is there such a concern to compare it to homosexuality? I am not sure I understand the correlation. I am not talking about a sexual inclination. I am talking about an organization that facilitates and covers up and illegal sexual act.


There is also some evidence that sexual behavior is affected by society, so it may not be entirely wise to compare the US with, say, Zimbabwe or even Russia.


OK, try it this way. If people molest children in the US and people molest children in Zimbabwe, then it would hardly be fair to just leave the comparison at that and only look at child molesters.

But.

If Company XYZ turned out to be molesting children in the US and in Zimbabwe, would it not be fair to take a look at company XYZ?

The Vatican knew all too well what was going on and took part in the priest swapping that was the main crux of the coverup. There is a reason THE CATHOLIC CHURCH has paid out over a billion dollars in restitution to victims of sexual abuse. I can hardly find any other single organization to even dream of coming close to that.


I'm not sure I'd like to go into the sex scandals in much detail here, it may be the wrong thread. But I do think the situation in that regard is wildly different then it was 25-50 years ago.

A pleasure to talk with you. And again, my apologies.

With respect,
Charles1952


As with you. Feel free to invite this discussion with me further in a more relevant thread.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join