Catholic Bishops: Obama's Solution 'Is Unacceptable', page 5

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 5 days ago with 72 member flags

Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
  Posted 18 days ago with 32 member flags

Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 15 days ago with 26 member flags

Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 8 days ago with 24 member flags

Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 14 days ago with 23 member flags

US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans
  Posted 13 days ago with 21 member flags

Ron Paul, Adam Smith Push To End Indefinite Detention Of Americans
  Posted 13 days ago with 20 member flags

The Vetting Breitbart - Obama : Born in Kenya
  Posted 12 days ago with 18 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: