• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bishops promise to keep fighting contraception mandate.

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I read that statement, but I have no Idea what the issues are. It is obviously written in a form of catholic speak, that does not translate well into British English. it seems to suppose a great deal of foreknowledge, of previous positions.
Can any one give a nutshell version.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
I will leave that to Quiddity.... I posted it because I myself am trying to understand.

- and since I tend not to agree with the bishops and this is the Cath DIR, he would be the better of the two of us to explain.... Or someone else--- sorry to put you on the spot!
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I don't think I'm going to be much help.

I was actually reading the actual document rather then the comments. :eek:

But...

Basically, it looks like they are going back and forth on whether one can choose what health services they wish to fund when money is extracted from their checks. It is my understanding that is NOT an option according to US law. You are either, all in or all out.

So, in this sense, the Bishops are commenting on individual civil liberties and how people of faith are being forced to pay for something their conscience is opposed to; and this is true. However, it's been like this for quite sometime. :shrug:

Where does my money actually go? It could go for building a space ship for all I know. :shrug:

What I don't understand is why this even became a major point of discussion when the real issue in this whole mess is about forcing a religious institution to pay for contraceptives. One might ask "Weren't they paying for it before?"....I can't speak for all Dioceses or catholic organizations [obviously] but what I can tell you is that not all health care networks offer contraceptives. If that's the case, Catholic Dioceses knew which networks to be a part of to avoid paying for contraceptives.

So what Obama originally did was want to force the RC to pay and instead forced all healthcare networks to carry contraceptives and pass on those costs to whomever contracts with them.

In this sense, it turned out worse because now it's not just forcing the RC, but everybody who may have contracted with these networks to pay for something they weren't before.

I'll leave it at that for now.
 
Last edited:

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Thanks... It would seem that the USA is falling into line with the rest of the world.

If you want to be a health contractor you have to obey the civil laws that apply to such contracts. partial opt-outs don't work.
In the UK catholics have opted out of the adoption services over gay rights. They were once one of the largest private service providers.
I suppose in the case of Abortions and contraception where the church has an established long term position, they might expect some concessions. However, the fact is, these services are used by a large number of catholics world wide. They do so notwithstanding the Church line. so they are unable to claim that they do not use, so should not pay.

It has a certain logic.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Thanks... It would seem that the USA is falling into line with the rest of the world.

If you want to be a health contractor you have to obey the civil laws that apply to such contracts. partial opt-outs don't work.
In the UK catholics have opted out of the adoption services over gay rights. They were once one of the largest private service providers.
I suppose in the case of Abortions and contraception where the church has an established long term position, they might expect some concessions. However, the fact is, these services are used by a large number of catholics world wide. They do so notwithstanding the Church line. so they are unable to claim that they do not use, so should not pay.

It has a certain logic.

The thing is that I don't think you need partial opt-outs to make it work. Why not [for example] leave it as is? In other words, there is no partial opt-outs but atleast allow specific health contractors to have the option to not pay for and carry contraceptives. This is different then partial opt-outs because you'd eventually be talking about 99% percent of health contractors would carry contraceptives; while only 1% would not. The 1% would be something that would eventually only be of interest to catholic institutions.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the input guys.... I will be silent on my theological objection to this subject and only offer that I am just sick and tired of the Bishops only having a backbone when it comes to this favorite topic of theirs.... it is more politics than religion (IMO) but it has been helpful to read your posts Qudditty -- I will have to pray on this.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Thanks for the input guys.... I will be silent on my theological objection to this subject and only offer that I am just sick and tired of the Bishops only having a backbone when it comes to this favorite topic of theirs.... it is more politics than religion (IMO) but it has been helpful to read your posts Qudditty -- I will have to pray on this.

Good idea.

If you ever want to bounce off ideas or thoughts, we can do it in a different setting...if you want.
 
Top