I think you’re all looking at this wrong. Here is a quote from an article from the NYT that someone posted previously:Although generally Pew polls are quite credible, the answer depends upon how the question is framed. If it is framed in mandating “birth control” it is far more acceptable even when questioning Catholics or other people of faith. OTOH if the question were framed do you believe a mandate that causes an early abortion and also requires sterilization to be offered I think the results would be different.
The Pill has been around a long time and I suspect the vast majority of people do not understand that a woman can conceive while on the Pill but that the conception cannot be maintained due to the drug’s effect on the uterus. I certainly didn’t know that until I became a Catholic and started reading CAF! I was in my late 40s and no ignoramus. I always thought it was very innocuous and might have answered yes in my former life.
We’ve lost a lot of momentum because the media focused on the ABC issue versus the abortofacient and sterilization issue. We just don’t control the bully pulpit in this country so we have to hope our side makes the issue what it is, a religious freedom has been violated.
Anyone who expected this to be a quick victory, who is looking for opinion polls to swing our way and change the president’s position on this, is simply being naive. He is not incompetent, he is playing to win.So the president has probably won today’s political battle. The question now is whether the Catholic bishops in particular, and religious conservatives in general, have a strategy for the longer war.
I don’t disagree with you and I was not expecting a quick victory. I do believe that the poll stating that a majority support birth control mandates would not have been supported had the question been framed abortion inducing drugs, birth control and sterilization. I suspect a lot more people think ABC is acceptable but not abortofacient drugs or requiring sterilization. Both procedures have a serious EWWWW factor.I think you’re all looking at this wrong. Here is a quote from an article from the NYT that someone posted previously:
Anyone who expected this to be a quick victory, who is looking for opinion polls to swing our way and change the president’s position on this, is simply being naive. He is not incompetent, he is playing to win.
Rather, Catholics have to take the long view and prepare for a long war.
I think your message is very sweet but you have fallen into the same trap as many in the media and many of our politicians. The issue is not whether or not to use birth control, or even whether medications such as Ella and RU486 are birth control or abortion. The question is whether the state can violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.I think it is fine for our Church to legislate and litigate, but I would hope it not give up its more tedious and difficult function of educating. We wouldn’t want to increase a wedge between the pro-birth-control/pro-choice people and the pro-lifers.
Many of those who are into birth control, I think, may be astonished and disgusted with the virulence with which the Catholics have attacked this problem of health coverage for birth control – which, as I understand it, would be for those who choose to use birth control, not something forced on all women, making it all the more perplexing for those not formed (or properly formed) in the Catholic faith.
Along with strident campaigning for righteousness, perhaps some doses of gentle goodness and kindness might soften people up to Catholicism and its teachings. They say honey attracts flies better than vinegar. Let us show them our great spiritual wealth, bringining us true happiness and peace, and not just a set of restrictive rules that at first glance might seem ridiculous and repressive to some.
Also, I’ve heard that humility is the best and (I think) only weapon against evil and the devil.
Correct. I have a novel question for you. Why birth control and abortion? Why should these be free over other medical services? Why not chemotherapy and cancer surgeries?I think your message is very sweet but you have fallen into the same trap as many in the media and many of our politicians. The issue is not whether or not to use birth control, or even whether medications such as Ella and RU486 are birth control or abortion. The question is whether the state can violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
This might seem like a small thing, blocking the distribution of birth control pills, but in reality it is a HUGE thing and violates one of the sacred tenants our country was founded upon.
Allowing this violation of our fundamental rights is IMO but one step in a Statist President who wants to wield seemingly unlimited power to force his agenda upon us. We must stop him in any way we can.
Lisa
washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-epic-blunder-on-birth-control-mandate/2012/02/13/gIQAZqlwBR_story.htmlIf Obama is playing a political chess game, he has just sacrificed his queen, a rook and all his bishops. It would have to be a deep game indeed.
I read today you can buy birth control for $9 at Walmart. There are over 80 places in Alabama alone where they give out free or low cost birth control. There is no problem with access to birth control. But birth control should in no way be funded by anybody - regardless of religion. Using birth control is a matter of personal choice, it is a not a health priority that should be funded, especially by those who have moral opposition to it.Correct. I have a novel question for you. Why birth control and abortion? Why should these be free over other medical services? Why not chemotherapy and cancer surgeries?
Birth control and abortion apply only to half the population, women. We are being singled out.
Whereas, treatment for cancer would serve the entire population. Men and women both get cancer. Helping treat it would be targeting no-one. Why isn’t treatment for that free instead?
You sound like a peacemaker, but truth must never be compromised.Along with strident campaigning for righteousness, perhaps some doses of gentle goodness and kindness might soften people up to Catholicism and its teachings. They say honey attracts flies better than vinegar. Let us show them our great spiritual wealth, bringining us true happiness and peace, and not just a set of restrictive rules that at first glance might seem ridiculous and repressive to some.
Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies
that have entered into contest with the Truth.
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin;
it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.
Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation
and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.
Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.
Remember the Church has always used strong language for those who have no love for the truth; in fact she pronounces anathema upon those who have no regard for it and willfully refuse to listen.~ Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen ~
Do not be distracted by such wishful thinking. If you think Obama is sacrificing pieces in a game of chess, look for a loaded gun under the table.Obama’s epic blunder on birth-control mandate
Why? Because to certain elements of the Secular Left, abortion and birth control are sacred rites to be protected at all costs. Did you notice the violent reaction of Planned Parenthood when Komen said they would no longer grant them funds as they didn’t really provide any breast screenings? You’d think PP would teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, that women would be dying in the streets due to Komen’s action (which they reversed in a cowardly fashion). I suspect this dates back to a particularly strident element in the feminist movement and borders on near hysteria at the thought of not being able to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. True daughters of Margaret Sanger!Correct. I have a novel question for you. Why birth control and abortion? Why should these be free over other medical services? Why not chemotherapy and cancer surgeries?
Birth control and abortion apply only to half the population, women. We are being singled out.
Whereas, treatment for cancer would serve the entire population. Men and women both get cancer. Helping treat it would be targeting no-one. Why isn’t treatment for that free instead?
They have urged legislative action.Do not be distracted by such wishful thinking. If you think Obama is sacrificing pieces in a game of chess, look for a loaded gun under the table.
While I applaud the bishops strong stand on this issue I have yet to hear any strategy from them other than pleadings to the Dear Leader to change his edict. In other words, I see little evidence of strategic thinking from the bishops. (Yes, maybe they are strategizing in secret but clearly they were caught off-guard by this.) My impression is that the bishops are still adjusting to the new reality of being outlaws.
This is interesting because it might actually end up being a factor in some of the legal cases we’re going to hear. It does seem to be targeting a certain group.Why? Because to certain elements of the Secular Left, abortion and birth control are sacred rites to be protected at all costs. Did you notice the violent reaction of Planned Parenthood when Komen said they would no longer grant them funds as they didn’t really provide any breast screenings? You’d think PP would teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, that women would be dying in the streets due to Komen’s action (which they reversed in a cowardly fashion). I suspect this dates back to a particularly strident element in the feminist movement and borders on near hysteria at the thought of not being able to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. True daughters of Margaret Sanger!
You are exactly right that there is no reason other than a perverted ideology that would protect birth control and abortion above all other medical procedures/drugs. I wonder at the mind set of women like Pelosi, Sebelius, Cecile (PP director). They are displaying a complete lack of thought and logic that has been the stereotype of a ‘hysterical woman’ for centuries. I find them a disgrace to our sex.
Lisa
I am pretty sure that they can because they expect that diocese offices will not be exempted. Other parties are already starting to sue.They have urged legislative action.
Can an individual Bishop or a group of Bishops start a lawsuit against the mandate?
Barack Obama’s re-election campaign unleashed its “Truth Team” to take on allegations that the administration is waging war with religion through its contraception mandate. Yet a legal expert said the team has unfairly twisted the discussion to gain votes.
Lawyer and Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Communications Director Emily Hardman said Obama’s administration and re-election campaign are wrongly twisting the religious debate about the mandate to center around women’s health and access to contraception.
christianpost.com/news/obama-campaigns-truth-team-refutes-war-on-religion-claims-69477/“Access is not the issue at all – women can get coverage for contraception through Title X. There is not an access issue,” Hardman told The Christian Post.
There needs to be an evangelistic effort to educate more Catholics on the contraception issue, among others.I am pretty sure that they can because they expect that diocese offices will not be exempted. Other parties are already starting to sue.
So urging legislative action and suing are good tactical steps. But that is not strategy. They are still not up to playing at Obama’s level. In fact, I would be stunned if Obama’s minions had not already anticipated those reactions.
The bishops need to start think long and hard about the reality, represented by several posters here, that Catholics in their pews are perfectly willing to sit on their hands (arguably following previous instructions from the bishops themselves not to focus on any one issue).
In the good ol’ days, the Church was quite adept at facing down kings.
Yes, precisely. New legislation is at the mercy of the president (barring an override which is infeasible) and lawsuits rely on secular judges.There needs to be an evangelistic effort to educate more Catholics on the contraception issue, among others.
Cardinal-elect Dolon spoke about chastity and marriage in mass a few weeks ago, that made international news apparently, as if it is out of the ordinary for a Bishop (or Priest) to speak about that in Church. It probably is, but it should not be.Yes, precisely. New legislation is at the mercy of the president (barring an override which is infeasible) and lawsuits rely on secular judges.
But bishops have the ears of Catholics. You would think if there is any area where they can affect change, that is it.
I think the bishops are doing everything they can right now. I think if we want to get the word out more, then we have to do some of the work. I know that’s why I’m in CAF and I’m on twitter and several other places, and that’s why I’m talking to all the Catholics I know about this. It’s important.There needs to be an evangelistic effort to educate more Catholics on the contraception issue, among others.