Can a Pharmacist Refuse To Dispense Birth Control?

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you Vern…this clarifies things!

As to accepting a law that made Jews eat pork…is this an AMERICAN LAW or CHURCH LAW?

The law in Illinois that requires even Catholic pharmacists to dispense birth control and the “morning after” pill is a state law.

So, should Illinois have a state law requiring Jews to eat pork?

Regarding the Constitution:

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My emphasis.

 

[Karin]

johnnycatholic:

Karin and itsjustdave should stay on the topic at hand.

So true (thank you for reminding us)…and since I have voiced my opinions on the OP already I will call it a night.

 

[Karin]

vern humphrey:

The law in Illinois that requires even Catholic pharmacists to dispense birth control and the “morning after” pill is a state law.

So, should Illinois have a state law requiring Jews to eat pork?

Two different things…(so to speak) on is a legal medicine (for what good who knows) and the other is a religious law (not eating pork)…I can not compare them because to me they are apples (filling BC RX) and oranges (jews eating pork).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Karin:

Two different things…(so to speak) on is a legal medicine (for what good who knows) and the other is a religious law (not eating pork)…I can not compare them because to me they are apples (filling BC RX) and oranges (jews eating pork).

Now there’s a cop-out for you!!

Suppose the law forbade Jews to have their sons circumcised?

 

[Karin]

vern humphrey:

Regarding the Constitution:

My emphasis.

With the post Re: the Constitution…I would have to say no to Jews eating pork law.
But then I never disputed that a Catholic pharmacist should not have to be required to fill a BC RX.
My question is the R.C. Pharmacist should not have to fill these RX’s…and a Jew should not be made to eat pork…so how do you appease these two faiths in regards to the law? As another example…Catholics say NO to abortion (I am simplifing because I am tired) but Jews say YES (with certain conditions)…so whose God…whose Law trumps the other?

 

[Karin]

vern humphrey:

Now there’s a cop-out for you!!

Suppose the law forbade Jews to have their sons circumcised?

I am not questioning their religious law what I question is whose religious laws /morals should have influence…be it Jew , Pagan, Catholic, Muslim etc.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does this concept not contradict what the Vatican/CHURCH says about the Jewish Faith?

---

No, it doesn’t. The Catholic Church does not teach that Judaism is the fullness of truth. Not in the Catechism that you cited, nor in any other official Catholic doctrinal pronouncment. Instead, Catholicism teaches that only Catholicism is the fullness of truth. If Judaism teaches that it is OK to contracept and abort their unborn children, then such teaching is a grave sin against the will of God and an obstacle to salvation.

I suggest you read the Catholic Church’s Declaration “Dominus Iesus” on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

The Jews should not be “surprised” by this teaching, as they disagree with it very much. See here:

**On Dominus Iesus and the Jews
by Dr. David Berger, Rabbinical Council of America
Delivered at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001
bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/articles/berger.htm

Dominus Iesus states:

… it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her… Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God…One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:
No, it doesn’t. The Catholic Church does not teach that Judaism is the fullness of truth. Never meant to imply that they did what I meant to imply was that the Church held the Jewish faith in a bit of a higher regard than you stated.

Not in the Catechism that you cited, nor in any other official Catholic doctrinal pronouncment. Instead, Catholicism teaches that only Catholicism is the fullness of truth.
If Judaism teaches that it is OK to contracept and abort their unborn children, then such teaching is a grave sin against the will of God and an obstacle to salvation.
AGainst whose God? Not theirs.

Back to the OP…we can take this up on another thread that pertains to this.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Karin:

I am not questioning their religious law what I question is whose religious laws /morals should have influence…be it Jew , Pagan, Catholic, Muslim etc.

God’s laws should have influence. And since we disagree as to what God’s law proscribes and prescribes, then each of us should vote in accord with our own beliefs so that the representatives ACTUALLY represent the values of it’s population.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Back to the OP…we can take this up on another thread that pertains to this.

Well, I think religious freedom relates to the discussion. One is not “free” to error or sin. And civil laws are no exception. Jews have the same God as we do, but their teachings about him are in error insofar as they oppose Catholic teachings. Our disagreement with them cannot be compromised just so we all get along if it results in a civil law that promotes sinfulness.

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:

Well, I think religious freedom relates to the discussion. One is not “free” to error or sin. And civil laws are no exception. Jews have the same God as we do, but their teachings about him are in error insofar as they oppose Catholic teachings. Our disagreement with them cannot be compromised just so we all get along, if that results in a civil law that promotes sinfulness.

And what about other faiths that do not have the "same"God as you?

---

itsjustdave1988:

God’s laws should have influence. And since we disagree as to what God’s law proscribes and prescribes, then each of us should vote in accord with our own beliefs so that the representatives ACTUALLY represent the values of it’s population.

Totally agree that God’s law should have an influence…I just do not want to follow a God whose influence I or my family do not agree with.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And what about other faiths that do not have the "same"God as you?

There is only one God. There is only one truth.

Natural law and reason leads one to know that the conjugal act has a natural purpose. Whatever one knows about God, they should know by reason that the Creator made sperm/egg for a reason. They have a biological purpose. Human acts which render that conjugal act intrinsically non-procreative, by reasoning, should conclude that they act contrary to that biological purpose, to God’s design.

However, not everyone is reasonable, especially when they have an inclination toward an unreasonable conclusion.

 

[Katie1723]

Hey, cool! Looks like we have the potential for a good cat fight here.Anyone for coffee and donuts? I’ll set up chairs so we can watch.
~ Kathy ~

 

[johnnycatholic]

Itsjustdave, religious freedom is connected to this topic but only inasmuch as it is related to pharmacists and selling b.c. pills, not as it relates to whether or not karen should follow the truth or what she happens to find agreeable or the validity of other religions.

Just my opinion

 

[kaymart]

Katie1723:

Hey, cool! Looks like we have the potential for a good cat fight here.Anyone for coffee and donuts? I’ll set up chairs so we can watch.

~ Kathy ~

I’ll put the pot on, grab a chair this looks good

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:

There is only one God. There is only one truth…

Really ??? And who are you to tell me that your God is the only one or that your truth is the right one?

Katie1723:

Hey, cool! Looks like we have the potential for a good cat fight here.Anyone for coffee and donuts? I’ll set up chairs so we can watch.

~ Kathy ~.

pour me a cup also

 

[itsjustdave1988]

johnnycatholic:

Itsjustdave, religious freedom is connected to this topic but only inasmuch as it is related to pharmacists and selling b.c. pills, not as it relates to whether or not karen should follow the truth or what she happens to find agreeable or the validity of other religions.

Just my opinion

I agree. Every human being needs to inform their conscience, then they must follow their properly formed conscience. The Pharmacists who correctly concludes in accord with his reason that contraception is immoral for all mankind is acting contrary to truth when he gives contraceptives to customers. It isn’t a matter of trying to make sure our laws are in accord with every wacky belief out their. It’s a matter of making sure our laws are in accord with the one objective truth on the matter.

If using X is immoral, then selling X to be used immorally is immoral.

I believe it is reasonable to conclude that using contraceptives is immoral. Catholics are not the only ones to hold this to be objectively true. Whether the pharmacist is Catholic or not, if he holds contraceptive use to be immoral, he cannot countenance immoral acts by selling them. In doing so contrary to his conscience, he too acts immorally.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

And who are you

to tell me that your God is the only one or that your truth is the right one?
I’m one of God’s messengers. As a Catholic, I’m called to teach in accord with his Son’s teachings. If you are offended with Catholic teaching, then you might want to stay clear of Catholic forums.

 

[Karin]

itsjustdave1988:

I’m one of God’s messengers.

Yes, your God’s messenger but perhaps not mine or my neighbors.

itsjustdave1988:

As a Catholic, I’m called to teach in accord with his Son’s teachings. If you are offended with Catholic teaching, then you might want to stay clear of Catholic forums.

Nope not offended…I was attempting to play devil’s advocate to the situation…if you care to read my posts regarding the OP you will see that on this topic I agree with the Catholic view

 

[Listener]

johnnycatholic:

Posted by Listener: “Well, in the first place, there is something that these people didn’t tell you. The fact is that a very large percentage of fertilized eggs don’t manage to attach to the uterus when a woman is NOT on the pill. It is also true that the pill normally works by preventing ovulation. If break-through ovulation does occur, it is also possible for a baby to be born. I have heard of many cases where this has actually happened. Also, if you are aware of ovulation when you are practicing NFP, why on earth wouldn’t you be aware of breakthrough ovulation if it happened while on the pill?”

I don’t trust this info. Who is your source? Furthuremore N.F.P. trains you to spot ovulation. Most women do not know when this is occurring.

My source is the Mayo Clinic Family Health Book, Second Edition, under the title “Miscarriage”. I quote: "About 50 percent of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, most of them before a woman has any idea she is pregnant. The percentage of miscarriages in women who know they are pregnant is about 10 percent."

I believe that if a woman was on the pill she would not be ovulating at least 95 percent of the time, so there would be very few of these early spontaneous abortions. As far as the other 5 percent goes, most women who were familiar with NFP would know that they were ovulating, and they could abstain. Even if you didn’t know that you were ovulating and the egg was fertilized and you lost it, you couldn’t prove that this would not have happened if you weren’t on the pill. In fact, you would probably never know that it happened, unless you happened to take a pregnancy test when you were a few days late. Father Serpa on the Ask an Apologist thread says that a married woman may go on the pill for medical reasons and she doesn’t have to abstain. Also, I don’t agree with you. I know a Catholic woman who had perhaps a dozen miscarriages and then went on to have a child. There is nothing in Church teaching that says that she doesn’t have a right to do this.