Does Obama have a Catholic problem?

[MJE]

cnsnews.com/news/article/darn-tooting-obama-brags-about-hhs-reg-catholic-bishops-call-attack-liberty

(CNSNews.com) - Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

“Darn right!” an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.

“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.

The proposed regulation, designed to implement part of Obamacare, will require all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives–including those that cause abortions—without charging any fees or co-pay. These regulations were drawn to implement a provision in Obama’s health-care law that calls for all health-care plans to cover “preventive services.”

Obama continued. “No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth.”

I find our president crass, among other things.

 

[bellasbane]

cnsnews.com/news/article/darn-tooting-obama-brags-about-hhs-reg-catholic-bishops-call-attack-liberty

(CNSNews.com) - Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

“Darn right!” an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.

“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.

The proposed regulation, designed to implement part of Obamacare, will require all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives–including those that cause abortions—without charging any fees or co-pay. These regulations were drawn to implement a provision in Obama’s health-care law that calls for all health-care plans to cover “preventive services.”

Obama continued. “No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth.”

I find our president crass, among other things.

I don’t get it. Would you be happier if they charged a fee or co-pay? Sounds to me like the insurance companies won’t be able to profit these services anymore. Perhaps that will encourage some to drop them altogether? Burdensome governmental regulations, etc.

By the way, NFP also causes abortions if you count all those children who are conceived during a time when a woman’s uterus is not ready for implantation.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I don’t get it. Would you be happier if they charged a fee or co-pay? Sounds to me like the insurance companies won’t be able to profit these services anymore. Perhaps that will encourage some to drop them altogether? Burdensome governmental regulations, etc.

By the way, NFP also causes abortions if you count all those children who are conceived during a time when a woman’s uterus is not ready for implantation.

The “abortions” caused by NFP are not elective abortions. Huge difference

 

[bellasbane]

The “abortions” caused by NFP are not elective abortions. Huge difference

Perhaps, but those babies are not intended to survive either now are they?

But forgive me, I’m in a grumpy mood. I just read that Steve Jobs has died. That makes me kind of sad and not in the mood for gratuitous Obama bashing which is how the OP appears to me.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t get it. Would you be happier if they charged a fee or co-pay? Sounds to me like the insurance companies won’t be able to profit these services anymore. Perhaps that will encourage some to drop them altogether? Burdensome governmental regulations, etc.

Most group insurance plans have negitiated coverage, so a diocese might negotiate for BCBS to provide this and that, but not to provide birth control or elective sterilzatuon and other things which The Church teaches are immoral. It has no effect on what the insurance company provides for others.

Why should the Church pay for medical activity we consider immoral?

 

[St_Francis]

Perhaps, but those babies are not intended to survive either now are they?

But forgive me, I’m in a grumpy mood. I just read that Steve Jobs has died. That makes me kind of sad and not in the mood for gratuitous Obama bashing which is how the OP appears to me.

The “abortions” caused by NFP are not elective abortions. Huge difference

An abortion terminates something which has begun. NFP prevents the beginning. There can be no death if there is no life.

 

[rlg94086]

By the way, NFP also causes abortions if you count all those children who are conceived during a time when a woman’s uterus is not ready for implantation.

That doesn’t make any sense. A conception that doesn’t go full term do to natural causes is a miscarriage, not the killing of an unborn child. It’s the difference between unintended (e.g. accidental) death and murder. NFP does not cause abortions.

 

[bellasbane]

That doesn’t make any sense. A conception that doesn’t go full term do to natural causes is a miscarriage, not the killing of an unborn child. It’s the difference between unintended (e.g. accidental) death and murder. NFP does not cause abortions.

NFP does not prevent conception - neither does the pill or IUD. I don’t believe implantation is where some folks want to draw the line. Abortion is a medical term - miscarriage is not. A miscarriage is a naturally aborted pregnancy. The difference you illustrate is one of semantics - the true difference is one of intent.

 

[Tsuwano]

Politically speaking, the President does have a Catholic problem in that many policies of his administration are opposed or questioned by the American bishops and this may influence whatever “Catholic” vote there is. I believe the administration does not quite realize the influence the bishops can have on the election and it could be a fatal mistake for the administration not to engage in dialog with them. Of course, the administration also has a problem with the liberal wing of the Democrat party and this is one reason the President has used more forceful language when speaking about those policies which the bishops may question. Another question to consider is whether a “Catholic” vote actually exists any more. The Administration may be calculating that it doesn’t. Another question to ask is whether the Republicans also have a “Catholic” problem. After all, many Catholics voted for the Democrat Party in the last election and there must have been a reason. If there is a Catholic vote to court, I think both parties have ignored it.

 

[mark_a]

neither does the pill

Could you explain? Thanks.

 

[armsday13]

I don’t get it. Would you be happier if they charged a fee or co-pay? Sounds to me like the insurance companies won’t be able to profit these services anymore. Perhaps that will encourage some to drop them altogether? Burdensome governmental regulations, etc.

By the way, NFP also causes abortions if you count all those children who are conceived during a time when a woman’s uterus is not ready for implantation.

Obamas i good president in my eyes, he done alot for change, i would think more than wrong? what do you think?

 

[po18guy]

I know not if Obama has a Catholic problem, but the evil one certainly does, and he knows who to use.

 

[ishii]

Politically speaking, the President does have a Catholic problem in that many policies of his administration are opposed or questioned by the American bishops and this may influence whatever “Catholic” vote there is. I believe the administration does not quite realize the influence the bishops can have on the election and it could be a fatal mistake for the administration not to engage in dialog with them. Of course, the administration also has a problem with the liberal wing of the Democrat party and this is one reason the President has used more forceful language when speaking about those policies which the bishops may question. Another question to consider is whether a “Catholic” vote actually exists any more. The Administration may be calculating that it doesn’t. Another question to ask is whether the Republicans also have a “Catholic” problem. After all, many Catholics voted for the Democrat Party in the last election and there must have been a reason. If there is a Catholic vote to court, I think both parties have ignored it.

Tsuwano raises some good points. Is there such a thing as a “catholic” vote? And if there is, is it big enough to influence an election? Perhaps as part of a larger “religious right” there is much influence, but there is never any question which side the religious right is on politically. Perhaps it would help to distinguish between “nominal” or cultural catholics who identify as such but don’t attend church regularly and those who are more likely to read what the bishops think about the moral obligations of a catholic voter. I have noticed a great deal of ignorance on the part of many catholics when it comes to the basics of the faith. If so many catholics are not properly catechized then its not a stretch to assume that there is much confusion among catholics as regards their moral duty to reject evil. That confusion (and other factors) would go a long way toward explaining the large percent of catholics who voted for Obama. There are other considerations: what would the political leanings be of a typical catholic voter residing in the L.A. or Seattle Archdiocese compared to a catholic living in the Omaha Nebraska diocese, or a diocese back east? Do red state/blue state boundaries hold true for catholics as well?

My own opinion: the Catholic church in America has woefully fallen short in its duty to educate its flock on the moral duty of Catholics living in a democracy. Should we be surprised when a pro-abortion/pro gay-rights senator or governor gets lots of votes from catholics when that senator or governor was given the legitimacy of a platform to speak on diocesan grounds and at official diocesan events? While there are some notable exceptions and some bishops who walk the walk, I think that confusion prevails, certainly on the west coast of the U.S.

Obama should have a catholic problem. Catholics have no business supporting such a president who takes so many positions that are antithetical to catholic moral teaching. We ought to make it very difficult for Obama. The fact that we don’t is proof that there isn’t enough unity among catholics on what really matters.

Ishii

 

[7_Sorrows]

obama has a problem in that he wants to make the rules and he doesn’t want anyone to tell him what to do. he is very misguided morally.

 

[ANNE_2]

My reaction to Obama’s reply is that he was telling the Catholic Bishops what to kiss.

They must keep trying, but hopefully they will all finally understand that no Catholic should support Obama in the next election for any reason.

Whether it’s our insurance premiums or tax dollars, we should not be forced to pay for immoral sexual activities.
He is taking away our religious freedom.
Obama is immoral and evil.
As many of us knew, Obamacare is a very bad bill.

" The proposed regulation, designed to implement part of Obamacare, will require all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives–including those that cause abortions—without charging any fees or co-pay."

Shame on Notre Dame for covering the Cross at Obama’s request… (Sorry, but I still can’t get over the fact that after 83 US Bishops wrote to Notre Dame, they had baby murdering Obama speak to graduates.)

Not only Bishops and Priests, but we as well have a responsibility to actively promote the reading of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” to insure accuracy and guard against relativism and secularism and heresy.
Let’s all do our part for better catechesis.

 

[St_Francis]

Perhaps, but those babies are not intended to survive either now are they?

I misunderstoof your previois comment; while abortion is a medical term used for all endings of pregnancy which are not considered birth, in normal non-medical conversation abortion generally refers to a procured abortion.

There is a difference between shooting someone in the head and his dying from a stroke, no? The first is a death caused by a human action, and the second is a death caused by a natural process.

In the possibie case of a baby conceived at a time when the uterus is not ready for implantation, the subsequent death of the baby is not caused by human action. In fact, I would say that the likelihood of this happening to a couple who is using NFP in order to avoid pregnancy is the same or less than a couple not using NFP or any form of artificial birth control.

The intention of using NFP to avoid pregnancy is to… avoid pregnancy, not to cause the death of an unborn child.

When Catholics say that they are against abortion, they are not against what medical people call spontaneous abortion, which can’t be helped (barring sometimes successful attempts to prevent the miscarriage). But the moral situation is completely different in each case.

 

[bellasbane]

Could you explain? Thanks.

The pill doesn’t always prevent conception - sometimes a woman will ovulate even while using it. However, the hormones in the pill also make the lining of uterus too thin to support implantation - so the fertilized egg fails to implant and dies from lack of nourishment. Hence it has both “abortifacient” as well as a contraceptive properties.

NFP capitalizes on the same principle - couples time their intercourse for those periods when a women is not “fertile” which includes the time between ovulation as well as the time when the uterus is not ready for implantation. That means that sometimes conception occurs, but the fertilized egg fails to implant and dies from lack of nourishment.

 

[bellasbane]

I misunderstoof your previois comment; while abortion is a medical term used for all endings of pregnancy which are not considered birth, in normal non-medical conversation abortion generally refers to a procured abortion.

There is a difference between shooting someone in the head and his dying from a stroke, no? The first is a death caused by a human action, and the second is a death caused by a natural process.

In the possibie case of a baby conceived at a time when the uterus is not ready for implantation, the subsequent death of the baby is not caused by human action. In fact, I would say that the likelihood of this happening to a couple who is using NFP in order to avoid pregnancy is the same or less than a couple not using NFP or any form of artificial birth control.

The intention of using NFP to avoid pregnancy is to… avoid pregnancy, not to cause the death of an unborn child.

When Catholics say that they are against abortion, they are not against what medical people call spontaneous abortion, which can’t be helped (barring sometimes successful attempts to prevent the miscarriage). But the moral situation is completely different in each case.

You’re right. I’m not going to argue with you, because that is exactly what the Church teaches and I don’t argue with what the Church teaches (at least not publicly )

 

[JimG]

Yes, Obama has a Catholic problem. He has a Catholic problem with respect to policies on abortion, gay marriage, DOMA, conscience protection for religious groups, Planned Parenthood funding, embryonic stem cell destruction, and a number of other issues.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Why are we even asking this question?

Does someone here want to state the obvious comment?

Want me to do it…? Ok. Wait for it…Wait for it…

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Of course Obama has a Catholic problem. The man is probably the most Anti-Catholic teaching, Pro-Death President we as Americans have ever had. Sheesh.