Does the legality of selling contraceptives at Walgreens violate the conscience rights of Catholics opposed to contraception?

[Bartolome_Casas]

American citizens of the USA are reflected upon by what their government makes legal.

The government of the USA makes it legal to buy and sell contraceptive pills and devices at Walgreens.

Why doesn’t THAT violate the conscience rights of all Catholics in the USA? The laws of THEIR government are facilitating mortal sin.

Or what about the Catholics who may work as the cashier at Walgreens, being forced to ring up the condoms that some guy is buying?

What about laws in every state in the USA that violate Catholic Church teaching on divorce and remarriage? Why don’t those violate the conscience rights of Catholics?

What about state lottery and casino laws? Why don’t they violate the conscience rights of Baptists in the USA?

 

[MAV0524]

American citizens of the USA are reflected upon by what their government makes legal.

The government of the USA makes it legal to buy and sell contraceptive pills and devices at Walgreens.

Why doesn’t THAT violate the conscience rights of all Catholics in the USA? The laws of THEIR government are facilitating mortal sin.

Or what about the Catholics who may work as the cashier at Walgreens, being forced to ring up the condoms that some guy is buying?

What about laws in every state in the USA that violate Catholic Church teaching on divorce and remarriage? Why don’t those violate the conscience rights of Catholics?

What about state lottery and casino laws? Why don’t they violate the conscience rights of Baptists in the USA?

Catholic teaching doesn’t require the government to ban everything that is sinful. Some contraceptives prevent implantation of embryos and should be banned (but that is probably a long shot at this moment).

“Ringing up” condoms has been widely considered to remote material cooperation with evil. Now if your employer requires you to “hand out” condoms, such as college dorm advisor, I think that goes too far for a Catholic to do IMO.

Current divorce laws probably do violate rights of Catholics I am sure in some way or manner.

Practicing Catholics are a small minority in this country. We can have influence but for us to expect to get everything we want is a bit unrealistic. Heck, Church teaching requires the state to worship God and honor the saints in a Catholic manner… not exactly going to happen anytime soon in the USA.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

No, the government is in no way, shape, or form, required to follow Catholic teaching on any matter, and nor should it! In addition, Catholic teaching holds that no government should follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church hold freedom in great esteem and as such, doesn’t require governments to impose Catholic teaching on its laws.

However, when the government forces Catholics to buy something which they find sinful and evil, then the government is crossing the line. Freedom of Religion goes both ways: religion cannot interfere in the processes of government, and the government cannot interfere with the teachings of religions, even if the religions hold views that are unpopular or undesirable.

 

[prodigalson2011]

American citizens of the USA are reflected upon by what their government makes legal.

The government of the USA makes it legal to buy and sell contraceptive pills and devices at Walgreens.

Why doesn’t THAT violate the conscience rights of all Catholics in the USA? The laws of THEIR government are facilitating mortal sin.

Or what about the Catholics who may work as the cashier at Walgreens, being forced to ring up the condoms that some guy is buying?

What about laws in every state in the USA that violate Catholic Church teaching on divorce and remarriage? Why don’t those violate the conscience rights of Catholics?

What about state lottery and casino laws? Why don’t they violate the conscience rights of Baptists in the USA?

The issue here is that the government is forcing SPECIFICALLY CATHOLIC ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES.
Walgreens is a secular institution. A Catholic hospital is not.

The examples you give are all rightly defended by separation of church and state.
The HHS mandate, however, seeks to allow the state to directly interfere in the moral affairs of the Church.

John Martignoni made a pretty good analogy for a caller who posed a similar question: It is as though the government were to tell YOU that you were required to buy cigarettes for your 12 year old child. They are forcing Catholics to do something that they view as both immoral and damaging to the well being of others.

 

[cjmclark]

The issues you cite here are incidental. The Catholic isn’t required to work at Walgreens…he or she could find a job elsewhere that doesn’t require them to sell products they find objectionable. The same for the Baptist…no one requires them to play (or even benefit from) the lottery.

The issue at hand with the HHS mandate is that it is directing religious employers (read: Catholic hospitals and schools) to make contraceptives and abortifacients available through their insurance plans. That means that all the Catholics who work there, whether they agree with the Church’s stance on contraceptives or not (which is actually immaterial) have to pay for the availability of those contraceptives by paying for their insurance.

The Church teaches that the use of contraceptives is wrong. Therefore, requiring Church-run institutions like hospitals and schools to require their employees (Catholic and otherwise) to pay for insurance plans that include funding for contraceptives seems to me to be a pretty clear violation of the whole “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” Unfortunately it’s the first part (“respecting the establishment of religion”) that gets all the attention, and nobody seems to pay much attention to the second part.

 

[back74]

Greetings Friends,

Thank you for the warm welcome and the opportunity to share my viewpoints and concerns as a Lutheran.

I’m confused. Why is it fine to accept tax dollars for school vouchers from those of us who champion woman’s reproductive rights but federal mandates in opposition to the Catholic churches doctrine cannot be tolerated even for employees who are not Catholic. I find I have a real problem with federal taxes going to any religious institution which perpetuates their specific doctrine. I believe this is precisely why we must have a true separation of church and state.

Please know, I fully respect the stance the Catholic church is taking which supports her doctrine, but having it both ways is very difficult for me to accept. If the Catholic church were to refuse monies from general taxation, you would have my complete and unequivical support. If not, I feel the Catholic church should accept the differing personal beliefs of non-Catholic employees and honor their rights as taxpaying individuals.

I trust my opinion is not found to be offensive as it is truly being submitted from a woman who simply wishes for grace and understanding between us all.

 

[cjmclark]

The school voucher debate…yikes.

This is a complicated morass. There are some who would say that it is fine to, as you put it, “accept tax dollars for school vouchers from those of us who champion woman’s reproductive rights” because they pay a substantial tuition for their children to attend parochial school and still pay taxes to support public schools that may require what they see as objectionable courses of study (a method of teaching sexual education, for example). But that’s really here nor there.

The issue here is that a religious institution, regardless of whether or not it receives federal funding, should still be protected under the First Amendment. There is no special protection under law for people who simply object to how their tax dollars are being spent, but there is (or there is supposed to be, at least) for religious institutions. Receiving tax money (especially in such a roundabout fashion as school vouchers, the ultimate use of which is up to the parents) does not justify a “buyout,” so to speak, of that First Amendment protection.

Also note here that the issue isn’t so much about the non-Catholic employees. They are not barred from seeking contraceptives any way they see fit. The issue is with making the Catholic institution and the Catholic employees pay for contraceptives (which they would by having to pay for their insurance plan under the HHS mandate) that their religious belief system (the free exercise of which is protected under law) says are wrong.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Greetings Friends,

Thank you for the warm welcome and the opportunity to share my viewpoints and concerns as a Lutheran.

I’m confused. Why is it fine to accept tax dollars for school vouchers from those of us who champion woman’s reproductive rights but federal mandates in opposition to the Catholic churches doctrine cannot be tolerated even for employees who are not Catholic. I find I have a real problem with federal taxes going to any religious institution which perpetuates their specific doctrine. I believe this is precisely why we must have a true separation of church and state.

Please know, I fully respect the stance the Catholic church is taking which supports her doctrine, but having it both ways is very difficult for me to accept. If the Catholic church were to refuse monies from general taxation, you would have my complete and unequivical support. If not, I feel the Catholic church should accept the differing personal beliefs of non-Catholic employees and honor their rights as taxpaying individuals.

I trust my opinion is not found to be offensive as it is truly being submitted from a woman who simply wishes for grace and understanding between us all.

Hi! First, welcome to the Forum… I thought I’d respond to your post, bc it is your first post, and I read it, but thought someone else might respond…

Anyways, it certaintly isn’t a very clear cut issue. On the one hand, it does seem that if the Catholic Church gets government money… then that probably comes with strings attached. And, the Catholic Church seems willing to accept these strings to a point. Obviously being forced to provide contraception is WAY over those lines.

On the other hand, the government has an interest in providing good education to everyone in the country (short of home-schoolers)… but I think they might have some loose standards as well (is curriculum in home school dictated by the state?). Anyways, if the government didn’t give money to Catholic education, then those schools wouldn’t be as good. Which, would be a lose-lose for the State and the Church. Yup, same sentence on that one.

Can school systems exist completely separate from the government? It would seem that neither the government or any school system wants to see that happen. Especially with Catholic schools… because they still school a whole lot of people. I saw recently that still somewhere between 2 million and 3 million students go to Catholic schools… Idk what the public figure is, a blind shot in the dark might be 25 million.

All that being said, if you eliminated the Federal Dept. of Education, that would be a move towards separating Church and State in the realm of education. But… I’m pretty sure all the State Governments also have a say in Religious/ Parochial schools in their states (as 90% of money which goes to education is handled by state governments)…

…Those seem to be my 60 cents on the issue… :twocents::twocents::twocents: Forgive me if I didn’t really answer a question directly.

**What I’m getting at I think is this: Both the Government and the Church want well educated students. But, the Government probably also wants to make sure that American history (their textbooks), and American civics, etc. are taught. And not Catholic History in America, and Pope Pius XII Economics, etc. This might’ve been the reason the state first started giving money to religious education. [And schools obviously always want more funds, no matter who you are].
**
-Though, I was educated in the public schools… so I’m no expert when it comes to Catholic schools.

 

[Joe_5859]

The difference is also that the cashiers at Walgreens are not being forced against their will to purchase the contraception and pass it out to the customer free of charge. That is what the HHS mandate requires from every employer (with few exceptions).

This is unacceptable. Catholics are being forced against their will to pay for something that violates their conscience. I’m not one to use the word “draconian” lightly. I prefer to reserve such emotionally-charged rhetoric for situations that truly warrant it. This is one of those situations. The word “draconian” was invented for situations like this. And the 1st Ammendment was created to prevent just such draconian policies from ever seeing the light of day.

I could almost see the logic behind this decision if contraception was something that was medically necessary and not widely available. But it is neither. I have to pay a copay everytime I take my kids in for an ear infection and get them a prescription, but I have a “right” to unlimited contraception at no cost? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

 

[Joe_5859]

Greetings Friends,

Thank you for the warm welcome and the opportunity to share my viewpoints and concerns as a Lutheran.

I’m confused. Why is it fine to accept tax dollars for school vouchers from those of us who champion woman’s reproductive rights but federal mandates in opposition to the Catholic churches doctrine cannot be tolerated even for employees who are not Catholic. I find I have a real problem with federal taxes going to any religious institution which perpetuates their specific doctrine. I believe this is precisely why we must have a true separation of church and state.

Please know, I fully respect the stance the Catholic church is taking which supports her doctrine, but having it both ways is very difficult for me to accept. If the Catholic church were to refuse monies from general taxation, you would have my complete and unequivical support. If not, I feel the Catholic church should accept the differing personal beliefs of non-Catholic employees and honor their rights as taxpaying individuals.

I trust my opinion is not found to be offensive as it is truly being submitted from a woman who simply wishes for grace and understanding between us all.

We can certainly debate about these sorts of things, but it really doesn’t have any bearing on the HHS mandate. The HHS mandate is binding on everyone. Whether the institution is tax-exempt (or not) and whether the institution receives federal monies (or not) is irrelevant.

Personally, though, I would say that religious people also pay taxes. And we don’t like paying for our children’s education twice. Distributing tax monies to institutions that serve the good of the society does not give the federal government the right to control any and every organization. The government’s role and responsibility is to allocate funds justly in the best interest of the larger society. If they’re telling everyone what to do, they’re greatly overstepping their authority.

 

[manualman]

Greetings Friends,

Thank you for the warm welcome and the opportunity to share my viewpoints and concerns as a Lutheran.

I’m confused. Why is it fine to accept tax dollars for school vouchers from those of us who champion woman’s reproductive rights but federal mandates in opposition to the Catholic churches doctrine cannot be tolerated even for employees who are not Catholic. I find I have a real problem with federal taxes going to any religious institution which perpetuates their specific doctrine. I believe this is precisely why we must have a true separation of church and state.

You simply haven’t thought it through properly. All Americans are required to pay taxes that support education of all children. All parents have the primary right to educate their children as they see fit. The purpose of educational taxes is to support the parents in their role of educating their children. It isn’t “government money” is is “child education money.” It is a fundamental injustice to deny that support to parents who wish to educate their children in an environment compatible with (instead of hostile to) their faith. The money doesn’t belong to the District or the government. It belongs to the children who are the basis for the taxation in the first place! It is outright discrimination to claim that the children of catholics shall be stripped of the educational funding their parents were taxed to provide.

The recent HHS decree is not one that increases liberty. Americans have for generations been able to go out and buy contraceptives legally. What Obamacare will now do is force institutions that were established specifically as a support to the mission of spreading the gospel to violate the tenets of that gospel. From Washington, they demand that private institutions spend their OWN money to fund activities that violate their own core beliefs.

You think that’s similar?? Apples and pumpkins!!

 

[manualman]

American citizens of the USA are reflected upon by what their government makes legal.

The government of the USA makes it legal to buy and sell contraceptive pills and devices at Walgreens.

Why doesn’t THAT violate the conscience rights of all Catholics in the USA? The laws of THEIR government are facilitating mortal sin.

Well, because up until now, the USA hasn’t demanded that when my neighbor wants to go to Walgreens and buy abortion pills that I have to pay for it.

Starting next year, that changes. Upon the new Obama mandate, the parish secretary who doesn’t practice the faith will be able to go get her tubes tied and money that I donate to the parish for the purpose of spreading the gospel will be used to pay for that.

You DON’T see the difference???

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

“Ringing up” condoms has been widely considered to remote material cooperation with evil. Now if your employer requires you to “hand out” condoms, such as college dorm advisor, I think that goes too far for a Catholic to do IMO.

Indeed: you don’t know what exactly they plan to use the condoms for: there was someone on here who said they use them as part of their home wine-making process (don’t remember how exactly that worked, but it was intriguing).

 

[Rence]

American citizens of the USA are reflected upon by what their government makes legal. The government of the USA makes it legal to buy and sell contraceptive pills and devices at Walgreens. Why doesn’t THAT violate the conscience rights of all Catholics in the USA? The laws of THEIR government are facilitating mortal sin. Or what about the Catholics who may work as the cashier at Walgreens, being forced to ring up the condoms that some guy is buying? What about laws in every state in the USA that violate Catholic Church teaching on divorce and remarriage? Why don’t those violate the conscience rights of Catholics? What about state lottery and casino laws? Why don’t they violate the conscience rights of Baptists in the USA?

The government is not required to follow the rules of Catholicism and in fact, does not base any laws on any one religion. There is no State religion, and the U.S. is not a Catholic country. There is no violation of anyone’s rights that Walgreens can sell condoms or other ABCs. No Catholic is required to go there and buy them. Employees are hired to do a job. An employee cannot withhold condoms anymore than an employee can withhold M&Ms from an overweight consumer.

Also, the laws in every state in the USA are no reflection on Sacramental marriage. Civil marriage is not recognized by the Church for Catholic couples. So the point is moot. A Catholic couple who is divorced civilly is still married Sacramentally unless the couple is given an annullment. Therefore the civil laws regarding civil marriage and divorce are not against the conscience rights of Catholics.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Indeed: you don’t know what exactly they plan to use the condoms for: there was someone on here who said they use them as part of their home wine-making process (don’t remember how exactly that worked, but it was intriguing).

I’d be very slow to say that making wine justifies supporting a company that manufactures condoms.

 

[beehumble]

American citizens of the USA are reflected upon by what their government makes legal.

The government of the USA makes it legal to buy and sell contraceptive pills and devices at Walgreens.

Why doesn’t THAT violate the conscience rights of all Catholics in the USA? The laws of THEIR government are facilitating mortal sin.

Or what about the Catholics who may work as the cashier at Walgreens, being forced to ring up the condoms that some guy is buying?

What about laws in every state in the USA that violate Catholic Church teaching on divorce and remarriage? Why don’t those violate the conscience rights of Catholics?

What about state lottery and casino laws? Why don’t they violate the conscience rights of Baptists in the USA?

I will say if flat out - any Catholic agreeing or thinking the OP situation described above is the same as the HHS mandate forcing Catholics to violate their beliefs, is as dumb as a box of rocks. Period.

God bless you.

God bless you.

 

[OrangeOwl]

Indeed: you don’t know what exactly they plan to use the condoms for: there was someone on here who said they use them as part of their home wine-making process (don’t remember how exactly that worked, but it was intriguing).

According to Jimmy Akin, condoms were used to create the sandworms in the movie Dune…

And you can use the same argument for contraceptives anyway. The medication may be used for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy.

 

[hannajomar]

The government of the USA makes it legal to buy and sell contraceptive pills and devices at Walgreens.

Or what about the Catholics who may work as the cashier at Walgreens, being forced to ring up the condoms that some guy is buying?

I think you’re making an inaccurate comparison here. Walgreens is not required to sell contraception, nor is anyone forced to work there. The government wants to force the Catholic Church (and essentially all those who donate money to it) to purchase something which is against it’s teachings. That would be similar to forcing Jewish delis to sell ham sandwiches because a lot of people eat ham sandwiches. As someone who receives my health insurance from the Church, money that could be given to my husband in his salary will have to pay for services which I will never use. Why are you against people choosing their own health insurance?

 

[Julia_Mae]

American citizens of the USA are reflected upon by what their government makes legal.

No, the Constitution which is the USA should be reflected in the law. The Constitution requires separation of church and state. The laws confirm the freedom of people to act on their own beliefs.

This is where the controversy about the upcoming enactment of “Obama care” comes from, where it requires all employers to provide contraception and abortion in the insurance plans. The issue will probably come down to the Court deciding what exactly constitutes a “church.” Is the Church a hospital that an Archdiocese operates, for instance.

The other question is: does a church, as a corporate body, have the same freedom of choice as the individual?

 

[cjmclark]

No, the Constitution which is the USA should be reflected in the law. The Constitution requires separation of church and state. The laws confirm the freedom of people to act on their own beliefs.

This is where the controversy about the upcoming enactment of “Obama care” comes from, where it requires all employers to provide contraception and abortion in the insurance plans. The issue will probably come down to the Court deciding what exactly constitutes a “church.” Is the Church a hospital that an Archdiocese operates, for instance.

The other question is: does a church, as a corporate body, have the same freedom of choice as the individual?

The definition of “church” should be irrelevant. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

It seems clear (to me, at least) that this mandate requires Catholic individuals, in the persons of the employees and administrators who have to pay for the insurance plan in question, to violate precepts of their religion, thereby prohibiting its free exercise.