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

[Julia_Mae]

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.

Yeah, it’s too bad the Supreme Court never consults us when making these decisions. The Court is as likely to find the hospital or educational institution is a corporate body and as such does not enjoy the same status as an individual practicing their faith. No individual is forced to work there. OTOH, if the Archdiocese owns the institution and substantial religious observance is present there, they could find that the institution is part of the Church.

Of course, I can be entirely wrong and it will come down to some other technical issue. Or the Court will refuse to hear it. The Court might also take into consideration how beliefs are enforced or practiced. Finding a majority of Catholics use birth control, of all types, is liable to carry more weight with the Court than what “policy-makers” (Bishops) say. It’s an interesting case.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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?

Walgreen’s is not the government, and has no coercive power to force Catholics or any American to do anything. You didn’t think this through very carefully. The lottery is voluntary and no Baptist has to contribute to that usage, either.

 

[prodigalson2011]

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).

They would be placing the condoms over the tops of the open bottles. As the yeast converts the sugar into alcohol, it releases gases which inflate the condom. This way you can keep tabs on the wine’s progress and control its potency.
However, that’s a lame excuse for supporting the condom industry; most home-wine-makers use the more obvious, equally effective and less expensive option: balloons.

 

[Joe_5859]

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 phrase “separation of Church and State” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or any of its Ammendments.

To interpret the 1st Ammendment’s protection of religious freedom in such a limited way as applying solely to entities that the government defines as “churches” is part of the problem. (Just for starters, it would exclude all those other religions that don’t use the word “church” in their religious vocabulary.)

Religious freedom applies to individuals, not just corporate entities. And this mandate requires individuals to pay for something that violates their beliefs. The 1st Amendment was put in place to prevent just such policies as this.

 

[back74]

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.

Luke 20-25

20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. 25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

I post this not to cause conflict, but so I may better explain my confusion. We all pay taxes to our government much of which is used for actions of which we may be diametrically opposed. But these taxes are collected for the common good such as public education. We need public schools to be certain all children have access to a decent general education. For those of us who desire our children to have a faith based education, we have the right to send them to parochial school for the specific teachings of which we approve. This is where I get confused by any religious institution that may blur the line between church and state. My father was a Lutheran minister and insisted my siblings and I go to public schools and our religious upbringing was administered in the home and at my church. What worked for my family does not mean it does for all, but I do believe we need to support our Republic through taxation and our church through tithing and other charitable avenues. As much as I support women’s reproductive rights, I just as adamantly support any religious institution opposed to it. It is their right. But to accept federal dollars through the school voucher program and then insist on church doctrine across the board creates a double standard that I find difficult to resolve. And I realize the Catholic church does not insist non-Catholic employees refuse contraception, but what is covered by insurance now includes contraception just as it does Viagra which use is sanctioned by the Catholic church (within the confines of marriage). Perhaps it’s semantics. Viagra is deemed an aid to nature whereas contraception is not. Not getting pregnant when one cannot afford another child or who may have genetic concerns to me is an aid to nature …… my belief. Beyond that, what of those of us who have chosen not to have children. It saddens me to know that in the Catholic church, I may be considered living in sin although I have been married for 30 years. My choice was very personal and very wise for my husband and myself.
I know I’m rambling and I apologize for that. I just have such a difficult time with these issues. But in the end, I certainly can see much of your point and respect your opinion. Thank you for your kind and heartfelt response.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The phrase “separation of Church and State” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or any of its Ammendments.

That’s correct. Just as the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Sctipture. But the Supreme court has used it for awhile, they who interpret the Constitution, and declared that the First Amendment requires separation of church and state…

(Just for starters, it would exclude all those other religions that don’t use the word “church” in their religious vocabulary.)

No, it wouldn’t. Because churches don’t define what a “church” is or what “religion” is in the context of the Constitution. See: Scientology.

Religious freedom applies to individuals, not just corporate entities. And this mandate requires individuals to pay for something that violates their beliefs. The 1st Amendment was put in place to prevent just such policies as this.

Pretty sure the Founders had much different ideas in mind related to the very recent past and this never occurred to them. And, your argument has been made before by those who didn’t want to “pay” for whatever they felt was their personal religious choice. The Court refrains from sniggering and tossing you penny as you can’t make change. The Court will, i this is heard, most likely hold as they have before, that the right of an individual and his physician to make decisions about health care will take precedence over some theoretical and minuscule amount of money someone might pay.

It goes against my religion to pay for murdering people, and as soon as the Bishops tell us all to withhold taxes until that stops, I don’t think the world or most of the faithful are going to have much sympathy for your position.

It really is irrelevant what we believe anyway, the Court will decide this if it accepts the case if it goes that far.

 

[L_piperatus]

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 and welcome to the Forums,

here’s another perspective on taking federal tax dollars = the people’s money. This is why I support BYU’s (the Mormon Brigham Young University in Utah) right to forbid the consumption of alcohol and coffee on their campus, even though I do consume coffee, and also alcohol (in moderation). If BYU takes tax dollars, e.g. in the form of Pell grants for students, let’s not forget who supplies those tax dollars: we the taxpayers, many of whom are religious Mormons who do wish to have a choice of a university that abides by Mormon doctrine. Therefore, the state would be defrauding Mormon taxpayers if it sent the IRS to tax them, but then when it gave them back some of their own money, it attached strings to it such as “you cannot run your university according to your own doctrine, you must serve coffee and beer in your cafeterias”.

Also, at a point I was looking into applying for a job at a prestigious research institute in Salt Lake City and guess what, I was fully prepared to refrain from “hot drinks” (coffee, tea) and alcohol on their premises, this being an institution established and run by Mormons. If I had a big problem with Mormon rules being enforced and no coffee allowed at a Mormon workplace, I was always free to look for a different employer.

On a similar logical basis, I don’t get why some people think that they have a “right” for birth control pills on their employer’s dime. These people should simply get a job elsewhere, if their free birth control pills are so important to them. I would find it preposterous to take a job at a Mormon employer and then start pounding the table for free hot coffee and whatnot paid by my Mormon employer; I find it similarly preposterous that some people are trying to use the state to force all Catholic employers to provide free birth control pills to their employees.

And again, regarding the state giving tax dollars to Catholic institutions - e.g. school vouchers to kids’ parents to be used in Catholic K-12 schools, Pell grants to students attending Catholic colleges/universities, and so on, the point is this: I’m a Catholic taxpayer, and part of that “State” or “Federal” money is MY MONEY, and my fellow CATHOLIC TAXPAYERS’ MONEY. I want my tax dollars to go to schools that teach kids in accord with the Catholic faith. I want school vouchers so that Catholic parents can send their kids to Catholic schools, Lutheran parents can send their kids to Lutheran schools, Jewish parents send their kids to Jewish schools, Muslim parents can choose Muslim schools for their own kids, and yes , atheist parents can choose schools for their own kids that will teach them atheism or no religion at all.

The way I see things, it is the state that’s perpetrating tyranny against me, the Catholic taxpayer, sending the IRS to tax me, and then using my tax dollars to subsidize atheistic public schools against my will, schools that will indoctrinate children in sexual promiscuity, the gay agenda, and all things anti-Catholic, using MY TAX DOLLARS! This is why I support school vouchers. Twenty-four percent of Americans are Catholics and we pay our taxes, too - so why should we put up with a state taking our money and using it to subsidize all things that we find immoral, anti-Catholic, and reprehensible?

Also, I do find this contraception mandate yet another form of the state exercising anti-Catholic tyranny, and forcing Catholics to pay for birth control pills, intrauterine devices and other devices and procedures, all of which we find immoral and reprehensible. Being an American should not mean allowing the state to force you to pay for other people’s immoral choices. Should I open my own business and should I end up employing other people, I definitely don’t want to provide them with a health insurance package that covers contraceptive and abortive drugs and devices, because I find those things immoral and reprehensible. I do not want to pay for a health insurance package that allows other people to contracept and abort their babies, free of charge to them, and paid by me, their employer. Such a scheme equals state tyranny in my mind.

 

[Joe_5859]

It really is irrelevant what we believe anyway, the Court will decide this if it accepts the case if it goes that far.

That’s a depressing thought. No use exercising our right to free speech. The only thing left is to wait patiently for an edict to be handed down by our social betters and to humbly accept whatever they deign to give us.

If that’s where we’re at as a country, it’s worse than I thought.

 

[Julia_Mae]

That’s a depressing thought. No use exercising our right to free speech. The only thing left is to wait patiently for an edict to be handed down by our social betters and to humbly accept whatever they deign to give us.

If that’s where we’re at as a country, it’s worse than I thought.

It’s always where we’ve been as a country! The problem is people think this is a"democracy." It isn’t and never was. It’s a Constitutional Republic. Or is supposed to be. It’s a country of Law, not whim of King or Dictator or easily swayable public opinion. You have the right to speak. That’s still rare in the world and we don’t value it enough. But the rule of Law is what counts.

When you want something to change, you change the Law. It is also true that prevailing culture affects the Court, that’s where speech comes in. But the position here is the minority position, including amongst Catholics.

 

[back74]

That’s correct. Just as the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Sctipture. But the Supreme court has used it for awhile, they who interpret the Constitution, and declared that the First Amendment requires separation of church and state…

No, it wouldn’t. Because churches don’t define what a “church” is or what “religion” is in the context of the Constitution. See: Scientology.

Pretty sure the Founders had much different ideas in mind related to the very recent past and this never occurred to them. And, your argument has been made before by those who didn’t want to “pay” for whatever they felt was their personal religious choice. The Court refrains from sniggering and tossing you penny as you can’t make change. The Court will, i this is heard, most likely hold as they have before, that the right of an individual and his physician to make decisions about health care will take precedence over some theoretical and minuscule amount of money someone might pay.

It goes against my religion to pay for murdering people, and as soon as the Bishops tell us all to withhold taxes until that stops, I don’t think the world or most of the faithful are going to have much sympathy for your position.

It really is irrelevant what we believe anyway, the Court will decide this if it accepts the case if it goes that far.

Thank you everyone for your feedback. Godspeed to all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s always where we’ve been as a country! The problem is people think this is a"democracy." It isn’t and never was. It’s a Constitutional Republic. Or is supposed to be. It’s a country of Law, not whim of King or Dictator or easily swayable public opinion. You have the right to speak. That’s still rare in the world and we don’t value it enough. But the rule of Law is what counts.

When you want something to change, you change the Law. It is also true that prevailing culture affects the Court, that’s where speech comes in. But the position here is the minority position, including amongst Catholics.

Part of the problem here is that Obama’s compulsive abortifacient rule is not a “law”, duly passed by a legislative body. The Democrat Congress precisley allowed Obama to rule by “whim” in Obamacare. Whatever the Supremes later think of it, when it comes to healthcare, we are now ruled by “whim” not by any legislative body.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Part of the problem here is that Obama’s compulsive abortifacient rule is not a “law”, duly passed by a legislative body. The Democrat Congress precisley allowed Obama to rule by “whim” in Obamacare. Whatever the Supremes later think of it, when it comes to healthcare, we are now ruled by “whim” not by any legislative body.

Well, you won’t get an argument from me that the United States doesn’t actually exist anymore as the Constitution has been systematically rendered irrelevant. We are now technically living under a state of martial law. It is now “legal” by law passed by the Republican Congress that overturned the Presidential veto, for the military to police within US boundaries, to arrest, detain - without charge, notification of relatives, or access to counsel or the famous phone call for as long as they want - anyone found within US borders. Including you.

We went to war illegally numerous times, and so, I say, pay for the condoms. It’s the least of your worries. I am now off-topic and so have said all I have to say on the topic.

 

[Roy5]

Don’t Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities receive tax monies for this or that service or project? As for Catholic Charities, I believe I read somewhere that the bulk of its money comes from tax monies. Poor people and others benefit, but so does the Catholic Church which can lay claim to providing such benefits.

I am not objecting to the Catholic objection, but the old and true adage remains 'he who pays the piper calls the tune". Most Americans - the vast majority - believe that artificial birth control is okay, even the large majority of Catholics. 

 Actually, I agree that Catholic institutions should not have to pay for birth control directly. Then, again, if this coverage is seen as part of the pay of the employee, one of his/her benefits, maybe some compromise could be worked out. Employees who choose not to have birth control covered could be exempted and paid a bit more. Employees who want that coverage could be paid a little less and have it covered. In that sense, the employee and not the employer is basically paying for the extra benefit???

Just a thought.

 I wonder if this whole controversy may, in the long run, injure the Catholic Church. The overwhelming majority of Americans take issue with the Church when it comes to birth control, and this controversy reminds Catholics that their church condemns what most of them do on a regular basis and without guilt. This can alienate more than have been alienated already by this particular position of the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

Don’t Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities receive tax monies for this or that service or project? As for Catholic Charities, I believe I read somewhere that the bulk of its money comes from tax monies. Poor people and others benefit, but so does the Catholic Church which can lay claim to providing such benefits.

I am not objecting to the Catholic objection, but the old and true adage remains 'he who pays the piper calls the tune". Most Americans - the vast majority - believe that artificial birth control is okay, even the large majority of Catholics. 

 Actually, I agree that Catholic institutions should not have to pay for birth control directly. Then, again, if this coverage is seen as part of the pay of the employee, one of his/her benefits, maybe some compromise could be worked out. Employees who choose not to have birth control covered could be exempted and paid a bit more. Employees who want that coverage could be paid a little less and have it covered. In that sense, the employee and not the employer is basically paying for the extra benefit???

Just a thought.

 I wonder if this whole controversy may, in the long run, injure the Catholic Church. The overwhelming majority of Americans take issue with the Church when it comes to birth control, and this controversy reminds Catholics that their church condemns what most of them do on a regular basis and without guilt. This can alienate more than have been alienated already by this particular position of the Church.

The Catholic Church does not “benefit” from receiving public funds. The Catholic Church is able to serve the wider society because of public funds. Accepting federal funds does not give the government the unchecked right to control any and every organization they give funds to.

But, again, as I have said many times already, this is beside the point. This mandate has nothing whatsoever to do with the distribution of federal tax money. The mandate applies equally to everyone (individuals and corporate entities) regardless of tax exempt status or whether they have received federal funds. This mandate would force my friend with his own business to pay for these services in violation of his own conscience, despite the fact that he pays taxes and receives no money from the government.

These “he who pays the piper calls the tune” arguments are red herrings, not to mention simplisitic and somewhat insulting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities receive tax monies for this or that service or project? As for Catholic Charities, I believe I read somewhere that the bulk of its money comes from tax monies. Poor people and others benefit, but so does the Catholic Church which can lay claim to providing such benefits.

I am not objecting to the Catholic objection, but the old and true adage remains 'he who pays the piper calls the tune". Most Americans - the vast majority - believe that artificial birth control is okay, even the large majority of Catholics. 

 Actually, I agree that Catholic institutions should not have to pay for birth control directly. Then, again, if this coverage is seen as part of the pay of the employee, one of his/her benefits, maybe some compromise could be worked out. Employees who choose not to have birth control covered could be exempted and paid a bit more. Employees who want that coverage could be paid a little less and have it covered. In that sense, the employee and not the employer is basically paying for the extra benefit???

Just a thought.

 I wonder if this whole controversy may, in the long run, injure the Catholic Church. The overwhelming majority of Americans take issue with the Church when it comes to birth control, and this controversy reminds Catholics that their church condemns what most of them do on a regular basis and without guilt. This can alienate more than have been alienated already by this particular position of the Church.

First of all, while employees undoubtedly pay a part of their coverage, they certainly do not pay the whole thing.

Second, it’s not just “birth control”. It’s also abortifacients and sterilizations.

Third, while undoubtedly some people will think ill of the Church for this, the Baptists sure don’t seem to, at least, nor do the Orthodox, both of whom joined in this protest. I expect there will be others.

Fourth, while the “piper” may “call the tune”, one has to ask who the piper is and what the tune is, before endorsing the piper’s moral right to call the tune. The real “piper” here is the American taxpayer. Most Americans do not support abortion on demand. We’re talking about the “usurping piper”. Does the old adage fit that? And, let’s say I’m a soldier. Well, if one assumes the government is the piper, and if the piper tells me to gun down civilians willy-nilly, am I still morally obliged to let the piper “call that tune”, just because my paycheck comes from the government?

No one would say I am.

It is astounding how many people and companies are “government contractors” according to the government’s definition of that term. When you get right down to it, every Social Security recipient is paid by “the piper”. And if the “piper” tells a senior citizen to take the euthanasia pill (and it might) is the senior citizen morally obliged to pop the pill?

No one would say he/she is.