Gonzaga University will cover contraception but promises to clearly communicate Church teaching

[CMatt25]

The American people did vote. I don’t understand why Catholics can’t seem to understand though that not every American agrees with the Catholic faith on what is “intrinsic evil”. I do not reside in Vatican City. I reside in the United States of America. And not providing contraceptive coverage since they can be needed for health care would violate my conscience and religious freedom. Nor do I believe it is my business if a non Catholic woman who has the coverage takes birth control in the privacy of her home. Nor do I believe big government should be sticking it’s nose into it. And Catholic women are free to choose not to use their employer contraceptive coverage. The bottom line is this earth is an imperfect world. Balancing rights and freedoms in a society of plural beliefs can be difficult and is not always black and white. Not everyone is always going to be pleased with every law of the land in which they live.

 

[sw85]

It may not be Gonzaga’s fault for the implemention of the HHS mandate but they could take a page from other Catholic institutions and sue the government. Why is it that Liberty University is doing it but not a Catholic institution?

I don’t think they’re obligated to do that from a moral perspective, though. And very likely they intuit that such lawsuits will fail (and I think they will) and that it’s not worth the legal expense (which it wouldn’t be if they lost).

I suspect Liberty University is doing it more for reasons of (quite understandable) hatred for leftists than any real religious conviction that contraception is evil.

Exactly. The mandate is the law of the land. And the option of Gonzaga covering nothing I fail to see as a Christian how that would fit into our Lord’s call to care for the sick. The Supreme Court has spoken. The American people spoke last month when we had an election.

I hope you realize none of these things make the law good. Gonzaga is not doing the right thing, it’s just doing the best thing it can do given the circumstances. It’s inculpable cooperation with evil.

And not providing contraceptive coverage since they can be needed for health care would violate my conscience and religious freedom.

You are using both of those terms improperly. Please reread the *Catechism *and Dignitatis Humanae, respectively.

The bottom line is this earth is an imperfect world. Balancing rights and freedoms in a society of plural beliefs can be difficult and is not always black and white. Not everyone is always going to be pleased with every law of the land in which they live.

You are severely downplaying the ugliness of the issue. This isn’t an issue where he have to grudgingly go along to get along like everyone else. Catholics are being forced to violate the normative moral order in order to make life marginally easier for aggressive and remorseless degenerates like Sandra Fluke. Catholics have a right to be pissed about that, even if circumstances may make it prudent for them to acquiesce.

 

[CMatt25]

The bottom line is that the federal government should not be telling employers whether and what kind of health insurance they must provide. The federal government should not be mandating that any employer must provide insurance coverage which violates his religion or go out of business. If freedom of religion means anythng, it means the freedom to practice one’s religion. And the US Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees.

People who don’t oppose the mandate as much as you do might believe there needs to be some uniformity in coverage. And I don’t believe it is my business if a non Catholic woman who has the coverage takes birth control in the privacy of her home. Nor do I believe big government should be sticking it’s nose into it. And Catholic women are free to choose not to use their employer coverage if contraception violates their conscience.

 

[CMatt25]

Catholics are being forced to violate the normative moral order in order to make life marginally easier for aggressive and remorseless degenerates like Sandra Fluke.

I don’t find calling someone like Sandra Fluke a degenerate all that charitable. But to each their own definition of charitable I guess.

 

[JimG]

People who don’t oppose the mandate as much as you do might believe there needs to be some uniformity in coverage. And I don’t believe it is my business if a non Catholic woman who has the coverage takes birth control in the privacy of her home. Nor do I believe big government should be sticking it’s nose into it. And Catholic women are free to choose not to use their employer coverage if contraception violates their conscience.

On the contrary, I believe it would be better not to enforce uniformity in coverage. Many people would do best with a catastrophic policy only, not one which covers ever possible office visit. And it would be cheaper. Those and other kinds of policies are becoming less and less available because of the federal government forcing uniformity.

Will they also tell Walmart and Target what items they must carry? Does everyone need birth control as a mandated no-co-pay item? Of course not. Sterilization coverage? No. Abortifacient drugs? No. But that’s what HHS requires. Let employers decide what kind of policy to offer. I want to see less uniformity, not more.

And the government is already sticking its nose into it. It ought to keep out of it.

 

[JMJSHJ]

The American people did vote. I don’t understand why Catholics can’t seem to understand though that not every American agrees with the Catholic faith on what is “intrinsic evil”. I do not reside in Vatican City. I reside in the United States of America. And not providing contraceptive coverage since they can be needed for health care would violate my conscience and religious freedom. The bottom line is this earth is an imperfect world. Balancing rights and freedoms in a society of plural beliefs can be difficult and is not always black and white. Not everyone is always going to be pleased with every law of the land in which they live.

Catholics aren’t asking that everyone be prevented from getting or supplying contraceptive coverage. Catholics are asking that they not be forced to provide as part of their health care coverage. Not everyone in the USA is Catholic.

Just because your employer may not provide contraceptive coverage doesn’t in any way prevent you from getting it at Wal-Mart or other places for next to nothing. As a result your allegation that such a prevention from your employer would violate your conscience and religious freedom is incorrect.

 

[CMatt25]

On the contrary, I believe it would be better not to enforce uniformity in coverage. Many people would do best with a catastrophic policy only, not one which covers ever possible office visit.

We will simply have to agree to disagree then. Because I believe providing routine office visits might be better until waiting until catastrophe hits. Sometimes routine office visits can catch something before it turns into a health catastrophe. But in any case God bless and peace.

 

[JimG]

Nothing wrong with routine office visits. There’s a lot wrong with the government forcing every insurance policy to pay for them. People having been paying for their own routine office visits for generations.

But forcing such coverage does have the effect of providing guranteed income to healthcare providers and raising prices.

 

[CMatt25]

Catholics aren’t asking that everyone be prevented from getting or supplying contraceptive coverage. Catholics are asking that they not be forced to provide as part of their health care coverage. Not everyone in the USA is Catholic.

Just because your employer may not provide contraceptive coverage doesn’t in any way prevent you from getting it at Wal-Mart or other places for next to nothing. As a result your allegation that such a prevention from your employer would violate your conscience and religious freedom is incorrect.

Except if we are going to maintain a healthcare system geared towards employer based coverage and not something like many other industrialized countries have, Catholics are employers. Anyway you don’t know my conscience. Nor my heart. God knows. His blessings to you and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Nothing wrong with routine office visits. There’s a lot wrong with the government forcing every insurance policy to pay for them. People having been paying for their own routine office visits for generations.

And people have been avoiding office visits for generations too because they can’t afford them or don’t have coverage. Then they may show up in the ER when things get worse. And someone is paying for that. Or they may visit an office but then can’t afford all the tests the dr suggests if they don’t have coverage. The more I think about it and all of this discussion about employer based coverage, maybe we should just go to single payer and then no one has to worry about employer mandates.

 

[jwinch2]

The American people did vote. I don’t understand why Catholics can’t seem to understand though that not every American agrees with the Catholic faith on what is “intrinsic evil”. I do not reside in Vatican City. I reside in the United States of America. And not providing contraceptive coverage since they can be needed for health care would violate my conscience and religious freedom. The bottom line is this earth is an imperfect world. Balancing rights and freedoms in a society of plural beliefs can be difficult and is not always black and white. Not everyone is always going to be pleased with every law of the land in which they live.

Is anyone forcing you to attend a Catholic university or work for a Catholic organization? If not, then your rights are in no way being violated by others exercising their conscience.

 

[Lucky7]

No, but it demonstrates the flaw in reasoning used earlier. Apply that principle you outlined to any other coverage the Church finds evil, such as abortion, and it is apparent it is flawed. For example, the state of Washington has considered a bill to mandate abortion coverage. If it were passed, would your reasoning be the same for Catholic institutions in WA?

I would like to hear CMatt25 and Rence’s response to this question.

 

[scipio337]

People who don’t oppose the mandate as much as you do might believe there needs to be some uniformity in coverage. And I don’t believe it is my business if a non Catholic woman who has the coverage takes birth control in the privacy of her home. Nor do I believe big government should be sticking it’s nose into it. And Catholic women are free to choose not to use their employer coverage if contraception violates their conscience.

Fine. Just don’t ask for a Catholic to pay for that coverage. You’re right, “big government shouldn’t be sticking it’s nose into it”.

 

[sw85]

I don’t find calling someone like Sandra Fluke a degenerate all that charitable. But to each their own definition of charitable I guess.

I assume you’re using “charity” to mean “giving people the benefit of the doubt” (since you obviously don’t mean it in the sense of “willing what’s best for another,” since rebuking sinners and apologists for sin is consistent with charity in a way deferring to them isn’t). What doubt is there, though? The woman appeared before Congress to bemoan that she was going broke buying contraception to sleep around, and to demand that taxpayers fund her.

Charity doesn’t oblige us to believe nonsense. She’s a reprobate, and this aspect of the healthcare law is intended to promote degeneracy.

 

[scipio337]

I would like to hear CMatt25 and Rence’s response to this question.

I’m sure the reasoning would be the same.

Their defense? “The Catholic Church can’t force their beliefs on a pluralistic society”.

Unless, of course, those beliefs are regarding Catholic “Social Doctrine”.

It’s called confirmation bias. Or something a little more harsh that I’d rather not use.

 

[scipio337]

I assume you’re using “charity” to mean “giving people the benefit of the doubt” (since you obviously don’t mean it in the sense of “willing what’s best for another,” since rebuking sinners and apologists for sin is consistent with charity in a way deferring to them isn’t). What doubt is there, though? The woman appeared before Congress to bemoan that she was going broke buying contraception to sleep around, and to demand that taxpayers fund her.

Charity doesn’t oblige us to believe nonsense. She’s a reprobate, and this aspect of the healthcare law is intended to promote degeneracy.

The average starting salary for a Georgetown Law graduate is $160,000 per annum — first job, first paycheck.

Sandra Fluke has enjoyed an education once reserved for the minor sons of Mitteleuropean grand dukes, and has concluded that the most urgent need facing the Brokest Nation in History is for someone else to pay for the contraception of 30-year-old children.

 

[CMatt25]

Is anyone forcing you to attend a Catholic university or work for a Catholic organization? If not, then your rights are in no way being violated by others exercising their conscience.

So the answer is for Catholics to only employ Catholics and for Catholic universities to only educate Catholics? Catholics only serve Catholics?

 

[CMatt25]

I would like to hear CMatt25 and Rence’s response to this question.

I’ll let Rence take it since of the 2 of us, she is the Catholic here.

 

[Suudy]

So the answer is for Catholics to only employ Catholics and for Catholic universities to only educate Catholics? Catholics only serve Catholics?

Employment is a service? What do you mean here? We are talking about employment, not services provided.

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t find calling someone like Sandra Fluke a degenerate all that charitable. But to each their own definition of charitable I guess.

LOL. I think that’s being VERY charitable.