How does having to provide birth control justify shutting down hospitals?

[ndeparis88]

Well I firmly believe in freedom of religion, and this is a blatant violation of that, even though its not my religion (or lack thereof).

That aside though, I still find it tragic that so many hospitals in our country are run by people that would literally shut them down over having to do this. It would be one thing if Catholic hospitals only treated Catholics…

Why thank you jmvizanko for believing in that. I am sincere about this.

The fact that this is a violation of freedom of religion is really a very big part about this. freedom of religion is included in our first freedom, which says that those rights are inalienable which means no one on earth can take it away form us. For they were given to us by God. Also there is the separation of Church and State. by the government imposing this mandate on us it is really well throwing that out the window. and if we don’t have freedom of Religion than what else can the government take away. If there was a pill that say only treated acne. Well Catholic hospitals would include that. Or if it just got rid of ovarian cysts without stopping birth, we would be all for it.

The thing is the government should REALIZE all the people we help, we are not putting anyone’s health at risk because of not handing out contraceptives, and we are not.

If a girl walks into a Catholic hospital because she needs pills that hospital should have the right to refuse, because it participating in an evil act. now the hospital across the street will hand them out than that’s fine. but you can’t demand we do give them just because you feel the right to have them.

What if the hospital was a Muslim or Jewish hospital , they don’t condone the use of contraceptives either.

you may have already heard these things, or have thought of them yourself.

What if instead of funneling money into abortion causing drugs Pharmaceuticals and Gov’t looked at curing health issues. Pregnancy is not a health issue not that I’m saying you think it is cause your an Atheist I’m just saying. like they made a pill as stated above that cures cysts and treats acne. These are Womens health issues.

It’s not just standing up for us. It’s about standing up for others, this is just to much. We are standing up for the right for people to have conviction. TO be able to hold to a creed is the inalienable right of everyone.

 

[ricofall]

The pill is widely used to treat acne. You can sit there and assume everyone using it to treat acne is secretly using it as birth control, but that’s just your baseless assumption. My wife used to take it for acne, and she was not sexually active.

The church does understand that the pill has other uses and allows it to be taken without issue under certain circumstances. In fact, I think that the HHS mandate would have less of and issue if they stopped at just covering the pill for other uses. But they choose to include abortifacients and other abortion inducting drugs regardless of what the institution stance is.

 

[Rence]

I can respect that Catholics have their stance on birth control,even if I don’t agree with it. But when I hear somebody say “it would be a shame if we had to shut all of these hospitals down because of it,” I have to ask, how is that not insane? Are you honestly trying to tell me that having to dispense a few pills is worth not performing millions of miracles of modern medicine in the applicable facilities? I completely disagree with the political reasons why the hospitals should have to dispense birth control, but how is this an appropriate response? I mean, if its only a threat to get what they want with the politics, so be it. But does anybody actually condone shutting down a hospital over this?

Not that I’ve been all over the world or anything, but usually hospitals don’t “close down”. Rather, they get bought out, and ownership changes. More than likely, this hypothetical hospital will just change ownership and cease to be a Catholic hospital. So the hospital more than likely won’t “close”…

 

[gus]

Well I firmly believe in freedom of religion, and this is a blatant violation of that, even though its not my religion (or lack thereof).

That aside though, I still find it tragic that so many hospitals in our country are run by people that would literally shut them down over having to do this. It would be one thing if Catholic hospitals only treated Catholics…

Its always been a Christain doctrine to help the unforunate. The unborn included.
Many hospitals were run by religious oranization as they were the only ones willing to do it. .Also we were the only ones with oranization and staff to be sucessfull.
Even the famed Mayo clinic was a co-operation between the Mayo brothers and a Catholic religious order of sisters.
Hospitals did not operate for profit and medical insurance was unheard of.
most couldn’t afford to pay even the smallest fees.
We have always held the same principals since these hospitals were founded.
.
Now many in the country tell us that in order to continue providing the care we have to violate these same principals that were the reason for our very existance.
You tell me how you would feel?
The reality however is more sobering. The church does not really control these hospitals
many are already CINO. The great sisters of mercy who founded many hospital in the westerrn US are pretty much gone. So they didn’t live to see this grand scale theft of principal.
The Catholic hospital founded for the the good of the people it being replaced by the business model hospital which is one of the causes of the bankrupting of the US.
But worry not after the US goes bankrupt the Church hospital will rise up again as if by magic. Goverments come and go but the foundations placed in our trust by Christ will endure forever.

 

[St_Francis]

Well I firmly believe in freedom of religion, and this is a blatant violation of that, even though its not my religion (or lack thereof).

That aside though, I still find it tragic that so many hospitals in our country are run by people that would literally shut them down over having to do this. It would be one thing if Catholic hospitals only treated Catholics…

Is a gun owner obliged to sell a gun to a woman who wants to use it to kill someone just because he sells guns to other people?

How does the fact that Catholic hospitals treat non-Catholics an issue in this? People are not *entitled *to have Catholics treat them.

The fact that Catholic hospitals *do *treat everyone shows how committed Catholics are to human life. That commitment extends farther than your commitment to homan life, all the way to the unborn. But the two are interrelated: we care for your life, we care for her life, we care for his life, we care for the life of each unborn child.

Now the government wants to force us to ignore the lives of some just because they are not yet born. *How can we carry on our commitment to those who are born on the lives of the unborn? *

 

[steve9191]

I can respect that Catholics have their stance on birth control,even if I don’t agree with it. But when I hear somebody say “it would be a shame if we had to shut all of these hospitals down because of it,” I have to ask, how is that not insane? Are you honestly trying to tell me that having to dispense a few pills is worth not performing millions of miracles of modern medicine in the applicable facilities? I completely disagree with the political reasons why the hospitals should have to dispense birth control, but how is this an appropriate response? I mean, if its only a threat to get what they want with the politics, so be it. But does anybody actually condone shutting down a hospital over this?

In Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae he talks extensively about the consequences of artificial contraception and the damaging effects of it on society. As a precursor to the specifics of this warning he writes, “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it [emphasis mine].” 20th century man (including very many Catholics) in his seemingly inexhaustible pride thinks he knows better that God how to make things work properly. So we ignore his commandments.

This encyclical was written 44 years ago. Let’s see how prophetic his warning was. He writes, “Consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards;” and “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” I would add: as reverence for women declined, so too did reverence for our fellow man.

Finally, Pope Paul VI writes, “Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.” Hmm; seems to me we are now getting back to the topic at hand.

The very nature of God is fruitful expression of good. This is why Scripture relates the severe consequences for being unfruitful. When a being is created in the image and likeness of a God who is eternally fruitful, intentional Unfruitfulness forfeits his intended being and instead makes himself an animal/beast. While procreation is not the only form of fruitfulness, it seems to be pretty important to God since it is the only command given to all living creatures in the Genesis account of creation. I think that I can make a pretty good case (and I will do so in either article or book form) that artificial contraception is THE reason the world is in the shape that it is in.

 

[TimothyH]

In Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae he talks extensively about the consequences of artificial contraception and the damaging effects of it on society. As a precursor to the specifics of this warning he writes, “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it [emphasis mine].” 20th century man (including very many Catholics) in his seemingly inexhaustible pride thinks he knows better that God how to make things work properly. So we ignore his commandments.

This encyclical was written 44 years ago. Let’s see how prophetic his warning was. He writes, “Consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards;” and “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” I would add: as reverence for women declined, so too did reverence for our fellow man.

Finally, Pope Paul VI writes, “Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.” Hmm; seems to me we are now getting back to the topic at hand.

The very nature of God is fruitful expression of good. This is why Scripture relates the severe consequences for being unfruitful. When a being is created in the image and likeness of a God who is eternally fruitful, intentional Unfruitfulness forfeits his intended being and instead makes himself an animal/beast. While procreation is not the only form of fruitfulness, it seems to be pretty important to God since it is the only command given to all living creatures in the Genesis account of creation. I think that I can make a pretty good case (and I will do so in either article or book form) that artificial contraception is THE reason the world is in the shape that it is in.

It goes back to August of 1930, when the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, in Article 15, allowed “other methods” besides abstinence to control birth.

Pople Pius XI responded with the Encyclical Casti Connubii on the last day of that same year. The Encyclical is scathing and goes into great detail about the benefits of marriage, what was then being done to undermine maritial fidelity, and the dangers and consequences of contraception.

The actual condmenation in paragraph 56, including its tactful reference to the Anglican Church as “some”, is breathtaking.

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

The Anglican Church’s vagueness in saying that “Other means” were available besides abstinence was returned in kind by the Holy Father who wrote that “some” judged it possible to change doctrine. Everyone knew who he meant however, and the encyclical does cover much ground in terms of the consequences of contraception.

Fifty million abortions later, Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae were prophetic.

-Tim-

 

[Neildown]

I was actually debating with a few people on another site about this. A short take of mine is this:

Catholic hospitals are establishments for treating sick or injured people. Some people now declare that abortions and contraceptives are necessary services and that the right to them should not be denied. HOWEVER, the distribution of these services is contrary to Catholic teachings. Some people say “to heck with your beliefs because we want what we consider a necessary service.”

Abortions and contraceptives, quite plain and simple, are not NOT necessities - we’ve lived thousands of years without them, so don’t go telling me they’re so important that religious rights need to be shot down because of them. Go somewhere else - if its that important you can find another place to get them.

Catholics, in no way whatsoever, should have to pay for people’s lack of self control (sorry, but that’s what it comes down to, considering the vast majority of abortion/contraceptive cases are NOT medically related in a serious manner). If one doesn’t don’t want a baby, don’t have sex, or go someplace else that does give out such things (I obviously abhor the latter alternative though). Don’t make Catholics desecrate what they hold most sacred just because some people can’t resist the urge to “get it on”. It’s not only selfish, but its downright ignorant.

I don’t mean to sound like a jerk, but that’s^ the sense of it.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

What bothers me most is the way that the Church responded. The action was significantly swifter and more forceful than it needed to be which forced our government to bunker down when a more reasoned yet just as firm response would have worked better. I respect the Catholic Church’s teachings and I don’t want to think that this is a political stunt by some of the Catholic Bishops but it certainly smells like one.

There are hundreds of issues for which government and society work against the Catholic Church. It has always been and always will be that way. It has been that way under both Republican and Democratic leaderships. The Catholic Church should bend for some and remain firm for others. And for the ones where they remain firm, sometimes they should do so noisily and sometimes quietly. This is one of those cases, though, where the Church has been as gentle as foxes and as wily as lambs, in my opinion. They may win this battle, but it will come at the expense of how people view the political neutrality of the Bishops.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I can respect that Catholics have their stance on birth control,even if I don’t agree with it. But when I hear somebody say “it would be a shame if we had to shut all of these hospitals down because of it,” I have to ask, how is that not insane? Are you honestly trying to tell me that having to dispense a few pills is worth not performing millions of miracles of modern medicine in the applicable facilities? I completely disagree with the political reasons why the hospitals should have to dispense birth control, but how is this an appropriate response? I mean, if its only a threat to get what they want with the politics, so be it. But does anybody actually condone shutting down a hospital over this?

Can you honestly tell me that birth control pills, abortifacients, sterilisations and abortions are so hard to obtain that Catholic hospitals must be forced to provide them?

Is requiring a Catholic hospital to dispense ‘a few pills’ (that, btw, are a class 1 carcinogen) so important that it is worth the risk of losing the entire health care facility?

 

[jmvizanko]

Can you honestly tell me that birth control pills, abortifacients, sterilisations and abortions are so hard to obtain that Catholic hospitals must be forced to provide them?

Is requiring a Catholic hospital to dispense ‘a few pills’ (that, btw, are a class 1 carcinogen) so important that it is worth the risk of losing the entire health care facility?

No I don’t. If you had read further you would have seen that I am 100% against doing so.

 

[jmvizanko]

I was actually debating with a few people on another site about this. A short take of mine is this:

Catholic hospitals are establishments for treating sick or injured people. Some people now declare that abortions and contraceptives are necessary services and that the right to them should not be denied. HOWEVER, the distribution of these services is contrary to Catholic teachings. Some people say “to heck with your beliefs because we want what we consider a necessary service.”

Abortions and contraceptives, quite plain and simple, are not NOT necessities - we’ve lived thousands of years without them, so don’t go telling me they’re so important that religious rights need to be shot down because of them. Go somewhere else - if its that important you can find another place to get them.

Catholics, in no way whatsoever, should have to pay for people’s lack of self control (sorry, but that’s what it comes down to, considering the vast majority of abortion/contraceptive cases are NOT medically related in a serious manner). If one doesn’t don’t want a baby, don’t have sex, or go someplace else that does give out such things (I obviously abhor the latter alternative though). Don’t make Catholics desecrate what they hold most sacred just because some people can’t resist the urge to “get it on”. It’s not only selfish, but its downright ignorant.

I don’t mean to sound like a jerk, but that’s^ the sense of it.

Birth control, including sterilization, is necessary to prevent overpopulation. Unless you think a man and wife are just supposed to stop having sex at some point.

Of course, I am assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think there is no basis for overpopulation being a problem.

 

[Armyvet007]

Birth control, including sterilization, is necessary to prevent overpopulation. Unless you think a man and wife are just supposed to stop having sex at some point.

Of course, I am assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think there is no basis for overpopulation being a problem.

No, fundamental changes in land usage, crop production, wealth distribution, human migration, and near earth space colonization [orbital habitats] are necessary to prevent “overpopulation” [assuming for the sake of argument that it is a valid concept]. Additionally, non-pill methods of “population control,” such as NFP and breast feeding, are as effective or more so then the chemical methods; and lack the harmful side effects associated with the chemical methods. [Disclaimer- I don’t consider NFP as “population control”, but it could be used as such].

 

[thewanderer]

To add to that, many countries in Europe are now below the replacement reproduction rate because of this great fear of overpopulation. They are now stuck with all the problems of an aging society and quite possibly will never be able to recover from it.

I believe it migh honestly become a concern at some point, if the population grows too quickly for the technological advances necessary to sustain it but it is not presently the case and too great a fear of it has led to other problems for societies.

 

[HelenRose]

What bothers me most is the way that the Church responded. The action was significantly swifter and more forceful than it needed to be which forced our government to bunker down when a more reasoned yet just as firm response would have worked better. I respect the Catholic Church’s teachings and I don’t want to think that this is a political stunt by some of the Catholic Bishops but it certainly smells like one.

There are hundreds of issues for which government and society work against the Catholic Church. It has always been and always will be that way. It has been that way under both Republican and Democratic leaderships. The Catholic Church should bend for some and remain firm for others. And for the ones where they remain firm, sometimes they should do so noisily and sometimes quietly. This is one of those cases, though, where the Church has been as gentle as foxes and as wily as lambs, in my opinion. They may win this battle, but it will come at the expense of how people view the political neutrality of the Bishops.

I don’t think that the Bishops care about perceptions in this case. There comes a time when one has to do what is right whether or not it is understood by the general public.

The Bishops can not and will not comply with this mandate. Do do so would violate the basic principle on which the Church stands. The principle of God’s love for and the dignity of human life.

To comply with this mandate would make the Church a servant of the Government.

 

[HelenRose]

Birth control, including sterilization, is necessary to prevent overpopulation. Unless you think a man and wife are just supposed to stop having sex at some point.

Of course, I am assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think there is no basis for overpopulation being a problem.

There is no need for a man and wife to stop having sex. NFP is effective.
Self-control is a virtue.

And don’t assume that everyone is on board with the overpopulation hysteria.

 

[jschutzm]

I can respect that Catholics have their stance on birth control,even if I don’t agree with it. But when I hear somebody say “it would be a shame if we had to shut all of these hospitals down because of it,” I have to ask, how is that not insane? Are you honestly trying to tell me that having to dispense a few pills is worth not performing millions of miracles of modern medicine in the applicable facilities? I completely disagree with the political reasons why the hospitals should have to dispense birth control, but how is this an appropriate response? I mean, if its only a threat to get what they want with the politics, so be it. But does anybody actually condone shutting down a hospital over this?

I think the issue that you don’t understand is that the HHS mandate is not MERELY about “the pill”

I see this ALL the time… people incorrectly distill a large complex issue down to ‘just one thing’ - either out of ignorance or for some other reason (perhaps to further their own agenda? … I dunno. )

So IF you have ignored a few of the posts… here is in simply:

IT IS NOT MERELY ABOUT PILLS, but ALSO ABOUT ABORTIONS. It is also about the Government being able to redefine the definition of a religious organization and the ability for the Government to force religions to violate their conscience.

You may not see that as ANY type of issue here. But many people DO. Many people see this as oppression of their most deeply held beliefs and ‘coercion’ to corrupt their morals. Similar to an oppressive, totalitarian regime imposing its will on its people, singling out a minority group and denying it its basic freedoms.

In light of such anti-freedom and anti-American oppression - the church would rather close its doors then give in and set a VERY bad presidence.

I’m sure there are other religious Hospitals that will cower and cave in to the demands of the government and to social pressure… but the Catholic church has a VERY LONG history of never caving into pressure or changing its beliefs.

And again… this isn’t a political stunt to gain attention or to even point out how high the stakes are. SURE, it would be easy for the Catholic church to do this. It has over 680 hospitals in the U.S. alone, accounting for roughly 20% of patient care… but it is not merely a stunt.

The Church takes the central issues of the new HHS mandate and a larger drive by certain groups to redefine religion as well as to get abortion defined as a ‘healthy’ procedure (part of reproductive health…which it is NOT), VERY seriously. Deadly seriously - no pun intended.

If you can’t understand that… at least respect that it is equally American to stand up for what you believe even against ALL odds. This country was started by a group of colonists standing up against a World Power and the most powerful military and largest Navy in the world (at that time)
So if you can’t understand it… maybe you can ‘respect’ the stance.

The church may ultimately lose this battle as it has on Abortion and SSM the latter closing orphanages rather then caving into social pressure. But at least it is standing up for what it believes in - which is American, if nothing else.

There is a chance that SOME of those hospital

While you seem to lose respect if the church closes hospitals over something you see as ‘not a big deal’
I would lose respect if the Catholic church DIDN’T.

 

[davidmlamb]

I think a better analogy would be:

If I sell a gun to your daughter, and she goes and shoots somebody with it, am I morally responsible for that person’s death?

I agree with you. The analogy of selling a mechanically dangerous car to a daughter who dies as a result means she did not know the dangerous condition of the car. Catholics are not being forced to have abortions or use contraception or any other morally objectionable acts. They know the consequences because our conscience has been informed. But for Catholic hospitals to shut down because Catholics choose to act immorally puts the lives of patiernts who do not choose to act immorally at risk. This is what the Gospel calls straining out a gnat to swallow a camel. Be that as it may, very few Catholic hospitals are going to shut down because of this mandate for the exact reason I just stated. The greater evil is not treating patients who depend on these hospitals to save their lives.

Peace,

David

 

[jmvizanko]

And don’t assume that everyone is on board with the overpopulation hysteria.

Unless you are referring to overpopulation “hysteria” as the attitude people have who think it is not a problem, you apparently didn’t understand what I meant when I said “I assume you don’t think overpopulation is a problem.” I know that being Catholic does not imply that one necessarily does not see overpopulation as a problem. But in my experience, the vast majority of Catholics do not think it is.

And I wouldn’t call it hysteria. Its a simple recognition of some basic math with respect to natural resources; especially the limited ones like rare earth metals and fossil fuels. Sure some people freak out about it, but realizing that overpopulation could become a big problem does not make you necessarily hysterical.

 

[jschutzm]

I think a better analogy would be:

If I sell a gun to your daughter, and she goes and shoots somebody with it, am I morally responsible for that person’s death?

That analogy is TOO simplistic and thus doesn’t even COVER the situation adequately. Please think about this more deeply…

Here is an analogy that would better fit how the Catholic church sees it and what I think it also closer to reality…

"If your daughter comes to me and tells me she wants to shoot somebody with a gun and I sell her that gun, am I morally responsible for that person’s death?

I would say YES, if I had cause to seriously believe her and it turned out she did it. I don’t know how the courts would view it…but I would personally hold the gun dealer liable if they knew the person’s intent and still made the sell.

We can’t always hide behind “it is not my business what you do” - that only goes so far. At some point we are PART of a society and so we have to be vested in what each of us are doing in that society, which we ourselves are a part of. In this analogy… the shop owner, having some knowledge of the person’s intent… is cupable (liable) I think.

And I’m pretty sure most Philosophers would agree with me… I know the Catholic church would also.

In YOUR analogy… the gun itself has more then 1 use. It can be used to hunt, it can be used for target practicing (aka the love of the sport) it can even, in some cases… be used as a show piece (art) and put on a mantel, never actually being fired.
Guns have a multiple utilitarian purposes and in FACT, one can argue that their development while initially was for war… for many centuries was PRIMARILY used for hunting.

You can’t make the same claim about contraception, abortion and sterilization. They aren’t used for sport or for food or for decoration/art.
They are used to interfere with the natural functioning of the human person (their own reproduction) and posses many side effects.
“The Pill” is even listed on the World Health Organizations list of Cancer causing substances… the same list that has benzine and asbestos on it.

And so there is a DEFINITE difference between me selling your daughter a firearm, not knowing what it will be used for and the government mandating that I sell her that firearm knowing to those intent on murder.