CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 21, 2012 21:50:28 GMT -5
Can someone answer me this : Why is all the outrage over Sebellius' invitation for a speech and not over the fact that Georgetown already offers employee health plans with birth control available? I just got reading through Dineen's post and I do not understand how someone is a "persecutor" for trying to indirectly mandate something that Georgetown is already providing of its own volition. Not one of the articles I've seen from Georgetown figures opposed to the Sebellius speech (Dineen, Schall, Blatty) has even mentioned that Georgetown freely offers employees plans with birth control. If people really find offering birth control to employees morally wrong, why isn't the fault on the side of *actually doing that*, rather than on letting someone speak at an event who favors doing it? I'm not sure but I think part of the non-focus on actual practices is that a number of Catholic institutions have already been offering birth control coverage for a while now (with the knowledge of the bishops). Liberal critics of the bishops' point to these cases (some of which the bishops have been aware) and wonder what their beef is with the HHS mandate is, given that these things have been going on for a while. Of course, the bishops argue that there's a significant difference between limited, local mandates and the type of universal, national mandate we're now confronting. I don't know the details of Georgetown's practice or its historical origin. Some Catholic institutions have been offering contraceptive coverage because of state mandates similar to the HHS one. One argument in support of such practices is the traditional Catholic distinction between formal & material cooperation with evil (material cooperation is when you're doing something bad but you'd prefer not to do it and don't have realistic alternatives to avoid it; cooperating with evil in such cases can sometimes be legit; formal cooperation is a willful, free, desirous cooperation with evil -- always bad).
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on May 22, 2012 6:09:24 GMT -5
Of course, the bishops argue that there's a significant difference between limited, local mandates and the type of universal, national mandate we're now confronting. I know you're just putting forward a hypothetical argument from another party, but the idea that the bishops care a whit about federalism is LOL-worthy. If they could for instance - ban abortion at the federal level, they'd be gleeful.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 22, 2012 6:59:09 GMT -5
Of course, the bishops argue that there's a significant difference between limited, local mandates and the type of universal, national mandate we're now confronting. I know you're just putting forward a hypothetical argument from another party, but the idea that the bishops care a whit about federalism is LOL-worthy. If they could for instance - ban abortion at the federal level, they'd be gleeful. There's been a similar argument re. gay marriage. There are liberal, gay Christians who would like to be married, as an expression of their Christian faith. The Catholic bishops want the government to ban gay marriage. How, the argument goes, is that not a violation of religious freedom? I'm not sure if the bishops have responded to that argument, but one thing they might say (which might also address your observation) is that when it comes to protecting religious freedom there is a significant difference between forcing someone to do something they believe to be immoral (e.g., provide contraceptive coverage) and preventing someone from doing something they believe moral (e.g., abortion, gay marriage).
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on May 22, 2012 12:41:11 GMT -5
There is a pretty big leap in logic made when one holds that disagreeing with the church on a particular issue (a disagreement that the person themselves does not find to be sufficient cause to leave the church) is tantamount to denying everything the university and the church stand for. Unsurprisingly, those who take such a Manichean view tend to identify as redlines those particular stances which fit their politics. So if one is on the left, Paul Ryan is a bad Catholic and stands opposed to the Church because he supports torture, war, mass incarceration, cutting programs that help the poor to pay for tax cuts and incentives for the wealthy, etc. If one is on the right, anyone who disagrees with the church on homosexuality or matters related to the female reproductive system is a bad Catholic/stands opposed to the Church. Of course, that letter regarding Paul Ryan explicitly affirmed his right to come to Georgetown and receive the honor of giving the annual Whittington Lecture... This is of course a false equivalence. The issues that supposedly make Paul Ryan a "bad Catholic" are issues that Catholics can disagree on while maintaining their good standing in the Church. It would be one thing for Paul Ryan to say, "I would like to bomb Iraq because I hate Iraqis." Then he would rightly be considered in open defiance of the Church. What Sebelius, EJ Dionne, the Kennedys et al advocate is open revolt against core Catholic moral teaching. And for Sebelius to receive an invitation to speak this year of all years pushes this former donor over the edge. Sometimes you have to stand up for your beliefs, and Georgetown has simply surrendered. So, Catholic doctrines are optional except those that involve a uterus? Disagreeing with the Church on torture, capital punishment, greed, etc. is fine, as long as one is a 100-percenter on regulating lady parts? What is the difference between Paul Ryan's Catholicism and Joel Osteen's Gospel of Prosperity? Both believe that if you are poor or oppressed, it is your fault for not being worthy of God's favor. Don't ask me to care or to do anything about it. I will serve God by getting rich.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 22, 2012 14:11:43 GMT -5
This is of course a false equivalence. The issues that supposedly make Paul Ryan a "bad Catholic" are issues that Catholics can disagree on while maintaining their good standing in the Church. It would be one thing for Paul Ryan to say, "I would like to bomb Iraq because I hate Iraqis." Then he would rightly be considered in open defiance of the Church. What Sebelius, EJ Dionne, the Kennedys et al advocate is open revolt against core Catholic moral teaching. And for Sebelius to receive an invitation to speak this year of all years pushes this former donor over the edge. Sometimes you have to stand up for your beliefs, and Georgetown has simply surrendered. So, Catholic doctrines are optional except those that involve a uterus? Disagreeing with the Church on torture, capital punishment, greed, etc. is fine, as long as one is a 100-percenter on regulating lady parts? What is the difference between Paul Ryan's Catholicism and Joel Osteen's Gospel of Prosperity? Both believe that if you are poor or oppressed, it is your fault for not being worthy of God's favor. Don't ask me to care or to do anything about it. I will serve God by getting rich. Paul Ryan said that if you are poor or oppressed, it is your fault for not being worthy of God's favor? Really? I missed that quote. Can you provide a link, because I'd be interested in reading about what he said.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 22, 2012 16:10:15 GMT -5
There is a pretty big leap in logic made when one holds that disagreeing with the church on a particular issue (a disagreement that the person themselves does not find to be sufficient cause to leave the church) is tantamount to denying everything the university and the church stand for. Unsurprisingly, those who take such a Manichean view tend to identify as redlines those particular stances which fit their politics. So if one is on the left, Paul Ryan is a bad Catholic and stands opposed to the Church because he supports torture, war, mass incarceration, cutting programs that help the poor to pay for tax cuts and incentives for the wealthy, etc. If one is on the right, anyone who disagrees with the church on homosexuality or matters related to the female reproductive system is a bad Catholic/stands opposed to the Church. Of course, that letter regarding Paul Ryan explicitly affirmed his right to come to Georgetown and receive the honor of giving the annual Whittington Lecture... This is of course a false equivalence. The issues that supposedly make Paul Ryan a "bad Catholic" are issues that Catholics can disagree on while maintaining their good standing in the Church. It would be one thing for Paul Ryan to say, "I would like to bomb Iraq because I hate Iraqis." Then he would rightly be considered in open defiance of the Church. What Sebelius, EJ Dionne, the Kennedys et al advocate is open revolt against core Catholic moral teaching. And for Sebelius to receive an invitation to speak this year of all years pushes this former donor over the edge. Sometimes you have to stand up for your beliefs, and Georgetown has simply surrendered. It is not terribly surprising that what many on the right identify as "core Catholic moral teaching" is entirely coterminous with those items that align with the platform and spirit of the Republican Party. Catholics can disagree on those issues where the Church and the GOP are at odds while maintaining their good standing in the Church, but not where the two converge. Awful convenient. At its core, this is less a conflict over theology or religious freedom and more simply another front in the politicized culture wars.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 22, 2012 16:59:56 GMT -5
This is of course a false equivalence. The issues that supposedly make Paul Ryan a "bad Catholic" are issues that Catholics can disagree on while maintaining their good standing in the Church. It would be one thing for Paul Ryan to say, "I would like to bomb Iraq because I hate Iraqis." Then he would rightly be considered in open defiance of the Church. What Sebelius, EJ Dionne, the Kennedys et al advocate is open revolt against core Catholic moral teaching. And for Sebelius to receive an invitation to speak this year of all years pushes this former donor over the edge. Sometimes you have to stand up for your beliefs, and Georgetown has simply surrendered. It is not terribly surprising that what many on the right identify as "core Catholic moral teaching" is entirely coterminous with those items that align with the platform and spirit of the Republican Party. Catholics can disagree on those issues where the Church and the GOP are at odds while maintaining their good standing in the Church, but not where the two converge. Awful convenient. At its core, this is less a conflict over theology or religious freedom and more simply another front in the politicized culture wars. The GOP Platform (I assume you're referring to 2008) talks about birth control? Really? I missed that section. Can you provide a link?
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on May 23, 2012 20:30:49 GMT -5
This is of course a false equivalence. The issues that supposedly make Paul Ryan a "bad Catholic" are issues that Catholics can disagree on while maintaining their good standing in the Church. It would be one thing for Paul Ryan to say, "I would like to bomb Iraq because I hate Iraqis." Then he would rightly be considered in open defiance of the Church. What Sebelius, EJ Dionne, the Kennedys et al advocate is open revolt against core Catholic moral teaching. And for Sebelius to receive an invitation to speak this year of all years pushes this former donor over the edge. Sometimes you have to stand up for your beliefs, and Georgetown has simply surrendered. So, Catholic doctrines are optional except those that involve a uterus? Disagreeing with the Church on torture, capital punishment, greed, etc. is fine, as long as one is a 100-percenter on regulating lady parts? What is the difference between Paul Ryan's Catholicism and Joel Osteen's Gospel of Prosperity? Both believe that if you are poor or oppressed, it is your fault for not being worthy of God's favor. Don't ask me to care or to do anything about it. I will serve God by getting rich. The Church isn't interested in regulating body parts. Unless you count the body parts of the unborn child that is vacuumed out of its mother.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 24, 2012 13:29:45 GMT -5
So, Catholic doctrines are optional except those that involve a uterus? Disagreeing with the Church on torture, capital punishment, greed, etc. is fine, as long as one is a 100-percenter on regulating lady parts? What is the difference between Paul Ryan's Catholicism and Joel Osteen's Gospel of Prosperity? Both believe that if you are poor or oppressed, it is your fault for not being worthy of God's favor. Don't ask me to care or to do anything about it. I will serve God by getting rich. The Church isn't interested in regulating body parts. Unless you count the body parts of the unborn child that is vacuumed out of its mother. What does contraception have to do with the bodies of unborn children?
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 24, 2012 13:38:29 GMT -5
Glibly and cynically, the mind is also a body part and the church is solely in the business of controlling that. (Also if you believe in a soul the church also concerns its self with that and it could be considered a body part.) If Georgetown thinks the teachings are wrong, then it should no longer claim to be Catholic. If you'd like to advocate for that, feel free. However, as long as Georgetown claims some kind of Catholic identity it ought not honor one of the foremost antagonists of religious freedom in public life today. Thats just really a cop out. The university should work to change the church if it finds value in it. Did you make this same call when the university started teaching evolution?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 24, 2012 18:39:14 GMT -5
Some of the methods people call birth control are pills/devices that induce or cause abortion. This has been willingly hidden by the left and the media. Anyone who asks what birth control has to do with abortion surely must know this - or they are defining abortion differently from the way I and the Catholic Church defines it.
|
|
hoya4ever
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by hoya4ever on May 24, 2012 18:51:57 GMT -5
You are talking of Plan B and other similar pills, right?
How do you define abortion?
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on May 24, 2012 22:14:17 GMT -5
As I understand it, there are some (including the Church?) that view the good ol' fashioned pill as a form of abortion because it prevents a fertilized egg from settling in the woman's uterus -- so it effectively "kills" the two-cell combination after fertilization has occurred. This assumes, of course, that you view "conception" as the moment of fertilization, rather than, say, some other moment.
Still doesn't explain the problem with condoms, other than that they "interfere with God's plan." So does medicine, and last time I checked no one told me to stop taking cholesterol medicine because God wanted me to have a higher risk for heart disease.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 24, 2012 22:45:48 GMT -5
It is not terribly surprising that what many on the right identify as "core Catholic moral teaching" is entirely coterminous with those items that align with the platform and spirit of the Republican Party. Catholics can disagree on those issues where the Church and the GOP are at odds while maintaining their good standing in the Church, but not where the two converge. Awful convenient. At its core, this is less a conflict over theology or religious freedom and more simply another front in the politicized culture wars. The GOP Platform (I assume you're referring to 2008) talks about birth control? Really? I missed that section. Can you provide a link? Yea, that's why I said "and spirit." The Republican Party is not so stupid as to include anything in its formal platform that advocates for restricting adults' access to contraception, since that is an obvious political loser. There are plenty of issues (say, gay adoption, which is only mentioned in the context of the GOP's opposition to Massachusetts' removing groups opposed to it from their adoption provider list) that do not make it into the official platform and yet are clearly identified with a particular side of the political spectrum and with a particular political party. One can find similar examples on the left as well. On this specific topic, however, it is the runner-up in the Republican presidential primary who has repeatedly expressed his opposition to contraception as a concept. He represents a bloc in the GOP that simply does not exist in the other party. So, I'll say again: this is not really about a particular Catholic position, insofar as the percentage of actual Catholics (rather than ostensibly celibate clerics) who utilize contraception is a clear majority (though not quite the popularized 98%). Also, the fact that state-level mandates of this sort have existed for years and Catholic institutions have dutifully complied. Clearly, this is not a settled matter within the actual membership of the Church, and the preponderance falls opposite the official stance. Instead, it is about a particular conservative position that is held by some Protestants, Jews, and others. Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, CA hinted at this when he spoke of some groups “very far to the right” that are trying to use the conflict as “an anti-Obama campaign.” He says "I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into political issue." I think it's been a political issue from the beginning.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 24, 2012 22:47:33 GMT -5
Still doesn't explain the problem with condoms, other than that they "interfere with God's plan." So does medicine, and last time I checked no one told me to stop taking cholesterol medicine because God wanted me to have a higher risk for heart disease. Haven't talked to any Christian Scientists lately, I gather? In any case... As I understand it, there are some (including the Church?) that view the good ol' fashioned pill as a form of abortion because it prevents a fertilized egg from settling in the woman's uterus -- so it effectively "kills" the two-cell combination after fertilization has occurred. This assumes, of course, that you view "conception" as the moment of fertilization, rather than, say, some other moment. That's not how the good ol' fashioned pill works. It's how an IUD works, but hormonal contraception prevents ovulation - there is no egg released to be fertilized, period. Not trying to pick on you... sometimes it feels like most Americans slept through health class, or else got the "birth control is the Devil's tic-tac!" version.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 25, 2012 23:04:14 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,214
|
Post by SSHoya on May 26, 2012 12:57:46 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 27, 2012 15:49:54 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 27, 2012 18:28:09 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on May 27, 2012 19:39:49 GMT -5
Still doesn't explain the problem with condoms, other than that they "interfere with God's plan." So does medicine, and last time I checked no one told me to stop taking cholesterol medicine because God wanted me to have a higher risk for heart disease. Haven't talked to any Christian Scientists lately, I gather? In any case... As I understand it, there are some (including the Church?) that view the good ol' fashioned pill as a form of abortion because it prevents a fertilized egg from settling in the woman's uterus -- so it effectively "kills" the two-cell combination after fertilization has occurred. This assumes, of course, that you view "conception" as the moment of fertilization, rather than, say, some other moment. That's not how the good ol' fashioned pill works. It's how an IUD works, but hormonal contraception prevents ovulation - there is no egg released to be fertilized, period. Not trying to pick on you... sometimes it feels like most Americans slept through health class, or else got the "birth control is the Devil's tic-tac!" version. Duh. I knew that, too. Brain fart. Thanks for the correction.
|
|