Top Rabbi believes Catholic Church is imposing Sharia Law on Americans over contraception

I meant to add: Even though it's estimated by the Church in the USA that one in three Catholics have left, in reality it's probably closer to 85%, with the majority of attendees being over 60! My guess, from what I've read is that less than 15% go to Mass on a weekly basis. It is this demographic that is supporting Santorum and the US Council of Catholic Bishops. WHY? Well, my guess is that they probably think they will get a plenary indulgence for doing so, and will not need to suffer the flames of Purgatory for days, months or years! They'd rather have "Hell of Earth!"

I agree with Rabbi Waskow! In the upcoming election in the States, it looks as if the Church is backing uber-Catholic, Rick Santorum. If elected, Rick will probably end up doing the will of the USCB, US Council of Catholic Bishops for their invaluable endorsements. Fortunately, in the States, it is estimated that one in 3 Catholics, including myself, have left the Church, and most of us could care less about Santorum and even less about the Conservative, (Sharia) Catholic bishops (If that's possible)! It's interesting that the bishops are backing "Catholic Sharia Laws on birth control," but they still fail to do little about Priest Pedophilia and generations of coverups! One would think there would be Sharia Laws against molesting, raping and sodomizing children and teens, and covering up for Pedophile Priests by transferring them from parish to parish. I guess this is an example of "Selective Sharia Catholic Laws!"

Fair point brennanirish, maybe the Rabbi should condemn the anti-feminists in his own religion to balance the argument.

I agree with the comments made by the Rabbi but cant help wonder why no one....literally, not one high ranking Rabbi, of the American Jewish community, condemns the ever increasing militant practices of orthodox Jews in Israel. From eparate dress code restrictions for Women to not walking on the same side of the street and on and on....sounds Sharia-like to me.

Go raibh maith agat to Rabbi Waskow for his insightful remarks about the highly politicized USCCB. The bishops are at it again. They are the same ones who hammered the University of Notre Dame because ND had the gall to invite the President of the United States of America to their graduation ceremony and convey a degree. What morons. Father John Jenkins(CSC) really put them to shame with his introduction of the President. Not many bishops could speak the way he does. “The University of Notre Dame belongs to an academic tradition of nearly a thousand years – born of the Church’s teaching that human reason, tempered by faith, is a gift of God, a path to religious truth, and a means for seeking the common good in secular life. It is out of this duty to serve the common good that we seek to foster dialogue with all people of good will, regardless of faith, background or perspective. We will listen to all views, and always bear witness for what we believe. Insofar as we play this role, we can be what Pope John Paul II said a Catholic university is meant to be – ‘a primary and privileged place for a fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and culture.’” Finally, we remember how the bishops have repeatedly betrayed their flock in Ireland and America over the past two centuries. Repeatedly failing to provide moral leadership. Hats off to Rabbi Waskow.

@ Posted by Seanmor on Mar 07, 2012, 09:03 PM EST Obviously had there been CONTRACEPTION available that poor nurse would have no baby to watch... That's his whole point!

America's laws are mandated by the US Constitution, not the Bible. Government is an expression of the will of the people, not the bishops.

I'm with the rabbi on this one although the use of 'sharia' is a bit strong. Hey, that's what many are afraid of with the growing Muslim population here.(absurd) There really is no difference with what the bishops are doing. When my church begins to ordain women I might begin to listen to advicement. Till then they should keep their misogynist mouths shut on this issue. Feed the poor, help the sick. Fight for social justice. Live the Word of God. Didn't hear Jesus talking about controlling women's bodies.

Hollabackgurl, If you were brought up a Catholic, you should know that obeying the word of God (The Ten Commandments) and the tenets of the Catholic Faith, takes precedence over a government edict that indicates otherwise. Genocide, torture and Slavery, were in all cases unholy practises carried out by governments (even today.) The Church, Centuries ago, while under protection of Pretender Popes looked the other way at these horrendous practises but in later years repented. There were many martyrd Saints who spoke out against these horrific practises and died at the hands of the "Inquisitors". The Church was not always correct nor just, but over time became more demure in it's ideas. There are however some things that are still taught by the Church, that are absolute, until such time as the Church finds otherwise. We as devout Catholics are obliged to obey these rules. If we feel that some Government Law should take precedence over a Church Law, we are free to choose we obey. But while the Government Law may be appealing to many and convenient, it may not be the right thing to do. Should you choose government over the Church, you should also refrain from calling yourself a Catholic. Personally I would opt to choose the Church so I could maintain my Faith and remain loyal to the Church and Jesus Christ and the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Government can NEVER save my soul. Only Christ through the Church can.

A Rabbi ??? Look at the state of the Jewish faith - or what is left of it. Divided between Orthodox and the re-invented version. For those of us Catholics who actually attend Church regularly, we do not hear our priests condemning other religions. Their job is to re-enforce our own. Perhaps that rabbi should look to his own flock and follow the Torah.

Gee, the idea that church based institutions might not want to fund contraceptives for women sure bothers a lot of people. Back in the sixties a pope wrote an encyclical against 'the pill'. Women's reproductive issues and organs weren't the point of the encyclical. He predicted that acceptance and use of artificial contraception would result in a weakening of the marriage bond between husband and wife, widespread promiscuity, the breakdown of the family, and the rise of abortions. Old men aren't always wrong just because they're old or men.

One has to wonder why so many men (Old men at that, i.e.Rabbi's,The Pope and his gang of bishops, congressmen)are so obsessed about women's reproductive issues and organs. Boys get out of the bedrooms of people and take up a hobby or some other diverting activity!

What is so outrageous for a Catholic institution refusing to offer a health plan benefit that provides a person with the means to do something that the church (that started and supports said institution) recognizes is immoral? The institution is not forcibly preventing a person from doing the immoral act, just refusing to support or approve of it. The institution isn't firing or demoting employees who do the immoral act. It's not even making the act difficult (condoms are easily available, cheap and sometimes free). It's just saying, "I won't be complicit in your sin. I won't make money easily available for you to do it. I won't provide a health plan that does that either." Pregnancy isn't a disease. Prevention of pregnancy isn't 'health care'. It's ludicrous for a person to expect their employer to provide for them to do something the employer is strongly opposed to on moral grounds, especially when this was made clear before they accepted employment. When the government attempts to force a religiously supported institution to do so it is a clear infringement on religious liberty. This is a not so subtle move by the government to force the Catholic church and other faith based organizations to give up their hospitals. And who will be able to take them over. Why, the government! One more step closer to socialized medicine. And who will ultimately suffer? The child conceived but not yet born, the 'defectives', the unproductive sick, the old, the chronically ill. These are the very ones the church-based organizations have served over the years. Who pays or saving money isn't the issue. The percentage of Catholics who follow the teachings of their church isn't the issue. The issue is: does the federal government have the right under the constitution to force faith based organizations to actively promote actions directly against the tenets of that faith.

Who cares? The higher up the mountain the more the monkey shows his ass. Seems to be more political than spiritual-religious debate.

kilgara is also mistaken. "Who pays" is not an issue. "Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more" (See Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 2012, 1, 4). The only real issue, and the only threat in the minds of the bishops, is the freedom of American women to take moral responsibility according to their individual consciences for their sexual activity.