NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > People and Politics > Catholic bishops should have declared victory on contraception -- now look like tools of the GOP

People and Politics by Patrick Roberts

Catholic bishops should have declared victory on contraception -- now look like tools of the GOP

Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 08:00 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

37 Comments

RSS

37 comments

Next Page 1 of 3 pages

Michael F Brenn | Feb 19, 2012, 05:15 PM EST

Mr. Patrick Roberts, 181 American bishops are trying to protect religious liberty for all Americans and spit out the Democratic party line. You have scandalized the AOH.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 15, 2012, 05:19 PM EST

Right again, Joycean! As some commenters have pointed out, if we had a single-payer health care system, this contraceptive controversy would not have been a problem. (But would you be out of a job? Or would you be working for the government if we had a single-payer system?)

Report abuse

joycean | Feb 15, 2012, 10:23 AM EST

I think the basic problem with Obamacare is that it allows private insurance companies to continue to handle employer-based payment because insurance companies have enormous wealth and power. This would not be an issue if the US went to a single-payer plan, probably something that came out of everyone's pay checks like a tax.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 15, 2012, 06:57 AM EST

Right, Joycean, the problem arose with loss of vocations. There are far fewer nuns, who ran schools and hospitals for a century without needing insurance that covered contraception for themselves. Right now, 28 states do not exempt Catholic employers from providing insurance that covers contraceptives, and Catholic institutions comply. It will make no difference at all in who uses contraception; the bishops know that. The Obama health care overhaul, however, will help Catholic hospitals that are struggling to provide care to people who cannot afford it. So the head of the Catholic Health Association, Sr Carol Keehan, and other nuns and lay leaders have welcomed the revised HHS rule. This debate reflects the rift in RCC since the publication of Humanae Vitae. After the disaster of Humanae Vitae, the anti-contraception encyclical, Pope Paul never published another encyclical in his lifetime. He had been scared into writing it by the strikingly clear change in direction that Second Vatican Council mapped out on social/ political issues. Afterwards, his own freedom-killing authority terrified him, so he left a legacy of recalcitrance, of refusal to re-examine past teachings, that the bishops now embrace as their religious identity. There is now a cadre of ultra-conservatives centralizing Vatican power and determined to expand RCC political power, at the cost of making women second-class citizens again. That's what's at stake in this debate.

Report abuse

joycean | Feb 14, 2012, 04:26 PM EST

Well, when I went to Catholic schools, the employees were nuns and all Catholics. Catholic hospitals were also run by nuns. I think the bishops could argue that because it is against their beliefs, none of the money they pay for health care can be used for contraception and insist there is no fungibility of their moneys with others. They could also insist that their employees sign binding contracts stating that. I handle medical insurance and I don't believe insurers and or providers are really planning on providing these services at no charge for Catholic employers. They probably think they can simply pass them off as something else.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 14, 2012, 04:03 PM EST

Catholic organizations cannot "decide to only hire Catholic employees." That's called discrimination, and the USA made discrimination illegal in 1964. But now the Catholic bishops want to make it legal to discriminate against women in health insurance. Not in their churches--church employees are exempt from the requirement. They intend to discriminate in Catholic hospitals, social service agencies, and schools and colleges. These are places of employment, just as a business office or factory or tech lab is a place of employment. And Catholic organizations employ millions. If they will not obey the law, the courts will shut them down in the end. So be it! Equal treatment under the law is more important than the RCC empire. Serving the poor and healing the sick while treating female employees like chattel is not the way of Christians, so let's drop the pretense that the bishops want "religious freedom." They want the freedom to use government to deprive women of reproductive freedom and equal rights. They'll use GOP stooges like Santorum to try to re-shape the USA in their own regressive image. "Faith-Based and Fact-Free" is the new GOP campaign slogan, written and approved by the bishops.

Report abuse

joycean | Feb 14, 2012, 12:00 PM EST

I listened to Lew "explain" the Administration's position last night, and it made no sense. The Catholic employer will not pay for contraception; the insurer will. But insureres are private businesses that get their funds from the (Catholic) employer, not the government. I suppose that would work in a shifty sort of way, if all you are talking about is a doctor discussing contraception with a patient and calling it "preventive services" if the patient works for a Catholic employer and "contraceptive advice" if she works for someone else, whose employer is paying for both contraceptive services and preventive services. So the Catholic employer will pay twice as much for preventive services. But what if the Catholic organization's employee goes to her local pharmacy to have the prescription filled and perscriptions are covered under a separate, self (Catholic-employer)-funded benefit? What if she wants a tubal ligation? How is the insurer going to call that something else for her than it is for someone else? Maybe Catholic organizations will decide to only hire Catholic employees.

Report abuse

PhlutiePhan | Feb 14, 2012, 10:02 AM EST

During WWII, Ireland was accused by various media of being supporters of Germany and the Nazis because they stayed neutral and would not support the Brits. The Republicans just stand to gain because the Democrats have adopted an anti religous socialism along the lines of National Socialism of the 40s. That does not make the Catholic Bishops into Nazis. Traditionally, the Catholic bishops have always sided with the Democratic Party because of the Irish working class. According to Jodi Kantor in a recent book, the wife of the president has declared war on Irish politicians. The Catholic bishops dominated by Irish individuals are only "reading the tea leaves".

Report abuse

MaryM232 | Feb 13, 2012, 11:49 PM EST

BTW, to the dufuses who are whinging on, claiming that 'if a church hires people, the govt has the right to blah, blah, blah... yet Obama has exempted Islamic mosques, and Islamic owned businesses of all kinds from having to comply with Obamacare, only Christian and Jewish businesses, and churches must comply. Now, if you really believe what you wrote, then you must stand up and demand that Islamic run businesses and mosques be required to comply.. let's see how you brazen that out

Report abuse

MaryM232 | Feb 13, 2012, 11:45 PM EST

Patrick Roberts, you're a prime example of the ignorance and indifference of those who don't belong in the US. Obama's 'compromise' wasn't a compromise, it's a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution, ie.. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now, if you know how to read, and know how to use a dictionary if you come across words you don't understand, you should be able to figure out what the first amendment guarantees. What's more, perhaps your brand of idiocy flies over in the old country, but it doesn't work here. The republican party isn't the enemy, it's the party that was formed to end slavery and fought the party of slavery, the democrats to end that slavery, the republicans were the party that fought and ended the Jim Crow laws that were created by democrats, and the republican party was the party that fought the KKK, which was formed by democrats. Being free to think and decide for one's self, the right to self determination, is the essence of being an American, a free person. We don't need an old country reject to dictate to us. Now, the bishops deserve what they got, they got into bed with the diseased Marxist left, now they're crying cause they woke up with bedbugs, but they're learning now. If you don't happen to like the US constitution, Paul, and you want to live by the disease that's mired Europe (and that includes Ireland) for centuries, that's your decision, get the hell out of the country, because that is the law of the land.

Report abuse

BGAndersson | Feb 13, 2012, 02:58 PM EST

Not sure what nauseats me more, your ignorant, snide columns or some of the people who post comments. But, just get used to this: the Church stands for something. They stick to it. Don't like it? Leave.

Report abuse

TheOldPerfessor | Feb 13, 2012, 01:46 PM EST

My insurance company covers Prozac. Nobody forces me to take it.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 13, 2012, 06:10 AM EST

jmccarten asks, "Can a government official order a religious institution to do something prohibited by its religion?" When the religious institution employs people of various religions and none, it is an EMPLOYER, and, yes, government MUST require equal treatment of employees by employers. If you want a religious exemption from govt protection, then you should be working at a solely religious organization, i.e., a church, synagogue, or mosque, not a hospital, college, or social agency. Actual church employees are exempt; a nurse or orderly in a hospital, however, must have equal insurance benefits under the law. That's how government works when it does its job properly. Are you willing to forgo government requirements that you receive equal pay for equal work, that your workplace meet minimal safety standards, that you have the same insurance and pension benefits as your colleagues, and that your employer not require you to wear a phylactery at work or to pray while facing Mecca at noontime? We rely on government to prevent abuses and ensure fair treatment of employees in the workplace. That's precisely what the HHS Rule does. I believe religion should influence important aspects of my life, but that it should not deprive me of health insurance!

Report abuse

jmccarten | Feb 12, 2012, 08:20 PM EST

Catholics and Christains are tired of attacks on there religion by the secular leftists. This issue has nothing to do with contraception, it is about the 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion enumerated in our Constitution. Can a government official order a religious institution to do something prohibited by it's religion. Christains, espically Catholics have been under attack by the Progressive Secular Liberals led by Obama for years. Religion is ridculed and excluded from our public schools, yet our Children have to take classes on Islam, no religious displays are allowed in public places during the Christmas season (in fact liberals want to take the word "Christ" our of Christmas and call it holiday season), recently Mayor Bloomburg of New York banned the holding of religious service in public buildings even though churches had rented spaces in schools etc. for decades. This same Mayor Bloomburg did not invite any religious people to speak at the 9/11 Memorial Service in New York. There 72 million Catholics in America and 74% of the population identifies itself as Christain, Good Bye Obama you just got them all furious with you and your fellow liberals.

Report abuse

Murph46 | Feb 12, 2012, 07:11 PM EST

eiriamach some call me a radicalwhereas I see myself as a Constitutionalist,I am a veteran (of both military service and years on earth)but I believe in peoples rights ,limited government and freedom.I don't know of anyone that should put me in conflict with,but somehow ,someway it usually does.When it does I find it is normally someone who likes to "label"others.Don't know about you but i've never liked those people,and last of all my belief system was highly polished by a stubborn daughter though wrong who stuck to her guns for ten years b4 seeing the light! It was worth it.I admit I may be too much of a dinosaur for some of these discussions,but I'm just too ornery to back away!

Report abuse

Next Page 1 of 3 pages