I guarantee the HHS mandate will never go into effect.

The Supreme Court looks like they are going to strike down the entire health care law. Even if they don’t, the mandate is DOA in the Court. I count five votes against it, if not all nine.

Google link is broken, but I remember reading an article about this. The problem, as I recall, is the estrogen going into the sewer. I read about its alleged effect on the fertility of fish, frogs, and the rest. As with all negative stories surrounding contraception, this was quickly deep-sixed in a way that bad news about, say, vaccines’ supposed connection to autism was not, but Mark isn’t whistling Dixie.

Here’s the link to the Associated Press investigation into pharmaceuticals in drinking water:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day1_01.html

The health care aspect of contraception is not about sex. It is about saving money and lives at risk from unwanted pregnancy. While we as Catholics do not agree with “unwanting” a miracle given by God we also don’t appreciate false and manipulative arguements. What is so threatening about this subject that is causing you to mislead your readers? I know pandering to polarizing views is a way to increase readership but I believe truth and working out issues in a loving manner is a better journalistic/spiritual choice.

We are causing our own problems, and then expect everyone else to find a solution. Have we forgotten? Sin has reprocussions! Lets face it, we,re killing ourselves in more then one way…..better wake up people!
God save us from ourselves!

How would you respond to the following question - if a religious group were to be granted a waiver by the courts from a federal law under the basis of religious liberty, would that enable other religious groups a precedent for circumventing laws that do not fit with their religious beliefs (eg Sharia law, Hasidic Jews, other less “mainstream” religions)?
I have asked this question of others and have never rec. a response.

C:

We have 221 years of legal precedent to help us how to figure out the details of religious freedom.  The basic guideline established by Supreme Court rulings throughout the years is that not every religious claim is protected by the 1st Amendment (obviously); but the burden of proof is on the federal government to show that there is a compelling public interest that could not be accomplished in a way less violating of religious conscience. This principle was upheld as recently as a few months ago by all 9 justices.  Mandatory payment for other people’s contraceptives fails both criteria.  Federal laws contradicting sharia law (or at least portions of it) meet these criteria.

Jerry said,

“The health care aspect of contraception is not about sex.”

 
Neither is it about health care, for some of the measures included in the HHS mandate are never prescribed to treat a medical condition, and of those that are, such use of them is not what is at issue, but rather their use for something else.
 
If pregnancy is objectively unhealthy, then in an ideal world it would be eradicated altogether, and that is indeed what we should work toward, as some already are.

The National Geological Survey (USGS) released a study about 8 years ago dealing with the quality of water in our nation’s water supply.  The study measured the water quality in rivers, lake, and watershed regions throughout the United States.  The researchers found large amounts of estrogen and progesterone, as well as acetaminophen, ibuprofen, antibiotics, and other commonly used pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and agricultural chemicals.  They went on to make recommendations for filtering the water in our drinking supply.  They found significant levels of birth control hormones as well as the above mentioned medicines, while levels of agri-chemicals had gone down.  I heard the report on NPR at the time, and it’s supposedly possible to find it on the USGS site, but I’m still looking for the link.

C:

Follow your argument to its logical conclusion. If the govt’s power to limit (or prevent) the application of Sharia Law in the US extends to the unlimited power to impose any law on any religious group, we no longer have ANY religious liberty—which would violate BOTH the “free exercise” and “non-establishment” clauses of the First Amendment, which is Absurd.

The pharmaceuticals in the water problem is much bigger than just contraceptive hormones, as Lisa and Keri point out. Prohibiting the use of chemical contraceptives would just leave everything else, including OTC medications.

In addition, some food additives appear to mimic estrogen.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=food-additives-mimic-hormones

Most plastics leach estrogen mimicking chemicals into the water.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1733715/bpa-free-plastics-still-leach-estrogen-like-chemical

I’m sure everyone is aware that most pesticides do the same thing.

The environmental argument against contraception isn’t likely to persuade anyone to prohibit it.

Mark, I am in total opposition to the health care mandate, just so you know.  I *do* think it is important that we understand that many people who believe in the mandate’s goal of making access to b.c. easy and free have deeply felt arguments that have to do with women’s health.  Their arguments might not convince us, but in their own way (sans the Catholic teaching on life and sexuality, for example,) they are convincing.
.
As an example, take the idea that birth control is just about having consequence-free sex. “Consequence-free” sounds like “fun without responsibility” but it also can mean for some women “not getting pregnant by my abuser/clients/rapist, thereby compounding an already-existing problem.”
.
Similarly, we tend to think of poverty by big-family Catholic standards but the reality is that it can, and is, much worse.  Hungry children worse.  Homelessness worse.  And without the faith in a Loving Creator that can help open our lives further to His help, it’s “a pregnancy will be an actual tragedy” worse.
.
Finally, hormonal b.c. does not work for everybody and often longer-term and/or more expensive methods are necessary, like an IUD which is hundreds of dollars up front and not available at Wal-Mart.
.
I personally do not believe that birth control is any kind of solution to these problems but it is not hard for me to understand why some people do.  There are many people who believe that birth control is not just a “ticket to fun” but an actual comfort and relief for suffering women and families.  I think it is important that, as we make our arguments against the HHS mandate and other similar and inevitable pushes for access to contraception on the public dime, that we take seriously the arguments for contraceptives that are based in concern for women’s health.  Of course, the unserious and shallow arguments that give lip-service to women’s health but are really motivated by profit and/or irresponsibility *should be* called out for what they are.  But we also have to take care not to appear to make fun of arguments for women and families that are definitely, even if misguidedly, made out of compassion and care—lest we look callous and judgmental as the strawman caricature our critics create.

@Jerry.  In 2006 about 700 women in this country died due to complications of pregnancy or child birth.  That same year 500,000 people suffer injuries in bicycle accidents.  So does that mean that employers should be on the hook for helmets? You know, to save money and lives at risk from bicycle accidents.

The Supreme Court looks like they are going to strike down the entire health care law. Even if they don’t, the mandate is DOA in the Court. I count five votes against it, if not all nine.

And I’m betting that Obama will pull an Andy Jackson on this, especially if he gets re-elected.  He seems very willing to defy SCOTUS on this.

Corita:

I’m sorry, but every scoundrel who ever lived had “deeply felt” reasons for the particular evil they wanted to commit.  Indeed, it is typically “deep feelings” decouple from elementary moral reasoning that leads directly to monstrous evil.  In this case, the deep feeling is that Catholics should be (literally) “made to pay” for their failure to get with the program and support contraception and abortion.  Detente is past.  The culture of death is no longer taking a “live and let us kill” approach. They are not trying to force us to kill too and mean to punish us if we do not comply.  Do they ‘feel deeply” that they have to right to make war on us?  Sure.  Hitler felt that way about Poland too.  They were in the way of the New Order.

I could not care less about the “deep feeling” of bullying fascists, except insofar as how to defeat and resist them and try to teach people who to do a lot more moral reasoning and a lot less navigation by deep feeling.

While there is some proof for a) (we are in a recession after all, and while unemployment IS getting better, as I write this 12.7 million Americans are still unemployed, many long term, which does indicate jobs are scarce and labor is in surplus, as it will be for the foreseeable future) there is no proof whatsoever for b) outside of hysterical (yes, I’m using that term in it’s historical sense) emotionalism.

“And I’m betting that Obama will pull an Andy Jackson on this, especially if he gets re-elected.  He seems very willing to defy SCOTUS on this.”

I doubt it. Totally different situation. Jackson didn’t need the courts to send the Cherokee (and others) to Oklahoma. Obama needs the courts to enforce the health care law.

No, I think he plans on running against the Supreme Court and the five male conservative Catholic justices who will make up the majority against him.

Here is what I want to know, if it is so important to cover contraception completely, what other drugs are covered in a similar fashion?  As far as I know, maintenance drugs like blood pressure medication and anti-depressants will not be free (if I am wrong, someone please correct me and show me where I can get the info); this despite the fact that high blood pressure kills roughly 1/4th of all Americans and almost certainly costs this country more than many other medical conditions.

Also, when one considers containing costs, its important to make the patient an active participant.  When I saw how much one of the drugs a doctor prescribed me would cost (as a co-pay), I quickly had a talk with him about whether a generic would fill the same need… saved me (and the insurance company) a lot of money.  Giving free drugs only will encourage people to choose the drugs with the best advertising (i.e., not generic).

MarylandBill, you’ve hit the nail on the head.  While we all beef about employers with a conscience having to pay for things they don’t agree with, in reality this mandate is not just forcing them to do that, but by requiring 100% coverage from the first dollar rather than simply covering them with applicable deductibles and co-pays as they do real health care, employers are effectively being required to promote artificial contraceptives, abortion pills and sterilization.

Jerry: it has to be about sex a little bit.  How do you think all those pregnancies get made? 
-
cowalker: there you go bringing up this concept of prohibition.  I’ve noticed that with very few exceptions, our opponents are the first and only ones to suggest the idea, and they have awfully one-track minds about it.  What does it take to get you to see that not every suggestion must be a compulsive desire for control?  I used to be on the Pill to help regulate a relatively minor medical issue, but when I read about this I became convicted that my use was not necessary enough to justify maiming aquatic life.  Is it too much to ask that people make the same examination I did?

Someone pointed out that in 2006 about 700 women died of pregnancy-related causes.  How many died of breast cancer?  How many of those that died of breast cancer had a history of taking oral contraceptives, classified as a class one carcinogen by the World Health Organization in 2003?!?!?

Re: “Posted by C on Monday, Apr 23, 2012 9:50 AM (EST):

How would you respond to the following question - if a religious group were to be granted a waiver by the courts from a federal law under the basis of religious liberty, would that enable other religious groups a precedent for circumventing laws that do not fit with their religious beliefs (eg Sharia law, Hasidic Jews, other less “mainstream” religions)?
I have asked this question of others and have never rec. a response.”

The Amish already have an exception to Obamacare.  Question answered.

Oh, wait - McDonald’s has a waiver.  And MANY other organizations - many waivers have been granted.

“The health care aspect of contraception is not about sex. It is about saving money and lives at risk from unwanted pregnancy.” If Jerry meant to say, “It’s not JUST about sex…,” I’d agree. It’s also arguably about another Trojan-horse-of-a-federal-power-grab (pun intended). But let’s not be naive. Of course, it is AT LEAST about subsidized sex (without openness to the natural results). I’m not sure how this will save money or lives, unless we are being shaken down by extortionists who threaten to kill their pre-born children unless we prevent their conception, in which case we are being spared the abortionist’s fee and the murder of the fetuses. Any statistics that could be cited about the speculative social benefits of contraception only serve to remind us of the wonderful social results that were supposed to flow from easy access to abortion.  Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us. Finally, I would like to ask Jerry (who wants us to know he’s Catholic): Are you actually supportive of the Church’s stand on the issue of contraception? 

Jerry, I have taken the liberty to copy and paste the opening of your comment(s) here for clarity. [Posted by Jerry on Monday, Apr 23, 2012 9:00 AM (EST): The health care aspect of contraception is not about sex. It is about saving money and lives at risk from unwanted pregnancy.] But my question for you Jerry is this; have you ever read PROVERBS 17:28 “Even fools, keeping silent, are considered wise; if they keep their lips closed, intelligent.”  I suggest Jerry, that you do some research PRIOR to opening your mouth in the future.

Mark, I agree with you wholeheartedly about bullies.
There seem to me to be two aspects of the issue: 1)The reasons people think contraception is so vital to women and families and 2)The means by which to secure access to contraception in light of its supposed desperate importance.
As far as the first aspect goes, if we who oppose the mandate speak as if we think contraception is only about Free Fun for Hedonists, and refuse to give any acknowledgement to the seriousness of some situations that some people try to solve by using contraception, then we will completely alienate anyone from believing that the proposed solution (making everybody pay for it) is not the right one.  We just sound like privileged jerks.
.
For me, posting this comment was partly for others to read, so that if there is anyone out there who thinks of contraception as *merely* a giant support column helping to prop up a commercial edifice that buys and sells bodies at both the individual and social levels, they would also consider the small but relevant minority of suffering people for whom contraception seems to be warding off not just responsibility or a big downer, but indeed ruin.  I do not agree that contraception is the solution, and certainly the HHS mandate is even worse….But we must consider how we sell our counter-message. You cannot make a good argument without first taking seriously the other side, and the reality of abuse, financial ruin and physical danger as real threats that contraception offers protection from cannot and should not be brushed aside.
So, please keep fighting the bullies.  I intend to as well. Remember that real people use contraception for real, often serious reasons. If we are to convince them that contraception isn’t the solution to their problems we can’t start by suggesting they are all just selfish sluts feeding at the public trough.
(This last part is not directed at your rhetoric specifically, Mark, just a general caution based on how I have seen the matter discussed amongst us strongly-feeling Catholics!)

” they would also consider the small
but relevant minority of suffering people for whom contraception seems to be
warding off not just responsibility or a big downer, but indeed ruin. “

My response to anybody about using contraception within marriage is threefold, addressing the three types of contraception available to just about any modern woman:
1.  The Pill ends up a pollution nightmare- you’ve got to think about the effects OUTSIDE of your marriage on the natural environment.  Here in Oregon, salmon and frog populations have been devastated by *treated* waste water dumped in the rivers.
2.  Condoms and other barrier methods are made of latex, a type of plastic, and are equally dangerous when discarded into the environment.  They are designed not to degrade (a design that by a famous Consumer Reports test is a failure, but still becomes a pollution nightmare).
3.  Natural Family Planning ain’t your mothers rhythm method, and can bring MORE intimacy to the relationship when done properly.

@Jerry,
contraception does NOT prevent unwanted pregnancy.  If we presume perfect use of a 99% effective contraceptive for 10 years (130 episodes where a woman can become pregnant; 10 years x 52 weeks/ 4 weeks = 130) then there is a 59% chance of AT LEAST one unintended pregnancy.  Perfect use is, of course, a lie, and unintended pregnancies rise hugely with only a minimal increase in failure rates.

Nota bene, this does NOT involve statistics.  This is about PROBABILITY.  Probability is very reliable, just look at the cash that Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City and the various lotteries all draw in.

So it is easily demonstrated that contraception promotes unintended pregnancy.

And that doesn’t even add in the fact that most contraception does nada to stop STD transmission.

And also on the topic of bullies:
.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” –C S Lewis

Posted by enness on Monday, Apr 23, 2012 2:23 PM (EST):

“cowalker: there you go bringing up this concept of prohibition.  I’ve noticed that with very few exceptions, our opponents are the first and only ones to suggest the idea, . . . when I read about this [pollution] I became convicted that my use was not necessary enough to justify maiming aquatic life.  Is it too much to ask that people make the same examination I did?”

You are right that this aspect of contraceptives was not brought up in the context of prohibition. It was mentioned to demonstrate the high usage rate of hormonal contraceptives, and it is convincing on this point. Of course plastics, pesticides and some food additives are equally harmful.

The thing is, I know that the church hierarchy WOULD make contraception, abortion, surgical sterilization, IVF conception, pornography, extramarital sex, heresy and blasphemy illegal if they had the power. Yes, yes, there is no chance at all that they ever will have that much power . . . . although they have succeeded, with the help of evangelicals, in making it more difficult for a woman to obtain a legal abortion in many areas of the country.

There is no doctrine that decrees that the Catholic Church must observe the separation of church and state. The Catholic Church will always push as hard as it can to cross that line. While enjoying exemption from federal taxes, members of the hierarchy socialize with politicians, urge the members of their parishes to vote in certain ways, and actively promote selected legislation in Washington.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120399270
The Catholic Church helped get Obamacare passed, and part of the bishops’s anger is undoubtedly due to their feeling betrayed by the administration on this issue—although they still won on abortion.

So although contraception will not be targeted for prohibition, it’s not out of principle. It’s because it can’t succeed in a country where the Catholic population no longer follow instructions from the pulpit.

Corita:

Re: the Lewis quote.  Amen.

cowalker said,

“I know that the church hierarchy WOULD make contraception, abortion, surgical sterilization, IVF conception, pornography, extramarital sex, heresy and blasphemy illegal if they had the power.”

 
The Church is not looking to impose its own will by exercising it through civil authorities in dictatorial fashion.  It is only interested in people knowing the truth about things, understanding the damage that some things can do to the soul and having the ability to control their own destiny to a degree by having a say in how they’re governed.  While even the Church probably wouldn’t support outlawing things where enforcement is impossible or draconian (e.g. extramarital sex), it’s certainly not unreasonable to expect the people to have the right to avoid condoning organized practices that have proved problematic for practically everyone, such as IVF, pornography and artificial contraception, by making them unlawful.

Contraception is the greatest plague, in blood and treasure to ever afflict mankind.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 6:45 AM (EST):cowalker said,

“The Church is not looking to impose its own will by exercising it through civil authorities in dictatorial fashion.  It is only interested in people knowing the truth about things, understanding the damage that some things can do to the soul and having the ability to control their own destiny to a degree by having a say in how they’re governed.”

I agree with you that the Church would not work outside the law to impose its will. This would be against Catholic doctrine. However it does exert as much pressure as it can on civil authorities to influence voting and legislation. We saw this in action in California where the Church worked hard to keep the legal institution of marriage from changing from the Church’s spiritual model. It is not impossible to imagine other situations where the Church would use its power to put doctrine into law.

#1:  I would like to point out that while CS Lewis was indeed a High Anglican Catholic in his theology, the root of Anglican theology was still a Protestant act of rebellion; albeit a private sin of the king rather than a direct rejection of all Apostolic Authority.  Still, I wouldn’t have him as my go-to theologian on Apostolic Authority for this reason alone.

#2:  You act, cowalker, as if “contraception, abortion, surgical sterilization, IVF conception, pornography, extramarital sex, heresy and blasphemy” were moral goods.  Instead of railing against the Church wanting to make these illegal, why don’t you show us your philosophical case for these things being good?  The Church has a very definite set of reasons why these are evil, divisive, and destructive to civilization, I want to see if your reasoning is equal to Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, or on the last two, the ancient medieval notion that a group of people living as a single community should hold a single set of values. 

The Theology of the Body is deep and researched.  The idea that people living as a single community should hold a single faith and a single set of values is proven by the utter mess we’ve made of modern, cosmopolitan cities.  As atheists are fond of saying, Extraordinary Proofs require Extraordinary Evidence.  I would say philosophy holds the same.  The fact that “contraception, abortion, surgical sterilization, IVF conception, pornography, extramarital sex, heresy and blasphemy” are evils to be combated, the Church has offered us extraordinary evidence for.  What do you have to compare?

cowaker wrote:
“There is no doctrine that decrees that the Catholic Church must observe the separation of church and state. The Catholic Church will always push as hard as it can to cross that line.”

There is no line for the Catholic Church or indeed any other religion.  The first amendment of the Constitution places all the limits on government and none on Religion or the Press.

cowalker said,

“it [the Church] does exert as much pressure as it can on civil authorities to influence voting and legislation”

 
The Church seeks justice objectively, unlike most other institutions that “exert as much pressure as.. [they]... can on civil authorities to influence voting and legislation.”
 
 

“We saw this in action in California where the Church worked hard to keep the legal institution of marriage from changing from the Church’s spiritual model.”

 
Which was motivated by the same philosophy that is behind her fight against unjust provisions in laws regarding illegal immigrants, such as the one in Alabama, as well as her efforts to secure food, clothing, shelter and health care for the less fortunate, which have been ongoing always and everywhere.

Why doesn’t this government want to provide something that ALL people can actually benefit from (if they feel they need to force employers to provide some sort of healthcare and contraception is NOT healthcare.  They say we will save by not having as many people being born….we are already way behind in population and almost to the point of non-replacement levels as in Europe, AND have they considered the amounts of cancer that will happen DUE to the contraception these women are taking?  What about that cost?  To me, it is just about Obama wanting to ruin the Catholic Church; however, as it says in the Bible - “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”.

The truth is that the HHS mandate isn’t at all about “preventative health care” or “women’s health care” or any kind of “health care.”  If it were, the mandate would require full coverage of copay-free medications used to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes—all of which are implicated both seperately and together in causing heart disease—which is also, by the way, the #1 killer of all men and all women in this country. Can you imagine how much money would be spared by actually aggressively treating heart disease and its related elements?  This wouldn’t just impact overall mortality, it would impact morbidity as well as disability and related employment issues as well.
—>No, this is all about pushing an agenda.<—

Just imagine if the same efforts were used to help smoking cessation programs… or cancer screening programs… or prenatal care… (or, as I mentioned above, prevention, screening, and aggressive treatment of heart disease…) All of these would actually go a lot farther in terms of improving the overall health of Americans while *decreasing* the overall cost of medical care. There have been multiple studies that show that the cost of addressing these issues is far less, over time, than the cost of actual medical care (doctor visits, labs, medications), hospitalizations, lost work days, and disability. {Preventing disease is much cheaper than treating it, appropriately treating disease is much cheaper than managing end-point morbidities, etc.}

Posted by MarylandBill on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 11:17 AM (EST):cowaker wrote:
“There is no line for the Catholic Church or indeed any other religion.  The first amendment of the Constitution places all the limits on government and none on Religion or the Press.”

I was referring to limitations imposed by Catholic doctrine. There is no Catholic doctrine that forbids the Church from an alliance with the state in which the state enforces Church law. I’m saying the Church puts no limits on itself.

Posted by Kevin Rahe on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 11:32 AM (EST):
The Church seeks justice objectively, unlike most other institutions that “exert as much pressure as.. [they]... can on civil authorities to influence voting and legislation.”

“[Church activities against Proposition 8] was motivated by the same philosophy that is behind her fight against unjust provisions in laws regarding illegal immigrants, such as the one in Alabama, as well as her efforts to secure food, clothing, shelter and health care for the less fortunate, which have been ongoing always and everywhere.”

Yes, I understand that the Church acts in all these matters from the same motivation—to realize its doctrine in civil law to the greatest extent that it can because it believes it is morally right. As for actually achieving objectivity, the Church is no more or less objective than any other human institution. Its leaders are subject to all the frailties of human nature, and their decisions reflect this.

I’m waiting, cowalker, for your definitive proof that “contraception, abortion, surgical sterilization, IVF conception, pornography, extramarital sex, heresy and blasphemy” are more good than evil.  And one example of that evil predicted by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II- a reduction in human diversity.  With Planned Parenthood’s Negro Project, we see the real intent is to get rid of problematic populations.

cowalker said,

“I understand that the Church acts in all these matters from the same motivation—to realize its doctrine in civil law to the greatest extent that it can because it believes it is morally right.”

 
Not at all.  In fact, enshrining Church doctrine in civil law - thereby imposing it on the people rather than letting them choose it freely - would in many cases devalue it.  An example would be the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
Much more than encoding its doctrine in civil law, what the Church seeks to do is maintain respect for the Natural Law, which is the source of almost all of its conflict with civil authorities.
 
 

“As for actually achieving objectivity, the Church is no more or less objective than any other human institution. Its leaders are subject to all the frailties of human nature, and their decisions reflect this.”

 
Of course individual leaders within the Church hierarchy are as fallible as anyone, as became all too clear in the early part of the last decade.  However, the Church didn’t write the Natural Law, yet is compelled to respect it.  It could choose to ignore it or contradict it, for example by declaring that abortion does not take the life of a complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human being, which would create a conflict with basic biological science.  Or it could claim that the intimate union of a man and a woman does not represent a relationship that is uniquely different from any other kind of human relationship.  But if it did these things it couldn’t be God’s divinely inspired Church, and all doubts about Jesus’ claims and teachings would be confirmed.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 10:44 AM (EST):
“#2:  You act, cowalker, as if “contraception, abortion, surgical sterilization, IVF conception, pornography, extramarital sex, heresy and blasphemy” were moral goods.”

I prefer to live in a society where choices about these matters are left up to individual. Except for heresy and blashphemy, they are complex issues that are deeply personal. Heresy and blasphemy are free speech, and that is a very good thing.

I’m sure my moral reasoning wouldn’t be equal to that of a student of philosophy, but I don’t think that’s a good way to derive laws anyway. It’s all about getting the most universal buy-in possible. Laws have to be worked out in cooperation with others on the basis of shared values and pragmatism about the costs of enforcement, both in money and social costs. In a developed nation like the U.S. it’s an ongoing process that responds to changing circumstances. People are not persuaded by elaborate reasoning based on assumptions they probably don’t even share.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 2:55 PM (EST):
“Much more than encoding its doctrine in civil law, what the Church seeks to do is maintain respect for the Natural Law, which is the source of almost all of its conflict with civil authorities.”

In modern times, that is what the Church has cut back to. The Church gave up on prosecuting heresy when it lost the support of the state in enforcing it. Of course all the other Christian sects did the same thing, and Muslims are still attempting to enforce doctrine through the state. It appears that religions become most tolerant when they are most weak.

“I prefer to live in a society where choices about these matters are left up to individual. Except for heresy and blashphemy, they are complex issues that are deeply personal. Heresy and blasphemy are free speech, and that is a very good thing.”

I completely disagree. 

#1- the rest of those matters go to the continuation of the species which affects all of us if we want our culture to continue.  Thus while complex, they aren’t personal.

#2- Heresy and blasphemy are about LYING, which should not be a freedom of speech issue.

“I’m sure my moral reasoning wouldn’t be equal to that of a student of philosophy, but I don’t think that’s a good way to derive laws anyway. It’s all about getting the most universal buy-in possible.”

If it was about getting universal buy in, we’d all be sitting around in caves.

“Laws have to be worked out in cooperation with others on the basis of shared values and pragmatism about the costs of enforcement, both in money and social costs. In a developed nation like the U.S. it’s an ongoing process that responds to changing circumstances. People are not persuaded by elaborate reasoning based on assumptions they probably don’t even share.”

If it’s shared values you want, then that’s what RELIGION and a STRONG STATE CHURCH provide.  You can’t have “shared values” without a single theology.

“In modern times, that is what the Church has cut back to. The Church gave up on prosecuting heresy when it lost the support of the state in enforcing it. Of course all the other Christian sects did the same thing, and Muslims are still attempting to enforce doctrine through the state. It appears that religions become most tolerant when they are most weak.”

True enough, if you think tolerance is a virtue.  I personally don’t.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012 3:49 PM (EST):
“If it’s shared values you want, then that’s what RELIGION and a STRONG STATE CHURCH provide.  You can’t have “shared values” without a single theology.”

That’s what the people of Iran currently enjoy. It’s simply not workable in the U.S., due to our diversity. It remains to be seen how long it will remain workable in Iran.

In the U.S. we do share basic values such as not wanting to be assaulted, robbed, defrauded, etc. Most of us have also agreed that we want an infrastructure that promotes economic development, some social safety nets, and government protection from uncontrolled exploitation of the environment that would eventually destroy it. There are endless ways to realize these values in law, and disagreement over means will never end.

But the truth is, even when everyone agrees on more values than those discussed above, there will be disagreement over the means to be used to realize those values in law.

To all of you slandering pharmaceutical companies: it seems to me all of you have been drinking the anti-business Kool-Aid of the left. Quit right now. Pharma is responsible for jobs, development and innovation. Thank them for the new medicines than enable you to live as long as you do today. If not for pharma, you would have died young as people did in the early 1800s. There are many natural contaminants in water that are far more harmful because they lead to death: radiation, mercury and cryptosporidium among others. Over 100,000 pharma jobs have been lost since 2001. Keep killing off pharma with your rhetoric and punitive lawsuits—then don’t cry when there’s no cure for you.

Do not forget, in your praise of Big Pharma, Material Health, and of course big profits and jobs- that to the contrmplative Catholic, this is a waste of time.  St. Therse the Little Flower died young.  As did many others.

Why is it any time anybody brings up the political concepts of the Left or the Right in a discussion on theology on the Internet, they’re about to accuse the other side of an atheist economic philosophy while themselves using an atheist economic philosophy instead of the Social Justice of the Church?

cowalker said,

the Church acts in all these matters from the same motivation—to realize its doctrine in civil law to the greatest extent that it can because it believes it is morally right.

 
and
 

The Church gave up on prosecuting heresy when it lost the support of the state in enforcing it… It appears that religions become most tolerant when they are most weak.

 
A pretty clear paradox there.  The Church either seeks to rigidly enforce its doctrine or is unwilling to do so - both cannot be true.

Such is the problem with Atheist Philosophy as it stands today:  It denies paradox when it occurs in the universe but acceptts paradox in its own philosophy.

“I agree with you that the Church would not work outside the law to impose its will. This would be against Catholic doctrine. However it does exert as much pressure as it can on civil authorities to influence voting and legislation. We saw this in action in California where the Church worked hard to keep the legal institution of marriage from changing from the Church’s spiritual model. It is not impossible to imagine other situations where the Church would use its power to put doctrine into law.” - cowalker

And are not those Catholics also Americans?  Are not the atheists, agnotsics and other assorted secularists also not Americans, while striving to oppose the things that Catholics stand for?  This much vaunted separation of church and state as mythologized and believed by so many is not what the Constitution says.  For very good reason.  Whoever you are, whatever you believe, law is intertwined with morality.  Period.  End of story.  So unless you want to create second-class citizens out of vast portions of the population based on their religious beliefs, then everyone has the opportunity in the political realm to influence outcomes based on those beliefs, subject to the baseline of conscience protection.  Have not atheists battled in court for decades for their own conscience protection? 
There is no neutral ground.  That is a fantasy arising out of the mythology about separation of church and state.  The government is only prohibited from making any law “establishing” a religion, which this HHS mandate, it may be argued, actually does.  In the meantime, laws are made based on the conscience of the legislators and occasionally on the conscience of those who elected them.