Catholic Bishops Reject Obama Compromise on Contraception Coverage

By David Morgan | February 8, 2013

  • February 8, 2013 at 11:55 am
    ExciteBiker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In other news, despite a desparate fight by church officials, documents from the Los Angeles diocese were made public. The content of these documents sickens the stomach. And in other news, the Irish church was revealed to have benefitted from a widespread use of the unpaid labor of young women up through the mid 1990s. Perhaps this would be a good time to review the Vatican Bank; notably just last month the Bank of Italy stated that ‘the Vatican does not respect international anti money laundering norms and an Italian-registered bank can therefore not operate on its territory.’

    I guess what I am getting at is, quite frankly, the Catholic Bishops don’t have a grain of moral sand to stand on, and they had best keep their “holiest” of traps shut before the moral legitimacy of the Church is further laid bare in a way that even more parishioners will be unable to ignore.

    Faith in the legitimacy of the Catholic Church’s moral authority likely mirrors Congressional approval ratings.

    • February 8, 2013 at 3:53 pm
      Cheetoh Mulligan says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Great comment. Paint a whole group with one brush. Using your way of thinking, all mothers should have their children taken away because they may kill them like Susan Smith and Casey Anthony did. All Germans should be locked up because of Hitler. Let’s condemm a whole race based on the actions of a few! Genius!

    • February 11, 2013 at 6:26 pm
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Hey ExciteBiker. Are there any good websites that provide this sort of information? I’ll bet there’s a lot of it out there, and I doubt anything could surprise me anymore.

    • February 13, 2013 at 3:07 pm
      Patti Cake in the East says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Don’t tell me, ExciteBiker…let me guess. You’re a Scientologist? Unitarian Universalist?

  • February 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm
    insurance is fun! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When will churches and the religious right understand that they no longer have as much relevance in modern society on every possible issue as they used to? Separation – and all that. I am glad there are churches to maintain the moral discussions, but their word is simply just not law.

    Some of us actually believe that celebrating sex and using contraception are both morally fine.

    I am happy that both the church and the government are being removed from my bedroom.

  • February 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm
    Alan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How about this; no exceptions, no exemptions and we are eliminating your tax free status.

    • February 8, 2013 at 3:47 pm
      Cheetoh Mulligan says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      That’s a great idea. Screw Freedom! Let’s throw out Obama and get a Dictator!

      • February 11, 2013 at 9:51 am
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        And your comment has exactly what to do with the subject at hand? Please try to be at least remotely connected to the topic…

      • February 13, 2013 at 3:14 pm
        Patti Cake in the East says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Well, Cheetoh…I was with you up to the ‘Let’s throw Obama out’ part…

    • February 11, 2013 at 6:07 pm
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I’d vote for that!

      That is in no way a afront to freedom, by the way. It would only put a stop to these groups getting special priveleges. On the other hand, maybe we could start a new religion that says it’s a mortal sin to pay for anything at all ;)

      • February 11, 2013 at 6:10 pm
        Don't Call Me Shirley says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        I meant it’s in no way an affront. Poor typing skills.

  • February 8, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Health care benefits are earned by the employee and are legally regulated by the government to guarantee a minimum standard for health insurance plans for all of us. Furthermore, no one is holding a gun to anyone’s head making them take the contraception benefit-no one. It is up to the individual employee to take the benefit. All obedient Catholics will not use the benefit, plain and simple (which a high percentage of Catholics in the US do today by the way). There is no restraining of religious freedom here, none whatsoever. Therefore, the discussion here is completely a political one.

  • February 8, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    Rusty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While on the topic, as long as everyone has to be treated equally these days, what about male contraception? That might be even more of a healthcare issue since, unlike most female contraceptives, condoms also protect against STDs. So, shouldn’t healthcare also pay for condoms?

  • February 8, 2013 at 3:59 pm
    BS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “The government would require all employees in our ‘accommodated’ ministries to have the illicit coverage – they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children,” he said.”

    What a stupid argument. They don’t have to ‘opt out’ of it. They can just choose not to use that part of the coverage.

    And there are non-Catholics working in Catholic Hospitals and Universities. They should not be subject to the Church’s antiquated views on contraception and reproduction.

  • February 8, 2013 at 4:30 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obama started this. Women were not even asking for free Birth Controll.
    Seniors were asking for help. Did not get it. This whole thing was just a ploy to get the female vote.
    At the end of it all, Preventing Life is more important then preserving life to OBama.
    OBama has divided the masses for something that wasnt even asked for by anyone.
    So, add up all the time, effort & expense & percieved hard feelings men vs women to get this piece of legislation through. I personally do feel the efforts would have been better spent on somethign else that was a concern to the people of the USA. Maybe lowering the debt? Resolving Budget Issues?
    Instead, he wanted votes. He got them. And now, he is dividing the country amongst religous lines. Divide and Conquor! what an egomaniac!

    • February 8, 2013 at 4:34 pm
      insurance is fun! says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Women pushing for equality and their rights started under the Obama presidency. FFA, you’re amazing!

      • February 9, 2013 at 10:59 am
        FFA says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        I didnt mean to imply that. I should have said renewed it. He did it for votes. And now the cost to get it pushed through with all the court battles??? Limited resources are better spent elsewhere.

        My only point is that women didnt ask for it. From the other forums, seems to me like women were happy with the way it was. They wernt asking for this. Seniors have been asking for help with RX forever. No help for those that need it the most.

        Can you think of one woman that said she wanted her BC free? Just one? Had he given up free meds to SR’s, I might have voted for him.

        On an unrelated note, Jesse JR headed to jail. Imaging that, another ILL politician headed to prison. Soon to follow, Sandy Jackson for the same reason – Campaign Fund Fraud.

      • February 11, 2013 at 6:18 pm
        Don't Call Me Shirley says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        But how am I gonna keep my woman barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen if she starts gettin’ them fancy liberal ideas about birth control?

        • February 12, 2013 at 2:45 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Don’t call me Shirley:

          This is sexist. It is prejudiced. It’s pure bull.

          Women are not being opressed into the kitchen from conservatives. By comparison, I guess you prefer receiving child support, ruining a man’s life, and not taking care of the child?

          I’m making the assumption that the child is around, because well, so did you in the bare foot assumption.

          Grow up please. No more sexist tar. It’s not ok to make the statement as you made above.

      • February 12, 2013 at 1:00 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        How is getting their birth control paid for equality?

        As A side comment: There is NO issue with equality as the law is written to do with women.

        Some, very few, people discriminate. It is the minority. If it were not, we would see much more lawsuits.

        Now on to what FFA was pointing out: Obama is forcing the appearance that there is a war against women, in order to unite women against republicans, on something that has false pretenses.

        Women should pay for their own birth control. While we are on fairness, where are my free condoms as part of an insurance plan?

        You know why we don’t do that? LOW COST MEDS HAVE NO PLACE ON INSURANCE.

        Everyone knows this in insurance except for you apparently. It just raises the costs for everyone. Obama is wrong. Plain and simple. He’s most wrong on this for trying to ignite a religious war.

        And for the rest of you: You are dead wrong on your views of the church, and YOU are being bigoted in your posts, discriminatory, and need to shut the hell up.

        Talking to Shirley, Jon, and Excite, who seems to think Irish Catholics have access to Roman Catholic funds. Here’s a hint: They don’t. Irish Catholics are not a part of the Roman Catholic church. Idiot.

        • February 12, 2013 at 1:41 pm
          jw says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          I’m having another blonde moment. How do low cost meds raise costs for everyone? Walmart has generics for $4. Most insurances have copays ranging from $3 to $25. How is this bad.

          • February 12, 2013 at 2:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            For low cost high usage drugs the only method of insuring them is mark up. They can’t build capital on the non-used premiums because it is a low cost constant use drug.

            At that point, the insurance company cannot build capital, and has to make profit. Walmart charges $4. The insurance company would probably need $8, just to pass it through.

            For things that are high cost low use, they invest premiums to pay out the high cost. In this method, they can get $5,000, invest it while it isn’t used to get $10,000, take $2,000 of profit, and pay $8,000 out.

            The same cannot happen with low cost drugs, and by necessity, the cost of insuring the drug will be higher than the cost of the drug. Make sense?

          • February 12, 2013 at 2:43 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I should note the below equation follows exactly the 20% ratio that the government now restricts. So those numbers would actually be spot on.

            They would get $2,000 which is 20%, 80% would go toward claims.

  • February 8, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    Lisa Lincoln says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The libs have succeeded in keeping the term “abortion” out of the discussion. Abortion is the big hot button issue with conservative Christians who have no objection to use of birth control pills, etc. Lump it all together to create a bigger problem. If paying for abortions was not in the plan, fewer employers would object.

    • February 11, 2013 at 1:35 pm
      jw says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      A truly conservative christian will oppose birth control in any form. The Catholic Church is adamant about not supplying birth control.

  • February 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    Jeff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This headline – “Catholic Bishops Reject Obama Compromise…” is simply not accurate. It assumes that the Obama Administration actually changed or moved its position towards the Bishops position – it clearly did not as seen by clear & forceful reaction of the Bishops. It makes it appear that Administration actually gave something up when it obviously had no intention of doing so. A more accurate headline would have been “Catholic Bishops Reject Latest Obama Wording….”

  • February 11, 2013 at 10:11 am
    Jon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s so absolutely simple I’m surprised the Catholic Church (and hey, let’s toss in Hobby Lobby as well) cannot understand it.

    In this country, you cannot engage in employee discrimination based on religious belief.

    That means a non-Catholic can work in a Catholic business.

    Not all religions are anti-birth control.

    Therefore, no employer (save the ridiculously outdated “houses of worship exemption) can discriminate (ie bar) contraceptive coverage under the “Obamacare” law.

    Frankly, I believe Churches need to start paying their taxes just like everyone else–and be as accountable to the law, and to the public for shielding felons from justice.

    • February 11, 2013 at 6:22 pm
      Don't Call Me Shirley says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      They avoid taxes and shield felons, but they are somehow morally superior.

      • February 12, 2013 at 2:59 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Painting with a large brush, and somehow you are morally superior.

        The church does not shield felons. They have a vow of secrecy. They do not break it. You are stating that you do not believe in force to do with religion but then are asking they break their vow of secrecy when it comes to confession. They will not, and should not. The child has enough to go after the priest who did the bad action. And the church has the right to believe any soul can be saved. The church does not attack any of the parties. So for their members, they try to help them. That does not make them shield felons. By the same merrit do you hate attorneys as well? The government for shielding felons like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then appointing those people as parts of the Cabinet? (Obama). You are a hypocrite.

        They do not avoid taxes. They are treated fairly in regards to taxes, and again, you need to shut the hell up.

        Your bias against religion is astounding. I am agnostic. I constantly go between not believing in a God, to thinking that there must be a reason why I’m oddly lucky in life, which I won’t go into certain things that ended up a certain way. The bottom line is: I am NOT a die hard conservative. And I take EXTREME offense to your labeling.

        You are no different to me than the (few) zealots there are on the right who actually are bad and will go all high and mighty. You’re on a high and mighty crock of crap labeling bigoted spree. Knock it off.

        I once got in between my brother (Catholic) and an Atheist. The Atheist I shit you not was attempting to say as a Catholic my brother could not have possibly been raised to be as diverse or knowldgeable as him, even despite having graduated at a secular college. He was making the argument that my brother could not possibly say that dealing pot on campus was a bad thing to do. I know you liberals love pot and all, and I don’t really care about pot personally, but in their argument religion didn’t have a damn place. My brother wasn’t making a religious argument, he just doesn’t like pot. Many religious people do like pot. The atheist assumed that all religious folk just oh man, oh god, they shield rapists and make people not have their edumafacitaion!

        You are seriously inept Don’t Call Me Shirley. Go elsewhere with your issues.

        • February 13, 2013 at 9:57 am
          jw says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Wow. Bob, I think you win the award for most comments hidden due to low rating.

          • February 13, 2013 at 12:45 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            JW:

            With the dislikes, it’s very likely one or two people.

            Most the people on here like to make an enemy, insult the hell out of them, go with the group and crowd.

            Go figure these people call themselves “liberals”. Liberals were different in the 60’s. The current liberals are insults.

            I should note I was raised in a liberal family with a liberal father. He voted Carter, hoping they would stop being morons.

            The people here are just acting immature in regards to religion. There’s only so much you can bitch about religion, trying to blame it for everything, before you just admit you’re wrong and are acting bigoted.

            As I said before, I am agnostic. Yet these tools on here seem to think they are “open minded”. I may be “conservative” in how I vote, I’m not in how I act.

            Everything I do is a 50/50. Agnostic, 50/50.

            Computers: Half apple, half pc.

            Daughter: Allowed to drink at 18 as long as she’s in my house or with someone I trust. Not 16, due to medical reasons only.

            Sex and marriage: Don’t care, as long as she realizes that dating is never to be for sex, and is meant to lead in to a meaningful relationship.

            Healthcare: Ok with a public and private plan, with the public being used for low income users. If it’s about access and quality, well then provide access to those who need it, and private for those who want to pay for additional coverage. Problem solved. The current plan restricts the ability for private insurance to do what it’s meant to and I don’t like it.

            Abortion: The only belief I have here is that if one has an abortion, they have to at least acknowledge they it is NOT about the woman’s “body”. It’s about the fact that the woman may not be ready for a “child”. They are aborting a “child” and need to be honest with themselves about it. I don’t care if they do it, unless it is third trimester, which should never be done. I do care if they lie about what they are doing and do some sob story about their body to make me try to feel sorry for them. The reason we panic about children is our ability to take care of them, not that we won’t fit in our pants for 9 months. That’s pure bull.

            Prayer should be allowed in schools, so should muslim prayer time, any religion should be allowed in any public area.

            Gay marriage should be allowed, so long as it is not integrated through the government in a way that conflicts with religion, or may cause discrimination lawsuits against religious institutions as happened in Canada. Religion should not screw with gays. Gays should not screw with religion. Thus, civil unions is the best possible method of integration (as republicans want)

            As you can see, nothing extreme conservative. The only one I have that the people here call me exterme conservative, is that the housing collapse, I have it pegged on the democrats, not Bush. Which apparently, boy howdy does that one get you labeled a loony.

            Even though my story is quite logical, uses info gathered from several public government websites (as in I didn’t get it from MSNBC or CNN, I did my own research) and the morons here debate with me by saying “you listen to fox news!” and “here’s my CNN source saying you are wrong!”

            The people here are sheep. It pisses me off. They do not know how to be 50/50.

          • February 13, 2013 at 2:55 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            JW:

            I am referring to not a vague non specific group.

            The liberals I named in this post, were all insulting the religion in a non proper, bigoted way.

            I listed names. Now BS is added to that list.

            And they are out of line.

        • February 13, 2013 at 10:24 am
          BS says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          “They have a vow of secrecy. They do not break it. You are stating that you do not believe in force to do with religion but then are asking they break their vow of secrecy when it comes to confession. They will not, and should not. The child has enough to go after the priest who did the bad action.”

          The abuse scandals didn’t come about because the Church didn’t act on the confessions of pedophile priests. They came about because the parents and children children made complaints. And instead of turning the accused priest over to the authorities, they assured the families that they would take care of it, and instead just shuttled the priests off to different parishes.

          • February 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            BS:

            I was raised catholic, and you I can tell know not one damn thing about what happened. I don’t gear to show the entire story in one post.

            I only spelled out aspects of the story. I know more about this than you.

            The church followed their rules. Are you aware that religion has no restrictions on who can be a priest? And by belief and default, they are to forgive anyone?

            They aren’t acting immorally. In order to do that they would have to contradict their laws. They don’t. They are acting inpartially. Anyone can be a priest. You can’t be kicked out of being a priest. And from there it is up to the government to put the priest in jail, at which point, as I said, the church may defend the priest, much as an attorney provides defense to sometimes guilty clients. Only in this case they aren’t doing it for money. They are doing it because it’s just what they are supposed to do.

            You might not like it, but labeling the church about it is insanely stupid, prejudiced, and ignorant. No system is perfect. Our laws don’t always work. Our presidents appoint people from Goldman Sach’s, and that same dishonest president you don’t seem to insult regarding how he’s handling the economy, appointing the very people who destroyed it, “shuffling” them off to different positions in the government.

            My issue with you “liberals” is your blatent labeling, discrimination, and then pretending to be “open minded”.

            No. You want to be open minded in being against a common enemy. The “church” is not an entity you can blame for what happened with the children. And EVERY action the church did was completely understandble. It was an overall bad situation. The people at wrong were the priests. Not the church. Learn the difference, and then grow the hell up.

            Again: Agnostic speaking here. Raised Catholic. Do you think I moved away from being Catholic for a reason? I clearly don’t attend currently. The person who is insanely acting and labeling without knoweldge here is you. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean you should lable it for the world’s evils, especially when it comes to something like pedophilia. That’s not right. That’s not fair to the victim. Get pissed at the priests. Not the church.

          • February 13, 2013 at 12:52 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I should also note BS:

            Regarding confessions:

            Yes. The controversy did come about from confession. That was the tipping block about 10-15 years ago. I was just out of the Catholic church at that time, my mother was pissed about it.

            Us Catholics were even pissed about it. The priests were not divulging what they were told in confession to the courts, to be used as evidence to prove the priest who did the molesting was guilty.

            That was the final draw for the public.

            In present day, yes, you’re right, the issue is the shuttling around.

            But as I pointed out: What exactly is your goal? To force the church to get rid of their ideals? Get rid of the ideal that anyone can be forgiven if they do penance? Forgiveness is not free in the Catholic church. You have to do actual actions to be forgiven. It leaves opportunity for people to be better people.

            You seem to want the system to be punitive, to act as our punitive system does. It’s not the punitive system. It’s freaking religion. Let the punitive system handle that part, and leave relgion alone.

            Then everyone tweaked out.

          • February 13, 2013 at 1:50 pm
            BS says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “The church followed their rules. Are you aware that religion has no restrictions on who can be a priest? And by belief and default, they are to forgive anyone?”

            That’s so not true. They most certainly DO have restrictions on who can be a priest. No women. No one under 25, and based on the diocese, no one over 45. No married men. (except for a few married Episcopalian priests who converted to Catholicism) No gay men. And in 2002, the Vatican ordered that background checks be required for all Church workers who have interaction with children – hence restricting those who had records of abuse.

            “They aren’t acting immorally. In order to do that they would have to contradict their laws. They don’t. They are acting inpartially. Anyone can be a priest. You can’t be kicked out of being a priest.”

            Where do you come up with this stuff??? Not anyone can become a priest. And while you are correct that a priest cannot be un-ordained, he can be forbidden from practicing for the rest of his life. (forced laicization)

            And, not acting to stop the child abuse that they were informed of, allowing the predator priests to continue their abuse and then trying to cover it up is most DEFINITELY immoral.

            “My issue with you “liberals” is your blatent labeling, discrimination, and then pretending to be “open minded”.”

            This has absolutely nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It has to do with children being molested, and the Church doing nothing to stop it. This is not a right or left issue.

            “No. You want to be open minded in being against a common enemy. The “church” is not an entity you can blame for what happened with the children. And EVERY action the church did was completely understandble. It was an overall bad situation. The people at wrong were the priests. Not the church. Learn the difference, and then grow the hell up.”

            I beg your pardon? The Church was not to blame for their priests molesting children? The Church is not to blame for covering the abuse up? The Church is not to blame for promising to handle the abusive priests and then sending them to other parishes instead of removing them from their positions?

            It’s understandable what they did??? Seriously??? Understandable to hush up allegations of abuse against it’s priests? Understandable to transfer those priests to new parishes and new possible victims? The Church is supposed to PROTECT its parishioners. Especially the ones who are too young/small to protect themselves. They didn’t! How is that in any way understandable???

            “Again: Agnostic speaking here. Raised Catholic. Do you think I moved away from being Catholic for a reason? I clearly don’t attend currently. The person who is insanely acting and labeling without knoweldge here is you.”

            You know absolutely nothing about my religion or my upbringing. I could sit here and give you the dates of my Baptism, First Communion, Reconciliation, and Confirmation, but I don’t think it matters in this discussion. The Church itself has acknowledged it’s complicity in the child abuse scandals. It’s why the USCCB instituted ‘zero-tolerance’ policy for responding to allegations of sexual abuse.

            I’m not claiming that the entire Church is evil or that every priest is a pedophile. However, due to its long-lived culture of secrecy and cover-up, the Church as a whole has a long, long way to go to repair the damage caused by the actions of its priests and their responses to those actions.

          • February 13, 2013 at 2:04 pm
            BS says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob:

            The controversy is NOT about confession.

            Yes, people were upset that priests/bishops would not reveal what they had been told in confession. But that is NOT what the controversy was about or how it started. The controversy was/IS that priests were abusing children, and when parents brought the issue to a senior member of the parish, NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT! ‘Confession never would have been an issue if the offending priest had been reported to law enforcement instead of the Church trying to handle it in-house and covering it up.

          • February 13, 2013 at 2:18 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            BS:

            The confession issue came first, then came the others.

            Limitations on priests:

            Let me phrase it another way, since you put out the women comment: If a priest goes through penance, a priest cannot be removed from being a priest. You know what I meant.

            Regarding other areas: Where do I come up with this stuff? Everything, not some, EVERYTHING I wrote was accurate.

            Now moving forward: The church did NOT do nothing about it. They acted per the rules I said:

            A priest will not be forced out of being a priest where penance is involved. It doesn’t happen. Ever. You want another role, tough.

            A priest is the one raping. Not the church. You want the church to take a position as the punitive law? Tough. It’s a religion.

            The church is acting in defense of the priest only in that the priest needs some sort of defense, and the act in the belief that the priest is fufilling some sort of premise. Do I agree the priest should be forgiven? Hell no. Do I believe the church is folowing a code? Hell yes.

            They have not been contradictory. The one thing that can be said of the Catholic church, they have been THE SAME through the course of their history of religious laws. Idiots in the past have been dumb enough to integrate punitive law with church law before. How did you like how that worked out? What’s that? You didn’t, and you and your liberal allies insult churches for that *secular* mingling causing wars in the past?

            Well then, keep the *secular* away from the religion, and folow your beliefs! And quit with the labeling.

          • February 13, 2013 at 2:41 pm
            jw says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob – you are generalizing, by the way. Very few people who comment on IJ are actually liberals. Some of us have opinions which are neither liberal nor conservative, but may be perceived as such by a reader. By far, though, the majority of insurance professionals and IJ readers are conservatives.

          • February 13, 2013 at 2:46 pm
            BS says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob:

            Nowhere did I say force the priest out. I’m not even saying that the Church should punish that priest. That’s completely up to them and internal Church law. But, those priests should have been reported to law enforcement by their superiors. And even the VATICAN AGREES!!!

            The Church is responsible for the actions of its priests. It is also responsible for the actions of those who covered the abuse up, and in doing so, enabled it to continue. The same way Penn State and Joe Paterno bear responsibility for being informed of Jerry Sandusky’s child abuse, but choosing to not contact law enforcement, and instead covering it up, the Church bears responsibility for the children hurt by its priests.

          • February 13, 2013 at 2:54 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            BS:

            So back to your comment that they are not being reported and this is the fault of the CHURCH:

            Priests are being reported, except when PRIESTS don’t follow the vatican? And the Vatican even agrees? WOW!

            So then, the CHURCH is doing everything right!??!?!

            WOW! Now then baby, go back to bed, and shut your #%@$#%ing mouth smart ass, and quit with the insults on the church. Got it?

          • February 13, 2013 at 2:57 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            And Again:

            This coming from an Agnostic BS.

            You ARE being biased, you ARE being discriminatory, you ARE holding the church to a higher standard than the government, you ARE being bigoted, you ARE labeling religion.

            If you’re not, prove it.

          • February 13, 2013 at 3:19 pm
            BS says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob:

            When the priests don’t follow the Vatican… Wait, what??? That’s not what I said.

            They WEREN’T being reported. Their actions WERE being covered up. THAT was the fault of the Church. The Vatican agreed that this needed to be corrected, and said that going forward that abuse needs to be reported. This doesn’t just negate decades of covering up the abuse of children. It’s a step in the right direction, but they still have a ways to go.

            And, where exactly have I insulted the Church? Stating that they have been involved in sex abuse scandals and that their culture of secrecy and cover up is what helped cause the scandals is not an insult. It’s a fact.

          • February 13, 2013 at 3:27 pm
            BS says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob:

            I am being biased and discriminatory because I think the Church should be held to the standards as any other organization that deals with children?

            Many states have mandatory reporting laws. If doctors, teachers, counselors, etc. suspect a child is being abused, they are required by law to report it. I don’t think the Church should be above that law.

            I think you are biased if you think they shouldn’t be held to the same standard.

          • February 14, 2013 at 3:32 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            BS:

            You are being biased because you cannot list what actual section of the Vatican church is in error.

            You are stating which people are in error. In your last post you finally admitted that even the Church doesn’t agree with the shuttling of priests and no one being told.

            Not everyone follows the program.

            I listed the program, and then you arrogantly said that women can’t be priests! (when we were obviously talking about restrictions on CURRENT priests)

            The Church holds themself to the same standard.

            With regards to the other areas:

            A priest who goes through penance won’t be thrown out of priesthood. We aren’t going to put punitive state into religion.

            Confession and the vow of secrecy isn’t violating anything. It’s consistent.

            If the government doesn’t jail a priest, and the priest stays a priest, well then why are you blaming the church for keeping the person a priest and not the government for not keeping the jailed priest under monitoring? How about a program to re-cooperate the priest should he keep his job? In that area, the catholic church DOES have a program, and the state usually does not.

            The church is at a higher standard of the government in that area.

            Moreover, you have not listed ONE catholic doctrine regarding “pedophiles” that is essentially allowing “pedophilia” to occur. They do NOT allow pedophilia, and the insult, and the bias, and the insanity, of blaming a church?

            Really. Go #%@% yourself. Pardon the extreme tone here: But my mother was molested, my sister was raped. It had not one damn thing to do with a church.

            1 in 7 women are raped or molested. 1 in 5 people are catholic. You really think that all these rape is occurring because of the Catholic church? You really think that the government is on top of this shit?

            Let me put a “ha” and a “ha”. The government is letting rapists out on good behavior at a rate far higher than priests. But, if the government says that someone made a valiant effort, hey hey they must be right eh?

            I do NOT see you critisizing the government on this.

            I see you acting like an ass. So again: Knock it off.

          • February 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm
            BS says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob:

            You know, I was trying to have a civilized discussion with you, but you are obviously not reading or just not comprehending what I’ve written. I’m not sure which is worse.

            You said that there are no restrictions on who can become a priest. I pointed out a number of CURRENT restrictions on who can become a priest. Not just women. Restrictions involving age, if they are married, and previous criminal history as determined by background checks.

            You said that a priest can’t be thrown out of the priesthood. I agreed with you. However, as I also mentioned, they CAN be forbidden from practicing as a priest for the rest of his life.

            Once again, I am not blaming the Church for keeping a priest or not throwing them out of the priesthood. If they want to keep a priest that has been accused of child abuse, that’s their decision. If they feel that be can be ‘redeemed,’ that’s up to them.

            My issue, which I have stated over and over again, is that when senior members of the Church were informed by PARENTS that their children were being abused, they covered the abuse up. They promised to deal with the priest, and instead, would just send him to a new parish. They wouldn’t inform the new parish of the accusations against, and many times, he’d abuse again.

            They didn’t deal with the problem. They just moved it to another parish.

            And once again, my issue is not with the secrecy surrounding confession. A priest should NEVER reveal what he learns in confession. It’s protected by the Seal of Confession, and I would NEVER expect or want a priest to break that seal. My issue is that senior members of the Church did not act on what they learned OUTSIDE OF CONFESSION from the parents and children who were abused. They did not report the accusations to the authorities. Instead, they tried to cover them up.

            Nowhere have I implied that the Catholic Church ‘allows’ pedophilia or that they are OK with it in any way. However, I did state that for many years, when they were informed of it, they didn’t do anything to stop it. They didn’t report the priests to the authorities. They didn’t reassign them to positions where they wouldn’t have interaction with children. They made promises to the parents to deal with these priests, and instead just moved them to new locations.

            As I said in my last post, the Church HAS instituted reporting requirements and is doing what it can to accept responsibility for what happened and fix it. And that’s wonderful. But, it still doesn’t change the fact that this abuse was going on for decades, and it will take a long time for the Church to rebuild trust.

            I’m very sorry to hear about your mother and sister. That’s absolutely horrific. But, they really have nothing to do with this conversation. The government’s abysmal sentencing for rape convictions also has no bearing on this discussion. We are specifically discussing molestation of children by Catholic priests and the Church’s horrible response to it. Please stop trying to bring the government into this discussion.

            And really, calling me an ass is childish. I have not called you names or insulted you once. I have pointed out where I believe you are wrong and will continue to do so. But I haven’t resorted to name calling. And honestly, if you can’t debate without resulting to name calling, maybe your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.

  • February 11, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    nomesaneman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As the late great Earl Butz (Sec of Agriculture under Nixon) once said about Pope Paul’s stance on birth control: “He no playa da game, he no makea da rules”

  • February 13, 2013 at 12:56 pm
    Brokie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How can catholic women tolerate this gibberish which is dictated by old ‘celibate’ men with their ‘leader’in another country! It’s the 21st century. It’s medicine. Unplanned pregnancies are NOT blessings from god. How can the bishops be so delusional to think that young and middle aged catholics – men and women – single and married – do not practice birth control. Get a clue – THEY ALL DO! These same bishops don’t allow female priests. The same ones that sanction pedophilia. The Catholic Church is sitting on such immense wealth it could feed, clothe, house and immunize the 3rd world. What would Jesus do?

    • February 13, 2013 at 4:20 pm
      Patti Cake in the East says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Yeah, Brokie. You lefties want to totally rewrite the Constitution of the United States so that it fits into your agenda. Why not just rewrite the Holy Bible to fit your agenda as well, because it’s ‘old’?

  • February 13, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    CA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    People please keep your personal pain and bias out of this discussion. Attacking a building doesn’t make yours have a stronger foundation. Stop being petty children, grow up and coverse about the actual article.

    Living in this country we have freedom to, and freedom from. The federal government has no business in insurance mandates and regulation. It is up to the states as defined in Mccarron Ferguson Act of 1945.

    This is why they established “state-exchanges” to try and work their way around this law. Certain parties in congress have been working to break down this law for a while now.

    P.S. it’s Dolan, not Donlan.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features