Catholic clergy, HHS regulation, and "rights"

[John Stefanyszyn]

ref: Catholic clergymen come out swinging against HHS regulation – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

"... a new health insurance policy by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that forces employers to cover contraception and abortion as part of preventative care regardless of religious beliefs. The use of abortion and contraceptives violates Catholic teachings.."

"Archbishop Wilton Gregory called the policy "a matter of grave moral concern." and said that..."In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty,""

" “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty," said New York Archbishop Tomithy Dolan who is also the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the public policy arm of the church in the United States."

Some thoughts...
To those employees which are not Catholics....is not the Catholic organization denying to these employees equality of rights to medical coverage?

To those employees which are not married but yet having sex...is not the Catholic organization hindering their right to safe sex?

....would it not also be encouraging (in some twisted and involutary way) out of wedlock births, transmission of sexual desease...since contraceptives are against its religious doctrine?

Rights! Rights! Rights!
All are demanding their freedom and eqaulity of rights.
President Obama is advancing this "god of fortresses"
People want equality of rights.
Chrurches promote and turn to freedom and equality of religion for their religious rights.

But there is no love for the other in the belief of self-rights...there is only love for the self.

It is interesting to see how little it takes for the belief in self-rights to come to the emotional surface as one's primary , core, true belief.

It is also interesting to see that the Catholic Chruch is turning to man's laws and belief in freedom of rights to defend its "religion"...and that not once has any of its leaders confessed God to be the One True God, that Christ is the One and Only True Way of Life.
...that instead it considers intself to be a religion among religions, embracing the same core belief and way of life as that of man.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Some thoughts...
To those employees which are not Catholics....is not the Catholic organization denying to these employees equality of rights to medical coverage?

Do you know a Catholic who would want insurance coverage for birth control or abortion? I didn't think so. And, isn't the administration in direct and gross violation of the First Amendment guarantees against Congress or the government interfering in the Freedom of Religion? Yes, absolutely.

To those employees which are not married but yet having sex...is not the Catholic organization hindering their right to safe sex?

Nope. And again, same question as above, and same answer.

....would it not also be encouraging (in some twisted and involutary way) out of wedlock births, transmission of sexual desease...since contraceptives are against its religious doctrine?

Births out of wedlock and venereal disease is lowest in the population among Catholics, so no. And yet again, same question and same answer as above. Sorry, but the rest of your post makes no sense, so I'll leave others to respond to it if they understand it.

 

[Yarddog]

But there is no love for the other in the belief of self-rights...there is only love for the self.

That is a totally ludicrous concept to take from all of this. There is no foundation from law nor scripture which can support this way of thinking.

Rights protecting individuals are a very good thing but there are times when one person's "rights" may infringe on another person's "rights".

My Libertarian way of thinking says that anyone should have the right to do whatever do wish unless it violates another person rights. In the case which relates to this thread, the government should not be able to force a religious organization into doing something which violates their doctrines.

It is also interesting to see that the Catholic Chruch is turning to man's laws and belief in freedom of rights to defend its "religion"

That is the only logical way for this to be approached. It is man's laws which has brought this issue up and the Church will need to use man's laws to guarantee them the legal freedom to live by God's laws.

...and that not once has any of its leaders confessed God to be the One True God, that Christ is the One and Only True Way of Life.

That is a bald faced lie. The Catholic Church has proclaimed the One True God from its very beginning, 2000 years ago.

...that instead it considers intself to be a religion among religions, embracing the same core belief and way of life as that of man.

You show your ignorance about Catholic teaching, but then, you have always done that.

 

[WinBySurrender]

John Stefanyszyn, you've been double-teamed! Don't tell me Baptists and Catholics can't play nice together!

 

[Yarddog]

John Stefanyszyn, you've been double-teamed! Don't tell me Baptists and Catholics can't play nice together!

Who woulda thunk it. But then I used to be Baptist.

 

[John Stefanyszyn]

Mr. Yarddog & Mr. WinBySurrender,

Why does then the Roman General Church presents itself as a "religion" with equal rights as other "religions"?
Why do they not confess to the US government and the UN that they are not a religion, that they are instead disciples of the One Truth, of the One True and Only God...that Christ is the One and Only True Way?
Why do they then not confess that all other religions are man made, that they are false?
Why advance reconciliation and inter-faith relations with other "religions".
Why do they then confess that, since there is Only One True Creator whose Son is the Christ, the belief in freedom of religion (which embraces the righteousness to worship any and all other "gods") is righteous?

...because they live as a "religion" under the rule and protection of the "god of fortresses" and do not confess to man that Christ is the One and Only True Way of Life.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Mr. Yarddog & Mr. WinBySurrender,

Why does then the Roman General Church presents itself as a "religion" with equal rights as other "religions"?

In light of what we said, this question makes no sense. The RCC is not a religion, it is a faith relationship with Jesus Christ, as are all denominations of the Christian faith. You obviously have a problem with the Catholic Church. Don't look for sympathy for your incorrect views here. 'Dog, as I call him, is my brother in Christ. It matters not that I attend an SBC church and he attends a Catholic church. We have the same faith, and the same Savior. So drop it, move on, stop looking for a fight. You won't get one, or if you do, you won't like it much.

 

[John Stefanyszyn]

Sir, you stated that the "RCC is not a religion". Why is it that the leaders of the US Roman General Church will probably go to court to defend the Roman General Church's rights as a "religion"?

In the church they speak of the relationship with Christ, but in the world (and under pressure) they speak of Christ as a religion amongst religions, having the same rights as any other religion.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Sir, you stated that the "RCC is not a religion". Why is it that the leaders of the US Roman General Church will probably go to court to defend the Roman General Church's rights as a "religion"?

Because when you play in the State's ballpark, you have to play by the State's ground rules. The State says Christianity is a religion. Christians know it is much more than that. Therefore, I said the RCC is not a religion, because it is much more than that.

 

[judechild]

Some thoughts...
To those employees which are not Catholics....is not the Catholic organization denying to these employees equality of rights to medical coverage?

No, the Catholic Church is not denying to non-Catholic employees "equality of rights to medical coverage," and that's for two reasons. The first is that if it was against equality to refuse to cover sterilization and contraception in the case of non-Catholics, it would also be against equality to refuse to cover sterilization and contraception in the case of Catholics. In other words, it is either right to cover sterilization and contraception in the case of everyone, or it is wrong to cover sterilization and contraception in the case of everyone. If you say that refusing to cover sterilization and contraception is only wrong in the case of non-catholics, you are a moral relativist because you are saying that an action is right or wrong depending on what culture or group you belong to.

The second reason that the Catholic Church is not denying "equality of rights to medical coverage" is that what is accepted by the larger culture as moral does not make it moral. You either know this, or you are a moral relativist. But, if that is the case, then you have no argument because you've assumed that contraception and sterilization is acceptable, so long as you aren't Catholic. That assumption is not valid, and so the Church is violating nothing.

To those employees which are not married but yet having sex...is not the Catholic organization hindering their right to safe sex?

First, whether the people are married or not doesn't matter. Second, the Church does not believe that contraception makes sex safe; rather, it encourages risky behavior and so exacerbates the problem. And so, the Church believes she protects human dignity by forbiding contraception.

Of course, if by "right to safe sex" you mean "right to contraception" that is a different story; but you've invented a right that doesn't exist. Dressing up a poor argument in the language of rights doesn't make it an argument that addresses civil rights. Rights are not something frivolous; they are basic aspects of human dignity.

....would it not also be encouraging (in some twisted and involutary way) out of wedlock births, transmission of sexual desease...since contraceptives are against its religious doctrine?

Now you've left your discussion of rights, and gone to pandering.

It is also interesting to see that the Catholic Chruch is turning to man's laws and belief in freedom of rights to defend its "religion"...and that not once has any of its leaders confessed God to be the One True God, that Christ is the One and Only True Way of Life.

I know that it doesn't matter to you, but the Church believes that rights come from God.

...that instead it considers intself to be a religion among religions, embracing the same core belief and way of life as that of man.

That's quite strange; most people condemn the Church for claiming to possess the fullness of truth.

Should a state be just or unjust?

 

[Yarddog]

Mr. Yarddog & Mr. WinBySurrender,

Why does then the Roman General Church presents itself as a "religion" with equal rights as other "religions"?

The Catholic Church teaches that the only true religion is Christianity. It does not see any other religion as equal.

It does recognize that other religions do exist and that we need to live in peace, showing respect for life. Many religions believe in loving others and those aspects of them are good.

Why do they not confess to the US government and the UN that they are not a religion, that they are instead disciples of the One Truth, of the One True and Only God...that Christ is the One and Only True Way?

Because Christianity is a religion. The US and UN has heard the confession of the Catholic Church has years.

Why do they then not confess that all other religions are man made, that they are false?

Why don't you read. The Church has plenty of writings stating that.

Why advance reconciliation and inter-faith relations with other "religions".

Because the Church does not believe that we should not kill, abuse, or persecute others. People need to know that we can live in peace and they need to know that we need not fear each other.

Why do they then confess that, since there is Only One True Creator whose Son is the Christ, the belief in freedom of religion (which embraces the righteousness to worship any and all other "gods") is righteous?

Where have they used the word righteous? Calling for all countries of the world to allow their citizens the ability to worship as they please without fear of persecution helps Christians in Islamic countries to worship Jesus. This does not occur in many places of the world today and Christians face death on a daily basis. Do you want that to continue? Why do you hate Christians in Islamic countries?

...because they live as a "religion" under the rule and protection of the "god of fortresses" and do not confess to man that Christ is the One and Only True Way of Life.

That is a bald faced lie. You are totally ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches or does but you think that you are righteous enough to pass judgment against a Church of God, the one true Father of all and his Son Jesus Christ, that has the Holy Spirit as its guide.

I pray that God will show you the truth before you have to answer for the lies which you spread.

 

[Yarddog]

Sir, you stated that the "RCC is not a religion". Why is it that the leaders of the US Roman General Church will probably go to court to defend the Roman General Church's rights as a "religion"?

In the church they speak of the relationship with Christ, but in the world (and under pressure) they speak of Christ as a religion amongst religions, having the same rights as any other religion.

Catholicism is our expression of faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christianity is a religion and a relationship with God that embodies all those who believe in Jesus Christ the Son.

There is the one true religion, Christianity, and there are many false religions.

There is nothing wrong with the word religion. A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

 

[John Stefanyszyn]

Mr. Yarddog,

"A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. "....this definition that you have put forth does apply to man's "gods" and to the belief in freedom of rights, but it does not apply to Christ.

The True God never has been, is not, and never will be a "personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices".

He is the One and Only Creator.

Christ is His Son and the One and Only True Way of Life.

When Christ returns as the One King, He will not put in place or offer man to choose, as per his previously claimed right, any personal sets or institutionalized systems of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. You know, as well as I do, that it will be God's kingdom and His Will Only. It will be the One True Way of Life.

As disciples of Christ, we are to live our lives according to this One True Way and not as a "personal set or instititionalized system of religious" beliefs and practices.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Mr. Yarddog,

"A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. "....this definition that you have put forth does apply to man's "gods" and to the belief in freedom of rights, but it does not apply to Christ.

The True God never has been, is not, and never will be a "personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices".

He is the One and Only Creator.

Christ is His Son and the One and Only True Way of Life.

When Christ returns as the One King, He will not put in place or offer man to choose, as per his previously claimed right, any personal sets or institutionalized systems of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. You know, as well as I do, that it will be God's kingdom and His Will Only. It will be the One True Way of Life.

You can't take the hint, I'll say it plainly. Anti-catholicism is not appreciated here. You continue to confuse the errors of men over the years as the natural state of the Catholic Church. Men make mistakes in all demoninations, some much more egregious than others. We as followers of Christ and members of our respective denominations and churches must keep our council with God regarding what is correct and proper and what is not. Every Catholic I know is a God-fearing follower of Christ, and I don't appreciate your efforts to denigrate their church. So knock it off!

 

[John Stefanyszyn]

Mr. WinBySurrender,

What I have written does not apply only to the Roman General Church but to all Christian churches whose leaders promote and defend the belief in freedom of rights and religion as being righteous before God.

It also applies to the Muslims, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Sikhs, the atheists, and any other.

It is written that man is to repent from his way of self interest and to rever and fear the One True Creator God...there is none other.

Christ taught this this truth...they threatened him with "a fight", he was beaten for it, was killed for it, and was resurrected for it...because of His love for the One and Only God and because of His love for man, for those that will repent and overcome.

 

[WinBySurrender]

It is written that man is to repent from his way of self interest and to rever and fear the One True Creator God...there is none other.

Christ taught this this truth...they threatened him with "a fight", he was beaten for it, was killed for it, and was resurrected for it...because of His love for the One and Only God and because of His love for man, for those that will repent and overcome.

Do you think Jesus did not believe in the personal freedoms of the individual, rights that prevent him from being enslaved, left ignorant and poor? Do you believe He would not advocate for freedom of religion, the right to worship Him freely? Do you believe He would not advocate for freedom of speech, that word of His gospel can be preached? Do you not believe He would not advocate for freedom of the media to freely report, that a well-informed public can make an intelligent decision? If not, I don't think you know Him very well.

 

[Yarddog]

Mr. Yarddog,

"A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. "....this definition that you have put forth does apply to man's "gods" and to the belief in freedom of rights, but it does not apply to Christ.

It may not apply to what your understanding of Jesus is but it does apply to all of Christianity. You cannot invoke your lack of knowledge to apply to Christians.

The True God never has been, is not, and never will be a "personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices".

You don't have a personal relationship with Jesus? We do.

Institutionalized means: To make part of a structured and usually well-established system. The Church has been this for 2000 years. You have been part of Christ for a few years and are one person. The Apostles established a structure within the Church which you cannot dissolve because you don't understand Jesus Christ.

He is the One and Only Creator.

We know that.

Christ is His Son and the One and Only True Way of Life.

We know that and teach that.

When Christ returns as the One King, He will not put in place or offer man to choose, as per his previously claimed right, any personal sets or institutionalized systems of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

Christ has not returned yet and we have to live in a world where people can believe as they choose. When Christ returns, we will be faithfully waiting and be a part of that kingdom where finally all will know God in truth.

You know, as well as I do, that it will be God's kingdom and His Will Only. It will be the One True Way of Life.

We know that and teach that but you cannot understand what is written and spoken among men and twist them into some warped plot. Learn to understand English and the different meaning of the words written by men. Find out what the men mean and not what you twist the words to mean.

As disciples of Christ, we are to live our lives according to this One True Way and not as a "personal set or instititionalized system of religious" beliefs and practices.

The One True Way has an institutionalized system of beliefs which the Apostles handed down through the Church to teach to men and women throughout the world.

The Apostles met together with the elders in Jerusalem and in other cities where they established the Church. They sent messengers out with rules which they established for believers to follow. Paul laid out our beliefs through the pagan lands where he traveled as did other Apostles.

When it became safe, Bishops from throughout the Church came together to down down these beliefs so that heretics could be set down. The Church is an institution which has been here for 2000 years. The Church is One, though diverse in how we show our love for God.

You are part of that Church which Jesus established so many years ago, diverse in what you believe, but still past of that Church. You cannot tell Christianity what Christianity is. We are believers in and teachers of the Gospel which is not confined by your narrow understanding.

 

[Yarddog]

You can't take the hint, I'll say it plainly. Anti-catholicism is not appreciated here. You continue to confuse the errors of men over the years as the natural state of the Catholic Church. Men make mistakes in all demoninations, some much more egregious than others. We as followers of Christ and members of our respective denominations and churches must keep our council with God regarding what is correct and proper and what is not. Every Catholic I know is a God-fearing follower of Christ, and I don't appreciate your efforts to denigrate their church. So knock it off!

 

[PaladinValer]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure the Roman Catholic Church has a great case here. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that, in cases of true medical urgency, the State has the right to suspend religious liberties on the grounds of sound medical practice to protect and save lives.

However, the RCC could argue that the law passed is too general and is not exacting on what reasons for abortion. A blanket law has been found unconstitutional before and could be ruled as such by the Supreme Court.

Either way, it will be be interesting to see if this goes to the Supreme Court and what decision they'll have.

 

[John Stefanyszyn]

Mr. WinBySurrender,

re: your words... "Do you think Jesus did not believe in the personal freedoms of the individual, rights that prevent him from being enslaved, left ignorant and poor? Do you believe He would not advocate for freedom of religion, the right to worship Him freely? Do you believe He would not advocate for freedom of speech, that word of His gospel can be preached? Do you not believe He would not advocate for freedom of the media to freely report, that a well-informed public can make an intelligent decision? If not, I don't think you know Him very well. "

He did not ( as the events showed, in which he could have easily tried to find common ground / universal values with the pharasees) and would not because He taught and lived only two beliefs...to love the One and Only God and to serve your neighbor first before one's own self-interests.

Christ said..."not My Will but Yours be done" which he did at the cost of His own life for the love for the other and for the Father.

It was never a question of His rights and freedom (which if He wanted to protect and worship He could have, since Caesar allowed the worship of any "religion" as long as Caesar was acknowledged as a "god""...Christ spoke and lived every moment for the Father and for the other.

I realize that you have a hard time seeing this because man has glorified the self-interest and his rights to be good and as a light in this world.....but this belief denies the Preemienence of the One God.

We are now in the time of testing of our faith...do we stand for the One Truth as Christ did, as the apostles did, as the disciples did,...or do we compromise with the belief of man because of its perceived righteousness of the self?