An Open Letter to President Barack Obama Concerning Recent Tyranny (With Pictures!)

The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To Hell with you!” – Bishop David Zubik of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Dear Mr. President,

I am fully aware that these are days in which the federal government is — for all practical purposes — unlimited in its power. As it stands, you — sir — can detain any American citizen without due process simply because you suspect him of being a terrorist, you have magically managed to become the Chairman of the UN Security Council without the approval of Congress — despite that awkward Article 1.9 of the Constitution — and you — along with the FCC — seem to think the Internet is thine to regulate. Now I’m sure this sudden growth in power was seen as necessary, proper and really-cool by all of your staff, and thus I join in with their applause (but with those annoying, ironically-spaced claps that continue long after everyone else has finished.)

For there are those of us — yes, even a few of your happy-happy youth voters — who are curious as to whether the Constitution continues to mean anything at all. I distinctly recall holding it as a weapon against injustice, but I am now taught to regard it with a vague sort of embarrassment, as a pubescent boy might regard his grandmother on Facebook, who comments on his attempts to attract a girl with things like “just remember chastity!”

It makes the radical claim — this Constitution — that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” a claim which your administration has adhered to. But as it turns out, you cannot have the first part of this Establishment Clause without the second part, that is: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Similarly, you cannot take your wife “in health” without that aggravating precursor “in sickness”.) You are not allowed to establish a state religion, and you are not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion. You. just. can’t.

Otherwise, you are a Tyrant. Now, I know: Tyrant? (Quick, label the man an ultra-super-neo-conservative Tea Partier and ban him to the ranks of old men holding Ayn Rand signs so we don’t have to engage in rational debate.)

I am 18.
I own a Macbook, a blog and a sweater-vest.
I don’t even like Capitalism.

So do me the courtesy of taking me seriously. Being a tyrant is not necessarily a negative or positive thing, though I know the word is loaded with a not-so-nice connotation. It is simply a matter of definition. A tyrant, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”. If you prohibit the free exercise of religion, you are acting unrestrained by the Constitution, and thus as a tyrant. End of story.

In case there are any doubts as to my claim, I will give it to you straight: I hold that you are prohibiting the free practice of Catholicism in this country, and that you are thus, categorically speaking, a tyrant.

What would prohibiting the free exercise of religion consist of? Obviously, it might consist of banning a certain religious practice. A man might forbid the Jews their practice of circumcision. But it is equally true that the free exercise of religion would be prohibited by a man forcing the Jews to eat bacon. Both moves would be dick-moves: The free exercise of religion is violated both by what you take away from a religion, and by what you force a religion to do. If members of a religion are forced by the government to perform actions contrary to their beliefs, they are no more free than dogs.

Catholicism, an antiquated, dying religion without many members — oh, snap, wait, I meant the largest form of Christianity in America and the largest religion in the world — teaches that the use of artificial contraception and sterilization is wrong, and thus does not allow its institutions to provide it. Here’s where everyone flips out and loses sight of the argument, so let me be absolutely clear: I am not arguing that the use of artificial contraception is wrong. I do believe this, and firmly, but this is neither the time nor place to argue the point.

In fact, it would be best for all of us — Catholics included — to think of this particular Catholic teaching as silly, overbearing, and unfit for the modern mind to contain. Think of this teaching as you might think of the Jewish prohibition on pork, or the Hindu’s holding of the cow as sacred. Why? Because prohibiting the free exercise of religion does not become allowed in cases in which you happen to disagree with the religion, no matter how vehemently, unless that religion is directly violating an individual’s rights.

For instance, I disagree with the belief of Quakers, who will under no circumstances fight in a war. My disagreement does not give me leave — were I in a position of power — to force them to fight. Appropriately, the government respects the Quakers’ belief, as the government respects all conscientious objectors.

So why is it that the government is allowed to force Catholic institutions – including my schoolto provide coverage for artificial contraception in their health insurance plans, as the US Health and Human Services have mandated them do by the end of the year? How is this anything but the prohibition of the free exercise of religion? Short answer: It is the prohibition of the free exercise of religion, and a despicable, unconstitutional, entirely illegal, embarrassingly heavy-handed and very, very stupid prohibition at that. I will run briefly through the arguments in its favor:

But it is necessary. Women need contraception.

There is no argument from necessity here: According to the 2010 Guttmacher Institute report on contraceptive use in the United States, “Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives,” and Kathleen Sebelius herself pointed out that even when contraceptive is not covered, “contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support,” not to mention pharmacies and doctor’s offices. And besides, women do not need contraception. I understand an employer being obligated to cover drugs relating to health. I do not understand why employer’s are obligated to provide for drugs that grant people responsibility-free pleasure. Again, I am not arguing whether or not sex-without-consequences is good or bad, I am merely pointing out that it is not necessary.

Just don’t take them yourself.

One cannot make the argument that while Catholics have the right to choose not to take artificial contraception personally, they should not be allowed to withhold artificial contraception from others any more than one could make the argument that while Jews don’t have to eat pork personally, their restaurants must serve the meat. No man is obligated to give another man what he believes is morally repulsive, unless his not giving it interferes with the rights of the other.

Well then, not providing free contraception violates the rights of women!

No it doesn’t. Not only can women get contraception elsewhere, but there exists utterly no “right to contraception.” And why would there be? I know our world is idiotic and sexist to the point of the embarrassing belief that women cannot prevent pregnancy without pills, but as it turns out, they can. In fact, if you’re a woman reading this, chances are you’re preventing pregnancy right now. (If not, rethink your sex life.) Thus a health-care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not damn women to pregnancy — oh, the horror — any more than not providing diet-pills would damn them to obesity.

But everyone has to do it!

No they don’t. Ed Whelan, over at the National Review Online, notes that “employers who employed fewer than 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year are not obligated to make any health-care insurance coverage available to their employees under Obamacare. 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(c)(2). Like employers with grandfathered plans, they thus have no obligation to provide insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients, and they face no penalty for not doing so.” The government is acknowledging that there isn’t a striking necessity for contraceptive coverage, certainly not enough of a necessity to force smaller companies to cover contraceptives. Why the mad rush to force Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives then? Why is it okay for small companies with no opinion in the matter to continue not providing contraception, while institutions that absolutely and morally reject the use of contraception must? An excess of stupid? An agenda?

Now I’m sure more objections could be raised, but the Internet is short, and I must be brief. Therefore:

Mr. President, The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan noted that ‎”The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.” This injustice is not something that need solely concern the Catholic Church — if the federal government can force Catholics to act against their consciences, they can force anyone to act against their conscience, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Atheist, and by the same pitiful reasoning.

Mr. President, take it back.

Yours Truly,

Marc Barnes, student and citizen.

Fight for Liberty. Oppose the Mandate. Sign the petition asking the White House to reconsider. Sign the USCCB’s petition as well. Share with your family and friends. Post on Facebook. Rally the troops. Resist Tyranny.

  • Chris

    Can Canadian citizens sign the petition?

    • Michael

      Chris, when I signed all they asked for was an email & your name. A zip code was requested but not mandatory (I suspect the zip was for those petitions which would be forwarded to representatives of a given state.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      It asks for a Zip code before you sign, and I would imagine that it would need to be an American Zip code.

  • MarcyK.

    ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT POST! Right on. We must keep fighting. Our forefathers came to this country for reasons such as these. We must not let them win or the future for religious people in general is dire. Examples abound both here and in other countries. We must fight for every inch of ground.

  • Fisherman

    The more Catholic I become, the more and more I resent my nation.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t resent my nation, but rather those who exploit our nation to persecute people of faith.

      • Gropaga

        Conversely, I resent people who exploit our nation to force their faith on others.

        Takes all kinds to make a country, I guess.

        • Anonymous

          Don’t you see the irony here? The HHS Mandate is exactly what you claim to despise: forcing one’s beliefs upon others. As a Catholic, I follow Church teaching and thus find contraception gravely sinful. If a non-Catholic disagrees, that’s their business. But forcing my Church to pay for something that is so directly against our faith is abhorrent. It’s akin to forcing Orthodox Jews to serve bacon at all their events.

          • Bbrennan

            One, you don’t pay for it, there is not some added cost for offering or discount for not. Second, your church hires a lot of people who are non-Catholics that do disagree. The fact is this does not force the Catholic church to hand out birth control, it forces them to cover medication that may be prescribed by a doctor to a woman, which is none of the Church’s business.

          • Paula

            Dear Bbrennan,

            But, you see, it *is* the Church’s business. Those who run Catholic institutions have their employees’ souls to think of…not to mention their own souls as well.

          • Bbrennan

            Not if they aren’t Catholic. If someone who does not ascribe to this belief works for the Catholic church (yes, there are many Catholics who take birth control), you are forcing your religious beliefs onto them.

          • Paula

            Dear Bbrennan,

            I’m not a fan of skinny columns, but here goes.

            1. Every person’s soul is the Church’s business.

            2. If someone has serious disagreements with the Church’s beliefs then they shouldn’t seek employment in a Catholic institution.

            3. If someone is Catholic (for real), they should not be using contraception. To do so is in contradiction of the Church’s explicit teaching on this matter. Moreover, regardless of what individual Catholics believe (or do) with regard to birth control, the doctrines of the faith stand separate and unchanging.

          • cornhuskertom

            Bbrennan,

            I missed the part where non-Catholics were forced to work for the Catholic Church.

          • http://raisinglittlesaints.blogspot.com Mama Erika

            Then if you want FREE birth control go work for a secular organization! WOW, that was easy!

          • ExPatPoppa

            They have the choice to work for a particular institution. Until recently, if I had applied to work for Disney, I would have had to shave my beard. But I don’t want to shave my beard, so they can not force that upon me. I get razor burn. It is not fair. I should be allowed to work for Disney and keep my beard, regardless of their rules that say otherwise.

          • Kez5

            im retyping because it fits here too
            -Being a past Church employee I can tell you The Church doesn’t test for birth control if you work for them… they do not require you to sign anything saying you don’t take any or use any if you work for them…. they don’t test for abortions or ask for your past abortion/birth control history….that is the employess business

            it is not forcing their beliefs on anyone… you are more then free to get your birth control from other avenues or be responsible for yourself and pay for it yourself! They will not ask you about it or discriminate against you for using it…. its between you and God.

            the Catholic Church does see birth control as a grave sin. don’t expect them to participate in your sin by paying for these things because THEN it is their business because then it forces them to sin.

          • Redfoxndn

            Bbrennan, Who are you to say if some Catholics use them then it should not be wrong. Sir, not all Catholics follow their religion as they should, just like some people still think it is ok to text while driving. We know it is not right but do it anyway. Why not let a people do what it is they wish if it is a belief of theirs. If the majority feels it is wrong, then let them have their voice. Let us quit telling people what they can and cannot believe in. And as far as non believers working for them, then this is something they should agree upon in accepting employment, just like having to cut your hair to take a job. You have had this long hair you whole life and now in order to get this job you have to cut it? Did the women have to cut theirs? No, it was a choice. No one is forcing anyone to do anything wrong.

          • micaela swift

            B Brennan,
            The church has her beliefs and will not change them, she never has. If you think she should change her doctrines to suit your “contraceptive” false medicine ideals then you can go get your whore pills, murderous drugs, and diseased thinking elsewhere. No matter who you are, catholic, secularist, atheist, false christian, Jewish etc…the church is going to recommend what is “true healthful needs” not a distortion of it as your crookedness seems to think is good and normal (such as the contraceptive pill, the abortifacient drug, the scandalous self mutilation of reproductive organs ‘vasectomy’ for the sake of “controlling” births. Wake up. The church is not some physchotic tyrany like your beloved “secular state” (that seems to think its the one who ought to shove their beliefs and standards down our throats) right now. The church defends what is Good, what is Natural Law, she does not force anyone but certainly leads, as a mother leads and protects her child from harm, to what is good, and at this point…its not even about contraception but simply religious freedom for the church to do her regular business of helping, protecting and saving. The state has no business mandating what the church ought provide as “healthcare”. According to the state health is not even seen as care anymore, but as controlling people-as you have it with the nasty, dirty, whore-ish contraceptive pill. People like you are so lost and we hope you can come to the light!

          • Grant

            Just nitpicking, but the Church definitely has changed its beliefs. Sometimes, these changes are quite large. Vatican II, anyone?

            Otherwise, yeah, you’re right. And I’m not even Catholic anymore.

          • Anonymous

            Her beliefs and teachings haven’t changed, just the way they are expressed throughout the world. Like changing from Latin to the common vernacular and, at least in the most recent English translation, attempting to maintain a translation as close to the original Missal as possible. God bless.

          • dante

            some Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves, and the naval galleys of the Papal States were to use captured Muslim galley slaves,[4]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

          • Violetsnuff

            By sounding like an idiot you are forcing your lack of brain cells on me…
            Oh, wait maybe it is only forcing it on me, if I care about what you say… yup that is it. :-) People say their beliefs daily and the only reason it bothers you is due to the fact that you feel guilty, because deep down you know they are right.
            Now lets say I make money by being a hooker… if I honestly don’t see the harm in it, would I really be mad if you told me I was a whore? Nope, actually I would keep doing what I do, because it puts food on the table and I love my job. Now, if I was only a hooker, because I had no other options then yes, I would throw a fit over you calling me a whore.

            You, my dear confused uneducated follower, are quoting something you heard from someone else.
            Now do your head a favor and do some research (from both sides) with an open-mind and realize not that you are wrong, but you are coming at this from the wrong direction.
            No one is being forced to work for the Catholic Church and no one is being forced to have sex. No one is being forced to have children either. However, people are going to be forced to go against their moral beliefs and support something they have verbally opposed for over 40 to 60 years.
            The separation of church and state was not to protect the state, but to protect the church. Our country was founded by men who were oppressed for their religious beliefs… why would these men be worried about a religion taking over the government, when it was the government that was control their religion?
            Don’t let our founding father roll over in their graves…
            I pray that you do yourself and your future some good and learn to be a leader instead of a follower.

          • Kpkmms

            I suppose the church could take the stand to only employ those that are Catholic thus eliminating the problem altogether. No one is forcing religious beliefs onto it’s employees. They are free to make the choice to either work there with the benifits provided or go to another institution that provides the benifits you are wishing for. I wish my husbands company offered lots of things it doesn’t. It’s all about asking questions before you are hired.

          • Chuck

            you forget that all Catholics have been called, or so we believe, by God, to do whatever we can to prevent people from going to Hell when they die. therefore, we think it is our business as to whethere or not employees of Catholic institutions are acting in a manner that is acceptable to our faith.
            This idea that the church can be forced to sell coverage for contraceptives would be similar to saying that a NY Yankee’s store, at yankee stadium, would have to sell BoSox merchandise to all of its customers, even the yankee fans, unless it only let in yankee fans, and forbade fans of the opposing team into the store

          • Anonymous

            But I do pay for it, as part of the insurance premiums my employer (the Church) covers (especially since the salaries, and benefits, of Church employees are paid for by the donations of Catholics like myself). And people who work for the Church, whether they’re Catholic or not, chose to work for the Church. It’s not unreasonable to expect that if you choose to work for a religious organization that organization will follow the tenants of its own beliefs.

            And finally, birth control, sterilization, and abortofacient drugs are not *necessary* to live. Regardless of your feelings about their morality or lack thereof, people do not need the Pill, a vasectomy, or RU486 in order to survive. If my insurance doesn’t cover LASIK eye surgery because it’s cosmetic and not required, why the heck should it pay for things like contraception that aren’t necessary either?

          • Bbrennan

            No Maggie, as an employer, they are required to offer their employees benefits regardless of its own beliefs.

          • Anonymous

            ….which is why a religious institution exemption is absolutely essential. Providing the things the HHS is requiring isn’t as simple as my LASIK example. For Catholics, these things (contraception, abortion-inducting drugs, sterilizations) are morally reprehensible, grave sins, not to be taken lightly.

            Forcing a religious institution to violate its beliefs in that way is a huge slap in the face to religious freedom. Above you also mentioned that many Catholics take birth control. You’re right, and they do, but that doesn’t change the Church’s teaching that it’s wrong to do so. Regardless of what poorly-catechized people may do, Church teaching isn’t determined by popular vote.

          • BiochemistANDmedicaldoc

            Yes, if a religious institution were to receive NO state/federal taxes, then yes, they would be exempt. However, name me a private hospital or university that receives NO fed/state funding… It’s nearly impossible. Therefore, if your religious institution is receiving taxpayer funds, then no, it doesn’t have the right to discriminate on what services it provides to its employees since the tax payers who don’t support your organization don’t get to choose whether or not their taxes go to you. Furthermore, one might question why the Catholic Church and Bishops even have a right to lobby for laws in Washington when they are tax exempt. They pay nothing towards the govt (for their church) and yet they are able to hire (and with huge effect due to the money their congregation gives them, and their profitable organizations) lobbyists to influence congress. I’m sorry but I fail to see how that is just. Furthermore, under an, unfortunately rather vague, any tax emexpt institution must not support any political candidate nor profess their support for them, unless they wish to cease their tax exempt status. I can honestly say, because yes , I do attend conservative services in my area for research purposes, this tax exemption status is being violated and it is VERYwidespread. Stop and think about something that as a religious person, that you hold to be unconditionally true, and then attempt to look at it from every single angle…..and then tell me that it must bea law for allamericans, regardless of their faith and/or lack. Thereof.

          • Catherine Wood

            Hospitals with a religious affiliation comprise 1/3 of all hospitals in the US. They provide care for free to much of the population, and they do so without asking if the patient is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or atheist. If they receive government funding it is in the form of reimbursement for care given. If you are so blind that you cannot see the benefit that charitable organizations provide in this country then I’m all for closing EVERY Catholic hospital and shutting down every Catholic charity that feeds the poor, clothes the naked, houses the homeless, and heals the sick. If that were to happen exactly how many people would die because people like you insist upon forcing me to commit a mortal sin. How exactly do you justify all of our social programs; welfare, Section 8, WIC and Obamacare when you first and foremost want to kill that child before he ever has an opportunity to take advantage of them?

          • Tracy

            My Catholic school doesn’t receive any govt funding but they would be forced to comply. This effects a lot more than hospitals and if you think it this is just about birth control you are wrong and if you think this won’t effect you then you are DEAD WRONG!

          • Violetsnuff

            The church is not free from being taxed and are not receiving tax funds. (You all need to do some serious reading before you start commenting allover people’s blogs.) Instead churches (of all denominations) are paying taxes and those that volunteer under a church or religious based organization have to pay taxes too, which is funny, because volunteers live below the poverty line to serve the poor and yet I had to fork over $500 that I never earned, because I lived a year in a shelter owned by a church.
            Now do everyone a favor (including yourself) and do some research before you respond to any more of these comments on this blog.

          • Gpacharlie

            Hey Mr.Medical Doc.,

            2600 years ago Hippocrates said:

            I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
            I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
            But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.I assume you guys gave up the “purity of your arts” for cold hard cash long ago.

          • ITGuyANDCatholic

            They do not “support any political candidate nor profess their support for them”. They do, however, point out when certain laws or regulations violate Canon Law, and thus the conscience of the Church. By voicing their opinion and lobbying regarding certain laws, how exactly are they “support any political candidate nor profess their support for them”? Just because they may recieve some sort of public funding, that does not mean the government can force them to comply to acts that are morally reprehensible to them. Furthermore, your argument is a very common one, but no one has ever presented any information such as what type of funding, how much, what is it to be used for to back up their argument. You are no exception.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=8359245 Pamela Koo

            Given your logic, do you think that Planned Parenthood should be such a powerful lobbying agent given the fact that they, too, are “non-profit” (yeah right) and also tax-exempt?

          • Musiciangirl591

            i went to Catholic school for 11 years, we received little to no government funding (the little was for textbooks because they were required in public schools), we didn’t have money for heat, air conditioning, or much of anything else and the money we got was from alumni donations and the diocese, the government gave us nothing, so yeah

          • http://littlebytesnews.blogspot.com littlebytes

            #prolife discussion: @Bbrennan I don’t think you read the letter to Obama;or don’t care about religious freedoms in this country because you don’t seem to understand the issue.

          • AUEagle

            NO, they aren’t.

          • Wright

            Whether it happens to be the Church’s business or not, if it is not within the Catholic Religion to distribute contraceptives then the state has no business telling them they must do so. If a woman feels she is in need of birth control, she may find it elsewhere, just as I would not ask for ice cream in a fishmarket. Understand this is on principle of the ability to practice religion freely, not simple desires or needs. This would be the same as forcing a catholic business owner to distribute copies of the koran. If he does not wish to sell the book, he is not constrained by law to do so.

          • Brenda

            I’m sorry. The fact that people willingly go work for a catholic organization must understand it comes with rules. The government does not get to come in and change religious beliefs that apply to a catholic institution subordinate to the Catholic Church. This is purely a freedom of religion issue.

          • Troublmae

            But I DO pay for it … my taxes help to pay for it. Since I have no choice but to pay taxes, I have no choice but to pay for contraception, which I do not believe in. In addition, the more “options” are covered by health insurance, the more my insurance goes up, even if I do not use those options. Bottom line, I am forced to pay for something I believe is wrong.

          • dante

            I don’t believe in wars of aggression, the so-called ‘drug war’, assassinating American citizens, torture, etc, yet I’m expected to pay for them. And I notice the American Church isn’t throwing a hissy-fit over any of these abominations. Why not?

          • Redfoxndn

            Does not matter if it is free or not, It is the beginning of a socialistic idea that no true American should tolerate. You my friend are just one of the sheep who will believe anything.

          • SocialistAmerican

            Socialist ideas that are being tolerated in America:
            The New National banking system
            The VA Hospital
            The Post Office
            Jails
            Medicare
            SSI
            unemployment
            Parks (national and city)
            Beaches (national and city)
            Libraries
            Road, Streets, Highways, byways, Freeways
            Schools
            Any lighting paid by the Government
            The U.S Military
            The Fire Department
            The Police Department

          • Lindsey

            Psst–insurance premiums pay for the benefits. When we pay into a plan, we are paying for the services for those who use the plan.

          • Violetsnuff

            Why is it our responsibility to support something we disagree with? Would you be happy to pay for a drug users meth? Would you want to provide underage hookers to a rapist? Would you want to learn Spanish to keep your job? If you said no to any of these questions then why should the Catholic church provide birth control and abortions?
            Besides Mr./ Ms. I don’t know anything about birth control or this healthcare bill. It DOES say the employer will be forced to put aside money for abortions and birth control. Actually the priest even have to have money put aside for their wive’s abortions and birth control. Which is funny, because last time I checked Catholic priest are married to the church and I’ve never seen a church become pregnant.
            Also, as a for people who have no problem with contraceptives and working for the church. I’m pretty sure these people are and should be fine with spending their own income on their contraceptives. As a drug user I pay for my own drugs/ rehab and as a contraceptive supporter/ user you can pay for your own contraceptives and abortions.

          • Dante805

            Maybe the priests have to put aside money for their affairs and therapy for the boys they’re raping?

          • JulieAnn

            I suppose you’d be in favor of the Church hiring only people who agree with Catholic principles?

          • Joseph

            Hey retard, contraception is NOT medication. Do some very BASIC research before you expose your tiny brain to the world.

          • Nunya

            I see you are a Christian.

          • AUEagle

            I can’t think of a single case where a non-Catholic was forced to work for a Catholic owned institution. If the Catholic Church is paying for the medication, it is ABSOLUTELY their business.

          • herman hootenholler

            The HHS Mandate or any government mandate doesn’t rise to the level of a “belief”. Religion is the only institution that makes a legitimate claim to belief or faith.

          • Guest

            The comparison to Orthodox Jews is unfounded. Orthodox Jews, after all, can be nourished by other means– turkey bacon, eggs, beef, and chicken come to mind as kosher sources of protein. Please, if there is another viable solution that upholds access to contraception by 1) not imposing Catholic views on sex, and 2) not imposing an undue burden of cost, I am interested in hearing it.

            NB: Before I get any replies about NFP, I would point out that most medical authorities agree that it is unacceptably ineffectual, and that the only evidence that it is as effective as hormonal birth control was funded by the German “Natural Family Planning” Study Centre and analyzed by an academic who is the director of the “natural fertility” section of a reproductive health department at the University of Heidelberg– I think that an argument for research biases is imminent here. On the other hand, the government’s statistics claim that NFP is 5 times less effective than hormonal birth control , and the Merck Medical Manual and CDC concur (of course, so does Planned Parenthood, the Gutenmacher Institute, and United Nations).

          • jemadi

            Actually, planned parenthood says that nfp, when practiced correctly, is just as effective

        • Kez5

          Being a past Church employee I can tell you The Church doesn’t test for birth control if you work for them… they do not require you to sign anything saying you don’t take any or use any if you work for them…. they don’t test for abortions or ask for your past abortion/birth control history….

          it is not forcing their beliefs on anyone… you are more then free to get your birth control from other avenues or be responsible for yourself and pay for it yourself! They will not ask or discriminate against you…. its between you and God. the Catholic Church does see birth control as a grave sin. don’t expect them to participate in your sin by paying for these things because THEN it does involve them and forces them to sin.

    • http://sociallysacred.blogspot.com David

      I love America! It’s just that the people who are running it are annoying me a lot lately

    • Craig

      Funny. . . the more I care about my nation, the less Catholic I become.

      • OtterMommy

        “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” You should not care more about the things of this world, which are temporary, than about the state of your immortal soul, which is eternal. Sounds like you are losing the battle with the devil on your shoulder. Fight harder.

        • BiochemistANDmedicaldoc

          If you are actually educated in science, (no, not high school biology or undergrad science 101), you will actually understand the ludicricity that is religion..catholic, protestant, Islam…it doesn’t matter!!! There is an ENORMOUS reason why studies have shown that the greater education one receives (undergrad, Masters, PHD, MD) especially in the sciences, the LESS they believe in some magical being. Try looking at your “infallible” beliefs and the “miraculous” graces of “god” through a scientific lens and you will find that NONE of them hold up to reason. Yes, I’m sure you all have a handful of scientists that are willing to substantiate your claims but, for every one of them, there are at least 1000 scientists with peer-reviewed studies(if you actually understand the scientific community then you understand this importance) that completely disprove of whatever pseudoscience that your handful of scientists claim. open up your eyes and stop trying to force your agenda on the country.

          • Troublmae

            You might be a BiochemistANDmedicaldoc, but you are missing the point. Catholics are not forcing their agenda on the country. Rather, they are trying to keep the President and a few other from forcing their agenda on them. And in case you were wondering what right they have to do so, I invite you to go read the Constitution of these United States.

          • Marissa C

            Funny…I know plenty of medical doctors (and a few with a spare PhD as well) who are devout Catholics…guess they missed the message?

          • grace

            If you have 10 minutes, perhaps this would help. God is not a “sky fairy”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8yBnpN48w

          • Gpacharlie

            Thank you Grace, for that. I would have missed that insight from father Barron if not for you. If not for you, isn’t that a Bob Dylan lyric. I too loved to read the atheists, especially Richard Dawkins. Father Barron is truly a great mediator and a smart man. Check out Father Robert Spitzer, who is also brilliant, especially when he boils it all down to the uncaused cause or for MedicalDocBioChemicalguy- the non contingent contingency.

            Whats up DOC – Check out the link that Grace has so kindly provided. She is nicer than me, and she truly cares about your eternal life.

          • Redfoxndn

            So what you are saying, since you are a educated person, with all this education you no longer need a religion as it does not get you any recognition or money. This is what you have learned. You think you have all the answers in life and no longer need a religion to help you in those uncertain times. Well, all I have to say is good luck. Being Native American I see all of your communities failures in trying to think you have all the answers. You are destroying what it is that allows us to live. Then after you have realized that one of your many inventions is killing folks it gets taken off the market. To much too fast. The earth will heal it’s self and we will all then realize it is too late. Respect the religion of others and let them live as they wish, have we not learned anything from history yet? If you wish not to believe, then ok, just do not force your lack of intellect on us.

          • Karen

            HA HA HA. Sorry. I had to laugh. I have a Masters degree in English, and it was actually during my graduate studies that I returned to the Church. I happened to read the Bible, you see, and also the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

            My husband has a PhD in a scientific field, and he believes in God. Most of the other professors he works with believe in God. Some are even *gasp* Catholic! I believe it was Einstein who said, “There are two ways of living your life. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is a miracle.” Guess which path leads to bitterness and resentment, and which one can lead to real enlightenment.

            Our family doctor believes in God. He’s a Catholic and will not prescribe birth control.

            My dentist believes in God.

            Most of the graduate students my husband teaches and advises believe in God. I guess that shoots your theory about “ludicricity” not being accepted by those in higher education.

          • Cyndi

            Good Morning Biochemist and Medical Doc,

            Keep in mind that modern Science was born out of the Jewish/Christian understanding that God created the world. Prior to this development in understanding of God, you could not examine or experiment on creation because it was understood to be divine. However, the Theology of Judaism and Christianity made clear that the creation of the Creator is not divine. As a result, Jews and Christians brought you much of the Science that you worship today. One example… The Big Bang Theory was brought to you by Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Catholic Priest. The tendency of those who have hatefully replaced their religion with science is akin to Christians who harbor distain for Judaism. To rail against that which made your current position possible is quite like a child throwing a tantrum against its loving parent who would prefer the child who doesn’t know how to swim not jump into the ocean.

            Also keep in mind that this idea that the more education you receive the less you believe in “some magical being” is simply an example of a propaganda machine spewing self-made, false claims. For people to believe this propaganda at face value is simply an example of how easy it is to deceive those who have been educated by the propaganda machine itself.

            I would agree that the more educated you become, the less you believe in “magical beings” like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus (keep in mind that primary education dispels these myths). However, for you to equate the Creator of the Universe (who isn’t a magical being, but Being itself) with the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus is simply a clear example of how little you understand about God in the first place. I would suggest that you actually try to understand who Jews and Catholics believe that God is before you spew hateful things on blog posts. After all, you seem to understand the importance of education. I would think you would want to address this gap in your education. If you did understand that we believe God is Being itself, then you might hesitate to condescendingly call him a “magical being.”

            If you dig into history, you will learn a couple of things about Socialism. If you dig into Socialism, you will learn that there is Eastern European Socialism (violent) and Western European Socialism (non-violent). If you learn a few things about Western European Socialists, you will find they have a goal to infiltrate the United States educational system, political system, and medical system. You will learn that their goal is to educate the young generation of Americans in such a way that they will “choose” to become a Socialist state! What’s amazing is that you believe their propaganda because it is making you think that you are free. Actually, they have just chained you in front of a cave wall puppet show. Because of your “education,” you think the puppet show is reality. I pray… to Being itself… that you might have assistance breaking out of the cave in which you are captive. I am glad to have broken out of the cave! Please start to question those who have educated you. Please start to question their motives. Please start to reclaim what it means to be an American!

            Lastly, and just for the sake of covering the objections that you raise, I will address a few things:
            1) I know a lot about peer reviewed journals and science.
            2) I also need to point out that “infallible,” “miraculous,” and graces of “god” are all things that are outside of science. Science does not disprove these things because Science is inside of time. Reason, on the other hand, is Philosophy. Science, Philosophy, and Theology do not disprove one another. They are separate and distinct, but they can and do work in harmony. When people try to elevate Science to take over the jobs of Philosophy and Theology, that is where problems develop. Science can’t do what Science can’t do. Philosophy can’t do what Philosophy can’t do. Theology can’t do what Theology can’t do.
            3) Most importantly, read the Open Letter again and try to understand that the Catholic Church (and everyone else who objects to this unconstitutional HHS mandate across religious and political lines) are not “trying to force” our “agenda on the country.” Rather, the secular state is trying to force its agenda on Catholic Institutions. If permitted to do so, the secular state will come after anyone else’s beliefs that stand in the way of making the United States of America a new arm of Western European Socialism.

          • Gpacharlie

            What he said and double it.

          • Cyndi

            What who said?

          • Gpacharlie

            I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
            I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
            But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

          • Gpacharlie

            You are wrong, stale, and out of touch. Get off the couch, put down the remote and start reading what Astrophysicists say about the 21 finely tuned universal constants, or the geneticists and paleontologists who “wonder” at the “miracles of creation. Your a dusty has been and you are arrogant beyond belief.

            Life in the womb is purely human, purely miraculous, and you should reconsider how you blithely reject your own loving God who spoke you into existence, warts, receding hairline, and all.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=8359245 Pamela Koo

            Tell that to the girl who has a thesis M.S. in Genetics along with two published articles (so far) in well-respected scientific journals like the Journal of Neuroscience and PLoS One. I also have a B.S. in Biomedical Science with double minors in Genetics and Psychology. All from a public university. I also teach Biology.

            And yeah. 100%, absolutely joyfully Catholic.

            Remember that guy who heads up the NIH? Dr. Francis Collins? Yeah, that guy is a Christian. Oops.

          • Board Certified M.D.

            I am a Board Certified Urologist.
            I am a practicing catholic.
            I have seen the hand of God in action.
            I have been blessed to see the glove of Padre Pio produce a miracle in a gravely ill patient.
            There is an infallible Truth.
            John 8:32
            “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

            Because you do not believe does not mean that it does not exist.

            Medicine is an ART and a science.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Funny, but the growth of my patriotism, which I used to consider stodgy and embarrassing, and the intense deepening of my faith have gone hand in hand. I love my country because it has a good foundation and values – love of freedom, which used to mean the freedom to do what you ought to do, i.e. live a virtuous life, rights acknowledged as created by God, with their attendant responsibilities, and a history of absolutely heroic sacrifice in wartime and peacetime. But I also worry for my country because it is actually so fragile, and because of its freedom, so prone to excess and corruption. The more Catholic I become, the more I want to change my country for the better, to preserve our freedoms, to fight the good fight with all the rights my government is supposed to protect, while I still can and while I still have them. I think America is a great country to be Catholic in, and I hope being really intensely Catholic may allow me to make it a better country in turn.

    • Paula

      Dear Fisherman,

      If I may be so bold…

      The more Catholic I become, the less I resent anyone or anything, because I find that resentment and bitterness at best do nothing and at worst hinder my continual conversion to the Heart of Christ.

      • Peekabooo429

        Even Christ got angry when it was called for.

        • Paula

          Dear Peekabooo429,

          But of course our Lord displayed righteous anger! Yet, I do not recall our Savior every harboring feelings of bitterness or resentment against anyone. Do you?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

            America is not a person, Paula. America is an ideal that has long since been abandoned, being replaced with a bloated machine of corporate greed and political corruption. I resent the America that we live in, because I desire to be truly free, not this false freedom that it offers.

          • Paula

            Dear Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes,

            Resentment is rooted in jealousy, which, you’ll recall, is a serious vice. Moreover, it hardens one’s heart. Can it really be an aid in conforming one’s heart to Christ’s…or in transforming an ideal (like America) into a reality?

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            The problem we keep having in this conversation, Fisherman, Paula, jacob peak-a-boo, and Zaius.. is that you keep using the word “resent”. Resentment is a TYPE of bitterness… Fisherman doesn’t TRULY resent the country… The True United States of America is a great country, founded on the greatest morals…
            Fisherman knows that… I feel like I resent America sometimes too.. but really, it’s anger… not resentment… when you were a kid… for most of us at least… we never REALLY hated our parents… or our siblings… we just got extremely pissed… sometimes our siblings would be stupid…
            Fisherman meant… he keeps getting more and more angry… Anger is not a sin… WRATH.. is a sin.. that’s the bringing out of our anger…
            Jesus got Angry, He hurt absolutely no one though. He Screamed, and made an example… just as our parents do…
            He was pissed, but he was not wrathful… is that a word?

            I’m pissed at America.. but I don’t hate America.. I still say that I’m proud to be an American… I am not, however, proud to be under the control of the men in control in this country.
            They have warped the American way… this is almost not america anymore…

            I think most politicians are idiots, yes… but I hope they see that they are… and fix it… I hope America gets fixed… I don’t wish America any more bad fortune…
            THAT is resentment… and Fisherman doesn’t wish bad on this country… he just thinks America as a whole is being stupid… which is very true… but he and I both hope America sees the error of its ways… and helps itself…

          • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

            No, America isn’t a person, nor is it an ideal. It is a place and a people united by an ideal. The fact that the ideal is abandoned by some, and that others are simply sinners (oh, but not I! lolol) is no reason to love her less.

          • Dr. Zaius

            Why would “the Lord” ever feel bitterness or resentment when he could instantly exact his WRATH (a sin) on millions of people? (Read Sodom and Gomorrah)

            Bitterness or resentment are the product of not getting your way. The Lord, being all powerful — and frankly, not all loving as he is portrayed — never harbored those feelings because he just murdered the people he didn’t agree with.

          • Paula

            Dear Dr. Zaius,

            Thank you for the reading suggestion! I am familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and, firstly, as a fiercely loyal lover of all things Greco-Roman, I have to say that the claim of “millions of people” inhabiting S & G is, alas, misplaced. Rome and Alexandria were the cities of the ancient world which reached such extensive populations.

            But, to get back to the point, perhaps you’ll recall from the story… it was not that the Lord did not agree with the people of S & G. Quite the contrary, actually. It was the people of S & G who did not agree with God. He gave them opportunities to turn from their sinful path, and they blatantly refused. Justice ensued.

        • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

          Fine. Right. I’m not Jesus and I don’t know whether my anger is called for or not. I *do* know that I think more clearly when I think without it. Times like these call for clear heads and clear thinking. So brothers and sisters, let’s vent a little spleen, get our heads on straight, and start *thinking* about what to *do*. First of all, our spiritual fathers are not most of them superhumanly virtuous or heroic men, but they are still our fathers and will need and appreciate our prayerful support. Prayer is always the first order of business.

      • Catherine Wood

        Paula, As a Catholic you must understand that the Church on Earth is the Church Militant, and if you want to be a member of the Church Triumphant in Heaven then you have to fight for the Church Militant during your lifetime. The early Christians gave their lives. We cannot sit back and say The Lord will sort them out. If we do not at the very least scream from every rooftop and fight with our last breath that “Jesus Christ is Lord and I will not offend my God!”, then we will not gain the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said, in Matthew 10:34, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword……… Read the whole passage. We will be called, and must be ready to die for Our Lord. To be imprisoned for refusing to follow an illegal and immoral mandate. To be vilified and ridiculed for Our Lord. This is just the beginning, worse is yet to come.

        • Paula

          Dear Catherine,

          Thank you for your reply. I notice that you write as if I were ignorant of the Church Militant or of Jesus’ insistence that we be willing and ready to proclaim His Kingdom even at cost to ourselves. To get straight to the point: I am not. I am well aware of the verse: “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.” [Matthew 5:11]. I have been sacrificing my whole life for the sake of Christ and His Church and am prepared to continue to do so. I am as angry and incited to action by the same attacks on our Catholic faith as you are, but I refuse to let petty resentment (the subject of this thread, if you’ll recall) get in the way of my serving our Lord Jesus Christ. Will you?

    • Jgehret

      I’d agree with that statement with the following revision “The more Catholic I become, the more and more I see the despairity between what our nation is and what it ought to be”

    • jrr

      Pray and fast for our nation…….. We need prayers… God bless!

    • Penny Farthing1893

      But consider how the Bishops and all of us are able to stand up and tell the administration no. Although the US has a sad history of anti-Catholicism, the principles of our constitution work better with Catholicism and all religions than almost any other country (except Hungary!) As a result the Church has always been able to flourish here. That being said, it’s up to each generation to pass on and increase both liberty and faith.

      • Annony11

        Hah… I laugh, in a sad sort of way, when people bring up Hungary as a paragon of constitutions. The government there is destroying the country right now, taking away free speech, continuing to destroy what is left of the economy (not much), etc. While it is true that the constitution defines life as beginning at conception there is NO change in the legality of abortion. What is happening is more terrifying than what’s going on in the US with the difference that it is the far-right in control. I’m fairly to very conservative but the group in power there scare me.

        • Penny Farthing1893

          I didn’t mean the government in Hungary is good, just that their constitution is kinda badass where religion is concerned, especially considering the direction of the rest of Europe. But, yeah, it’s a mess. Even worse than here, but it’s a fine example of what happens when there is nothing keeping the government from following the rules intended for it. Like Marc points out, it’s tyranny.

          • Penny Farthing1893

            Also, I forgot to say – the far right in Europe is still overpowered government, just with more nationalism than their far left. The right here is usually more for a smaller government with narrowly defined powers.

          • Annony11

            If “kinda badass” means you support their limiting the religions allowed to be officially recognized then I guess you’re right. I’m Catholic through and through but the idea of discriminating against other religions (and some Catholic orders as well!) is only badass in a disordered, disturbing way.

            http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12860

          • Penny Farthing1893

            If you want to know what I thought was badass, it’s the part of their constitution that specifically states that Europe’s history and culture are Christian, that that is an invaluable legacy, and that Hungary believes itself to be a part of it, with a history of defending the faith. And actually, in a country that isn’t founded with religious liberty specifically intended, it’s not necessarily unjust to favor one religion over another (see the Middle Ages). Obviously there is a need to allow individuals to practice their religions, not persecute them, allow conversions away from Catholicism etc., and Hungary is not doing that and needs to chill out, but officially favoring one religion is not intrinsically wrong. I’m not defending Hungary’s government in practice, just that they said a few things that need saying in an increasingly godless Europe.

          • Annony11

            Thanks for explaining. Sorry if I overreacted, it’s just extremely frustrating for me to see people continue to praise Hungary’s constitution when they know little else about the government and/or country.

            I agree, it is nice that they comment on the Christian history of Europe. What I do not see is how a country could realistically favor one religion without discriminating against the rest.

            On another note, because I don’t want it to seem like I’m anti-Hungary … quite the opposite, when I was living in Budapest (3 nonconsecutive years the last of which just ended in October) I was pleasantly surprised at the availability and attendance at daily, as well as Sunday, Masses. Of course I was living in the center of the city, but, within a five/ten minute walking distance of my flat, I could go to any of 9 Masses at four different parishes with times ranging from 6am to 6:30 pm. On Sunday, that number jumps to 22 Masses (including a TLM, NO celebrated in Latin, and one in Croatian) at those same four parishes. If I extended the distance to 10/20 minute walk (which then includes the English Mass I typically attended), that number more than doubles. THAT is pretty awesome.

          • Penny Farthing1893

            No worries. The internet really doesn’t allow much subtlety, and I probably should have qualified my first statement.

            Budapest sounds amazing – it’s somewhere I’ve always wanted to go. I do continue to pray for Hungary, since they seem like they are trying to do the right thing, but in an uncharitable and reactionary way. Besides the fact that it’s wrong, it’s also counterproductive.

          • Yankee Yahoo

            The State serves the people, and if the people’s culture is primarily of one religion, then it has an obligation to support that faith without declaring it the “State Religion” or violating freedom of religion for others. Obeying the will of the taxpayers and their religion does not conflict with freedom of other religions.

            How quickly it is forgotten that all Europe gave freedom of religion for Jews for all this time, despite its Christian dominance. Rarely was this violated, though Spain did in 1492, but this was the exception, not the rule.

            What everyone fails to understand is that religion is absolutely a part of a people, their traditions, their morals, their education, and all institutions. The separation of church and state, for example, does not imply they are equal. By it’s very nature, religion as the source of all morals, especially morals that GOVERN THE GOVERNMENT, making religion superior to, and above the State.

            None of the Christian Churches go far enough in asserting their just power and superior, non-violent strength, for the churches are the voices of the people. The churches ARE the people. The State is but a servent, a janitor compared to a priest.

          • Penny Farthing1893

            Pure awesome. You are right.

      • Gpacharlie

        The difference between Hungary and here – about a thousand SOVIET Tanks.

        • Annony11

          Gpacharlie, please explain your statement.

          Are you implying that there are currently a thousand Soviet tanks in Hungary? Or that the current government (extreme right-wing) is a result of communism? Some other brilliant insight from time spent in or studying the country?

          Otherwise, please don’t make asinine statements on things of which you have no concrete experience/knowledge.

          As a matter of fact, there ARE Soviet tanks in Hungary. Not a thousand by any means, but I have seen some which are kept as a reminder of the horrors that period meant for the country and her people and as a pledge that history will not repeat itself.

    • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

      Oh, no, Fisherman, no! We can never evangelize somebody we resent. America is an amazing place. I’ve traveled all around the world and have loved what I have seen everywhere – there is so much good in the world. The American country is beautiful and spacious, and her people have hearts and imagination and tolerance to match. We must pray, pray, pray to love the good, love the good, love the good! Never sacrifice it or abandon it to evil! America – that is, my neighbors – are at least as worth saving as I am, in all my sins! Let’s never let our broad and wide catholic faith become narrow or cramped. Always find and accentuate the good! A good thing is worth fighting for!

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Yes! Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks.

  • Mary

    Perfection.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=709445436 Kyle Levi Fox

    Love it! That being said—you are missing an “of.” A tremendous display of logical argumentation.

    “teaches that the use [insert of] artificial contraception and sterilization is wrong”

    • Marc Barnes

      thank you!

  • Betsy

    Kathleen Sibelius is a CINO and should be excommunicated by her Bishop!

    • Kylergeorge

      Kathleen Sibelius was Excommunicated by her Bishop! The Bishop of Kansas City. She can no longer receive Communion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=608142361 Kyle Richard Therese George

      Kathleen Sibelius was Excommunicated by her Bishop! The Bishop of Kansas City. She can no longer receive Communion.

      • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

        true story

  • Guest

    I’m confused. I still don’t see why it’s wrong to offer the OPTION to students at schools? I’m personally a male so I can’t say that this would affect me directly, but I’m an atheist attending a catholic college. If there are non-catholic women that also attend my school (I know quite a few actually), why is it wrong for our school to offer the same things mandated by law that other schools have to offer?

    • wineinthewater

      Simple, the government is mandating that a religious organization must *pay* for something that they consider sinful. The government is mandating that Catholics must participate in an action that they consider a sin.

      It is akin to the government requiring you to pay for someone else to kick dogs. Would the fact that the government weren’t forcing *you* to personally kick the dogs make it ok for the government to require you to pay for the dog kicking?

    • Lauren

      It’s a problem because it’s an infringement on the rights of the institution. (Re-read under “Just don’t take them yourself”).

    • Rosemaryutz

      Because it is a catholic college and students knew that when they signed on. If students want this type of service, go elsewhere to get it. Don’t expect the college to hand it out.

    • Jake E

      Guest,

      As you are an Atheist, it would be like the Church imposing you to pay them to go the Mass every Sunday.

  • Katie

    Great! I think all us Catholics just broke the internet, or at least the white house’s website. I can’t sign the petition and the site is experiencing “technical difficulties”

    • Kwanlu

      “Technical difficulties” is WH-speak for “Lalalalala…I can’t HEAR you!”

  • Erika Vega

    AMEN, BROTHER! I LOVED READING THIS! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORDS! I HOPE PEOPLE ARE LISTENING! :)

  • Ellen Schaad

    I was with you until this point
    “In fact, if you’re a woman reading this, chances are you’re preventing pregnancy right now.”
    And I thought to myself, unless you’re me, reading this and pregnant right now.

    ” (If not, rethink your sex life.) ”
    Um, excuse me?

    • Paula

      Dear Ellen,

      I *think* Marc meant that by reading this blog-post you’re preventing pregnancy in the sense that you’re not having sex and reading at the same time (which would be an awkward combination of activities and thus explains why he suggests “rethink your sex life”).

      • Marc Barnes

        yup ( :
        hahaha

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=8359245 Pamela Koo

          Your backward smilies are messing with my miiiiiiiind! :-P

    • Caffeinatedcatholicmama

      That one threw me too. I *think* he’s saying, as a woman you are preventing pregnancy by abstaining from sex while reading his blog. If not, you might want to rethink your sex life. But I could be wrong.

    • Cjones001

      Yes, that, and the fact that it’s supposed to be to the President? Who is not a woman…

      After that edit, I think this really should be sent. Please.

    • Anonymous

      I agree it’s a little odd to read. I mean I don’t think most humans look at going through their normal day as “activities preventing pregnancy”. Do guys think they are preventing pregnancy by going to work and not having sex at work?

      • Gpacharlie

        Babs,
        The answer is yes! Of course this is a qualified yes dependant upon levels of testosterone;

    • Jgehret

      I think he meant that whole clause in the context of whether or not the reader is actually having sex at the instant they are reading this post, and he failed to consider the already pregnant. If someone is reading this blog while having sex, I can see how he considers it odd. Congrats, btw.

      • Elm

        Odd, possibly quite flexible, and not doing much for the ego of the other person involved. lol

        • Penny Farthing1893

          You win several internets for almost choking me with laughter.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

        I would argue that by being pregnant, you in fact on a nine-month pregnancy prevention plan, seeing as you aren’t going to be getting pregnant again anytime soon.

    • http://www.onemoremum.blogspot.com/ Mrs L

      I am pregnant too. Very pregnant in fact.
      But I did not miss Marc’s point. It’s hilarious :) I almost choked on my raspberry leaf tea ;)

    • Anthony McWilliams

      I thought it was pretty clear that he meant, “If you’re currently both reading this blog and having sex simultaneously, you need you rethink your sex life.” But hey, whatever works for you.

      Congratulations on your pregnancy! I find it sad that some people think you’re now diseased because Vatican policy blocked you from getting necessary medication.

  • Nelly

    Thank you for sharing this with us. Signing the petition now and sharing on Facebook!

  • Jay E.

    Bishop David Zubik says it all.

  • Tendermittens

    Agreed. We need to save the money we’d be forced to spend on this on paying off the lawsuits after all those pesky rapes of small children (and subsewuent coverups) by our priests.

  • Brandon Mabe

    If I am not mistaken, a TYRANT is someone who ILLEGALLY takes power. I believe the word he was looking for was DICTATOR.

    PS: I WILL NOT be checking for replies and will probably never return to this website.

    • Marc Barnes

      Brave.

    • Lily

      I’m replying for the other people reading.

      Tyranny can be an illegal use of power one already has. For example, when the Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, back in the day, said that the government could not remove the Cherokee from their land, President Jackson said, “Is that what John Marshall says? Well then let John Marshall enforce.” He forced the Cherokee off their land anyway, completely spitting on the supposed balance of powers, and thus acted illegally, despite being a lawfully elected president.

      Similarly, Obama and his administration were properly elected/appointed, but now they are wielding their power with tyrannical force and direction.

      • enness

        Historically, ‘tyrant’ was the word for a kind of legal rulership. It was like an indefinite interim position. In Greece, I believe.

        • Mhslegionaire

          Historian here, and enness, you are correct, mostly. Tyrants were the rulers of various city-states in ancient Greece (who, in every case we know of, held what was basically absolute power 100% legally). Most came through the city council or were appointed. In some cases, in Athens, a tyrant was elected. The term was by no means definite though. They held power as long as possible. Some were very benevolent, efficient, and just rulers, others were the kind that gave tyranny its modern connotations.

          Dictators came from Rome, the most famous being Cincinnatus.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Exactly. The president is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution, as is Congress. They all took an oath to uphold, protect, and defend it. Last time I checked, upholding, protecting, and defending were not the same thing as evading, trampling, and ignoring. We do not elect absolute rulers. This is not supposed to be Hobbes’s Leviathan. We elect them to follow the law and understand the responsibility that comes with power.

  • Banana

    I’m sorry, but aren’t the same people who want to shoot down this law among the same people who want to ELIMINATE those “community health centers” where women can get free or discounted birth control, should their employer’s insurance not cover it? You know, like Planned Parenthood? So much for the “they can just get it somewhere else” argument.

    • wineinthewater

      Not quite. They’re the ones who want to prevent federal funding of Planned Parenthood. It really shouldn’t be that surprising that a group of people who don’t want to be forced to pay for something they consider sinful would also object to being forced to pay a different way for that thing they consider sinful.

    • enness

      Planned Parenthood is not going to go broke without public funding.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Well, yes I would love for people to stop using birth control, but I’m not going to force them to. It is their souls they are damaging. I am, however, morally obliged to let them know that there is something better.

    • Kim

      Almost every locale has public health programs and initiatives that are generally local or state government initiatives and not tied to Planned Parenthood. Give that money to the state to dispense out. That was actually what many in Congress who wanted to defund Planned Parenthood proposed to do. Sadly, Democrats shot that one down.

      P.S. for your reading pleasure: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/31/planned-parenthoods-big-lie/

  • Genius4sure

    I am having difficulties signing the petition. Anyone know how to do this?

    • Jake E

      You have to make an account with whitehouse.gov first. Don’t worry it’s a two step process that takes about a minute.

    • partyrocker

      Once you go to the website, you must click the create an account button next to the sign the petition. the link is forwarded to your email. click it on the email, then sign the petition. kind of a hassle.

    • Michelle Thuldanin

      And also you can’t seem to get in without using the tiny url and not the direct link.

  • El Patito

    Obama wants the Church to close her hospitals so that they will become privately owned, which will in turn allow abortions, etc.

    • Michelle Thuldanin

      That is so creepy and I didn’t even think of it. It is probably true. Then we’d have almost no influence. What really bothers me is that he is doing all of this at the end of his term like he doesn’t sweat getting re-elected and is just setting up for next term.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      That’s what I thought too… plus if the Catholic institutions shut down (hospitals, schools, charities, etc) it will force countless needy people into the arms of the government, increasing their control….

      • belinda

        Ironically, I think the Church herself needs to consider that this may be a necessary purging to cleanse our institutions from the government dependency that has been created by our acceptance of government funds over the years. Will rejecting government financial support make our schools, hospitals, and social justice agencies smaller? Certainly it will. Will it provide the opportunity for them to be authentically Catholic? It most certainly will. This HHS problem for the Church is not just an issue of a constitutional violation. Its an issue of what is Catholic Identity. Yes, many so-called Catholics use birth control. They believe themselves to be faithful Catholics even as they violate the most basic belief we have. (I know, I used to be one of that number). This is the opportunity for our bishops to look at “how the church has gotten in bed” with the government and how this may have lead to the loss of our Catholic Identity. Many Catholic universities have already lost their Catholic Identity. This problem has made that issue very obvious. it is now time for ALL Catholics to decide what they really believe. This is as much a crisis for the Catholic Church in America as it is for our rights under the constitution. I am excited to see how the courts deal with this. I’m equally anxious to see how our USCCB decides to help us to be “in the world” but not “of the world” in the future.

        • Penny Farthing1893

          I was kind of thinking the same thing too. It has always bothered me that the Church takes money from the government and too often stays silent on things that matter a lot. This includes many priests’ reluctance to preach about moral issues that are seen as political, for fear of losing their tax exempt status. They should be saying “Bring it!” and not fear speaking the truth. In September there is always a free speech Sunday where clergy are encouraged to preach on political issues, and even candidates if they wish, and just see if the IRS does anything. They record their sermons/homilies and everything. I think this is the good kind of crisis, meaning a turning point. It’s very exciting.

        • Gpacharlie

          Wow Belinda, I think you nailed it. Let the grass and the weeds grow up together, and in the end of time…..

  • Mark Hull

    Catholic teaching that homosexuality is disordered and sinful empowers bullies and diminishes esteem in gay youth resulting in increased teen suicide.

    • Jake E

      This is simply ridiculousness. Don’t tell me a damn thing about suicide.

      • enness

        Personal experience, Jake?

        • Jake E

          Yes. And I apologize for my emotionally driven response, however I am infuriated by your statement. Suicide in itself is a selfish act, how can the blame one one’s selfish actions be put on anyone or anything? Furthermore, the Catholic Church? The Church opposes homosexual acts, not homosexuals themselves. And important distinction too often over-looked. I urge you to find a Catechism and look up homosexuality. And again, I apologize for the anger.

          • Helpful

            Good to see that at least one other person understands the difference between a homosexual person and homosexual acts. Sorry your life has been hard, Jake. Praying for you.

          • Jake E

            Much appreciated

    • Amateur_Apologist_Tom

      Catholic teaching also states that those with Same Sex Attractions “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358).

    • enness

      There are always going to be people who have a warped interpretation of are teaching, in spite of what is clearly there in black and white (see Tom’s post below). How exactly is that our fault?

      • enness

        *’our,’ not ‘are.’ Sorry.

    • Mr. Danvers

      Bullshit. I am a homosexually inclined. I am a Catholic. Never have I been influenced by my Catholicism to kill myself. And I’ve attempted suicide three times.

      Note: To all the compassionate folk inclined to urge me not to attempt it again, save your cyberhugs. I’m over it. I’m fine. It won’t happen again.

  • Jmsteve4

    And here’s the problem: The pro-choice movement always justifies these things by saying “in the case of rape.” They don’t care that most of the people using contraceptives do not get raped. We can point out as much as we want about the statistics, or say how it’s still screwing with the natural order of things and we can even bring up that it sometimes kills children, but they don’t care about that. They’ve already made screwing with biology and killing children legal. Their argument is that less people will get hurt if everyone has contraception avaliable to them. I’m sure if it were feasible they would actually shove the pills down our throats (well my throat because this bill is sexist anyways) “for our own good.” Why else would we have to offer them when they’re avaliable elsewhere? In any case, they’re making me pay for somethng I personally refuse to use (and employers pay for things they would not use) just so I can have basic insurance. These people don’t care that quite a few people need their insurance to pay for things because they do stupid things- that the house caught fire because they accidently left the stove on. They will always go back to the same argument: that women can be raped and thus need protection. We can argue that forcing us to provide it is against our religion, and that the country has lasted for quite some time without mandatory contraceptive care so it isn’t really necessary, but I don’t think they’ll care when we tell them what we’ve been telling them for years: that pregnancy is not a disease.

    • Chelle

      How about the fact that hormonal birth control lowers the risk of endometrial cancer?

      How about the fact that pregnancy is life threatening? No, it’s not a disease, it’s a state, but it brings with it any number of diseases that non-pregnant women (and men) aren’t at risk for. Just because modern medicine has made it so that most women don’t generally die during delivery doesn’t mean that it doesn’t carry serious risks.

      Sometimes, the natural order of things isn’t the most favorable.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        The increase in the risk of blood clots, hypertension, thrombosis, etc, is greater than the drop in cancer risk. Besides, endometrial cancer is not as common as the above conditions to begin with.

        Basic medical ethics says a treatment should address a specific pathology while affecting as few other body systems as possible. Birth control most often does not even address a pathology (fertility is not a disease – it is the proper functioning of one’s body) and it adversely affects several major body systems. It’s too unhealthy for an unnecessary medication. Now, in some cases, there is a specific disease that needs treatment, like endometriosis, and then it is totally fine to use birth control, in spite of the side effects. Interestingly, in that case, infertility is considered a side effect of treating endometriosis.

      • JJPeachum

        Do you honestly believe that people take hormonal birth control to lower the risk of endometrial cancer? Don’t be ridiculous.

  • Bbrennan

    The Catholic Church has a lot of damn nerve calling anything “morally repulsive” after saying it is ok for priests to molest children for so many years, followed by voting down the “one strike and your out” rule. Tell me Catholics, since homosexuality is such an abomination, at what age is it no longer ok to have sex with a boy?

    • Jake E

      Why are you changing the damn subject? I don’t care what your religious preference is, I’m not going to touch it right now so shut the hell up about your misgivings with the Catholic Church. This is about legality and constitutionality. Obama is attacking the Church in a way that violates the Constitution in every way in reference to freedom of religion. You should be concerned and offended by that fact, if you so be an American Citizen, and mature enough to put aside personal belief. Please, think objectively.

      • Bbrennan

        The Catholic church, or any church that has employees, is not just a religious organization. They are a business. If they have even one employee whose paycheck is affected by any form of tax, they then owe that employee the same rights granted by all federal and state laws. This law only imposes on the business aspect of the church. By opposing this, the Catholic church is forcing its religious beliefs on all of its employees who do not believe in that aspect of Catholic beliefs (yes, there are Catholics who take birth control). Also, contraceptives do contain many medical benefits for the women take them. They are often prescribed to women who are not sexually active for a host of other benefits, most notable the treatment of PCOS.

        • Moearly

          The Catholic Church does allow women who are not sexually active to take “birth control” medications for the treatment of medical conditions. Also, birth control is not a right. If you have serious issue with not having birth control in your health plan, you can seek out a different employer. No one is forcing you to work for a Catholic organization.

          • Jake E

            Amen. After all, what is any institution without its firm beliefs?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

            The Goverment.

          • Guest

            Although they may say it’s ok for people to take birth control for other reasons they still don’t cover it. At least where I work.

        • Is this real life?

          They are not an entity that accepts any tax dollars directly from the government though. Its called a private institution. If the government was funding them they would have the right to tell Church entities what to do. However, these entities raise money from donors and in the case of Catholic hospitals, those persons that use their services. The only tax dollars that the hospitals accept is from those Medicare and Medicaid patients who choose to obtain services from a CATHOLIC RUN HOSPITAL.

          Also, you mentioned that there are Catholic women who take birth control, those would not be considered devout or fully practicing because quite obviously, THEY DON’T FULLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHURCHES TEACHINGS. This is not a difficult concept. If one doesn’t like it, they always have the option to not participate – oh except for the Catholic Church, apparently they have to participate in whatever it is that people like you, Obama and other brilliant Americans believe.

      • Elm

        Agree- whether one agrees with the Church teaching on contraception or not, that’ s not what this is about. But the article above said it all, and well- so I’ll just refer folks back to that.

    • enness

      Show me ONE PLACE in all our doctrine where The Catholic Church, as an entity, says that child molestation is okay. You can’t, because we don’t. The issue you have — and, in fact, the issue we share — is with certain twisted and/or spineless individuals.

      • Bbrennan

        Oh please, don’t start trying to state the doctrine of your church as something your church actually adheres to. What I have to back it up is far better than any document, it is the actions of the leaders of your church. For years, priests molested children, and whenever it was discovered, the church paid to keep it quiet but very rarely fired the guilty party. The priests committed crimes and the bishops and pope covered up those crimes without punishing the offender. Does that strike you as the actions of a ruling body that is opposed to an action? To me, and to all, actions speak far louder than words.

        • Moearly

          Members and leaders of the Catholic Church, being human, have made some serious mistakes. This does not and should not imply that all Catholics approve of these actions or that they are in line with Catholic doctrine which is followed by many. Just because some Catholics choose to go against Church teachings sometimes doesn’t mean Obama should be able to legally require Catholics to act in a way contrary to their beliefs.

        • Penny Farthing1893

          Like the actions of all the bishops who did try to remove those priests from ministry, even when bureaucracy was standing in the way? Like the actions of then Cardinal Ratzinger, who wrote many times to the agencies involved that there needed to be more action taken to investigate child abuse, and called the molesters “filth”? Like the actions of diocese after diocese, making sure every employee and volunteer takes “safe environment training”, and enforcing mandatory reporting even in states that don’t have that law? Like bishops and Catholic legal groups lobbying hard to get mandatory reporting laws on the books, an idea strongly resisted by public teachers unions and Planned Parenthood? At least when the Church sees a problem, she tries to fix it, even if it draws tons of bad publicity.

      • Bbrennan

        And here is evidence that the pope did indeed do these things, in case you want proof of that as well

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/03/more-evidence-emerges-tha_n_524192.html

        • Catherine Wood

          Well, well, well, it’s the Huffington Post!!! We ALL know how unbiased they are! We also all know that they absolutely HATE the Catholic Church.
          That aside, this has been dis-proven long ago with letters, memorandum, etc., disclosed not only by the Vatican but by the local diocese.
          You really are a creepy person BBBBBBbrennan. May God have mercy on your soul for spreading lies.
          Did I mention that the commandment, Thou shalt not kill, includes deliberately and maliciously trying to destroy a persons reputation as murder. That’s a mortal sin. Be nice, and be honest.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=8359245 Pamela Koo

      Please demonstrate with documentation where the Church said it was okay to molest children. You should have a papal document, a letter from a meeting of the bishops, *something* to back up this rather extraordinary claim. I’ll practice the virtue of patience and wait for your response with bated breath.

      • Bbrennan

        Oh please, don’t start trying to state the doctrine of your church as something your church actually adheres to. What I have to back it up is far better than any document, it is the actions of the leaders of your church. For years, priests molested children, and whenever it was discovered, the church paid to keep it quiet but very rarely fired the guilty party. The priests committed crimes and the bishops and pope covered up those crimes without punishing the offender. Does that strike you as the actions of a ruling body that is opposed to an action? To me, and to all, actions speak far louder than words

        • Catherine Wood

          Liar, liar, pants on fire. There is no evidence that the Pope. this one or any other covered up the molestation of children. The Huffington Post BS has been dis-proven with the release of documents in the Oregon Diocese. STOP POSTING LIES!!! You lose ALL credibility!!!
          Unfortunately, the Church listened to psychologists and psychiatrists who said that they could cure pedophilia and homosexuality, and after intensive therapy by these same therapists who pronounced them cured these priests were placed back into a diocese. Take a look at the AMA. They have been covering their asses ever since this scandal came to light. Now they say that pedophilia and the desire for homosexual sex with children is perfectly normal, is not a mental disorder and not criminal behavior. God help us all, but the Truth of Christ’s Church and the sanctity of Our Lords Church will not and can not be destroyed by the evil acts of men. The Church will survive until the Lord comes again. And we Catholics will be here praying for His return.

        • Mhslegionaire

          you know, the exact same things have happened at Protestant churches throughout the years… not just the Catholic Church. These were human men who had human failings, and made human mistakes.

          and if you knew anything, or had received any sort of training on how to deal with the victims of such cases, you would know that it can take years for the victim to come forth. Haven’t you been watching tv? What happened at Penn St didn’t happen yesterday, it happened years ago, and things don’t always get reported to the top like they are supposed to, so claiming that the pope knew about, actively supported, or covered up these deeds is immaterial until you provide evidence, from that bishop or pope, that they knew about it and did absolutely nothing.

          What those priests did was reprehensible, morally evil, and completely at odds with what the Church actively teaches. But to put it in perspective, when you consider the sheer number of Catholic priests in the world (thousands, hundreds of thousands, a million perhaps?) those poor men who committed those crimes is an extremely small percentage.

      • Bbrennan

        And here is evidence that the pope did indeed do these things, in case you want proof of that as well

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/03/more-evidence-emerges-tha_n_524192.html

        • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

          Something you need to understand about the Catholic Church: There are over ONE BILLION Catholics in the world. That is more than almost every country on the planet. These Priests were under the Code of Canon Law, which is the laws that the Church uses to dictate how things are done. There are more than 400,000 priests. The Church has its ways of investigating and punishing these priests. It takes a while, because there are many people who falsely accuse priests. The Church gathers evidence, and then takes action. This isn’t evidence of a “cover-up”. He was suspended as soon as he was found out. At most, this shows a lack of efficiency.

        • Catherine Wood

          See post above. Obvious Catholic hater Bbrennan. You’d believe anything anyone said as long as it fired up your hatred of the Catholic Church. Do the research instead of just following lock-step in line.

    • Elm

      Goodness, the church never said it was okay. There were coverups by some (just like at Penn State- this is not a Catholic Only problem). But cover ups happen when people know something is WRONG. The church never came out and said “well, there’s so much child molestation, what are you going to do, just let folks who think i’ts okay do it and we won’t force our view on them.” NO- it’s wrong, we know it’s wrong, and many of us DID wrong. and it’s still wrong. It’s wrong whenever and wherever it happens (which is just about everywhere there are humans, unfortunately).

    • Ampaxx

      Please, show me one time the Catholic Church has said it is OK for anyone, much less a priest, to molest anyone, much less children.

  • Kaitlin Alfermann

    Oh this is good. Damn good. Thanks for addressing common arguments. I wrote a similar post comparing this to making Hindus buy beef and got the dumbest arguments from anonymous commenters in return.

    I’m linking this everywhere.

  • Erin

    I was just debating this with a friend. We have this crazy idea that these are a ‘necessity’ in our world. How could we ever survive without these and the idea of consequences for our actions is outrageous. However, then my wow point came across. The government tells us that tampons and pads aren’t even necessary. How could contraceptives be necessary if these basic items are not? I mean milk and other basic needs are not taxable, but pads and tampons are taxable, telling the world that these are not necessary. If these aren’t necessary, how could we even think that contraceptives would be a necessity? But seriously, we women should revolt and bleed everywhere. jk

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Erin, milk is definitely taxable, as are almost all other necessities.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Yeah in many places (civilized places) groceries are not taxed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

          Are you saying that the state of Missouri is uncivilized?

          • Penny Farthing1893

            Geez. It’s a joke. Maybe you are joking too? There is no subtlety on the internet. But I do think it borders on injustice to tax food. Besides, Arizona, even though we don’t tax food, is not all that civilized ;)

          • Penny Farthing1893

            Geez. It was a joke. Maybe you were joking too? It’s hard to tell just with typing. But I do think taxing food borders on unjust. Anyway, out here in Arizona we’re not all that civilized ;)

      • Annony11

        That depends on the state. In Ohio, no food is taxable but in Pennsylvania it is.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      I never thought about that, but yeah! Not cool! There are definitely necessities besides groceries.

  • Grace

    Marc! It’s people like you who are giving me hope for our generation. You’re only 18?? I’m 20 and I feel like you’re about 10,000 times wiser and more in-tune with your faith than I have ever been! (But I’m working on it) Please keep up the good work! In the meantime, I’ll do my best to turn as many people at Georgetown onto your blog as I can – God knows how refreshing your perspective is here.

    • Amanda

      my thought exactly! (except I’m from Canada so I doubt I can sign the petition haha)

      • AUEagle

        Go ahead and sign it Amanda. Democrats in the States have no problem with non US Citizens signing petitions, voting, receiving welfare benefits, free public education…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/hesamiracle Adam Clark

      That you find this at all “wise” demonstrates so very, very much about you.

      • Jonathan Henry

        Please explain… Preferably with something relevant and factual…

      • Grace

        That you feel the need to make unwarranted derogatory remarks towards a stranger on an internet blog post says so very, very much about you, sir. That is all.

      • AUEagle

        You failed to provide demonstrable reasons why it is not wise?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dennis.odonovan1 Dennis O’Donovan

    You are a citizen and a voter. Will getting people to sign your petition now, correct the problem? If Obama does change his HHS mandate as it presently stands, what effect will that have on the election in November? If millions sign your petition and Obama rescinds his mandate, would Catholics be pleased and perhaps 54% vote again for him in November only to have him reinstate his mandate after the election? Would it not be better to channel all of our energy towards defeating Obama in November? If we do so and are successful in defeating him, won’t this and all the other problems of a moral nature Obama has created go away? It seems to me that anything short of Obama being defeated in November is a failure. http://www.rpconradio.com

    • bethanyopoly

      Okay, write to your legislators instead. Then we can praise them instead. http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292

    • Dozer

      I am sorry in advance for being a troll, but this comment made me cringe. I see absolutely no reason to support mortal sin with our tax money any longer than required just so that Obama loses in November. Indeed, Obama has allowed and encouraged injustice for Catholics, but lets be clear: this evil is to be avoided at all costs. If Obama allows a conscience clause to be added right before the election, thank God. And when that does happen, I pray that faithful Catholics will fully realize that our president in office _had the idea_ of trying to force Catholics to commit mortal sins. President Obama is nothing but a run of the mill corrupt Chicago politician who will kill babies for a vote. I am not a moral theologian or anything, but I don’t believe your reason to be moral for allowing the HHS mandate to continue with no opposition. That would be a sin of omission.

  • Gaby

    It’s impossible to sign the petition. You have to create an account, but the bottom of the field is hidden and it’s impossible to get to it!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Not true. I did it.

      • phil

        me too!

    • bethanyopoly

      I didn’t have a problem – try another browser?

  • Kristen

    You are my new hero. Thank you. A thousand times, thank you!!

  • NeatMN

    Oh, NOW the Catholics are staunch supporters of the separation of church and state? In that case, shall we do away with the preferential tax treatment of priests and pastors? I could give a million examples of why this sudden passionate support of separation of church and state is comical, but I will spare you all. Also, big newsflash here, contraceptives are often prescribed for the medical treatment of many health problems unrelated to pregnancy prevention. Any consideration for this?

    • Elm

      It’s about religious freedom, and more than that- freedom of conscience. Not “separation of church and state”. And this affects more than Catholics- which is what many are not seeing.

    • http://profiles.google.com/andrew.p.hill Andrew Hill

      We are in favor of authentic separation of church and state — the original reasoning behind this line of thinking was to protect the church from the state, not the other way around as people mistakenly believe today.

    • Dr. Zaius

      Please, don’t spare these people! They must hear reason — tell them why their sudden support for separation of church and state is comical!

    • Kim

      There are many other options to hormonal birth control for treating health problems.

  • Guest

    absolutely awesome. but Catholicism isn’t the biggest religion in the world.
    everything else you wrote though…unbelievably well written. as usual.

    • http://profiles.google.com/andrew.p.hill Andrew Hill

      It is, actually.

    • Paula

      Dear Guest,

      The Catholic Church has well over 1 billion adherents (with varying degrees of faithfulness, le sigh) — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church [it's in the first line of the article]. I don’t know of any other religion (Christian or otherwise) which can claim as many members.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Paula is right, and Marc wasn’t talking about the world. He was speaking of the United States, in which Catholics almost double the number of the next closest group, the Southern Baptists.

    • Marc Barnes

      It is, actually. The only “larger” religion is Islam, and thats only if you don’t account for the Sunni/Shi’a split. And if you don’t, you can’t fairly count for the Catholicism Protestant split either.

  • A Catholic Patriot

    This is absolutely right! Utterly brilliant! We need to let the people in power right now know that they can’t just trample over our rights guaranteed to us by our great Constitution.

    Just one thing – you don’t like capitalism?

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Treating people like nothing more than money making machines is generally bad. The very word “Capitalism” comes from the root “capital” which here means money. The ideology is centered on money. It is wrong. Maybe you confuse capitalism with the free-market, which is a system, not an ideology. But I agree with Mark, if you can’t tell. :P

    • Mark

      Capitalism is a product of Individualism which is a product of Protestantism. The Church opposes both capitalism and socialism. Both fly in the face of human nature and are unworkable in the long run. ‘Modern’ Catholic economic and social teaching started with Pope Leo XIII (1890s). Read up on Catholic Social Thought, and then check out what Chesterton and Belloc propose (think, ‘micro-capitalism,’ if that helps).

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Right – I think “micro-capitalism” is a better word than “Distributism” because it is more accurate. Distributism refers to the way private property is ideally held by more (most/all) INDIVIDUALS, rather than being held in common or by the state, as in Communism, or by a small investor class, as in Capitalism. The word “distributism” bothers me because we have this idea of wealth/property being distributed by the state. “Distribution of property” ought to simply refer to the location/spread of it, not the actual act of doling it out, if you get my drift.

        The ideal that many Americans have of tons of small businesses and start-ups is actually closer to this than to Capitalism. Our current economy is an odd mix of big capitalist structures (some good some bad), big-ish socialist programs (some good some bad), way too much cronyism (all bad) and tons of small distributist style structures in between. It almost seems as though we are going back to mercantilism, when you look at companies like GE, being so cozy with the government.

        To use the unfortunately Marxist but very handy terminology, in communism, the “workers” collectively (actually the state) own the means of production. In capitalism the capitalists (investor class) own the means of production. In distributism, each worker owns his means of production and contracts freely with others to manage bigger ventures/enterprises. There are other types of free market besides strict capitalism.

        I think I prefer Belloc’s approach to Chesterton’s (they were very similar) because he allowed for more use of workers owning shares/guild structures, etc., which would make much more ambition projects possible (what can I say, I love NASA, big skyscrapers, the Transcontinental Railroad, etc.) Think great Cathedrals, as well as small farms and artisans. And I’m glad someone besides me has read Rerum Novarum!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TWV76L3S3FVT7NIXS4H4URGCAY G

    Funny how the people most concerned with preventing abortion are taking actions which will guarantee even more of them.
    I remember plenty of religions claiming that their beliefs prevented them from accepting black people and treating them as citizens. They wanted to continue refusing to hire them for non-ministerial jobs, continue to treat them as 4th class people and refuse to sell or buy from them. At the forefront of being against this bigotry were Catholics. Funny how they don’t see the similarity.

    • Paula

      Dear G,

      If everyone stopped treating pregnancy like it’s a disease, then we wouldn’t need contraception OR abortion.

      • Anonymous

        Uh. Pregnancy can indeed be life-threatening. For people who do or don’t want it.

        • Paula

          Dear musicahumana,

          There are, it is true, pregnancies which can result in serious danger for the mother. That doesn’t mean pregnancy is a disease (otherwise the 7 billion of us on the planet are the sad products of sickness!). In addition, if you* don’t want to get pregnant, then, well, don’t have sex [or practice NFP].

          *I use “you” here in the general sense (i.e. “one”).

          • Anonymous

            That’s why I said it “can be”.

            I don’t have to worry about NFP because I work for a public institution, thank goodness. I did almost get a job at a Catholic school though, at a salary of $15,000 less a year than my current job, so the argument of go buy bc on your own falls pretty flat when you can barely afford to live on a Catholic salary.

          • Catherine Wood

            Just goes to show you that those who work for the Church do so out of love of, and trust in God rather than money. Glad you found work elsewhere. God knew where your heart was.

          • Anonymous

            Maybe someday trust in God will put food on the table. It could be like a sort of currency!

          • Johnno

            You should thank God you exist, by being born of a woman who gave birth to you, so you can experience life and enjoy food, and to trust that He will continue to let you and the universe exist tomorrow, and offer more people the chance to exist with the same previledges as you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            If I had no trust in God, I would be on the streets. I won’t burden you with the whole story, but hey, even if I do end up on the streets, and keep my trust in God… I’d be a hell of a lot better off than those in the streets who have no faith…

        • MommaLisa

          Having been pregnant five times, I must be dead. You guys are really reaching! It’s almost funny if it wasn’t so sad. Pregnancy is gonna kill us? :D REALLY?!

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I agree it is pretty sad that women can’t be assured that their lives will be put first if they end up with a dangerous pregnancy in a Catholic hospital.

          • bethanyopoly

            That’s entirely different than abortion. Catholics teach that if the woman’s life is in danger, it is perfectly fine to perform a medical procedure to save the mother, even if in the process it is likely that the child will die.

          • Catherine Wood

            WRONG!!!!! That is NOT Catholic doctrine. Do not post lies and falsehoods about my Church. Read about Saint Gianna Beretta Molla

          • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

            WRONG!!!! Do not post lies and falsehoods about my Church. There is a difference between an abortion and something done to save the woman’s life. If a mother has cancer, for instance, it is not wrong for her to pursue treatment for it, even if it is likely to kill the baby.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            I’ve liked the majority of your comments… jsyk…

          • Mhslegionaire

            Actually, bethanyopoly is correct. If the absolute necessity is there to perform a procedure on the mother during the delivery or pregnancy, that may (without intent, and with no recourse to other means) cause death to the child, it would be permitted for the doctor to perform that procedure.

            In any circumstance where that happens, it is entirely unfortunate and heart breaking. But it would be a moral obligation on the doctor to save the mother, while also doing every single thing possible to save the child.

            At no point is there to be an intentional abortion of the child, but if it happens accidentally/unintentionally/pick your adverb here… during a procedure that is required, then it happens. It’s very sad to think about, and you pray it doesn’t happen, but that is the teaching.

          • Penny Farthing1893

            No, what Saint Gianna did was an act of heroism to save her child at the risk of her own life, but she was not morally required to do so, which makes it even more impressive. Just like jumping in front of a bullet: you are not morally obligated to do so (unless you have sworn to, like a secret service agent) but if you do it’s heroic and virtuous.

          • Helpful

            In Ireland all abortions, including those “to save the mother’s life” are illegal. They have the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world. Surprise!

          • Anonymous

            Wow! That’s pretty unbelievable! Like, to the point where I’d love to see a citation!

          • Chelle

            I find your statement particularly disheartening. Just because modern medicine has made tremendous improvements doesn’t mean that pregnancy is a benign state. Any number of things can go wrong that put both the baby and the mother at risk, even after delivery has passed.

          • Johnno

            It is still far more healthy to carry a baby to term and give birth than risk the dangers of contraceptives and abortions. Least we forget the early experiments with creating contraceptive pills were so dangerous they actually killed women, but because the women they experimented on were non-white, nobody cared…

          • Anonymous

            And you know this because you’re a doctor? You’ve dealt with patients who develop eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and tubal pregnancies? What you’re saying is based on scientific research?

          • Penny Farthing1893

            Gestational diabetes is almost always manageable with a doctor’s care and tubal pregnancies are considered by the Church to be a case where the life of the mother can be saved even though the child would die, since neither would live if the pregnancy continued. But guess what! Last month a tubal pregnancy was successfully moved to a mother’s uterus and the baby is continuing to grow normally. Medical advances are truly staggering nowadays. It’s awesome!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Wow. Funny how at the forefront of the Civil rights movement were Blacks, followed in close second by Catholics. I believe you mean Christians. Yes, there were racist Catholics, but not the majority as you claim.

      And the facts don’t back up your claim. Increased usage of contraception leads to increased levels of abortions.

      • Dr. Zaius

        I think you’re confusing correlation and causation. Just because there may be a correlation of increased usage of contraception and levels of abortion, does not automatically mean one is the cause of the other.

        Again, please cite your sources for everyone to investigate… you’ve been making a lot of these sweeping claims tonight.

        • Leila
          • John P

            That hardly provided any statistical data. It was more opinionated conjecture than anything with a hint of skewed causation.

        • Johnno

          One is not directly the cause of the other, but increased use of one leads to increased use of the other. And when policies are set around one, then subsequently policies are forced to be set around the other to be provided when the first policy fails and thus the policy setters are held responsible and must then provide a means out of the situation they themselves created. Let’s not forget the contraceptives were heavily supported and created by the same people promoting Eugenics. Furthermore let’s not forget the racist attitudes that inflicted America and much of the world were done by those who believed they had a different opinion about the ‘races’ of men than that of the Catholic Church whom they ‘protested’ as telling them what was moral. The racist attitudes of America are bourne from various aulty Protestant theologies (to be fair, not all) where every man was free to interpret the Bible without the authority and guidance of the Catholic Church who gave them the Bible, and another contributer to racism was the rise of support for Darwinian Evolution which led to the worldview of Darwinism, which is condemned by the Catholic Church.

    • Anonymous

      Funny, we had sisters from religious orders imprisoned in the State of Georgia for TEACHING the children of slaves. We had a priest that was of mixed race, when elevated to Bishop COULD NOT live in his diocese because of “Jim Crow” laws.

      The KKK burned their crosses on the private and church property of Catholics up to 1966. Ask me how I know?

      We had priests murdered for “mixing races” because the Catholic Church NEVER SAW RACE AS A BARRIER, unlike some protestant denominations.

      Right, “G,” right, the Catholics are bigots… you must be one (a bigot) since it takes one to know one right?

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Thank you! The Catholic Church has always sanctioned marriages between all races, because every person is equal in the eyes of God. It ain’t called the “Universal Church” for nothing!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1262487241 Gary Freitas

    I almost sprained my eye-rolling muscles reading this self-pitying entry. The Church accusing a president of having unlimited power and acting above the law! Glad the Catholic Church has never acted above the law and in violation of basic morality. I’m referring, of course, to child rape and aiding and abetting child rape if anyone did not get the allusion. As for President Obama’s policy on contraception, it simply states that the church must include the service as part of its insurance package–not that the church must condone it, or dispense contraception or anything similar. And as for President Obama acting alone with some kind of imperial fiat, the Supreme Court of the US of A, with its SIX Catholic justices (that’s a two-thirds majority) declined to hear the Church’s appeal thus letting the lower court decision stand.

    • Troublmae

      Uh, Gary, the Church did not accuse a President of having unlimited power and etc…. “Marc Barns, student and citizen”, did.

      And btw, if abortion or contraception is mandated to be included in insurance packages, then I AM FORCED TO PAY FOR IT! Think about it … The Constitution says I can’t be forced to do something that goes against my religion. this would force me to do something against my religion.

    • Jake E

      Sir, I will never trust a man who identifies himself with Glen Quagmire.

  • MN Gary

    I almost sprained my eye-rolling muscles reading this self-pitying entry. The Church accusing a president of having unlimited power and acting above the law! Glad the Catholic Church has never acted above the law and in violation of basic morality. I’m referring, of course, to child rape and aiding and abetting child rape if anyone did not get the allusion. As for President Obama’s policy on contraception, it simply states that the church must include the service as part of its insurance package–not that the church must condone it, or dispense contraception or anything similar. And as for President Obama acting alone with some kind of imperial fiat, the Supreme Court of the US of A, with its SIX Catholic justices (that’s a two-thirds majority) declined to hear the Church’s appeal thus letting the lower court decision stand.

    • Dr. Zaius

      Well-put. I am always astounded to see how quickly people will cast away the FACTS as soon as it benefits their argument.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      And because you brought up the sex-abuse scandal, I’m obligated to ignore your argument until you provide evidence that you are not a member of the WBC, and also harass public school teachers. The fact remains that they are more likely to molest a child than a priest. (I will say this: “catholic” is a very loose term when referring to anyone in politics.)

      • Dr. Zaius

        Obligated to ignore his argument? How about responding to it like an adult engaged in a debate with another adult?

        I am obligated to ignore your argument until you provide evidence that public school teachers are, in your own words, more likely to molest a child than a priest. I would love to see where you got that statistical analysis of likelihood.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

          http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml
          Don’t worry. It’s not too bad. Only 100 times worse.

          • Dr. Zaius

            The scope of the problem within the Catholic church was measured and examined by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was demonstrated that even the upper echelons of the clergy were protecting these sex offenders within the Church; who is to say that the Conference did not drastically downplay its findings in its own effort to protect the church? We must always remain impartial to these findings and never rely on a single source on which to draw sweeping, irrefutable conclusions.

          • Amateur_Apologist_Tom

            Who is to say other sources didn’t drum up the numbers of those abused in anti-Catholic malice (specifically the media)?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

            What part of “100 times” don’t you understand? Even if members of the Church hid HALF of the cases, it would still be 50 times worse. I haven’t done the math here, but that seems to be a lot.

          • Marc Barnes

            haha came here to post that. you’re ON IT JTMH.

        • Amateur_Apologist_Tom

          He ignored his argument because he brought up a strawman. The central argument of this article is about the HHS mandate. Talking about anything else is to detract from the issue at hand.

    • Amateur_Apologist_Tom

      ” it simply states that the church must include the service as part of its insurance package–not that the church must condone it, or dispense contraception or anything similar.”

      To include it IS to condone it, IS to dispense. Just because you’re not physically dispensing something doesn’t mean you aren’t supporting it. Were you physically killing insurgents in Iraq? No, but chances are your tax money went to fund it. Do you find this morally reprehensible? The same thing applies here. By paying for such services as contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, the Church would be forced to fund services which it believes to be intrinsically immoral.

  • Mira-Georgy

    I’m just going to point out that not everyone who is employed by Catholic entities is in fact catholic. You shouldn’t refuse the non-catholic janitor or faculty member contraception just because she happens to work at a Catholic school. I think that’s the point. I can understand not covering abortions unless in certain medical situations, but not contraception. That’s just reality.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      They chose to work for the institution.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Exactly. I would assume she would ask if the insurance covered birth control before signing the contract if it was a big deal to her. That’s what a free contract is. You exchange your labor to someone who will give you agreeable pay/benefits in return. If the terms aren’t agreeable, quit and take your labor elsewhere.

    • MC

      It’s not a reality we as Catholics are willing to accept.

    • Anthony McWilliams

      Since when is contraception a right? For that matter, since when is it health care? Why should anybody pay for it except for the person who wants to use it? NO insurance plan should cover it.

  • Adamycl

    i’m behind the Church and this argument for her sake. We respect women more than to think that they need to have contraceptives as if pregnancy were a “disease” that needed to be fixed or prevented by a doctor. The mere thought is unlogical and retains no common sense.

    • Dr. Zaius

      The only thing illogical here is your use of “unlogical.”

      Again, pregnancy is not viewed as a disease by the government — the consequences of unprotected sex is what the problem is. Namely, when a child is abandoned, the responsibility (and financial burden) falls on society as a whole, and ultimately the taxpayer. By making contraception more widely available, the government hopes to reduce this burden for society as a whole.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Except the government refuses to do anything to discourage unwed pregnancy (as opposed to just “unwanted”) which is the single greatest factor in at-risk kids. Children of single mothers have higher risks of depression, suicide, crime, not finishing high school, drug and alcohol use, and poverty. Contraception is not fixing this problem – contraception use is increasing, but so is the illegitimacy rate. I’m not saying correlation equals causation, rather that it simply is not having the desired effect. Unmarried sex is the real problem, “protected” or otherwise.

        There are no programs to promote marriage, which I don’t actually mind, since it’s not the government’s job to micromanage your life, but it would be nice if there was a PSA at least. Something. Because throwing pills at the problem is not helping, but pointing out where the biggest risk of children becoming dependents of the state comes from is considered mean, so no one brings it up.

      • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

        if the only illogical thing was that he said “unlogical”… why would you debate any other part of it?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/ Frank Weathers
  • Dr. Zaius

    Where was this article when George W. Bush was President and the Patriot Act was enacted? This single-handedly paved the way for warrant-less wiretapping, detainment without a proper trial (read Gitmo), and an all-powerful Executive branch — seemingly unrestrained by the Constitution — solely in the name of preventing terrorism. How is that for tyranny?

    Besides, the basis for this article rests primarily on the fantastic assumption that what is written in the Bible is, in fact, true. HINT: Read up on ancient Sumerian mythology (the first true civilization on Earth, circa 4000 BC) if you think Christianity is unique in its doctrines or stories.

    The government mandates certain programs such as contraception not because of religious intolerance, but because — for example — when an unwanted child (as a result of unprotected sex) is abandoned, it becomes an expense to SOCIETY (in other words, taxpayers and the government). Government is in the business of ensuring the continuity of society, and thus it has an obligation to carry out many of these mandates — even if it contradicts certain religious beliefs, in all its many forms and adaptations.

    • Aiyahopie

      read more closely – Marc made it clear that his argument
      did not rest on the reader believing
      contraception was wrong.

      2) society wasn’t collasping before
      the creation of health insurance or
      before insurance companies began
      to cover contraception

      3) do you honestly think it’s right to
      ask people to pay for/ make available
      something they belive is wrong?

      4) if a person chooses to work for an
      institution with particular beliefs they
      should not expect that institution to
      violate those beliefs on their account.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Aiyahopie did a good job of answering your other statements, but I’m going to answer your first question: The author of this is 18, as was stated in the article, placing his age at about 8 years old at the time the patriot act rolled around.

      • Marc Barnes

        lol came here to say that

    • Mhslegionaire

      Chances might also be good that the child ends up in the care of Catholic Relief Services… the Church is more than happy to help someone find a home, provide an education, and produce a fit, contributing member of society

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Marc was 8 and lots of conservatives (a partly overlapping Venn diagram with Republicans), many of whom are Catholic (another partly overlapping Venn diagram with Repubilcans) raised hell about the Patriot Act.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Including me. I was 18 at the time, and I am in the overlap of all 3 Venn diagram circles in my strangely worded example.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/ Frank Weathers

    The only thing this post was missing is your theme song.

  • Anonymous

    Darling Boy,
    Please try to remember that rape is an actual act of violence, and not just a rhetorical term designating “taken without permission.” You are a good writer, and this piece is very good. But: Using the term ‘rape’ too lightly and too liberally helps to make real rape easier to ignore, joke about, and sweep under the rug. I daresay if you knew many women (or men) who had been raped you might not even use it metaphorically at all.

    Be careful and judicious with it, that is what I am saying.

    Now, carry on.

    –A cranky old teacher

    • Anthony McWilliams

      You are apparently not an English teacher, for if you were, you would know that the word “rape” has a valid secondary definition by which it can be applied to non-sexual violation of inanimate objects, synonymous with plunder but with a more violent connotation. It is not a metaphorical or rhetorical device simply to employ a word according to one of its lesser-known definitions.

      • Anonymous

        Seriously, why listen to some cranky old woman talk about the effects that sexually violent language has on actual victims of sexual violence when you can yap on about an alternate definition that has gone by the wayside? You’re way to cool for that, cool guy!

    • Jake E

      I *daresay* that while your point is arguably valid, as in I agree with you, you are judgmental when you say, “if you knew many women (or men) who had been raped,” because you simply do not know if he does know anyone who has been raped or how close he is to said people. If Mr. BadCatholic does know people who have been raped, then you have seriously offended him.

      • Anonymous

        Here I fixed it: “I daresay if you [cared about] women (or men) who had been raped you might not even use it metaphorically at all.”

        Those of us who are, who know, who care about rape victims know that it is never to be taken lightly or used as a metaphor for something it simply is not.

        • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

          Uhm… I’m sorry, I’ve been raped, My mother has been raped, my sister has been raped, my aunt has been raped, and 3 of my cousins have been raped… not to mention 2 friends that I know of… and I did not find this offensive at all.

          he made no jokes about it… and as I read it… I never felt offended… not one time

          no one ever just sweeps rape under the table and acts like it doesn’t happen just because it’s talked about alot. you know that.

          • Anonymous

            Okay, so because you’re the kind of victim who doesn’t find an inappropriate analogy offensive and horrifying, you don’t care that it is to so many other victims? That’s cool, I guess. I just don’t understand why you’re fighting for something that will quite probably upset victims when you know so many of them…

            Also, “no one ever just sweeps rape under the table”??? Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning, but that has been happening for… forever. Is it talked about a lot? Other than people talking about how they got raped by the IRS this year?

            I thank the author for changing his language; most authors don’t want to be in the wrong and won’t do it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            yeah. you’re right. there are no rape victim awareness commercials all over the TV, no programs for victims. No one ever says anything about it.

            I forgot. you’re right. Rape is NEVER ever discussed. in fact… nobody in these comments on this letter are talking about it either.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            I feel bad if you were offended by it, and I’m not saying you weren’t, and I feel sorry for the offense you took… Don’t act like you know how everyone feels though…

            and please, PLEASE… do not act like rape is just swept under the table…

          • Anonymous

            There’s no need to “act like” it when the military, the church, and various other organizations literally do sweep rape under the table. They pretend it doesn’t happen, or in the case of the military often punish victims for reporting.

            There’s no need to “act like” it when news media refuses to use the word rape, often saying things like a man “had sex with” a 6 year old child.

            There’s no need to “act like” it when the onus is put on women to avoid rape, rather than on rapists to stop raping.

            A handful of comments on a discussion thread does not a rape conscious society make.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            you know what.. you’re right.. I never thought of it like that.. just because a hell of a lot of people are aware of it and discuss it, and try to find ways to prevent it.. doesn’t mean we have a rape conscious society….
            what media do you watch/listen to?? Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are always discussing what to do for rape victims…

            you’re problem is that you need EVERYONE to feel so sorry for you, and you feel like every single person should walk up to you and pity you for how rape has affected your life…

            If there are reported rapes.. it always gets into the media… they ALWAYS call the rapists “rapists”… maybe not for EVERY single reported rape… but they don’t do that for every single reported murder either…
            or every reported act of arsony…

            maybe you’re just from a heartless place like LA or something… but here in KS… it’s never swept under the table.

          • Anonymous

            So the fact that I want justice and safe spaces for victims means I want everyone to take time out of their day to pity them. Okay, player.

            No, I can’t say I listen to hateful douchebags like O’Reilly and friends. I tend to keep up with nonpartisan sources of actual news and not just straight up propaganda feeds. Considering how recent high profile rape victims have been treated by the mass media (as liars, gold diggers, and women who just weren’t careful enough), I don’t think you and I live on the same planet.

            I’ve lived a lot of places and it happens to be the same in every one of them. I encourage you to do a little reading before you make such brash generalizations about how everyone is all up on their empathy for rape victims: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html

            I sincerely hope, for the sake of women in this world, that you will someday get a clue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            OK… I’m confused.. if there’s some reading to do about awareness… (which I read btw, and understand the majority of it)… why are we saying no one gives a flying fuck about rape or rape victims?

            why would you say it’s ALWAYS joked about.. and swept under the table…

            you just proved your point that people are concious of what’s going on… maybe just because the liberals you listen to don’t give a shit… you think no one in the media does…

  • BiochemistANDmedicaldoc

    You do realize that your first little cartoon, of a ven diagram, trying to push apart church and state is actually what is in accordance with our constitution. “separation of church and state” not “overlap as Catholics or any other religion sees fit”

    • Catherine Wood

      Can you please show me where in our constitution it says the words “separation of church and state”. Maybe it is in the Declaration of Independence? Try actually READING the Constitution. Start with the First Amendment. Ugh. Over-educated but still not an ounce of common sense.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        Thank you! Mark Twain said “I never let schooling get in the way of my education”. I think he was right – they teach you all kinds of nonsense and never tell you to look at primary sources (actually one of my favorite teachers did, but he was the only one). And actually you should start with the Constitution itself, meaning the Articles, before the Amendments. They are fascinating. But yes, pay special attention to the First Amendment.

    • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

      well.. actually… look closer at the diagram… it’s a person trying to combine them more… not push them apart…

  • Sarah

    this is amazing! i have friends who were just going to comply and accept the new reform. my friend and i (we are 18 and 19) are so upset about this! thank you for this and showing Obama and those in Washington, WE. WILL. NOT. STAND FOR THIS!!!

  • Guest
  • Michelle Thuldanin

    Vive la resistance!

  • Unhelpful

    Nonsense, from start to finish. Laws that happen to impact specific practices of a religion have nothing to do with the establishment clause. This is a call for religious exceptionalism, not religious freedom. No church is above the law, and this legal requirement cannot reasonably be considered to prohibit free exercise of religion.

    • Helpful

      Did you read the article? The establishment clause (when you read the whole clause and just the first part) guarantees religious exceptionalism.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      It’s not about the Establishment Clause. It’s about the Free Exercise Clause aka the clause everyone conveniently forgets about. And free exercise of Catholicism certainly does mean avoiding sin and following Catholic values. That’s why we have “freedom of religion” not “freedom of worship” as Obama likes to say – it’s about more than just an hour on Sundays.

  • S.E.M.

    This OpEd fails to address that contraceptives ARE medically necessary for some women, for treatment of ovarian cysts, endometriosis, just to name a few of the many medical conditions. Under this man’s argument the church must also ban Viagra and other erectile drugs. To conclude, contraceptives MUST be covered, religion aside, because it is a medically necessary drug and its not just used for “sex”.

    • Mark

      And the Church has provisions for medical imperatives under the principle of double effect. The Church’s Bio-ethics teaching is the most well-reasoned medical ethics tradition on earth.

      • S.E.M.

        How would this all be enforced? Would the Dr have to write a special note to the pharmacies that this isn’t for “sex” but for a medical issue? Would the woman have to provide her medical records? This is going down a slippery slope of invasion of medical privacy.

        And no one mentioned that under this man’s arguments you shouldn’t get erectile drugs either because it is not medically necessary.

        • LJP

          That’s a good question and something that would require some thought.

          Erectile drugs treat a dysfunction; contraceptives create a dysfunction in a properly functioning organ.

        • Mark

          It has worked just fine ’til now. Catholic doctors have provided necessary contraceptive medication for decades, and many women have been helped without any violation of Catholic bio-ethics. And no questions of medical privacy have arisen. Why should they? I think you are making my point. And ED drugs are irrelevant here.

    • Anthony McWilliams

      Then a woman who is diagnosed with some medical condition for which an oral contraceptive is an effective medication would be able to get coverage with a doctor’s order anyway, and Catholic moral teaching would not object to a Catholic insurance plan covering the cost for a true medical use. But hat is NOT the same thing as providing the drug specifically as a contraceptive, which is probably 100 times more common and should NOT be covered. If you elect to take an oral contraceptive as birth control, pay for it yourself. But pregnancy is not a disease, so preventing it isn’t health care.

      • Chelle

        I don’t think you understand how prescriptions work. It doesn’t matter WHY a physician writes a prescription, except in a few circumstances, to determine whether or not that prescription is covered. It is a part of the prescription plan that determines that. Birth control pills cost a lot of money, and insurance often reduces this cost by half or more.

        But prescribing pills for PCOS and prescribing them for birth control net the same cost… insurance companies do not pick and choose to cover the reasons behind the use of the birth control.

  • Stephanie

    I had been checking your blog a few times a day waiting to hear your thoughts on this whole thing because I knew they would pack one fantastic Catholic punch! I also have a challenging time defending my stance on this issue because everyone keeps saying how the Church is denying these “rights” to women, so I was especially glad you addressed that. It isn’t about denying anyone their rights (I’m sure the founding fathers had life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and access to condoms and birth control in mind….) but the government infringing on ours!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=506549838 Jonathan Augustine Stute

    I think it’s ironic that that lady’s name is Sebelius which sounds suspiciously like Sabellius– a third century heretic. Maybe heresies don’t repeat themselves but the heretics. Perhaps the original Sabellius has been reincarnated and wanted to promote a new heresy. Theories, theories…

  • Melissa

    The more LIBERAL Catholic I become, the more I resent Catholics who are afraid of reality. Yes, read the Bible, but do not take it so literally! It was written when?! Precisely. Contraceptives were not created, women who were infertile were chastised, men owned their wives and had more than one, oh yea, and let’s not forget that incest was deemed okay. Catholics wonder why they do not have more young people joining the faith, but do they really have to wonder too much? It is filled with traditions and most of all, out of date! Catholics have a problem with being too stubborn and afraid of change (and I am not talking only about the gradual change that happens over time).

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Melissa, that post is so misinformed.

      1) You clearly know almost nothing about Catholic teaching,(or the Bible for that matter) We don’t take everything in the Bible literately, but we examine it in historical context.

      4) Scripture is not the only reason that we reject contraception. We reject contraception because it is contrary to God’s plan for us.

      2) There has been a youth revolution in the Church. I myself am 18 and considering the religious life.

      3) The Church doesn’t change its teachings because God doesn’t change.

      4) I will admit that we are stubborn. So was Christ.

      • Melissa

        Hi Jacob,
        First, I don’t know how you count but I will try to follow.

        “1) You clearly know almost nothing about Catholic teaching,(or the Bible for that matter) We don’t take everything in the Bible literately, but we examine it in historical context.”
        –A little harsh don’t you think? I know more than you believe, that is why I choose not to go along with all of it. Problems develop when you examine it in a historical context and do not relate to how it could fit in the world today.

        In response to your first # “4) Scripture is not the only reason that we reject contraception. We reject contraception because it is contrary to God’s plan for us.”
        –Where in scriptures does it say contraception is contrary to God’s plan? Wouldn’t it be a little hard to interpret God’s plan on something that was not invented yet? I also reiterate my statement that, ‘…women who were infertile were chastised…’. If we want to look from a “historical context” we would note this along with it was every man’s goal to preserve his lineage (aka genes) and thus, reproducing to create mass quantities of children was the way to do this.

        “2) There has been a youth revolution in the Church. I myself am 18 and considering the religious life.”
        –Good for you, I only hope and pray you are doing this with your OWN mind. Most children (including myself) were brought up in the Catholic religion from only a few months of age (i.e., Baptism) without ever given the chance to choose for themselves. I do appreciate some aspects of Catholicism however, I believe that many Catholics “brainwash” (for the lack of a better word-I don’t mean for it to sound that harsh) children their beliefs of what the Bible says without letting the children choose their own interpretations by themselves. You are 18, legally an adult and can buy things shown on TV without a guardian, but you probably have only really begun to understand religion for what? the past 2-3 years? I would advise you to do your own seeking before listening to others who already have their beliefs formed.

        “3) The Church doesn’t change its teachings because God doesn’t change.”
        –Yes, this is true, God does not change. However, there are some idiotic traditions that can be changed (e.g., only men can be priests, priests can’t be married) along with beliefs (i.e., contraceptives). Honestly, what is better –and please leave “abstinence is a choice” out of this — A girl who has sex, gets pregnant and who is not ‘fit’ (i.e., mature enough or financially and emotionally stable enough) to have a child, and brings that child up on welfare and is not able to provide that child everything he/she deserves OR A girl who has sex, was mature and smart enough to use a contraceptive, and doesn’t get pregnant?
        Also, since you are a male I will assume you do not know that there are other reasons why females take birth control which, include: to decrease the number of days they have their period, decrease PMS, regulate the amount of hormones in their body, lighten the amount of blood released during the menstrual cycle, among many others but I bet I already grossed you out by the first example.

        And for your 2nd #”4) I will admit that we are stubborn. So was Christ.”
        –touché. He was, but He also provided us with the intellect to dream up these medicinal innovations along with many other things the Catholic Church deems as “bad”. Isn’t it disrespectful to Him to not recognize them as well?

        I also could go into how the female human body biologically defends itself against the implantation of an egg because it views it as a parasite every month, but I will spare you.

        Thank you for the discussion. Please know that I do respect you and your views on this and I would hope you would do the same of me.

        • Stephen Descher

          Melissa,

          First, I for one would be very interested in learning “how the female human body biologically defends itself against the implantation of an egg because it views it as a parasite every month”. I’m serious, as a person with a BS in Biology, I would like to hear about this. I’m sure there is some nugget of truth in there, but if it were as straight forward as you put it, then it would put the very existence of the human race at odds with it’s own biology.

          Second, a few questions (that are somewhat rhetorical):
          1) Why would someone who finds the Catholic Church “out-of-date” and seems to reject several major tenets of the faith continue to identify themselves as Catholic?

          2) You stated, “I do appreciate some aspects of Catholicism” Which ones?

          And finally, Melissa, as a person who once dissented and fought and resented the Church himself, I beg you to do some independent research into what you are on the path of leaving, before you leave it. I’m not sure what you were taught or how you were taught it, but true Catholicism is none of those things. Catholics are not liberal or conservative; there are those that submit and those that dissent. Submission to Her authority is not cowardice, it is courage. Faith is not credulity. Temperance is not abstinence. Truth is not subjective. The Church will not change, the Church CANNOT change. Thank God.

          Take a long, hard look at what the world is offering compared to what Christ is offering. Understand the truth of “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Christ and his Church have been under relentless attack for millenia…and yet She stands. The many sins of the Church members both past and present only serve to prove her inherent resilience, not inherent corruption.

          Before you give up, please get a Catechism and at least peruse it (for the first or perhaps a second or third time). Learn for yourself what others have failed to teach you. ‘Rediscover Catholicism’ by Matthew Kelly is also a good resource (and what helped me get back on the path).

          Peace.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

          I’m not exactly sure how I ended up with a number 4) in the middle of the list, to be honest…

          1) I believe you misunderstand the phrase “historical context.” It means that Catholics look at the situation under which a particular text was written, and acknowledge that certain things cannot be taken literately.

          4) God’s plan isn’t revealed in Scripture alone, however, it is clear from the Bible what God intended for sex. It was to be for two things: 1) a renewal of the marital vows, and 2) for procreation.

          2) I believe the Church for several reasons:
          1) Jesus didn’t leave us a bible, or a even a big crossword puzzle that we had to find the bible in. He left a Church.
          2) I know that Jesus wasn’t a liar.
          3) Jesus said that his Church’s teachings wouldn’t fall.

          3) Sacred Tradition is not “idiotic”. The fact that only men can be priests is due to the fact that Jesus picked men to be Apostles . He had his reasons for doing so. Women have their roles in the Church. I don’t see why we have to leave out abstinence. It is beautiful, and entirely possible. It’s been done over and over again. I don’t neglect issues. I know the “benefits” of contraception. What you don’t know is that it is considered a Class 3 Carcinogen. That is on the same level as cigarettes.

          4) Yes, which is why we don’t ban modern medicine entirely, as do the Christian Scientists. We also don’t ban nuclear power, though we know that nuclear technology can be used destructively. The fact that we have the intellect to do something does not make an action correct.

    • JasonFSU

      why is it that when Catholics come to debate an issue, we are swarmed by anti-Catholics intent on attacking us and our faith? Let’s respond lovingly and pray for their conversion, and let us not be diverted from our cause.

  • Kathryn Hazen

    I love you, sir. That was brilliant.

  • Tiffany

    you are my new best friend!!!!!!!!

  • Sonia

    Go! Go! Go! You rock my socks Marc :D I’m Canadian so I don’t think I can send any letter of use, but it the HHS mandate scares me and angers me beyond belief.

  • dougindeap

    Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. And such issues are not unique to Christians or Catholics. Hardly. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues and have generally ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, and on and on) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate. Thus, the government can forbid discrimination against specified people and apply that law even to those who say their religion allows or requires them to discriminate. In rare (one hopes) circumstances, such a generally-applicable law could put an individual in an ethical Catch-22 if it requires one to take actions one considers immoral. For just this reason, when such binds can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.

    Here, it may be questioned whether there is real need for such an exemption, since no one is being “forced,” as some commentators rage, to act contrary to his or her belief. Employers generally are not required by law to offer health-related benefits to their employees, although the practice of providing such benefits is common. IF an employer chooses to offer health benefits, though, federal anti-discrimination laws and health plan enforcement regulations act to protect an employee’s rights under those health plans. So, depending on whether an exemption to the law is allowed, either employers or employees are put to a choice. If religious employers are exempted from current discrimination and health benefit laws so they can offer health benefits omitting some medications and services, employees can choose whether to accept such benefits or seek employment elsewhere. If current discrimination and health benefit laws are enforced, religious employers can choose to offer health plans complying with those laws or not offer any health plans at all. To the extent that employers already have an option under the current laws consistent with their religious views, they have less need for an exemption from those laws.

  • http://prodigalnomore.wordpress.com/ The Ubiquitous

    Now, I take the tack that the Church should not be in bed with Washington, and this would solve the current crisis; but this is the nuclear option and a last resort for two reasons: We love our brothers and we love our enemies.

    Charities per se will not be affected if we drop the government dole, but rather their constituents will be. Our services, without a compensating countereffect, will instead decrease. This will therefore hurt those served by charities identifying as Catholic rather than the charities themselves. Offering these services is a good, offering more is better and acccepting government money would not, without these regulations, be a bad; because there is a connection between how much money we can collect and how many services we can offer, we must for the sake of offering these services resist the new laws by all moral means. If we love our brothers, we must resist anything which would prevent us from loving him all the more.

    If the State forces our hand we will eventually bounce back, and better for it as we always do. (Suffocating us out of the public sphere is less bloody and less direct but a no less real persecution than the martyrdom of the early Christians, just slicing apart a child with scissors is just as much murder as placing a heavy enough pillow on his face.) In the long run, it will be good for the Church, a breath of fresh air, as all evil things are. This will show us, as we begin the crucial work of rebuilding an authentic Catholic identity, the chaff who do not really care for a Catholic identity at their foundation, for these quislings will seperate from us as they did in Peoria. We resist, still, though we know we will flourish, for our lives are not about us or our worldly success. If we love our enemies, and if we dread anyone’s schism from the Church, we must resist the persecution of suffocation — not for our sake but for the sake of Ceasar and all his imps.

  • grace

    I signed the petition 4 hours ago and there have been 800 people since me! I can’t believe how quickly it’s moving.

  • Mark

    Before too many more people comment on how contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduces abortion, let’s briefly and very generally clarify the Church’s position on so-called “birth control.” Apart from the Natural and Moral Law arguments, in the final analysis, the Church says that there is an organic link between contraception and abortion. The Church rightly reasons that the societal acceptance of abortion must first be preceded by the acceptance of contraception. History has shown this to be true. Unwanted pregnancies have only increased with the acceptance of contraception. Ever wonder why Planned Parenthood pushes contraception out the doors like candy? Because it’s a reliable way to reduce unwanted pregnancy and reduce abortion? No, it’s an investment with a big-time pay-off . Society accepted contraception, and abortion became acceptable, legalized and ubiquitous. Indeed, “birth control” causes abortion.

    • Anonymous

      Say it with me now: correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation!

      • Mark

        Right. Causation is causation. And when one refuses to connect the dots, it’s easy to march out a truthful statement and turn it into a debate-stopping platitude.

        • Anonymous

          Got anything science-based instead of The Church Says?

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            Dear MusicaHumana,

            If, when the number of STOP signs goes up in a particular city, and the rate of auto accidents goes down, are we then to assume they have NOTHING to do with each other?

            After all… say it with me now! Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation!

          • Anonymous

            Yes, we assume that until we have done scientific research! I happen to know nothing about traffic patterns, what causes accidents, or anything of the like, so no, I will not be making any assumptions. Has a new law required that all new drivers take driver’s ed? Are less people driving in general? Is something else at work there? Who the hell knows until RESEARCH IS DONE and FACT-BASED CONCLUSIONS ARE MADE.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            OK… Ok… fine… you’re the genius… Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong… so please… edumicate us stupid Catholics, and tell us…

            What ARE the true reasons for all Mark said?
            You with all the answers…

          • Anonymous

            I never claimed to have all the answers. Just a lot of questions. That I would like to have answered logically. I can’t help it if you’re being irrational.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            Well if you have no idea.. how can you say we’re wrong? We have more proof than anyone has of any other theory…

            So.. unless some other reason for it is proven… I’m sticking with what’s proved.

            Don’t say someone’s wrong if you don’t know whether or not they really are. That’s all I’m saying.

  • Denis Robert

    A federally funded religious school is not a Church. If it wants to be a Church, let them refuse federal funds. Easy-shmeasy. A federally funded religious hospital is not a Church. If it wants to be a Church, let them refuse federal funds. Easy-shmeasy.

    You can believe what you want, practice any religion you want. YOU CAN’T TAKE OUR HARD-EARNED TAX MONEY AND USE IT TO PROMOTE YOUR RELIGION.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    • J P

      “Federally funded religious school.” Hmm. None of those here. If you mean schools at which students can take their federal loans to pay for, well, that’s the students’ money to use where they want.

      And all the capitalizing in the world won’t serve your argument.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Would you care to give an example of a federally funded religious school?

      Do you know why public schools do not teach the Bible? It’s very interesting. In the early days of the United States, they taught vaguely Protestant religion in public schools. This was not considered establishing religion because it did not favor one denomination of Protestant over another. In fact, the US Congress funded the printing of a Bible and encouraged its distribution and use in schools:
      http://www.wikihow.com/Investigate-the-Bible-Authorized-by-the-U.S.-Congress-and-President
      This was also done as a statement, since one of the problems the colonists had with England was expense of importing Bibles, particularly under the Stamp Act.
      Anyway, publicly funded schools taught Protestantism, and often anti-Catholicism. There were also Catholic schools, funded by Catholics, and anyone else who cared to attend and pay tuition. The Catholics contended that if the government was going to pay for Protestant schools, they should pay for Catholic schools. In response, lawmakers forbade most religious instruction in public schools, and told the Catholic schools basically “there, no Protestant instruction is being paid for. Now go away.”

      So at no time has there ever been federal funding for Catholic schools, and you’re welcome for taking religious instruction out of the rest of the schools.

  • Zach

    You can’t use the word tyranny without drawing allusions to certain oppressive regimes. When looking up tyranny on the internet, you inevitably end up with the words “depotism”, “absolutism”, and “dictatorship”. Such is the way language works these days, which I am sure this gentleman knows full well.

    It’s like saying “no offense, but…” and then saying something offensive. The fact that you added a caveat to the word before using it doesn’t change the meaning. In a country where the pro-life/pro-choice argument is a hot topic issue, where a clear majority among the public on the issue is hardly decided, and to which contraception is widely accepted as a public norm, I think it’s irresponsible to compare President Obama to other oppressive regimes worldwide, and is just plain ignorant overall. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    Now that that’s out in the open…

    I am conflicted by this article. As a non-catholic, I agree that private Catholic schools should be allowed to hold strictly to their beliefs. However, I am also blindingly aware of the tax-exemptions and breaks that some private catholic institutions enjoy in the US. I also know that these private institutions receive publicly funded dollars as well to supplement their programs.

    I think that if a private organization wants public dollars, then they need to meet the guidelines set by the public. Where the writer cries foul for the government forcing contraception, I would cry foul for tax dollars being used to support an initiative which many people do not disagree with. And given that churches are automatically granted tax-exempt status by the government, all I can think of is this quote by Mark Twain…

    “no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused”.

    This applies more so to the hypocrisy of separation of church and state, but in this case, is not mutualy exclusive.

    My opinion is my own, but I do think that there is some merit to this argument. The sentiment is there, but I have trouble rationalizing this based on the public’s contribution to privately operated institutions. But faith has never been based on rationale…;)

    Cheers!

    • Mark

      Understood. Would you have any objection to the government mandating that Catholic hospitals perform abortions? If not, why not, and what does that do to rights of conscience and religious freedom? Or must those rights be immediately revoked once anything or anyone takes one red cent from government? And what does that say about tyranny?

      • Chelle

        You need to define abortion in this case. Lay people tend to lump everything together, but a D&C can be used for ‘abortion’ just as it can be used to remove a hyperplastic endometrium to reduce the risk of cancer.

        If a woman comes in with a ‘missed abortion’ (defined as a dead fetus, but no response in the woman’s body to expel it), then yes, I would absolutely expect the Catholic hospital to perform a D&C.

        If a woman comes in with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, then yes, I would absolutely expect the Catholic hospital to perform an ‘abortion’ and remove the fetus.

        If a woman comes in with eclampsia, then yes, I would absolutely expect the Catholic hospital to induce labor, even if the fetus is not viable.

        If a woman comes in knowing she’s pregnant, without any health problems, and asks for an elective abortion, then no, I would not expect the Catholic hospital to respond to her request.

        • Mark

          And the Church has provisions for medical imperatives under the principle of double effect. Those cases are allowed in Catholic Bio-ethics, the most well-reasoned medical ethics tradition on earth.

          But you know the gist of my questions. If you can force a Catholic healthcare worker or a Catholic hospital to provide contraception, on what principle would elective abortion not be mandated? If there isn’t one, then what of religious freedom and rights of conscience? If rights must be forfeited at the moment any money is taken from government, are they truly rights? What do you call it when government can take away rights and then dictate what services you are allowed or not allowed to offer?

      • Zach

        Not factoring in the whole “what is a life?” argument and looking at it objectively…

        I try to separate religion and public service. I think that hospitals should be given funding proportional to the services they provide. If abortion is not a service that a Catholic hospital is willing to provide (which it obviously isn’t), should they be given as much funding as a non-catholic hospital who is willing to provide this service?

        Wouldn’t a system like that allow Catholics the freedom to practice what they believe, while offering services others believe in as well?

  • Johannes Faber

    This is all very interesting. But I am concerned by the constant appeal to religious freedom. I mean, Bl Pope Pius IX writes in the Syllabus of Errors:

    44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.—Allocutions “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850, and “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

    But his justification for this is not based on religous freedom, WHICH HE CONDEMNS. I don’t know exactly what to make of the topic of religious freedom, but a gung-ho attitude is certainly wrong. It is contrary to the tradition of the Church, and thus should be treated with extreme caution. For example, Thomas writes these two articles:

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article8
    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article11

    And Bl Pope Pius IX condemns these propositions in the Syllabus or errors:

    15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

    47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.—Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, “Cum non sine,” July 14, 1864.

    55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

    I propose that, given the non-infallible position in the ordinary magisterium of the Church that Dignitatis Humanae enjoys, we should be extremely cautious about appealing to religious liberty. This is an idea that originated in the French Revolution and is based on Enlightenment ideas that are antithetical to the Faith. I propose, pace your Consistution, American Catholics find other ways of arguing this issue.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Ahem. The French Revolution happened after the American Revolution (so religious liberty couldn’t have started there) and it was decidedly of the “freedom from religion” persuasion (it was one of the most anti-clerical, anti-Catholic, secularist movements until Communism came along).

      The idea of religious liberty in the American colonies was precisely “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” Sure. most of the religions involved were Protestant, and there were certainly a lot of strange Enlightenment ideas floating around, but the idea was to set up a government that would stay out of it, and let people embrace and profess their own religions. Which is exactly what this healthcare mandate is not doing. The American colonists were actually more religious than most people of their era, since the Enlightenment didn’t entirely make it over from Europe. There was actually a movement called the Great Awakening, which, while I can’t say I agree with the particular denominations in question, was a reaction against the secular/deist ideas of the Enlightenment.

      There probably are better, more specifically Catholic arguments you could use, but don’t count religious liberty out. It’s a good principle, and don’t forget, this could end up in the non-Catholic, (supposedly) Constitution-considering Supreme Court, so it’s best to know a few arguments they might like.

  • BELINDA ROCCAFORTE

    WOW, PERFECT

  • Rosemallon

    Marc, Well said! Thank you!

  • Redfoxndn

    Not being a Catholic, I will say all of you force up a spark of pride I have not seen for a while in our country. Being Native American I know of how wrong this is to tell others how to manage their religion. You can do this, but not this. I could see it if it was a medical thing for an individual to save a life, but to just say this is the way it is, should not be allowed. Our government is getting too big and is putting it;s hands on way too many aspects of our lives, and others around the world.

  • matt48

    I wanted to point something out about the whole “Tyrant” charge. Given the examples of true tyrannies that we see every night on the news, I get a bit irascible when the term gets used improperly. And no, I’m not worried about the “connotation” of the term that happens to ride along the real definition. I’m upset that you quote the dictionary but seem not to understand its definition:

    “A tyrant, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”. If you prohibit the free exercise of religion, you are acting unrestrained by the Constitution, and thus as a tyrant. End of story.”

    The problem is that your if/then claim does not actually match the definition given by the dictionary, and thus your modus ponens doesn’t work. You seem to have glossed over the “absolute” part. Now, even if Obama’s actions with regard to the Catholic Church are not restrained by the Constitution (and all that stuff about no due process for suspected terrorists, and so on), it would still not make him a tyrant, for his power would still not be “absolute.” Keep in mind that the administration’s policies can still be appealed to the Federal Court system and then up to the Supreme Court, and if they decide that the administration has erred, the policy will end. So, Obama is restrained after all. Further, the fact that Obama is running for a second term, rather than appointing himself as lifetime leader, proves even more saliently that he is at least somewhat restrained by the Constitution, and thus he is not an ABSOLUTE ruler.

    Having said that, could he be charged with acting like a tyrant in this one case? Well, yes, but that doesn’t mean he’s a true tyrant. It’s not like “murdering someone once makes you a murderer,” but rather “giving a dog a pill (or sticking a thermometer in its anus) does not make you a vet.” Go talk to the people in Syria, Iran, or North Korea for true tyrants.

    Also, as a rhetorical tip, it’s not wise to use the term ‘tyrant’ so casually, because non-Catholics will immediately think “well, if Obama is a tyrant, what does that make the pope?” (Maybe the claim has already been made; I haven’t read all the comments and probably won’t check back after I post this.)…Perhaps it wouldn’t be a fair comment, but the response would have to be even more careful and nuanced when discussing the pope than my ‘defense’ of Obama.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Well, yeah, he’s not an “absolute” ruler, but he sure acts without constraints of the Constitution. Maybe he’s just a wannabe tyrant?

      But you do have a good point – Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. are real tyrannies and we maybe shouldn’t exaggerate. But he sure is acting like a tyrant.

  • Rupedawg

    So much for the leftist view of TOLERANCE!! Or REASON for that matter.

    • Anonymous

      A priest/professor in college said it best:

      “Tolerance is an empty vessel. It’s not a virtue.”

      Yep. Right on.

      “Tolerance” is an empty vessel used only to carry someone’s agenda. It’s only cherished by those who have something particular (and, typically, morally objectionable) in mind.

  • marvin

    Marc, I know you get a lot of posts so you may not read this, but I wanted to encourage you in what looks like to be a zealous effort to speak out for your faith and for the faith of others. I share your convictions to serve God first when in conflict with a worldly rule/law. I also see guidance from the Lord that speaks to this very type of issue in life; so if you haven’t lately, please consider a heartfelt intercessory prayer for this nation, its leader(s). And perhaps, as you lead a brilliantly thought out charge against a seemingly blind government, encourage others to take on this exhortation from the Lord as well. Here is the scripture I am thinking about:
    “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.” (1 Tim. 2:1)
    Marvin

    • Marc Barnes

      Thanks for this!

  • Disciple777

    i can’t sign the petition!!! even though i signed up for an account, and it shows that i’m signed in!!! anyone else have that problem, and know how i can fix it???? thanks!

    • Anonymous

      I believe you have to wait until you receive an email confirming your account, click the clink in the email, and then continue with the signing. Also know that the servers at the whitehouse petition site seem to be very slow lately (because of all the people signing the petition!) so it might take a while before you can. Just be patient.

      • Disciple777

        but i did that – i already confirmed it, and it even shows my name at the bottom of the site (to show i am signed in), and i STILL can’t sign it. :( :( :(

        • Anonymous

          The only other thing I can think of is to either refresh the page (hit F5) or use another browser. It worked fine for me in Google Chrome, but I don’t know about any other browsers.

    • Anonymous

      You have to “confirm” your account first. They will send you an email with a confirmation link.

  • Anonymous

    Amazing. Thank you, Marc. You’ve managed to clearly address all the issues that many Catholics have with President Obama trampling over First Amendment Rights, in an effective and witty way.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for writing this. It’s an atrocious overstep by the Obama administration, and *every last one of us* needs to share this information with friends and loved ones.

  • kurt.

    ooooh picktures make me think him right

  • JasonFSU

    Marc, thank you for your letter. I pray that our President reconsiders his decision and it’s aberrance with the Bill of Rights.

    On another note, why is it that when Catholics come to debate an issue, we are swarmed by anti-Catholics intent on attacking us and our faith? Let’s respond lovingly and pray for their conversion, and let us not be diverted from our cause.

  • http://www.facebook.com/maryanna.price Maryanna Price

    As a Quaker and a liberal who doesn’t tie their political views to what sort of computer she owns, let me talk you through this, nice and slowly, as I think you need. I’ll even make a rage comic of it, if my mini-paragraph here is to tl; dr:

    The government does not force Quakers into war. We do, however, have to pay taxes that go to funding these wars.

    The government does not force Catholics to take birth control pills. The Catholics will, and should, provide insurance that covers birth control pills.

    Your analogies are poorly thought out and your chest thumping over “WIMMINZ DON’T NEED PILLZZZZZ!” shows that you also know very little about medicine. Don’t even speak to my about tyranny until you watch an entire political party based around taking away your right to bodily autonomy.

    • JasonFSU

      With all due respect, why does your right to conception override the Church’s position against it? Just because you have a right to it, shouldn’t (and arguably doesn’t) mean the Church is required to pay for it. Get it somewhere else, there are plenty of alternatives. Furthermore, the only way you would be denied this free conception is if you are covered by a Catholic employer, and if you were, and you disagreed with it’s policies, you’d have the right to seek employment elsewhere. This fight is not about the “right” of women to access to contraception, it is a fight about the overreaching authority of the federal government.

    • J P

      Don’t even speak to me about tyranny until you watch an entire political party based around taking away your right to freedom of religion.

    • CaraAlSol

      First of all, you are throwing a ugly, nasty, useless and stupid Tu Quoque argument there. Just because you don’t do something you should doesn’t mean others can’t do it.

      “based around taking away your right to bodily autonomy.”

      Funny, you know why? Because there’s another human being inside your human being body.

      The right to live precedes the right to choose.I can’t choose to kill you, because you have the right to live.Got it? It’s not that hard to understand.

      You said we knew little about medicine?

      • Anonymous

        Lady, if you chose to live inside my body, I would throw you out so fast… I have the right to live without you inside me. If you die on the way out, sorry! I didn’t want you in there in the first place. Birth control could have likely prevented this if you happen to be a zygote. The End.

        • CaraAlSol

          If my death is a result of you throwing me out, then you are killing a human being.
          If you want to live without me inside you either:
          1-Use Condom
          2-Take the pill so as not to get fertilized
          3-Dont have sex.

          By the way, 0% spanish huh? I don’t know why you called me a lady.

          • Anonymous

            Apologies, no Spanish and couldn’t think of something androgynous off the top of my head so I made my best guess.

            If your death was a result of me choosing not to lend you a part of my body, such as blood, an organ, or the inside of my uterus, am I still killing you? If I was the only person whose bone marrow could keep you alive but I chose not to give it, am I killing you? I’d like to think I have the right to hang on to my own bone marrow, however selfish it may be.

          • guy gonzo

            The action of an abortion is the deliberate killing of another human being. For whatever reason a person would need your bone marrow would not be your fault. The human being inside your body, however, should be expected to develop when you have sex. Whether you use a condom or some pill, those two forms of contraception will not 100% prevent you from becoming pregnant. It should be expected, and for the love of this world, take some responsibility for your actions. Killing a human being for your convenience based on a previous choice of having sex is not in any possible way an action of goodness, much less responsibility. [[Unfortunately, some of this does not apply to those who are victims of rape]]

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, tubal pregnancies and extreme congenital defects are the fault of the woman. Terminating a pregnancy when the embryo is the size of your pinkie is exactly the same as shooting a 4 year old in the head. Women should be ready for a pregnancy at all times no matter how careful they are about birth control. I get it, there is no grey area when you’re pro-life. Thanks for telling me all the arguments I’ve never heard before!

          • Kickingkid93

            except the truth of the matter is that rape and incest victims account for an astounding amount of abortions(less than 1%)

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            there is no gray area… I’m not sure if I should call you a dumbass… but that was a very dumbass remark….

            there’s no gray area in life and death… either you think murder should be legal… or you don’t… you’re either pro-life, or pro-death… there’s no pro-eh-I-don’t-know-some-people-should-be-allowed-to-kill-and-some-shouldn’t

          • Gpacharlie

            Hey MUSICALVALHUMUS,

            The rarity of those types of pregnancies makes them nearly a non- issue at the level of this discussion. Those normally turn out to be miscarried anyway. We can do so much more in utero intervention than ever before, but the way Obama is leading us there will be no money for these intrautero lifesaving and disability correcting interventions. If we give the child in the womb the same constitutional rights as the rest of us then we will begin to fund the miraculous and be the greater hope instead of what we have become, the necessary evil.

          • Gpacharlie

            The child of rape is also a victim. Let them live, and if you can’t stand to raise the little bastard, let someone with LOVE in their heart adopt him or her, but don’t kill them. You don’t get even with the rapist, you just take your anger out on the child who had nothing to do with the horrible act of rape. Put up with 9 months of pregnancy and then turn the baby over to a Catholic adoption agency, oh yeah, there won’t be any of those left either.

            As you can tell I was never intended to be either priest nor diplomat.

          • Gpacharlie

            If I was the the only person whose bone marrow could keep you alive but I chose not to give it am I killing you? NO, BUT YOU ARE SENTENCING HIM TO DEATH! AND that makes you an accomplice to murder, evil, selfish, awful, and fully responsible.

            If you were in danger of freezing to death from hypothermia, and I didn’t let you share my warm sleeping bag until you were out of danger, what kind of selfish evil person would I be. Your womb is a privelaged rental not a tenement that you can boot the tenant out any time you please. Your 60′s feminist philosophy is as dead and dry as MedicLDoc chemists atheism. Wake up and read something challengimg that might change your mind.

    • Softballgrl2104

      “The government does not force Quakers into war. We do, however, have to pay taxes that go to funding these wars.”

      Hmmm, think about this- Catholics already pay for contraception (which we find morally wrong) through their taxes, now its about forcing our contributions to our charities to do the same. So let me know when the Quaker organizations have to send a representative to war and we’ll be on the same page.

      And if you dont think tax dollars pay for it look into your state’s Medicaid program. The state I live in gives plan B ($45-60) to those to waste more of our money to go to (usually what I see as a pharmacist) the ER (in the middle of the day) which is much more wasteful than going to an Urgent Care Center. Also they tend to cover the expensive $60/ month pills over the $15 ones.

    • Sam Woodward

      Revisionist History. Old men forget, but all shall be forgot. You were not drafted. Yes, you paid taxes, but that is not the same as forcing to to fight. That is what we are talking about.

    • Bastral Bane

      Bodily autonomy that requires free medication? Wow that’s some autonomy you’ve got going there.

    • Gpacharlie

      Besides being condescending, insulting, and rude, you are an oxymoron. As far as bodily autonomy, I doubt that God believing quakers believe they are autonomous. Did you raise a barn all by yourself? No , I am sure you hadmto pinch your nose and have a man help you once or twice in your life. You sound more like a Humanist Feminist Unitarian to me.

    • Mary H

      “The government does not force Quakers into war. We do, however, have to pay taxes that go to funding these wars.”

      True. And Catholics have to pay taxes for things they disagree with as well. Already. No difference there. That’s a false analogy.

      “The government does not force Catholics to take birth control pills. The Catholics will, and should, provide insurance that covers birth control pills.”

      False analogy. Insurance is not a tax. It’s a product. The government is forcing any employer over a certain size to either pay for insurance that covers contraceptives or pay a fine.

      Here’s a better analogy. What if the government forced Quaker employers to provide money for guns as a benefit for their employees, unless all their employee were Quakers and the business only sold to other Quakers? And if they refused, charged them a yearly fine per employee. Whether any employee, Quaker or not, actually ever made use of the benefit?

      Women don’t need contraceptive pills. Marc is absolutely right. There are other methods of preventing pregnancy that can be as effective as the birth control pill without the side effect of being physically bad for the woman. Unfortunately, those other methods don’t make anyone any money.

      In fact, I would think that anyone who cared about women’s health would push a highly effective method of regulating birth that had no side effects, didn’t treat a woman’s reproductive system as a disease to be disabled, and was extremely cheap. It’s amazing to me that any feminist would even WANT women to take the pill for birth control at all. So no, the birth control is definitely not only NOT preventive health care for women, it’s bad for them. (I know the mandate covers other contraceptives as well – it just never ceases to amaze me that ANYONE could promote the contraceptive pill at all.)

      “Don’t even speak to my about tyranny until you watch an entire political party based around taking away your right to bodily autonomy.”

      Well, I’m not one of the kids here so I’m pretty sure I watched as much as you have. I assume you’re using another euphemism for abortion when you talk about a political party based around taking your right to “bodily autonomy”. Although I guess I experienced a bit differently. What I watched was the entire feminist movement change from a movement that cared about women’s rights and women’s health to a movement where advocating any restrictions on abortion whatsoever abrogated your right to be called a feminist.

      A feminist movement that cannot even agree that third trimester abortions were wrong, even though the Guttmacher Institute’s own figures show the death rate from third trimester abortions are the same as childbirth.

      And yes, I know exactly what I’m talking about. I was a card-carrying member of NOW and NARAL for years, and I have practiced both contraception and NFP.

      Where are the feminists promoting and urging NFP as the most pro-woman option out there?

  • http://www.facebook.com/hesamiracle Adam Clark

    I couldn’t bear to get through this entire post. What you’re arguing may have some validity (if I am being generous), but the way in which you argue makes you come across as a haughty, entitled, self-righteous, whiny little prick. I want to break all your teeth with a brick, if only to stop the flow of rancorous air that we are forced to breathe when you speak.

    • JasonFSU

      why is it that when Catholics come to debate an issue, we are swarmed by anti-Catholics intent on attacking us and our faith? Let’s respond lovingly and pray for their conversion, and let us not be diverted from our cause.

      • http://www.facebook.com/hesamiracle Adam Clark

        Please do not be so vain as to suppose I stand contra to you, as though you were some worthy opponent simply due to your faith. The writer makes that mistake as well.

        If I may point out one thing; you can’t boast about being the most prominent religion in the country and then claim persecution. Especially when religious social policy belongs tragically to another era all together.

        We’re all in this together. I will gladly accept paying taxes for this. As Maryanna stated… and though I am not a Quaker… Most of my taxes go to wars which I neither believe in nor support. So it goes.

        • JasonFSU

          A different opinion is one thing. Ad hominem attacks another. You’re the one who called the author a little prick. Make a salient point for debate, but don’t hit below the belt or mock someone just because you believe differently.

          As for our faith being of “another era” that is meaningless baloney. Our faith may be two millennia old, but there are older…Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism. What does age have to do with it.

          But ultimately, it is our right to believe and practice as we choose, as protected by the US Constitution. Why is that not worth of respect and protection? Would you require a kosher deli to serve pork? Or a restaurant owed by a Hindu beef?

        • Penny Farthing1893

          Yeah, nowhere in the original post of that comment did anyone claim their faith made them a “worthy opponent”. In fact, Marc’s argument was specifically made from a position of law, irrespective of his or the reader’s beliefs. That is how a well-formed argument is presented.

          And another thing – Taxes paying for war is different than this. Here’s why:

          1. Making war is a legitimate and necessary function of government (one might argue that it is the main function of national government, along with treaties). An individual’s opinion, no matter how principled, on the virtue of a particular war does not change the legitimate claim of the government to the use of tax money for wars. If that same individual was drafted, however, they could legally and justly stand on their principle and refuse to fight.

          2. Providing health care is an only debatably legitimate and certainly not necessary function of a national government (we didn’t even have Medicare until the 60s, and we somehow survived). Paying taxes for Medicare/Medicaid is legit. However! Requiring the purchase of a particular product is not a legitimate function of government, whether for an individual or an institution, and certainly not dictating all the particulars of the type of coverage needed. If for some reason the person or group has a principled objection, the government needs to honor it.

          3. The difference is that the first case is using taxes to do what the government needs to do (make war or provide healthcare) even if some citizens find it objectionable, and the other is forcing a specific individual to do an objectionable act (fight/kill or provide contraception/abortions)

          4. If the government were to set up funds or services where people could get contraceptives, and let institutions provide whatever insurance coverage they see fit, we would not be having this argument. It would still be troubling to many people that their taxes were paying for it, just like many people don’t like seeing their taxes pay for wars, but those individuals would not be forced to violate their principles in the same way.

    • Guest

      Adam,

      Marc clearly states that all death threats will be disregarded unless written in iambic pentameter so I suggest that you take your threats elsewhere. Besides, even in disagreement, threats such as yours are inappropriate.

    • J P

      “I want to break all your teeth with a brick, if only to stop the flow of rancorous air that we are forced to breathe when you speak.”

      What’s stopping you? Too afraid? Your hatefulness is only exceeded by your cowardice?

  • guest

    I get what you are saying, Catholics were dissrespected in the descision. If you don’t believe in the cause, why should you have to pay for it. The same could be said about any person (no matter what religion) about the war in Iraq. “If I don’t believe that we should be fighting the war in Iraq, why should I pay for it.” Maybe because it is the right thing to do. To support the people fighting for your freedom. Why can’t you all do the religious thing and help out people who aren’t as fortunate to have God in their lives. Just because you and your faith dissagree with the law, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t help people who need it. Instead of critizising Obama, maybe you should spend your energy and time trying to convince the other members of congress, who are making it impossible to pass any laws (Republicans included), to start believing in the Catholic faith. I think that would be a much better use of your time.

    Just some food for thought.

    • J P

      “Why can’t you all do the religious thing and help out people who aren’t as fortunate to have God in their lives.”

      That’s. all. they’re. trying. to. do. but. oppressive. bigots. keep. telling. them. that. while. they. are. trying. to. help. out. people. they. have. to. do. this. and. that.

      • Penny Farthing1893

        You win an internet.

  • Amy

    I understand and appreciate your points, however, oral contraceptives, although primarily used to prevent pregnancy, are also prescribed to assist hormonal imbalances. They are a blessing to women who suffer from depression and/or severe pain related to their periods.

    • Lindsey

      Birth control pills can be used as a band-aid for medical issues like cycle problems, depression, and acne, but they don’t actually cure any of those issues. And it’s a rare doctor that sits down and weighs the risks vs. benefits with the patient for taking this drug long term (life-long?), risks like blood clots, stroke, heart problems. If a woman goes off the Pill because these problems are too risky for her, she’s back to square one, without any aid in actually solving her health problems. I would hardly call birth control pills a blessing for anyone.

      That said, they could still be covered for medical use, but Catholic institutions should not be forced to provide full coverage for pills, carte blanche, sterilization, and abortifacent drugs. It’s the “required” full coverage by all Catholic institutions that’s the problem here, not whether or not the pill is a good thing for women. If a woman employed by a Catholic school, church, or charity, needs the pill for a medical reason and her insurance plan does not cover it in a way that is affordable to her, there are other ways (currently) for her to be able to procure it, no doubt.

    • Jmsteve4

      The Church says that these are acceptable uses if there is no alternative (which I quite honestly imagine would not be that hard to find if researchers looked). However, this bill is saying that they would have to pay for it for whatever reason, even though it’s already avaliable.

    • Ldmarkfam

      Amy, there exists a way to CORRECT hormonal imbalances, heavy/painful periods, PMDD/PMS, PCOS, endometriosis, depression, irregular cycles, and prevent pregnancy that does NOT require the use of oral contraceptives. It is called NaProTechnology http://www.fertilitycare.org, and makes handing women birth control pills look archaic, not to mention lousy medicine.

      • Anonymous

        Why don’t the Bishops ask Catholic hospitals to promote this then?

  • AnAesthetic

    Too bad you are too young to have a clue. Giving away your age and the products you use…a Mac? You love capitalism. And speaking of rape, like you had mentioned, ALL of christianity IS rape. Every Holiday you celebrate, and most of the beliefs you hold were STOLEN from one pagan belief system or another that existed before christianity.
    Your attempt to put religion above the law is a terrible thing, and your cult is the worst of all. Playing christianity, or catholocism as the “majority treated as a minority victim” is just BS. You and your kind are the worst oppressors, historically. Come back when you’ve done ANY homework, junior. Damn yuppie in training.

    • CaraAlSol

      Jajajajajaj, stolen?
      Dude, get your facts straight, I cant believe how freaking ignorant you are regarding Christmas.
      “Attempt to put religion above the law”
      O.o
      OMFG
      What?
      You didn’t understand a single word this guy has spoken.
      “a Mac? You love capitalism”
      WOW, I DRINK COCA COLA. SURELY I ADVOCATE THE SLAVERY OF CHINESE WORKERS AND I LOVE CAPITALISM

      Asshat.

      • incomprehensible

        some day you’ll be intelligent. If you do a little research, every christian holiday IS stolen.

        • CaraAlSol

          Intelligence has nothing to do with knowledge ;)
          “[W]hile the winter solstice on or around December 25 was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas, and none that indicates that Aurelian had a hand in its institution.

          Many popular customs associated with Christmas developed independently of the commemoration of Jesus’ birth, with certain elements having origins in pre-Christian festivals that were celebrated around the winter solstice by pagan populations who were later converted to Christianity.

  • C_86

    I’m a Catholic and while I hate the thought of anyone making someone do something they don’t want to, clearly there has been an expressed desire for this service from other Catholics and should be provided. Clearly the administration feels the need to enforce the needs of the people. To think an administration or nation like the United States would go after an institution like the Catholic Church (which trust me there would be PLENTY of reasons to go after it) is just stupidity. I don’t see anything wrong with offering it and Catholics can then make their own choices on whether to take advantage of it or not.
    If a Catholic were to choose the option presented by the Obama Administration would you shun them from the church? For the church to deny this service and for the church to then say, “well if you want it and have a problem with it, get it somewhere else” is turning its back on her own people. The rules set forth in the Bible were written so long ago and while not all, some things need to change with time.

    I have to say that as I grow older I grow farther and farther away from the church because of those who are so radical and fight the opposing side so hard that they appear to want to become exactly what they are fighting; tyrants. The two sides need to come together and embrace the opportunities provided for everyone.

    • JasonFSU

      With all due respect, your position appears ignorant (not “stupid”, just “without knowledge”) of which you speak. And quite frankly, if you are Catholic, you should probably better understand your faith before criticizing its tenets. Over the years, I have questioned my faith, and after consulting a priest, I have found a more complete understanding of our faith. You would serve your faith well by understanding the basis of our faith. Trust me, its not as simple as “because some old guy in Rome said so.” I will pray that you find the will to have a conversion of your heart.

    • Anonymous

      Thank goodness for Catholics like you!

  • SchultPR

    Marc, I am in awe of your intellect and wit! Do not cease using your gifts to defend Holy Mother Church! Speak the truth in love, yes, but by God speak the truth! Keep writing, keep speaking out

  • Mrsvsgarcia

    Thank you Marc and may God bless you!!!!

  • HappyDad

    Ummm isnn’t this word for wordwhat MN Gary posted

  • CaraAlSol

    Jesus Christ, we’re going back to the 1500′s again?
    Now that I see it, Obama is a fucktard.

  • Daverusch

    Marc – great job. I’m not signing any useless petitions – but I will follow (or lead) the bishops into the streets to ‘occupy’ the nation with politicians inclined to support the constitution. No more of this tyranny – no more.

    • Jmsteve4

      Why not do both? =)

    • Henrydjonathan

      I agree with Jm… why not both? :)

  • Anonymous

    Print it out. Send several hundred copies to the White House.

  • Anonymous

    So on the empirical side, research has shown that 98% of Catholic women use a form of modern birth control. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html

    I suppose that doesn’t make it any less Wrong though, huh? So many sinners!

    • CaraAlSol

      Jesus Christ, you people need to understand how surveys work!!

      • Anonymous

        Upwards of 7,000 women from around the country answered some questions. Scientists broke down the data and made it into pretty graphs. What am I missing here? Are you saying Jesus Christ can help me to understand surveys better?!

    • J P

      There are lots of sinners. Some people spend their time spreading hate and bigotry on websites just because they don’t like the other religion. A lot of those same people are delusional hypocrites that believe themselves “progressive” and “tolerant.”

      • Anonymous

        1. I can’t imagine who you’re referring to.

        2. Congratulations! You’ve managed to prove nothing about nothing!

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Wow. Right in that same article, once you get past the typically hysterical Huffpo headline, it says around 70% of Catholics use contraception, which is what every other report besides the Guttmacher one seems to indicate. It makes more sense than Catholic contraception use being 18% higher than the general population. The 98% figure is what we call an outlier.

      And yes, the Catholic Church, like every other group of human beings is full of sinners (aka human beings). That’s why it exists – to help them. But maybe you missed the whole Jesus dying for our sins aspect of the religion….

      • Anonymous

        The article says 70% of Catholic women use sterilization, the pill, or an IUD; reading comprehension skills suggest that the other 28% use something different. The 98% figure still stands.

        I guess I missed the whole Jesus dying to redeem us from birth control thing… Hormones, surgeries, and little pieces of rubber. Who knew!

  • Kevin Hernandez

    Awesome letter. But…
    “I am 18.”
    “I own a Macbook, a blog and a sweater-vest.” (Hopefully one of Santorum’s trademark vests which he gave out to those who donated over $100 ;)
    “I don’t even like Capitalism.” Whattt??? The major deal that will cause a spirit of competition among companies and really allows only the successful companies (those that are doing something right whith handling their business) continue and grow? This merits explanation!
    But, great job with the letter part. Spot on.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      Capitalism seeks to turn man into nothing more than an economic entity. The very word itself is based on the word “capital”, which here refers to money. People who say that capitalism isn’t all about money are just plain wrong. The free-market, on the other hand, is totally different. It is not an ideal, just a system. It works.

      • Kevin Hernandez

        I’d like some research material on this. I’m 15, and my biased and liberal education ain’t gonna give me anything. Thanks, though!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000079726537 Michael Denz

    Marc,

    Awesome… Listen, I have a daughter. She is 11. Now that sounds pretty young, and it is, but in 10 years she will be 21 and you will be 28. Now, if you could just wait that long before committing to the priesthood or to marrying anyone else, that would be great. I’ll give you the $400 it will probably cost for dinner and a movie in the year 2022 and if it doesn’t work out I understand. I’m just asking you to give it a chance. Thanks for understanding; you have 10 years to answer.

    Mike

    • Elaine

      lol no he’s my boyfriend! you can’t take him!!!

  • Patric

    Nice, Marc. This post is well-written, and I really enjoy this blog (I only found it a couple of days ago). I didn’t know you were 18! So am I, but I’m in high school, and I plan on going to Franciscan next year. Maybe I’ll see you there! ;)

  • Dwyder

    Praise God for you!

  • http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com/ Priest’s wife

    well done!

  • Reality_Check

    Reproductive health is an important component of health care and it’s logical that employers be required to provide it if they want the tax advantages that come with providing insurance. (And remember that were talking about religious organizations performing the secular function of employers here; for better or worse, for example, the Supreme Court unanimously held just this month that religious organizations qua religious organizations are exempt from civil rights law.) It’s not a coincidence that the one exemption that is being sought happens to involve the subordination of women, and involves invoking a “principle” so essential to the faith that it has been overwhelmingly rejected by practicing Roman Catholics.

    • Anonymous

      Those same Catholics are perfectly fine with dropping into a pharmacy to pay for what they want.

      They are opposed to forcing other people to pay for their choices.

  • filiusdextris

    Fundamentally, I agree with you, Marc. But based on Supreme Court precedent from the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith (horrible decision), Congress can pass a law, as here, as long as it only incidentally affects religious freedom. If it is neutral on its face and in effect, there is nothing that we can do in the courts. We can, of course, seek an exemption from the legislature, but Congress screwed up. We have to overturn Smith to get back the guarantees enshrined in our Constitution. If not, we have to hope to convince Congress to side with us during the meantime.

    • Reality_Check

      You’re going to just have to suck it up and deal with it. Nobody cares about your invisible Jeebus.

      • filiusdextris

        Your contention is irrelevant. This is a fundamental Constitutional violation; that would remain true whether or not Jesus existed. Unfortunately, it is likely permissible under current jurisprudence since the law applies to all alike. See the case cited above.

      • J P

        “Nobody cares about your invisible Jeebus.”

        You obviously do. Else you wouldn’t be here.

    • J P

      Not neutral on its face and effect. In fact, it was drafted to target a very specific religion for a very specific reason. That combiend with the fact that there are exemptions from the whole thing if you have less than 50 employees, and you’re not giving religion the same chance…. it’s DOA due to the 1A.

      • filiusdextris

        The 50-employees limit does not destroy neutrality towards religion since that affects religious and nonreligious institutions equally. No specific religion is targeted by the law. The fact that they exempted religions, generally, in the narrow sense of composed of their own faith and serving their own faith, does have an effect of favoring some religions. This objectively destroys the neutrality, I agree, but the Supreme Court explicitly endorsed this kind of exemption in the Smith majority – they told religions to get their respective legislatures to pass protective laws. Again, Smith should be overturned. If this case goes to the Supremes, if they don’t overturn Smith, but distinguish it here, they will be allowing a logical farce. Granted, to save our freedom, we’ll take it, but it would be a legal farce (Smith is already a farce as Joanna alluded to above).

    • Penny Farthing1893

      We should try to overturn Smith, although it wouldn’t be easy. Besides, it’s not neutral on its face and effects.

      Here’s an interesting list of court cases: http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      the decision states that the gov’t must have a “compelling interest” when passing such laws that affect religious freedom. In this case, there is none. Contraception is still available to men and women, who can choose not to work for a religious employer or obtain it out-of-pocket.

      • filiusdextris

        Compelling interest was the old rule that Smith explicitly overturned (Scalia is very disparaging towards compelling interest in this field). It was a very balanced rule to which we should return. In practice, the govt. was able to prove a narrowly tailored compelling interest far more than in the speech cases, but that’s ok, since we’re often talking conduct here. Read O’Connor’s concurrence (philosophically, a dissent) for how the law should have looked (she does screw up the application of the rule in this case though – the true dissent gets that part right).

        • JoAnna Wahlund

          In the text of the decision, it states, “The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that [494 U.S. 872, 873] Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections. ”

          I would argue that the ninth amendment also applies in addition to the Free Exercise Clause, as it is unconstitutional for Congress to force a citizen to buy a product that violates his/her conscience.

          • filiusdextris

            JoAnna, I wrote a 40-page paper in my religious freedom class in law school on this case a couple of months ago. You just completely confirmed my point with your quote: the neutrality rule governs (as a rule), not compelling interest. There are a couple of exceptions: cases modeled on unemployment insurance claims (Smith was sort of like that, but had criminal issues underneath), the ministerial exemption (as recently confirmed in Hosanna-Tabor) and the “hybrid doctrine” which your quote mentions directly. The hybrid doctrine incorporates Free Exercise claims which are also Free Speech claims (like Cantwell v. Connecticut) or Due Process claims (like Yoder v. Wisconsin). The last exception is if the law purposely targets religion (openly or not) in which case the compelling interest test is restored.

            Smith is wrongly decided in my opinion and those of many legal scholars. Under Smith jurisprudence, religious adherents looking to claim an exemption will be denied if the law is neutral. If this case goes to the Supreme Court, the Court will either a) uphold Smith and deny the Church, b) reverse Smith and institute strict scrutiny where you are right that the government will fail, or c) make a silly distinction to placate the Church. The issue may also be mooted if Congress steps in first.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hugh-Intactive/100002216540067 Hugh Intactive

    “A man might forbid the Jews their practice of circumcision.”
    Bad example. If only adults chose to have themselves circumcised, or if the ban continued to allow Muslim or non-therapeutic gentile circumcision, it would breach the First Amendment to forbid that.
    But when anyone cuts part of someone else’s genitals off, even children born to them, that raises issues of the cuttee’s privacy, property, security of person, freedom to choose their own religion as adults and (since all genital cutting of girls is outlawed, no matter how minor) equality of the sexes. All of those trump the adults’ freedom to practice (as distinct from believe) their religion.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Even in San Francisco they had the good sense not to outlaw infant circumcision, and ironically the intactivist propaganda had something to do with it. The hideously anti-Semitic comic book “Foreskin Man” (I’m not kidding – google it and laugh until you suddenly shudder) shined a light on what was about to become a serious assault on religious liberty by drawing national attention to the issue.

      Also, what is the point of believing a religion if you can’t practice it. It’s about more than an hour on Sunday (and Saturday!)

  • Nichole

    Watch one episode of “Teen Mom” and then hopefully you’ll understand why free birth control pills and condoms are needed. My guess is that you probably don’t understand the diffrent circumstances that have made our government need to step in. Not everyone in this country is Catholic either…don’t forget this is America…a mixing pot of all kinds of races and religions. Put yourself in someone elses shoes…you can’t only look at it through the perspective of a Catholic. I am Catholic and understand our great Presidents reasoning. Obama 2012

    • Guest

      It’s true that not everyone is Catholic, but why can’t Catholics at least be exempt from having to pay for this insurance?

      On a side note, there has actually been an increase in unwanted pregnancies and therefore an increase in abortions ever since contraception became legal. So there’s little evidence, if any, to support your claim that contraception is necessary to prevent teenage pregnancy.

      • Reality_Check

        Because reproductive freedom is a right. Get used to it. Your church will have to change or it will whither away.

        • Anonymous

          Then why does Obama not start an organization that can provide people with these services. And there are those that already do.

          Why does he have to force the church to pay for it?

          • Penny Farthing1893

            Because he is more interested in throwing his political weight around than in actually making sure services are provided. Why be efficient when you can expand government power?

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            Good point. If Planned Parenthood is so wonderful as Obama claims, why aren’t they doing their alleged job and providing low-cost contraception to anyone who needs it??

            That’s right, they’re too busy aborting babies…

        • grace

          The Church has survived 2000 years of change. It will never whither away.

        • John

          I’m sorry, but you’re confusing “right” with “liberty”. You may choose (by national law) with whom and how you reproduce (very broadly, I might add, with such options as adoption, test tubes, and donor sperm banks all readily available). A right is guaranteed a human by nature of his humanity. Food, shelter, etc. Generally that which is immediately necessary for human survival is recognized by the government. You don’t have to reproduce to survive. Read the article on “10 Things I Hate About the Pill,” it has a lot (all true) to say about the origins of the contraceptive movement, going back to Susan B. Anthony, who advocated abortion as solely a method to control the slave population in the early United States.

        • Gpacharlie

          REAL REALITY CHECK. 2012 years and counting , and not withering!

        • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

          ha… HAHA!… HA!.. ha. Every single church that has withered away has been a church that changes for anything… not the ones who stand firm to their beliefs…

      • Nichole

        There is an increase in abortion and unwanted preggnancies b/c there are a lot more ppl since contrception became legal…also, American culture has evolved into an over sexed culture which is why contrception is needed. Yo’re the same ppl who don’t want young adults to get sex educations which has also led to unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Your “evidence” is nothing but outdated opinion…my evidence is reality. Open your mind and you just might understand better yet, as I suggested to the author, watch one episode of “Teen Mom”. That’ll be plenty of evidence for you.

        • J P

          “Your “evidence” is nothing but outdated opinion…my evidence is reality. ”

          LOL@U

          • Nichole

            Such a witty come back…oh wait you said nothing!! Stop whinning and pay up! Haha :)

        • JoAnna Wahlund
          • Obama isn’t the issue

            “The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation,” reads the conclusion of the abstract. – per your link

        • Laura

          I’ve watched teen mom, and what they needed was self-control, not contraception

          • Obama isn’t the issue

            I agree that teens need to be taught self control but in reality we all know that doesn’t work with every teen. That’s why they should know how to protect themselves if they choose to have sex. Just because one is taught to live a certain way doesn’t mean they will follow that exact path. That’s why educating everyone about abstinence, condoms, bc and self control is best. God gave us free will which means we will make different choices. The girls on Teen Mom needed both bc AND self control.

          • Anonymous

            Machines are used, people are loved. Turning sex into a recreational sport turns people into consumer goods.

            On thing the over-sexed culture does not teach people is to actually respect sex or people.

            How does casual sex respect either sex or people, without de-vauling them both?

            And if someone wants birth control let them go buy it and if others are so concerned let them buy it for them.

            Don’t force others people to pay for it.

    • grace

      http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/bio.php Read her book and you’ll understand.

      • Anonymous

        Oh hey, she’s the lady whose information isn’t based on science or reason! I think I also remember her saying something about how women enjoy domestic work so much. Sounds like a great idea to listen to her.

        • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

          OH HEY! ^SHE’s the lady that thinks nobody gives a shit about rape victims, and assumes NOTHING is connected unless she wants it to be!

      • Nichole

        Thx but no thx…I’m for expanding knowlege not limiting it…especially since sex ed’s main purpose is to educate ppl on how to keep their body healthy. It’s a health issue.

        • Gpacharlie

          SO WE REQUIRE AN ULTRASOUND AND A FORMAL IN SERVICE ON FETAL DEVELOPMENT? WE SEND THEM AWAY FOR A 48 cooling off period with pictures and educational materiaks in hand. they realize that by 6 weeks gestation there is no more discussion. This is a baby, their baby. Since most abortions are done after the sixth week we have problem solved.

        • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

          WTF person?? how would reading ANYTING limit your knowledge… that’s like saying “I’m not going to test drive that car, because I want to try alot of cars”

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Seems to me that bcps aren’t teaching self-control and personal responsibility, which is what all teenagers need to practice. With bcp, they’re still making horrible decisions that’ll eventually catch up to them.

      Plus, all birth control has a failure rate, so it’s like trying to use a bandaid to stop a leak in Hoover Dam.

      • Obama isn’t the issue

        I agree that teens need to be taught self control but in reality we all know that doesn’t work with every teen. That’s why they should know how to protect themselves if they choose to have sex. Just because one is taught to live a certain way doesn’t mean they will follow that exact path. That’s why educating everyone about abstinence, condoms, bc and self control is best. God gave us free will which means we will make different choices. The girls on Teen Mom needed both bc AND self control.

        There is also a failure rate in self control, so eliminating something that CAN be useful isn’t smart. Your Hoover Dam bit doesn’t apply.

    • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

      HAHA.. you’re not any more Catholic than John Kerry

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/AMVUNAQF2QRPK7LSDTBV5GKYFU Lucy

    You put it better than I could myself. I am a Catholic and not only do I want tyranny far away from my religion but out of my life. I am 63 and will still fight for what is right.

  • CatholicSoldierMedic

    I am a militant, patriotic, Catholic. Since the leadership of the country I love believes thay can wipe their feet, noses, and other parts with the Constitution of the United States of America, I will march side-by-side with my bishops and priests to tell our government that we will follow the First Amendment,not their tyranny and I will march exercising my Second Amendment right, which is NOT to authorize military forces, it is to prevent our government from becoming tyrannical.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Thank you for serving, and for being in the Church Militant in more ways than one.

  • Deel

    It is not only Catholics…Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox, it goes on and on…to pay for something against God, is going against God…so you who do not understand this concept, I really feel sorry for you…just don’t get it, do you

  • Reality_Check

    Remind me, did Jesus ever say anything about birth control?

    • Jake E

      Remind me again of the 6th Commandment? Oh… Thou shalt not commit murder… that’s right. Well there goes that argument…

    • Kickingkid93

      Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 – from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.

      Gen. 28:3 – Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.

      Gen. 38:8-10 – Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

      Gen. 38:11-26 – Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

      Deut. 25:7-10 – the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

      Gen. 38:9 – also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.

      Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 – God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.

      Lev.18:22-23;20:13 – wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity – and other religions – until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).

      Lev. 21:17,20 – crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.

      Deut. 23:1 – whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.

      Deut. 25:11-12 – there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.

      1 Chron. 25:5 – God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.”

      Psalm 127:3-5 – children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.

      Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 – God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.

      Mal. 2:14 – marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.

      Mal. 2:15 – What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.” Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.

      Matt. 19:5-6 – Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.

      Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 – contraception prevents God’s ability to “join” together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.

      Acts 5:1-11 – Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

      Rom.1:26-27 – sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.

      1 Cor. 6:19-20 – the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.

      1 Cor. 7:5 – this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP”). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.

      Gal. 6:7-8 – God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.

      Eph. 5:25 – Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.

      Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 – mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.

      1 Tim. 2:15 – childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.

      Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.

      Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 – these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.

      • Anonymous

        Soooooo what you’re saying is Jesus never actually enacted a contraception ban. OR he wanted the possibility of kids at all times in which case NFP (consciously timing sex so that there is no pregnancy) would still be sinful.

        • JSamper

          MusicaHumana is really sad to read how a person can be so smart and confused at the same time. Obviously you’ve heard about NFP, but you have no idea what it is about.

          The Church teaches to be open to life. With NFP, you ARE open to life at ALL times. There are multiple reasons why a MARRIED couple would decide to avoid pregnancy, while still being OPEN to life. (financial, etc).

          However, most importantly, what is your problem with the Catholic Church and its teachings? You seem to have a very profound disdain for them, yet you also know them very well.

          • Anonymous

            No, I get it. NFP is the fancy dance you do to make sure you aren’t using anything bad or scary from the outside science world to prevent pregnancy, it’s all very naaaaaatural. Much like fertility drugs.

            What is my problem with the Catholic Church? Hm. I could go on for a long time on that one, but as it pertains to this thread, my problem is all the women who will be denied basic healthcare (women’s ability to be in control of their sexual health is a basic need) because the god of the Catholic church is supposedly fussy about when you can and can’t use hormones, and for what reason, etc. He seriously cares about a piece of rubber on a penis? A piece of copper inside a uterus? Okay. Cool. Good to know what’s really important to this here religion.

          • Anonymous

            They can get this basic healthcare from other places. They don’t need to force the church to pay for it.

            Artificial contraception is a business. If one gets into debates about what’s more healthy for a woman, NFp will win hands down.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            I get it now! I read over and over that… and the thing is… The church teaches that having extra-marital sex is a very grave sin, as well as pre-marital. the church teaches that sex is a beautiful thing made for man and wife… not for any random person you may see…

            the Church teaches that giving your whole self to just anybody is wrong… and that if you’re always giving yourself away, what else do you have?

            THAT’s why you don’t like Catholic teachings…

          • Anonymous

            “if you’re always giving yourself away, what else do you have?”

            So the church puts no value on any other part of a person than their sexuality, huh. No surprise there. I guess my vagina is my whole self! My intelligence, integrity, and all those other virtues mean nothing if sexual purity is not maintained! What a sad thing to believe in.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            you’re not as smart as you think you are… thought you should know that…

            Again… (like all our other conversations) you didn’t read the entire post.. you only picked out what you thought you could argue with

          • Anonymous

            Addressing only one part of a comment is no longer valid, eh? Okay! Here is my response to your whole, terrible comment!

            I know what the church teaches about premarital sex. I have nothing to say about it other than I think it’s stupid and childish considering 95% of Americans have had premarital sex and there is nothing that suggests it is bad for you other than “God said so!!!!”

            I don’t like Catholic teachings because they have no basis in reality.

          • Musiciangirl591

            95% seems a little high and the Church does not want its flock to be hurt by Satan (sorry to go into theology, i know you hate it), should the Church not be against killing since so many people do it?

          • Anonymous

            Forgive me, the statistic is 95% of people have had premarital sex by the age of 44, stat courtesy of research by the Guttmacher Institute.

            What percentage of the population commits murder? Is it really an appropriate comparison to make? Sex is two consenting adults, murder is not. The point of my comment was more to show how useless it is to discuss this particular disagreement with the church. It turns into a God said so conversation and no headway can be made.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            read my reply above

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            Musician girl, we can’t really argue with Musicahumana… she’s an atheist… In my opinion.. if someone doesn’t believe in God… they’re not going to listen to reason.

            If they reject even that God exists…

          • Mary H

            “NFP is the fancy dance you do to make sure you aren’t using anything bad or scary from the outside science world to prevent pregnancy, it’s all very naaaaaatural.”

            Oh, then I see that you don’t know what NFP is. It has nothing to do with avoiding science or avoiding anything artificial. The “natural” in NFP means in accordance with the natural law, not the more common meaning of “not artificial”. In fact, one of the things that turned me off from it when I was in college in the late 70′s was the fact that I’m not an “earth mother” “back to nature” type, which were the only people (outside of Catholics) that seemed to take it seriously back then.

            Basically, the Church says you can’t treat fertility like a disease (greatly simplifying of course). Interesting concept, isn’t it? You can regulate your pregnancies, but you can’t treat fertility like a disease. Sound really anti-woman, doesn’t it?

            Still wondering where all those feminists pushing for the most pro-woman method of child spacing are …

          • Anonymous

            The feminists are saying that pro-woman means the woman gets to actually CHOOSE what she wants to do instead of having a church order her to do it! FAM/NFP is great if it’s what you want to do. Telling women what to do with their own bodies is what’s anti-woman here.

        • Penny Farthing1893

          Ecclesiastes 3:1 – To everything there is a season……. A time to embrace, a time to refrain from embracing.

          Refraining from something good is not the same as doing that thing half-assed. It’s better to wait for a time when you can fully participate and hold nothing back.

        • JoAnna Wahlund

          Jesus did not write a book, He established a Church. What do you think the Christians used as their source of doctrine for the 300+ years before the Catholic Church formalized the canon and compiled the Bible? He left the Church to act as his Vicar on earth and to create doctrine for His people. The Church says contraception is sinful, therefore so does Jesus. “Whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven.”

          But this is about religious liberty, not contraception. Should Hindus be forced by the gov’t to pay for beef? Should synagogues be forced to pay their employees in bacon?

          • guest506

            You don’t know Christian history very well.

          • JoAnna Wahlund
          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            Hey, ‘sup… PhD… Church History.. how’s it goin?… what was wrong with what she said? cause I saw no inaccuracies

        • SMC

          Can you show me where Jesus said that everybody has a right to contraception, or maybe where he said that we should pay for other people to have contraception? Yeah, didn’t think so.

          • Anonymous

            The impression I get of Jesus as a loving person who wanted everyone to be cared for suggests that he would want basic healthcare to be covered for all people. Most of the world has recognized contraception as an essential thing for taking care of your reproductive system.

            He never said thou shalt not pay for other people to have contraception. So. Guess you better do it!

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            right… we better.. cause he definitely said that we should.

    • Anonymous

      Given that this is a blog about Catholicism, a religion which distances itself from a great deal of christianity by holding that there exist objective truths of both ethical and nonethically religious character, in addition to those found within the bible, this question is not particularly relevant.

      • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

        I’m sorry… the Catholic Church was THE only christian church, then everyone broke off from her and distanced themselves… not the other way around. It would be good for you to know a little more about history before you make stupid accusations.

        • Anonymous

          ….please tell me where I claimed otherwise?

          I was responding to a troll’s stupid question, one which only makes sense if he was attacking a sola scriptura sect of Christianity.

          The only “stupid accusation” that I made was that the faith which I, and it appears you, practice is one based on Scripture and Tradition. If you find that odd, you should probably pick up the Catechism some time.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            Ok.. I’m sorry… I must have read that wrong… what threw me off was “this is a blog about Catholicism, a religion which distances itself from a great deal of Christianity…”

          • Anonymous

            Ah, I didn’t see the unclear wording in my post before. But looking back I do. Apologies for my overly-negative response to you, you are quite right that my post could have been read as somewhat anti-Catholic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            I’m sorry I thought it was… I should have asked what you meant before assuming

    • Laura

      Remind me, did Jesus say anything ab0ut not throwing bricks at troll’s faces?

  • Cynthia

    My sister is a teacher at a catholic school and recently had surgery for something that if gone untreated could cause ovarian cancer and or infertility. Following the surgery it was vital that her cycle was normal. Unfortunately she like many other women does not a normal period. So she was prescribed birth control to regulate her period. (one of birth controls many uses). Unfortunately her insurance would not cover it, no exceptions. And she was stuck paying $80 a month. Seeing that she makes under $25,000 a year working for them it was basically impossible for her. Luckily her dr was kind enough to provide her samples for a few months. If this wasn’t the case she could have suffered complications and ultimately become infertile which would have been pretty ironic. I understand the catholic church is against all forms of birth control and I don’t ask them to change their stance but that doesn’t mean they have the right to deny their employees (often not catholic) basic health coverage.

    • Anonymous

      Cynthia,

      The issue is that the church should not be forced to pay for this.

      And the church does not oppose contraceptive use to regulate periods.

      The mandate also forces the church to pay for abortion drugs.

      Why does the government not start their own organization? Instead of forcing organizations start and run by religious groups to pay for something they are opposed too.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Why didn’t she go to Planned Parenthood? Isn’t it their job to provide low-cost contraception? (They must be too busy doing abortions…)

      The doctor could have found a different method of treatment. Sounds like he was just lazy. Too many OB/GYNs see the pill as a universal cure-all. NFP and/or NaPRO OB/GYNs don’t prescribe the pill at all and their patients manage to come through conditions like your sister’s just fine.

  • http://profiles.google.com/erinrlewis Erin Lewis

    excellent. thank you for writing this. there are many young Catholics today who make me feel much hope for the future.

  • http://twitter.com/angel3189 angel

    So why does the Peace Office at the Diocese of Joliet promote Obama and states that the solution to povery is condoms? Why does a diocesan employee (Sharon Houk) use diocesan phone lines to order her birth control pills? Bunch of hypocrits!!

    • Nonexistent

      Because one or two people in the church are wrong. Members of the church: mixed. Some are exemplary, some are not so good. Does that make the whole church hypocrites…? Not so much. In the united states, crime? yes! Absolutely, and it’s horrible. but the U.S. system of government? Great! Don’t base your opinions on one or two select people out of the whole church, please! Have a nice day.

  • Softballgrl2104

    AMEN!

  • s.

    Your facts about religious breakdown is incorrect. Please take a look at these trusted studies: http://freebooks.uvu.edu/SOC1010/index.php/ch15-religion.html

    Protestants are the largest number of Christians in the U.S. at 51% and Roman Catholics are only at 24%.
    Worldwide, there are more Muslims than Roman Catholics, but more Christians than Muslims.

    I suspect you will want to get some of your facts straight…

    Also, according to the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/index.html), 98% of Roman Catholic women use contraceptives. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-contraceptives-religion-idUSTRE73C7W020110413

    • Elaine

      Catholics ARE Christians.They are the largest denomination of Christianity in the US.

      • Anonymous

        The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the original church Christ started and all the other sects arose from it. The Catholic Church is the tree Christ planted. Other Christian groups are leaves and branches that have fallen from that original tree.

    • CaraAlSol

      You also forget the denominations inside Islam.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      Catholics, being Christians (the original) are included in that 51%. In fact, Catholicas are almost half of it. The other half is Protestant, which is not one denomination. No denomination is bigger than Catholicism. Evangelical comes close, and there are even denominations of Evangelical Protestants. Given that there are thousands of Protestant denominations, it’s not surprising that most of them are pretty small.

      And explain how the percentage of Catholic women using contraceptives is 18% higher than the general population. Give me a break. Every article I found except the two (and only) examples you linked places the figure between 71 and 78 (still shocking if true – come on Catholic girls! Crack a catechism once and awhile!) I respectfully suggest that Marc isn’t the one who needs to get his facts straight.

    • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

      haha… Catholic’s ARE 24%… and Christians ARE 51%… but Catholicism IS Christianity… so… there’s 26% left of that 51%, and it’s shared by countless denominations that broke off from true Christianity, but still call themselves Christians (I guess they do believe in Christ… they just don’t follow Christ completely…)

  • Its_all_about_perspective

    In the end, this argument is about whether you would fight for what you believe to be right or whether you let someone else dictate to you whether your beliefs are right or not. As I recall, Liberals and Democrats push for choice. It’s all about the “CHOICE” and having the right to choose. Yet I see this as a situation where they are saying there is no choice. You “HAVE” to do this. How many of the people in this thread would agree with the government if they turned around and said that it is now mandatory that every person in the United States that owns a gun turn it in to the government because it’s not fair to the people who don’t believe in violence?

  • Mimiwhistles

    Extremely well put!

  • a freemarket american

    Obama is DONE stick a fork in him and the LIEberal crap he peddles.

  • Redgirlhannah

    Freedom of religion can also mean freedom from religion. I do not see the government stepping in to take all the religious crap posted everywhere down soon. Don’t fight to get this taken out of the law, fight for a waiver so you don’t have to participate in this specific portion of the law.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      They tried to get a waiver. HHS set ridiculous criteria: you have to serve only your own religion (impossible and frankly horrible if a hospital or charity were to try such a thing, besides being completely un-Catholic), hire only your own religion (which is illegal except in very limited circumstances), or have fewer than 50 employees (not doable for large hospitals, schools, and relief organizations, plus, do we really want that kind of restriction with the unemployment numbers we are seeing?). The Church tried to be reasonable. The administration upped the ante. That was a stupid move.

  • Isn’t biology neat?

    Holy crap. Birth control pills are NOT abortion. The pill, which is what everybody’s making a fuss about, merely keeps a woman from ovulating. No fertilized egg, no baby. Just putting that out there.

    • J P

      Hmm, then why do the studies for the medication indicate that it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?

      • Obama isnt the issue

        LOL Is that what your church told you?? You should refrence these “studies” or maybe just stop pulling information out of your arse.

        • JoAnna Wahlund

          Take a look at the package insert included in bcp packages (for example, this one).

          “Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”

          So… according to you, that means that the FDA is a church… hmmm.

          • Isn’t biology neat?

            “Inhibition of ovulation.” Point made.

          • Isn’t biology neat?

            Not that that’s even the point I was trying to make. An abortion is a medical procedure in which a pregnancy, or an already fertilized and implanted egg, is terminated. You could get super nitpicky and literal with the definition, but that’s what it is. Birth control pills prevent ovulation, meaning there is no egg to fertilize, and the cervical mucus is too thick for sperm. Unless I read MY pills wrong. That’s all I’m trying to say here. No need to be rude. That’s what I hate about religious arguments, everyone assumes you’re trying to insult them. As an apparent murderess, I wish you all a good day.

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            The package insert that I posted proves you wrong. The reason that secondary mechanisms exist is in case the primary mechanisms fail.

            The FIRST mechanism of the bcp is to inhibit ovulation, yes. But it DOESN’T ALWAYS WORK, hence the fact that all birth control has a failure rate. The secondary mechanisms that are in place; specifically, the one that makes the uterine environment hostile, is the one that causes the death of a newly-conceived human being.

            What is difficult to understand about this? Do I need to define the terms “primary” and “secondary” for you?

          • Isn’t biology neat?

            Blastocysts slide all the time, even in cases of fertility treatment. The only difference is context. Let’s agree to disagree because this is an abortion debate and neither of us is going to change our minds. :P

          • Laura

            And people die all the time, that doesn’t mean it’s alright if go around shooting them

          • Isn’t biology neat?

            Christians are so cute when they act edumacated.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            wait.. so.. now you’re saying Christians aren’t educated?

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            If you refuse to change your mind in the face of scientific evidence proving you wrong, you may want to consider changing your handle.

            Are you aware that many non-religious folks disagree with your definition of when life begins? See http://secularprolife.org

          • SMC

            Try again, and actually read what was written this time.

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            Um. I can’t decide if you’re deliberately being obtuse or not bothering to read my replies. You need to read the SECOND sentence of the paragraph I posted, not just the first.

            Once again, as is stated in the package insert for birth control pills: Inhibition of ovulation is the PRIMARY mechanism of the Pill. It does not always work. If it does not, one of the secondary mechanisms in place is making the uterine environment hostile to the blastocyst so it cannot implant. This causes the death of the newly-conceived human being.

          • Penny Farthing1893

            I wasn’t being obtuse; I was only choosing to respond to your first point because the life-threatening aspects of pregnancy have been pretty much argued out on this comment thread. But if you want to know, saying that the pill is a necessary preventative measure to protect against the dangers of pregnancy is ridiculous, since you can’t generalize that any given pregnancy is going to be dangerous, especially with modern medicine, and ESPECIALLY since, as many people on this thread have said, life threatening pregnancies can ethically be terminated.

            And the causing the death of the newly-concieved human being is one of the Church’s objections. Thanks for pointing it out.

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            My comment was not addressed to you; it was addressed to “Isn’t biology neat.” I’m on your side!

          • Obama isn’t the issue

            Nope I didn’t say the FDA is a church…read carefully next time…

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Biology FAIL.

      Read the package insert from any birth control pill; for example, this one.

      “Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”

      Second sentence is key. The “other alterations” included in the event that the Pill fails to inhibit ovulation can cause a newly-conceived, living human being (i.e., a blastocyst) from implanting in the womb. That is, the newly-conceived human being is killed because the pill has rendered its natural environment inhospitable.

    • Jake E

      You’re acting like you’ve made some discovery but you’re missing the point, entirely. The pill is a contraceptive, this is known. This entire blog article is about contraceptives, not abortion.

  • Anonymous

    As a father of two children and a practicing Catholic, I do hope it is as simple as that, that being the writing of letters and signing of petitions to move the pretend president to change his ways. But alas, I am old enough, experienced enough and had enough of combat to know that this man is beyond exhortations. If by now that our citizens cannot see that, cannot understand that he and his ilk will take away our freedoms and will destroy our Republic then it just may already be too late. Just as it happened a little over two hundred years ago, a third of the population was awake & aware of the tyrant and willing to offer him trouble. Of course a third of the population was unaware and for the most part unwilling to be aware. Then there was the last third, the dispicable among the lot, the enemy. It may offend some, particularly those who have never known war but we are surely at war. And you all had better not take that lightly for that last third have plans for you.

    • Penny Farthing1893

      What I’m sort of hoping for is that this will wake people up, hopefully growing our ranks to more than a third. Who cares if the administration doesn’t listen. It just makes them look worse. It’s kind of like what just happened to Gov. Jan Brewer out here in Arizona. A couple months back she came to do a signing for her book at the store where I work. About thirty people came. Then the president snubbed her about it, whining about his portrayal when she met him when his plane landed in Phoenix. Now we can’t even order the book for weeks because it’s a national best seller and the warehouses are cleared out. Just keep on overreaching, folks on the far left. It’s not winning any friends. All we have to do is keep working and praying, and never go back to sleep.

  • Grant

    As a former practicing Catholic, I rolled my eyes at the beginning of this. By the end, though, you really do make your point. It is a bit heavy-handed at the beginning. After all, the President hardly holds the level of power you contend (that would belong, rather, to the dolts in Congress). Regardless, you argue your point well. Consider me convinced.

  • Dylan

    Girls don’t have to use the contraceptives offered in schools. Your argument is childish.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      READ THE POST BEFORE COMMENTING.

      “Not only can women get contraception elsewhere, but there exists utterly no “right to contraception.” And why would there be? I know our world is idiotic and sexist to the point of the embarrassing belief that women cannot prevent pregnancy without pills, but as it turns out, they can. In fact, if you’re a woman reading this, chances are you’re preventing pregnancy right now. (If not, rethink your sex life.) Thus a health-care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not damn women to pregnancy — oh, the horror — any more than not providing diet-pills would damn them to obesity.”

  • JanK

    Once everyone is in an uproar over this, Obama will allow Catholic institutions to forego providing insurance to their employees as the only way around providing contraception. The Church will see it as the only choice and will drop the insurance and then thousands of uninsured will flock to the government health insurance as their only option. Then try repealing Obamacare.

  • Ex1266

    Hi Marc. I find this a very interesting article. As a women who has previously worked for a Catholic institution, I was aggravated by the lack of coverage for contraception. However, I was also making enough money to easily afford it myself. Here is something you might want to think about in the future…

    The Catholic institution for which I worked refused to cover birth control, but also did not provide any viable option for childcare. (They did have childcare, but the child had to be at least 4…and it was not guaranteed, as there was limited space). So as a young female professor, had a I gotten pregnant (and I didn’t) I would have to forfeit almost my entire salary to pay for child care in order to continue my career.

    Of course this begs the question that I should have been in a married relationship where two of us could provide…but what if it was an unplanned pregnancy, and that was not possible? And of course, as a Catholic, I would not have opted for abortion, so I would have had the child, but then have had no reasonable way to provide for him/her with care while I was trying my best to provide for him/her financially?

    I suppose my question becomes this: in order to protect women and children, should the government require EITHER contraception OR reasonably priced childcare from Catholic institutions? This would seem not to force Catholic institutions into anything against their beliefs, but also protects women from finding themselves in a close to impossible situation.

    Thanks for your insight.

    • The Inquisitor

      I can’t comment on your suggestion as good policy, but I don’t think there’s any moral objection to such an offer. DJ Dionne, a progressive opinion columnist and (liberal) Catholic, had a piece in the Washington Post yesterday that expressed disapointment with the Adminsitration’s decision on this issue. He said there was a compromise suggested to the Administration that was vaguely similar to your idea but the Administration chose to fight this head-on instead.

      In my humble opinion, the Administration thought they could win this politically because most Catholics use contraceptives and, therefore, would not support the Bishops. But the Administration missed the larger issue here. This is not only about contraception; it involves the non-accommodation of religion generally. And that invokes a vastly larger political constituency than if contraception were an issue all by itself.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Why not use NFP to postpone a pregnancy instead? Spacing one’s family isn’t inherently immoral, one just can’t use immoral means to achieve what is a neutral end.

      Also, you may have had other options for childcare. My husband and I both work full-time and we have four children; three go to a private home daycare, a much cheaper option than a center (my oldest goes to public school, and the daycare watches her before/after school free of charge as a sibling discount).

      But I agree that Catholic institutions should strive to have viable childcare options for their employees, when possible.

    • Sarah

      As a young unmarried Catholic, I ended up pregnant. I was 22 (23 when my son was born). When I found out, as I saw it I had really one choice… But first I needed to tell the father who lived 2000 miles away before I could make my final decision.

      My one choice was the “A” word. ADOPTION.

      I knew I couldn’t afford to keep the baby, I was working full time in a retail job. I hadn’t graduated college yet, but was taking time off to reconsider my degree (yep, in the middle of my senior year no less).

      I am so blessed to be able to say that when I called the father, he oh so romantically asked me to marry him over the phone. ;-) We were married within 8 weeks, before I hit my 2nd trimester and I moved to live with my new husband.

      We made the decision to have me stay home with our children. I eventually went back to school, finished my degree when my son was 3, and went back to work. But when I found myself pregnant with my daughter, and was again working in an entry level position, we again decided it was best to stay home with the children rather than pay most of my income in childcare to let someone else raise them.

      Most of the time, women who are single and pregnant, made a conscious and willing decision that lead to the pregnancy. If you have sex, you need to be willing to deal with the consequences… even if it does mean the horrid A word… ADOPTION.

      So, no, I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the Catholic organization to provide childcare just because they don’t provide contraception.

      • Gpacharlie

        Sarah,
        May you and your husband be blessed with many children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, and may you be held in high esteem as the Matriarch of this great clan that you chose over the promises of riches and fame that the evil one dangles in front of us like some jewel. Congratulations on your growing family, and through the tough times ” may God hold you and yours in the palm of His hand.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

      Here’s the issue though… (keep in mind, I’m not trying to reprimand or lecture…) The church also speaks out against pre-marital sex… and divorce… and they make many exceptions for the widowed…
      We Catholics believe that these things are wrong, and we will not be forced to support them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000284965705 Megan Hill

    I am 30 years old. My husband and I have two children who are both special needs. Aside from the fact that another pregnancy would either kill me, or disable me so badly that I would be unable to care for the children I do have, we do not have the resources or time it would take to care for another special needs child. The chances of having another special needs child are higher than fifty percent. My husband and I opted to have surgery to not have any more children. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to do so. We are married and committed and deserve to have intimacy and sex in our marriage, the same as other couples do.

    On another note, I was diagnosed with a seizure disorder among other things, and it was discovered that my PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) was increasing the severity and frequency of my seizures. So, while I already can’t have children because of my tubal ligation, and my husband’s vasectomy (we wanted to be sure since their is a failure rate for both surgeries), I still have to take birth control pills for my health and safety.

    I read a lot about taxes and money in these posts. The care for my two living children is already into the millions. Could you afford for me to have more? Without insurance, my oldest son would be dead.

    While I respect your views on pro life issues, please understand that there are circumstances that merit medical care and decisions made by a doctor, not by the church. I would be devastated if our insurance didn’t cover what is a lifesaving medication for me. Because of this care, I am better able to care for the family that I do have. The medication I must take is more expensive than most typical birth control, and with the needs of our family, I couldn’t afford to buy it.

    • Anonymous

      Megan,

      Have you looked into Naprotechnology to treat the issues you have?

      http://www.wf-f.org/06-2-NaProTECHNOLOGY.html

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000284965705 Megan Hill

        That wouldn’t work in my case, but thank you for the information.

        • Anonymous

          Catholic organizations offer health care options that this mandate does not cover.

          So instead of being “single issue” focused as some have put it here why not include social and financial support for those women who do experience an unwanted pregnancy and choose not to terminate, including improved access to pre- and post-natal care, streamlined adoption processes, financial assistance for family-friendly housing, and better childcare options.

          Feminists for Life has been a leader in this area, attending especially to how college campuses can find ways to meet the needs of their students who experience an unplanned pregnancy so that they do not feel the need to terminate.

          Catholic Charities and other religiously-affiliated social services agencies also do laudable work helping women choose adoption over abortion, including for babies who have special needs.

          Whatever you think of the HHS mandate, what it is not is a “huge victory for women’s health” unless you narrowly restrict “health” to mean “not having a pregnancy you didn’t want.”

  • Meggie Gallina

    I’m a Catholic, and I agree with a lot of what you said. But I do have to take contraception for a health reason. I’m not having sex (and I’ve never had sex), and if I don’t take contraception, I have to stay home from work 2 weeks out of every 6 weeks because of the intense side effects that come along with my menstrual cycle. On contraception, I have a cycle every 28 days, and never have to miss a day of work because of illness related to it.

    Beyond the hyperbole, which I give a pass to because you’re clearly passionate about this issue, I see nothing much wrong with what you wrote. Except that you believe contraception is never medically necessary. If you would like to have your argument be more effective, you should remove that statement, or at least modify it to discuss how it’s rarely medically necessary, and that there are a few other options for many of the things it can help with.

    In addition, it makes me angry that in discussions like this, we discuss contraception, especially in regards to giving women “responsibility-free pleasure,” but we never discuss Viagra or its alternatives. Viagra is never medically necessary, and I would be much more willing to accept your argument whole-heartedly if you would just mention that. I just want you to know that from the outside (even to a young Catholic woman), there’s a hint of “let me tell you ladies what you are allowed and not allowed to do with your bodies.” Abortion is a horrible tragedy, but I would do all you can to avoid sending that subconscious message in the future.

    • Randi

      Thank you for bringing up this very important point. I too, thought the article was passionate and that some of that passion made me as a woman feel “talked down too”. I am certain that the male medications you are referencing are already paid for by these insurance plans and the church should have a problem with them as well.

      • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

        The male medications do not affect fertility… The Catholic Church teaches that sex is for exactly 2 reasons: Bonding and Reproduction, and purposely denying either of those is a sin. Many say “NFP is taking out reproduction”… but it’s not… it does not permanently do anything, obviously… there is a big difference with the church’s view of male medications and female.

    • SDG

      Meggie Gallina: A clarification: From what you say, you are not taking contraception. You are on a therapeutic hormone regimen that, in principle, would have contraceptive side effects if you were sexually active. In principle, even a conscientiously Catholic health insurance plan ought to cover the treatment you describe.

      • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

        It’s true

      • Lauren

        So what happens when Meggie Gallina gets married and begins to have permissible sexual relations? Her hormonal imbalances aren’t going to go away, and neither is the “contraceptive side effect”.

        • JoAnna Wahlund

          Google “principle of double effect.”

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Maggie, have you ever talked to a NaPro doctor or NFP-only doctor? The pill is treating your symptoms, but not the underlying cause, and your future fertility could potentially be damaged as a result. I’d get a second opinion from a faithful Catholic doctor, if I were you. You can see if there is one in your area by going to http://www.omsoul.com.

      Another good resource is Marilyn Shannon’s “Fertility, Cycles, and Nutrition,” in which she details how changes in diet and vitamin supplements can often help symptoms such as you describe.

      Also, while it’s true that Viagra is never medically necessary (in that it does not save lives), it is used as a treatment for impotence. It can be taken licitly by a Catholic man who uses it for the sole purpose of treating impotency so that he can have relations with his spouse. It should not be used as a facilitator for lust, either in or especially outside of marriage.

      • Natalia_224

        A young woman taking birth control pills has a decreased risk of uterine and ovarian cancer as it is work for her body to ovulate monthly. Pills may also help preserve fertility by decreasing ovarian cysts, endometriosis and pelvic infections. Age is the biggest factor in infertility at this time as we have been able to reduce the previous mentioned problems with pills.

    • Phil

      Does Viagra cause temporary sterilization?

    • Chip Hopr

      “I just want you to know that from the outside (even to a young Catholic woman), there’s a hint of “let me tell you ladies what you are allowed and not allowed to do with your bodies.” Abortion is a horrible tragedy, but I would do all you can to avoid sending that subconscious message in the future.”

      I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying by this (maybe that he [or the Catholic church?] is being condescending?), but I will point out that yes, the faith and its teachers do consciously and blatantly tell us, male and female, what to do and not do with our bodies. It’s part of their job. It really shouldn’t surprise or irk any of us (Catholics).

      “In addition, it makes me angry that in discussions like this, we discuss contraception, especially in regards to giving women “responsibility-free pleasure,” but we never discuss Viagra or its alternatives.”

      I don’t know about anyone else, but I think we always talk about both women and men when we talk about the “responsibility-free pleasure” aspect of contraception. And what does Viagra have to do with anything? I’m genuinely curious. I’m admittedly ignorant on it, but is it used as contraception too?

    • Dave

      Your argument about Viagra doesn’t really hold much water. It is used to treat a medical condition. While it is debateable whether or not it is medically necessary, it does not prevent or block pregnancy such as “the pill” does. I do see your point that contraceptive medications are often used to treat actual medical conditions as well.

    • LEM

      Meggie,

      You should try NaPro. I’ve been there before. This works really well, and it won’t harm your body in the future.

      P.S. I went to Guerin, too. ;)

  • http://www.feminismthecatholicfword.blogspot.com/ Christine Dalessio

    Excellently written. Please consider that you may have a vocation for politics. (http://www.zenit.org/article-32110?l=english) Thank you for making an argument that can actually put religion on the sidelines for the sake of the argument – because maybe, just maybe, it will be able to sink in to the minds of rational people, regardless of creed or non-creed, that we are in jeopardy of losing the very freedom upon which our country was founded. Thank you!

  • Walt J

    “Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.”

    This it actually the goal of the administration. Shut down those medical providers and everyone then become clients of the ‘one size fits all’ government healthcare system. Private healthcare, wether ‘for-profit’ or ‘non-profit’ must be eliminated so that those in the population that are resisting Nationalized Healthcare will no longer have any other option.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Riser/1331732496 Dan Riser

    Marc, you should ask him to resign. He may pull back on this but the killing fields of abortion will continue. Folks many of you voted for him. Its too late now. He is a politician and might throw you a bone to get your vote. The only way to end betrayals like this is to vote him out. Those politicians that claim to be Catholics and vote against church teachings should be sent packing starting with obama and pelosi. If one believes in Christ, how can you separate yourself when you walk into a voting booth. How can your conscience let you sleep knowing what obama brought to the table. Remember who the father of lies is and the lies that you are being fed come from him.

  • Todd82473

    You state “To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin.” I don’t agree. The woman choosing to use and then using birth control is committing the sin. Supplying the means for the woman to sin is not a sin.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000079726537 Michael Denz

      It would seem that the Catechism of the Catholic Church disagrees with you on this:

      1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
      - by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
      - by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
      - by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
      - by protecting evil-doers.

      The following paragraph could be applied to contraception as well as recreational drugs:

      2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

      • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

        KABOOM… more people comenting negatively on this need to read this…

  • Feeneyja

    Thank you Thank you Thank you!!! For being a voice in all of the noise. I am greatly saddened by all of the Catholics who are ralleying for the Obama administration on this.

  • JKem

    As a bad Catholic married over 20 years to a bad Baptist, we enjoying a growing relationship with our Lord. I agree with all that you have written. When I was younger the doctor prescribed the pill to help with my intense problematic menstrual cycle, no sex life, just a pill to fix the pain. I must tell you, from a woman’s perspective (very in-tune with her body), taking the pill, does more to the human body than the current science knows. Never will I allow a doctor to ruse my daughter in this way, and I am appalled that deceit regarding the pill continues. And contraception, don’t make me laugh!
    The miss representation of ‘protection’ is silly. Protection from what? disease, infection, conception, STD? Guff-HA! Our schools, instead of education resort to doling out a magic do-it-all pill and rubbers=FAIL
    Perfect protection is immaculate abstinence, and excellent education as to the why.

  • Steve

    Single issue voting will be the end of civilization. Keep voting based solely on abortion and birth control and ignore poverty and the oppression of the middle and lower class.

    • Chuck

      those who vote for pro-life candidates over pro-abortion candidates are NOT necessarily single issue voters, although that may be the deciding issue. also, your claim about “the poverty and oppression of the middle and lower class”, the government does more to oppress them by paying them to do nothing than any fat cat big buisiness owner could ever do, short of slavery, which is not what is happening, unless I am totally misinformed. finally, what will end this civilization is the end of respect for life at all stages, or a loss in WWIII, and it appears that the former will happen within the decade if this unconstitutional law remains in any form.

    • Phil

      The middle and lower classes are oppressed and poor because they’re not birthing taxpayers.

      • Phil

        Correction: *enough taxpayers

    • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

      OK… if there was one candidate who said killing certain people… like… blonds… or irishmen… should be legal… would that be “just one issue” that people shouldn’t vote on solely?
      Abortion isn’t just one of your precious issues… It’s fundamentally wrong. It’s the allowance for people to make sure much of our future generations won’t get to live…
      It’s not an issue… It’s people saying “it’s not killing if they haven’t gotten a chance to live yet”… that’s not a political issue anymore than any other form of murder being legalized. If there is a pro-death candidate, I will NOT vote for him.
      If there’s a candidate who I agree with on everything but.. let’s say the issue on foreign oil… I very well may… THAT.. is ONE issue.

      legalizing murder… is more than an issue.. it’s a problem.

      • Anonymous

        So you won’t be voting for any pro death penalty candidates?

        • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

          The death penalty and abortion are 2 completely different things! how could you even compare the 2?!
          It’s always been illegal for a random citizen to kill anyone who has committed an offense punishable by death (In America), the criminal has ALWAYS had to be executed by the law.
          Abortion is killing someone who has done NOTHING wrong. and happens at the hands of random citizens.
          If there was a president who said, “Anyone can kill anyone they believe should receive the death penalty for their actions.” I don’t think there would be that many people voting for that person.

          The death penalty is NOT murder… I’m not necessarily pro-death penalty… but I understand it.
          I don’t understand WHY or HOW anyone would think abortion is right…

          • Anonymous

            In all my years sitting in Catholic churches, I’ve never heard anything but “you cannot be pro-life and support the death penalty!” DNA evidence has indeed exonerated death row inmates, for one. I thought forgiveness was a thing in the church? Punishment with a chance to turn one’s life around? No? That wasn’t a Jesus thing? Maybe I’m getting my religions mixed up, sounds sort of like a Buddhist thing.

          • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

            Maybe you missed the part where I said “I’m not necessarily pro-death penalty”

        • Gpacharlie

          How many innocents have been killed by abortion. How many innocents have been executed by the death penalty.

  • Emily

    LOVE this blog! Thank you for posting!!!

  • Anp1215

    The whitehouse.gov site won’t let me sign the petition even though I’m signed into my account =(

    • SMC

      Keep trying. It did this to me too, but after about try number 14, it finally let me.

  • Anonymous

    The same old arguments on birth control and abortion are forgetting the fact that is is an issue that concerns religious freedom.

    Obama has decided that since Catholic organizations serve non-Catholics they cannot be considered religious.

    It’s because they are Catholic that they started these organizations in the first place.

    If everybody else is so concerned about preventing pregnancies, why not start your own organizations, instead of forcing organizations started by other people to pay for contraception and abortion drugs.

  • Birchbow

    If you want to talk about contraception then say that – it is against our Catholic faith. Don’t wrap it in a long introduction of un-factual information about President Obama. Uneducated people like you use single issue politics to lead good people astray to very bad decisions to support unethical, immoral politicians. President Obama is the best thing to happen to America in a very long time. Pay attention!!

    • Anonymous

      This is about religious freedom that your Messiah Obama, is denying to Catholics and Catholic organizations.

    • Gpacharlie

      Hey Birchbow,
      Are you serious? This guy is clever and crafty, no doubt, but he is far from the best thing to happen to America in a very long time. What are his beliefs, and his policies. This is a guy who got a dog so that there would be a dog in the whitehouse during his presidency; it was obvious. This is a guy who when asjed what would he do if one of his daughtwrs came up pregnant said he would be glad that abortion was safe and legal so they wouldn ‘t have to pay the rest of their lives for a mistake.

      I wish he had said, well Micchelle and I have enough money already to retire in comfort and live off the proceeds so we would have plenty of time to help our daughter through nine months of pregnancy. If she chose to give up my grandchild for adoption to a loving couple I would be sad but I would support her, as for the possibility of stretchmarks, ? heh heh….Obama laugh line and applause……

      Then I might have voted for the young guy instead of the war hero who spent years in the Hanoi Hilton and stayed when given a political chance to get set free, and who served and is still serving with honor and integrity in the senate.
      BUT NO. WE DIDN ‘T VOTE FOR HIM! As one of my VERY Catholic friends said before voting for Obama, ” aren’t you for change?”

      • dontgiveafuck

        you are a fucking idiot
        he said that about his daughters because he wants them to be able to enjoy their teenage years without the stress a baby brings along. even with adoption.
        so before you sit there and say he ISNT one of the best things that has happened to America in many years is a joke. Bush fucked this country up, and before him the best thing to happen to this country was Clinton. And they fucked him over. I dont care that he got caught getting head from an intern, he also changed this country for the better than Bushs’ idiot self came and fucked it up. No matter who becomes president next will have a horrible time STILL fixing what Bush did
        so get your head outta yout ass and think about the good Obama actually did or are you too stupid to read up on that and one of those people who only looks for the BAD in a person?
        and that one VERY catholic friends probably touches little boys, so what out for your children.

        • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

          name one good thing Obama did for this country… and name one way Bush fucked it up…

    • LEM

      Care to explain how?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_N6TI2AG5QIDWHJVJPNFEGR6RKI Jack

    Bad Cat:

    “The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats.”

    Say huh what? The Catholic Church is already obying this mandate in numerous states like Wisconsin and … wait for it …. wait for it ….

    Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s own New York.

    • Phil

      I can’t belive I actually waited for you to inform everyone that there are people who claim to follow the teachings of the Church but don’t actually follow them. I belive Sebelius falls into that category. I hope her excommunication will be lifted during my lifetime.

    • Mary H

      The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (NY, CA, OR).

      And even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the 28 state contraceptive mandates by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law.

      The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.

  • Caroline

    Thanks, Marc, for the links. I signed both petitions.

  • dontgiveadamn

    says the same people whos’ priest molest little boys constantly….
    you are all going to hell, so enjoy fucking now, cuz there you will be getting RAPED

  • Bobj9092

    A: Some religious institutions already offer contraceptives through their insurance plans.
    B: There is no separation of church and state issue here. You’ve focused only on the parts that fit your argument. “Congress shall make…” Congress didn’t do anything here; the President did. Further, you need to read some constitutional law cases to really understand how that clause is applied. How is the President prohibiting the free exercise of your religion? Can you not go to church now? If you go to one of these schools/hospitals that are effected by this, are you not allowed to pray? Are you forced to walk around with a condom on?
    C: The President isn’t mandating that people use contraceptives. Just that it should be offered by religious hospitals, colleges, etc., through their insurance plans.

    Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    • Anna

      As to (b): That’s an argument I haven’t heard before! But actually, Congress DID do something. The administrative agency in question is an instrument of Congress when it makes these sorts of rulings. Congress grants HHS the general power to make binding administrative rules which are then promulgated through the Federal Register (versus the US Code as when Congress makes statutes). Executive administrative agencies cannot act authoritatively without Congress authorizing it (c.f. Chevron v. NRDC for a general explanation of basic admin law). So yeah, the 1st Amendment applies to HHS, too. Creative, but no attorney on earth would agree with you there (and I am one)!

  • Mwaszak

    I hope you all realize that you’re being childish and immature. The government isn’t prohibiting the practice of Catholicism by requiring contraceptives in health insurance plans. If anything the Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself, promoting free will but attempting to make abortion illegal. Last I checked free will meant the freedom to make your own choices, not have a bunch of zealots saying you’ll go to Hell if you believe this or don’t believe what we believe.

    As a former Catholic, for 20 years of my life I agreed with much of what you say, and still do on a personal level, but I cannot from an integrity stand point say that you should look at what the Church does get exempted from. For example, anti-discrimination laws would assume that the Church must employ women as priests if they wanted to be one, but they don’t have to because for whatever unknown reason they believe that women can’t (but that’s a different argument)

    Finally, the main point I want to make is that you realize that the contraceptives you’re “paying for” cost you a few dollars at most? If you’re that stingy with your money then I feel sorry for you because you’re being a typical hypocrite preaching about helping those in need then acting completely differently. These plans are for people who can’t afford the costs otherwise, a.k.a. charity. Can’t you grow up, get your head out of your butt, and just be a decent human being for a while?

    • Mwaszak

      Correction “…say that. You should…”

    • http://www.facebook.com/AWall.the.beast Andrew AWall Wallace

      The fact is that the Catholic church prohibits the use of contraceptives. If this were ANY other Religion, with ANY other issue… nobody would be arguing the fact that it’s wrong. The government canNOT force anything on a religion that goes against that religion’s belief… if we allow this… they could then get into any aspect of any religion to change it.

      It’s not even an issue of Catholicism being right or wrong, it’s an issue of not allowing a religion to support what it believes, and not support what it opposes.

  • A Catholic who isn’t an idiot

    You are an idiot.

  • Adani345

    Agreed. This probably shouldn’t be passed. Now Catholics….where exactly were you when the rights of homosexuals were trampled upon time and TIME again over the right to marry? Wouldn’t that be considered “freedom from Religion”?? Christians are some of the most UNKIND individuals I have met, and hypocrisy like this is a great example of that.

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the right to marry one unencumbered, consenting adult of the opposite sex. In other words, equal, but limited, rights.

      If marriage rights were unlimited, then siblings could marry each other, pedophiles could marry victims, etc.

      • Adani345

        Really? In how many states exactly…last I checked there were only 8 that allowed homosexuals to marry. Besides the point is that Catholics are freaking out that their rights are being trampled upon, but have no issue with doing the same to others. It’s convenient to quote the Constitution when it works for you huh?

        • Annony11

          In all 50 states… if you notice, JoAnna wrote “Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the right to marry one unencumbered, consenting adult of the OPPOSITE SEX” (emphasis mine). Homosexuals have the right, in every state, to get married. But, just like heterosexuals, they can only marry members of the opposite sex.

        • Kim

          The Mormom fundamentalists have a good point that if you want to start arguing about who should be able to marry whom, they should be able to marry multiple wifes. If man and woman isn’t important, why is monogamy?

          For that matter, why shouldn’t sons be able to marry their mothers? Or fathers their daughters? Or brothers and sisters? Or any other combination imaginable?

      • Anonymous

        Well aren’t you clever!! We all have equal rights indeed! Gold star for you!

        I don’t think I’ve ever read more purposely obtuse reasoning to deny people rights in the history of rights-deniers. This, of course, explains a lot.

  • Jessica_k_wasson

    some women are prescribed contraception because they have a hormonal imbalance and need them to start their period. seems like the church is enforcing that non catholic people be denied a medication which is directly related to their heath. this is direct infringement of individual rights.

    • Kim

      Most of the time women are prescribed the pill because the doctor doesn’t care to prescribe anything else (ease is the most common reason). Alternatives exist. In fact, a whole medical organization (Pope Paul VI Institute) corrects a host of problems women face without resorting to the pill. Medically speaking, the pill usually doesn’t correct anything permanently; if you go off the pill, the situation remains. Healthcare can and should do better than that. I would hope that if you had chronic headaches, doctors would want to figure out what was wrong and how to fix it, not just tell you to pop a couple of ibuprofen whenever they happen.

      That aside, Catholics object to contraceptives, not to medicine. I believe that if the doctor prescribes it, it is available to you via copay (like any other medicine to treat a condition).

      • SMC

        You forgot to mention that these other methods for treating hormonal problems have WAY less health risks (high blood pressure, heart disease, stoke, headaches, breast cancer, etc.) associated with them and are therefore better for the woman’s health. I used to have ovarian cysts and endometriosis, but I no longer do thanks to methods other than birth control. Plus, I’m currently on no medication, whereas, with the pill, I would have had to stay on it to prevent everything from coming back. NFP doctors are the best.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=19910071 Matthew Braun

    A genuine, well thought out argument. I’m a new reader of yours and I must say I’m getting hooked. Keep up the good work and the good fight, brother.

  • Hello

    Reynolds v. United States

    Look it up on Wikipedia.

  • Briggie C.

    How about we do more than just sign petitions? Do that… but do more!
    Email, snail mail, heck– why not call your senators, representatives, and the Obama administration itself?? Go for it, whether you be Catholics or others who are concerned about 1st amendment freedoms being whittled away.

    Here’s a government link to info on how to write, call or email Mr. Obama:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call#write

    Here’s a government link on how to contact your senators:
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
    (side note- Search by state and you will get a list of who you can contact. For emailing them, you often have to fill out a form on their webpage, which is usually found in a “contact me” or similar pull-down tab or button, etc… Disregard this side note if you want to call or snail mail them!)

    Here’s a government link on how to contact your representatives:
    https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
    (See the senators side note. Same story.)

    Take action! We can’t just sit, watch and sign our names here and there. Nothing wrong with signing names, but go further– Do more. As an individual, tell them that you’re upset with this, tell them why, and ask them to do everything in their power to reverse this when the opportunity arises.

    God bless!

  • Dayvidday

    Hey, keep the posts coming buddy! You’re one of the best Catholic writers I have come accross!

  • Inés de Erausquin

    BRAVO, BRAVISSIMO. I wish everyone our age could be this articulate and brilliant. Keep up the awesomeness.

  • blahblahblah

    Annnnd this is why I left the Catholic Church. You “don’t even like capitalism”? Literally LOL-ed at that bit, as if that should make us take what you say seriously. Still not quite sure as to how a woman deciding to take birth control effects your little life, but sure.

  • http://empathological.wordpress.com/ empathologicalism

    This is pure logical discourse. In a sea of emoto-speak, this is refreshing.

  • MEY8014

    Take a class in English and civics. Indeed, tyranny abounds when you have the luxury to wag the uninformed and unrestricted finger of internet justice without it being lopped off..

  • MEY8014

    Ah censoring commentary that is contradictory to your opinion. Does that not defeat the foundation of your own argument?

    • Marc

      what?

  • Elizabethfoss Reallearning

    “I own a Macbook” and “I don’t even like Capitalism.” Hmm…now why don’t those 2 phrases fit in the same blog entry? Maybe because capitalism is what brought you the Macbook? Oh, so you enjoy the benefits of capitalism, but discard the ideology?

    The rest of the blog post may have demonstrated your ability to think logically, but I didn’t read any further…just didn’t seem worth the effort.

    Could those of you who “don’t like capitalism” just go and find some Communist country to live in? And let us know how you like it?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KDQFQTMD56CJAKMLXRFYUDNCPQ Montague

    Good Lord, I just overheard the TV about this and guess what media stupidity. Yeah. Apparently a “non-practicing” (ie not) Catholic and some pro-choice person speaking for the “health of families” etc, is the comprehensive authority. Oh, and all those fundamentalist Catholic Bishops who we won’t even interview.

    So mad at you Media. NOT AMUSED.

  • Ben

    Because unless every student at your school is actually Catholic, then to not provide them contraceptives would be an act of tyranny by the school itself. So it’s a catch 22. Neither side will ever be right.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      You checked your logic at the door. A school =/= the government. The government is disallowed by law from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. “Not providing contraceptives” isn’t a violation of rights unless you can prove that everyone has the right to contraceptives.

  • Ben

    http://religions.pewforum.org/reports <this one says Protestants are the largest percentage of US religious groups.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States <this one too. Those are the ones I could find with the simple search "religion in America"

    • Ben

      Clearly I did something with the text that I didn’t intend to do. It should say that these both stated Protestants as the largest portion of Christians in America when searching for “religion in America”

      • SMC

        Yes, but Protestantism covers many different forms of Christianity (Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.). If you look at it that way, Catholicism is the largest.

  • Ben

    Also, that’s all fine and dandy, let’s say your school and all other Catholic establishments refuse to follow this order. In return, I’d like to ask you to stop lobbying for the removal of funding for places like Planned Parenthood and for the protesting of abortions, as well as any other requests for government intervention to suit your religious beliefs. Separation of Church and State, right?

  • Sam

    Marc your blog is well presented but it does not consider the rights of workers. Please make sure to be clear that we are talking not about a church or ever a parish but Schools and Hospitals that employee more than just Catholics and this law is about access to health care. You talk about Tyrants, but what about an employer who then tell you what type of health care coverage you can have. As someone only 18 I am not sure how many jobs you have had with healthcare but only Tyrant is this equation are the Catholic Church. I would also ask your Bishop to Please do something about the little boys that have been raped and we see the Church do everything in the world to hide that.

  • Grey

    Please try to understand that contraception is not just used for the prevention of pregnancy. Some women suffer from real medical conditions that impair their ability to function as normal citizens unless their hormones are strictly regulated. Contraception is not just about sex. For some women contraception is necessary to hold a bearable quality of life. Please don’t discriminate against these women. What is the difference between withholding the opportunity to live from a person and withholding the opportunity to live -well- from a person?

    • Mary H

      Well, that’s the problem with naming a medicine by its purpose instead of by its action. There’s nothing inherently wrong with hormone therapy when it’s used to treat an actual illness, just as there’s nothing wrong with opiates when they’re used appropriately.

      So no, there’s no problem with prescribing “contraceptive”, ie hormone therapy pills for non-contraceptive purposes; ie, for treating actual diseases. I do agree with Marc, though, that hormone therapy seems to be used as a “quick band-aid” that can fail to get at the underlying cause. And that NFP can help identify the underlying cause. Of course, that doesn’t mean hormone therapy is never needed – it’s probably just over-prescribed.

      We do this all the time, by the way. Medicaid will cover a drug if used for one purpose, but not if used for another. You just have to write the insurance coverage that way.

      Based on things that other people have said, it looks like insurance coverage isn’t currently written that way, so that looks like a big problem. Church organizations should try to fix that.

  • http://www.namelessministries.com/ Starbuck

    @dante That same article says that the Church herself led much of the anti-slavery movement over the years. The decisions of a few are not representative of the whole. The Church is a perfect vessel filled with imperfection and if the Church only accepted the perfect and unblemished…no one would be allowed in. Thank God for His mercy. If you look at early Church teaching it’s clear through modern eyes that slavery is against God’s plan for humankind. Through the eyes of early scholars, in a world where slavery was the norm, it was less clear. So, what I’m getting at is that God’s Word hasn’t changed…we’ve just gained a deeper understanding of it as humankind has matured.

  • Itisashlie

    “In fact, it would be best for all of us — Catholics included — to think of this particular Catholic teaching as silly, overbearing, and unfit for the modern mind to contain.” The teaching about contraception being immoral? I know from your other posts that you believe in Church teaching…so I think I lose your argument a bit in this sentence.

    Anyways, great post. I’ll pass it on. And I particularly like your post on the 10 Things That Suck About the Pill. Ha! It was great, and I laughed out loud at some of it.

  • Marfa

    I thank you for your seriousness and sense of humor…hopefully Mr President will really take the time to read your letter! It’s worth it. And for a good cause…..freedom!!!

  • Kml

    ::slow, non-ironic clap::

  • Vis

    If every Catholic who hasn’t used birth control gets mad, Obama may lose a couple hundred votes.

  • Wilson

    I like how the Pope and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had a meeting last month and talked about the “grave threat” of this program but there is/was no grave threat of child rape.

    Yeah, that’s cool.

    -Wilson, NYC

  • Stephanie Pier24

    You have completely ignored the fact that thousands of women take oral contraceptives for reasons other than contraception. What about women who take them to prevent ovarian cysts or to have lighter, less painful periods? Many of women who take contraceptives are not even sexually active.

    • http://indefinitecrisis.wordpress.com/ Michael H

      Marc quotes Humanae Vitae in this post, and I borrow from that fine papist document:

      The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

      My girlfriend takes the Pill. It’s pragmatically useless for us as a couple for reasons I hope are obvious, but she suffers from bipolar disorder and the hormones join a small drug regimen to help normalize her moods, contributing to the treatment of her disease.

      Signed,
      A Protestant Who Isn’t Even Entirely Opposed to Contraception But Thinks The RCC Is WAY WAY WAY Closer to Having It Right Than Our Culture

  • AUEagle

    Very well written letter!

  • Matt Aujero

    I appreciated this post. I advertised it among my friends and on my blog here:

    http://catholicfriedrice.blogspot.com/2012/02/because-i-couldnt-not-do-nothing-about.html

  • A Catholic Woman

    My “open letter to President Obama”:

    Dear President Obama,

    I am writing to you—as an idealistic nineteen year old Catholic woman—to ask that you not grant any further exemption from the HHS mandate on contraception. Very simply, no public institution, even if it is religiously affiliated, has the right to deny necessary healthcare to anybody it insures.

    Sincerely,
    A Catholic University of America Student
    Age 19

    • Anonymous

      here’s my open letter to him:

      dear Mr. Obama,

      I am writing to you- as a college student who was Catholic educated for 11 years- to please allow the Catholic Church to have free of religion, free speech, and freedom of assembly, a person is not forced to work for a Catholic institution and should agree to the terms and conditions of their work place, if not they can quit and go elsewhere. All 180 of the bishops have spoken out against your “compromise” and they are not as stupid as you think they are. Please read the Constitution before you decide to take a shit on it.

      Sincerely,

      A girl from a very secular college (Clarion University of Pennsylvania) Age 19

  • http://twitter.com/AmericanPapist Thomas Peters

    I added this comment just to make sure there were 667 comments. :)

  • Ahmedi

    Hey, Mr. President, The Michelle Barack Obama, This is my Third letter sending you, this a open letter after one year in witch I wrote that what will be happening in Middle East, Europe, Israel, UK, & USA. All things are happened! from January 1st, 2011, Till now the 26th April, 2012.Its all belong To 11/9/2001, nonsense failures projects of puppet NATO, Pentagons, US army in the world, The big crisis will be happening in the World after 2012 election or selection. It’s the Perfect Time to Leave Asia, & Middle East countries. What’s they gained from Camp-David-Meeting, the Jewish Lobby of the World, Israel, USA, and Arab countries. The ISI of Pakistan, CIA of America’s, Mossad of Israel, MI6 of England, RAW of Great India, KGB of Poor USSR, Freemason of the worlds. The so-called Muslim, Washable’s, Puppet Taliban, & Al-Qaeda of Saudi Arabia, are working for 1% Jewish Lobby of the World. Its my Third happy letter to you in One year, its about current issue of the world. You remember also that when I send you a letter. I writ about Third INTIFADA, Just now i say that the FOURTH INTIFADA were starting from June, 2011. It’s against USA, UK, EUROPEAN Countries, puppet NATO & Israel.
    That was about Middle East, just now about Pakistan, Afghanistan, & Iraq, ( FROM WHERE US Army return To sweet home. ) .The Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen, are also under New Islamic Revolutionary Movement Countries, ALL SO, its about 28 Muslim Arab Countries, Who are become under ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT of the World. (The 400 years dirty games are over in the World, Especially in the Middle East Muslim Countries.).
    And also you are at a big risk of history, look like The Occupy Wall Street movements are the turning point for United States history and all countries of the World. You may be very careful in these days, till 2012 election or selections, and because of Afghanistan WARS, Iraq problem, Pakistan case, Libyan’s, Yemen, Egypt’s, Bahrain, Tunisia, Maracas’, Jordan, etc. It’s going to an examination for you, your countries, your army, your big nation, & YOU’RE FOREIGN POLICY. Your countries are involving in 35 years Afghan WARS. You invest 60 trillion Dolor put in so many wars. The World Economic are disturbed, it’s belonging to Ten years Afghan’s, & Iraq Wars, also due to 11/9 worrying, & Failure Project. The World Finance ARE Collapse.!..The CIA failure agencies of the world, Its Critical Condition with the” FREEMASONERIES,” from early 1980′s. The Freemason is: The Freemasonry is a big Fraud & Lie’s group of human, from more then Four Hundred years back. They are not believed in Humanity. They were very small group & small minded people. Their mind was stuked. They can not thinking about humanity, The Foolish persons are member of this organization’s they are Thinker Thieves. They are kind’s thieves of mind person. They are looking Like Mad men’s. There is nothing in it. It’s a group of business men’s… THEY ARE MONEY FOEBIA. They has no politic, & no religion’s. They don’t know About ABCD of POLITICS. They show’s that they are Aristocrat or Barricade, or very Gentlemen, or very Sharp. Can you believe or Not, that, by GOD they are Nothing, they are very poor persons. We are laughing on them. They waste four hundred Golden years for NOTHINGS… HOW can they Answered the GREAT GOD. They are going To HELL… They are negative thinkers. They are very small people of the world community. They are very cheap men’s you can say, its like Spy’s of humanity. Spy for economic, spy of 4000 demy religious group, its Father of Atticism group of the world. They make Fools each others. Spy the other nation for own. They are living on LIE’S history. They use man or women weakness, It’s only a Crazy CLUB. Their activity looks like mad man activity. Their activity are under ground, Like Jewish, Zionist, Anarchist, Like Israeli’s. They use Awareness for their dirty games. They use person as a Tools. Their activity looking like Animals or a joker’s, or like half mind mad men. Their mind will be STUKED they think that they are from Royal families but they are from Third CLASS Family’s. They say’s LIE’S IN THEIR Life Lie’s is their Base. They have no Character they are CHARACTERLEES .They use Their Evil & Devil personality for their inner. They know that who can they confuse you or give you in depressions or in Fear, They have no realign, no themes, they are Sadist people of the World, they are belonging to animal habits. Why all way’s, they are in fear’s. Their minds are not more then 12 years boy’s minds. They are Happy like a boy’s happiness. We can say them… “Easy Come, Easy GO, Don’t Worry, and Be Happy… “Why the people around the world don’t like their attitude and behavior and what can we do to change it. The Freemason is Out of date & also Expired Organizations from 1970′s, more then Forty Two years back… After all that is the image of Freemasonry. They are also belong To Apes, & Pig’s race from hundreds years. It’s a big Fraud of our Century, the poor mind people are becoming member of this out of date org; they are all ways in a big depression, in panic , puzzled, and have no humanity foundation : The Americans Freemason Nation are belong to Homosexual . They are Free of Mind. Why? The Americans Nation also is belonging to Homosexuals. ?…
    The Economic Civil World War Crisis was starting from 1980′s War in Afghanistan against USSR, Through Mujaheddin. After this case the World Population Crisis also become in Muslim, & other Countries of the World, TWENTY MILLION PEOPLES were Killed or Injured in these bloody Foolish Wars, may be in the next Forty years, their will be hundred millions more people WILL BE KILLED.?. The 2012 will be very important year for USA. The World will be changing after 2012 Elections or Selections. Again the Islamic Revolutions in Muslim Countries, Congratulation to all the 1650 millions Muslim of The World..
    The World Economic were Collapse, before 2000. After 11/9/2001, The Economic World War Crisis age Start from Housing Crisis, after date the Jobless be com in front of the World. First of all it become in European Countries. After Europe, USA IS COMING IN GRIP OF Economic Crisis very badly. The MAIN cause is only The American JEWISH Lobby, who play-by-play dirty games in The USA, AND ALL OVER the WORLD. Du to them American Economic will be Collapse, it take 50 year more time.
    The Americans Jewish are wishing to leave The United States. It’s a better for them to go in Arab Muslim Countries? or go to Arabian Sea , or Saudi Arab ?
    The 11/9 was a big Lie’s of the Century, Like Holocaust History. The Economic Civil World War Crisis is gift of 11/9, Lie’s Bush, and also Gift of Great GOD,TO USA, UK, Israel, NATO’s countries, also European Countries, and Third World Countries other War in Muslim Country, like Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabian, The Mad, Sadist, & Fool, Kings, are behalf of Late Mullah Omar, Late Osama bin Laden, and Late Lawrence of Arabia, and also the Obama, They are Man’s, look like MAD Mr., Bush,( WANTED) The PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES of American’s. The War phobia & Sadist Nations of the WORLD…
    The “DECISION POINT” Book of Mr. Bush was a Mad man decision for Islamic Countries, after 11/9, It was Crushing the Humanity of the World. It was a FAILURE Project of Christian ZIONIST through Bush. This Failure Project was made in 80′s, by Mossad ,Iraqi Jewish Lobby, World Zionist, including, World Anarchist, World Jewish Congress; Freemason, Christian Church Zionist, Muslim World Zionist,( Saudi Wahhabi ) ISI, MI5, MI6, Mossad, CIA, RAW, RAM,FBI, PENTAGON, Saudi Wahhabi, puppet Al-Qaeda, Taliban, , ( Pakistani, Afghani, & Hindu Taliban. ), Their are so many Other TALIBAN’S, Like Christian Taliban, ( London ), Zionist Taliban, ( Tel- Aviv ), Jewish Taliban, ( for the USA ),were involve in this big dirtiest play game of The Century. You can see The Film, “THE MAN WHO SAW TOMORROW.” made by Jean Dickson’s.
    The great people of Iraq, you are sons of the brave Iraqi nation. The Ten years WARS WICKED the PEOPLE of great Iraq, The US THINKING THAT they will twist your great will and your determination, your virtue and dignity, your will of faith, righteousness and jihad holy war. The World know, you beloved men and women, that the thing that hurt you most was not their aggression or their aggressive nature, but because they didn’t come to meet you face to face, depending on a long technological arm, which is not a measure of bravery. The Courage is your steadfastness, your valor and your jihad so resist and fight them as we trusted you and in the same way you are known for. [We have fought you a thousand years. We will never give up and will fight you for another thousand years.]. Fight the enemies of GOD, enemies of the nation and enemies of humanity, GOD will be on your side and disgrace will be their, now and on the day of the judgment.
    With the American policies what they are there can be no stopping the lava boiling under the surface from erupting. Contempt and
    hatred shall go on increasing, hearts burn with revenge. Uneasiness, restlessness and mutiny shall raise their heads and the waves of an evolution will become higher and higher. (The Islamic Revolution’s in Middle East, Africans, and Arab countries are the result of this.) The American leadership should fear the day when the United States will become a thing of the past and American disdain, pride and arrogance a long-forgotten story. The story is going to in history dustbin. The Economic War Crisis will never Ended in this Century. .
    The Hatred shall go on increasing, hearts burn with revenge. Uneasiness, restlessness and mutiny shall raise their heads and the waves of a evolution will become higher and higher. ( The Islamic Revolution’s in Middle East, Africans, and Arab countries are the result of this. ) The American leadership should fear the day when the United States will become a thing of the past and American disdain, pride and arrogance a long-forgotten story.The story are going to in history dustbin. The Economic War Crisis will never Ended in this Century. .
    The ISRAEL is The Founder Terrorist International Organization of the World. They are The Mother of Terrorism in the World. The Terrorism is in their gean’s, & Nature of Israeli’s, BY BIRTH, from more then Two Thousand years ago, There fore its a Not New Thinks, FOR THEM, They are Killings every day in the parts of The Worlds. They are Killed Six Million people in Three Decades’, (equal to Six Million Jewish Living in United Stats of America) and injured Ten Million peoples of The World. It’s a Fun for them, but it’s not a Fun for the World. They are Thurstan of Human Blood. They have Black History. They are PROSTITUTED OF the EARTH. They are a Sadist NATION. The story of Holocaust is a big Lie’s of Jewish history, Just Look a Like 11/9 FOOLISHNESS of Christian Zionist, Jewish Lobby, & CIA. The CIA’s support operation for the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan via Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s CIA. ISI funneled 70 per cent of all material aid — money, uniforms, weapons, including stinger missiles and demolitions — to radical Islamic fundamentalists. Now radical Islamic fundamentalism is one of CIA major problems. This problem goes to next decades, because of their Foolishness.
    The CIA is a retired agency, & out of Date org. They are failed in every failed of The Life, in POLITICS, in WARS, IN “PATRIOTISM”, in every Crisis of the Worlds, They are Failed in Iran in 79′s Islamic Revolution.They are Failure in Tunisia, Egypt’s & Yemen Islamic Revolutions. They will be Failed in Saudi Arabia , & Qatar Islamic Revolution next years. They will be Failure’s in Holy Israel war,& Revolution in 2014. The CIA are destroy Mossad, ISI, & RAW, RA AM also. The CIA is totally collapsed. Now days the CIA are in Critical Conditions, with Mossad & ISI of Pakistan. (The ISI are destroyed Pakistan.)
    The CIA, MOSSAD, & MI6 are responsible for all Failure’s project of Wars in the Middle East countries. The US told Saddam that with in Two week he will be in Tehran. What’s happened in Iraq, Iran WAR, IT TAKES 8 Eight years WAR, Where are Saddam, Mubarak, Bin Ali, Qasim, Arif, Ziaul-Haq, Sharon, Tony, Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Sal eh, & King HUSSEIN, of Jordan ( before Attack on Iran meeting would be held in Amman under Brzezinski, dirty man ) They can’t control one Inch of Iran lands. AFTER DATE Afghan’s & Iraq wars take 10 ten years.What happened with WARS, Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Collapse And The Next Great Depression?
    The Occupy Wall Street movements are one of these Economic, & Political Crisis of the World. Its the starting point of a big crisis of the World
    The “ECONOMIC CIVIL WORLD WAR CRISIS” is their gift To American’s & European Countries..These Crises are never END. The America’s will be Collapse by these wars very soon. The national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski is look likes a Madman, Mindless guys; He is totally Failure Politician of the World. Also Israel are Prepared For the Coming Politically Collapse and the Next Great Depression?
    What’s American’s are gain from these Wars, And also killing the people of the Worlds. They are KILLED 7 Million’s, And Injured 12 Millions. (With in 50 years WARS.).Its due to Non Political Advisers, like ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI men, he must be Responsible for WHOLE War’s. (Iraq, Iran war, Kuwait, Iraq war, US, Iraq, war, us, Afghan war, WARS. and so ON. )..
    They want a civil war in Baluchistan, & Quetta. The Lawn es are out of control for Covet, of Baluchistan, & Pakistan. The Gorham Khan Bugti, s and Main Khan Mengal terrorists are belonging to Bloch nation, their head quarter are in Tel-Aviv, Israel. After death of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, s, The Bloch leader shifted to UAE, Europe, Some Africans Countries & Tel-Aviv Israel. It’s a part of Greater Baluchistan issues, which never be succeed, because its 100 years old movement. Just like the Greater Israel, who is coming to their Ends? Just now its a Dead BODY, & weak issues FOR Bloch leaders, the lack of success on political issues ( gone with the wind ).
    Its going on from Mahmud Khan of Kalat till Nowrouz Khan, Akbar Khan Bugti,s, S hero Marry, Khair Bux Marry, Attallaullah Men gal, Ghous Bakhesh Bezenjo, ( Father of Baluchistan) and so on. The Gorham Khan Bugti, s and Mian Khan Men gal are the puppet of Israeli agents. The Israel lobby, “at times called the Zionist lobby or sometimes the Jewish lobby” is a term used to describe the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and as groups, seek and have sought to influence the foreign policy of the Pakistan in support of Zionism, Israel or the specific policies of its government, and ALLIANCE.
    The lobby consists of both Christian Zionist- and Jewish Zionist-Secular and Religious groups. The MOSSAD, CIA, RAW, ISI, MI6,AND OTHERS ARE, Look Like Christian, Sepah-e-Wahhabi, Jewish Lobby Ahmad i, Puppet Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Qadeyani, Agha Khan, Freemasons agents, Baha’ism, Wahhabi;s are INVOLVE BADLY in QUETTA Genocide & others.
    The recent terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, What they thinking that the dirty Play-by-Play games are over in Quetta, Baluchistan, & Pakistan. ?
    The Punjabi nation is playing very dirty games in Quetta & Baluchistan.
    What will be happening after 2012 Election or Selection, in the World Policy, especially in West Asia, Middle East countries, & South Asian. ? May be a big Changing shall be coming in the World. ! ? Thanks.

  • Tjgaston7

    This is the government testing the waters and seeing what bs they can pull and for how long. They want your freedom period but they now they need to go about that slowly and surely to succeed. If you want to know what we are really fighting its the communist movement. Which no one has brought up. And you never hear about it anywhere else. That shows you what a hell of good job they did.The Communist Goals of (1963) I would be surprised if anyone on this form has read or even heard of it. http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm The 1st time i read it i couldn’t find one goal that they haven’t accomplished or are on the brink of succeeding. This list is so detailed but not at the same time it is straight to the point and as clear as anything could be. They want what you have (or real think you still have) they have taken it away in everything but name. I personally think the whole list is important but here are some of the more scarey one as fallows … 15,16,17,20,25,27,30,32 and there is also 28 which hits home my point at what the church and the American people are fighting. I will type is out for the people that are to lazy to click on the link and read it …Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” Key is any phase (reffering to the the problem at hand- HSS) and “separation of church and state which is our legal argument.

    Im only 2o years old and i know im not near as smart you all but i still thought i should raise my views and what i know to be undoubtedly true about the — i was going to say communist movement but i dont know what happens to a movement when they’v one? Well i would think they’d be in power at least the kind of movement I’m talking about…which is world domination and utter control and as you can see they are working night and day on that project. Its time to grow some balls America and step up to the fight that is way past our door way. It’s in our living rooms, on the tele, in our music, all over the web and our schools ect… please step up before its really to late.
    Ps. ya i know numbers look like a dam fortune cookie lol

  • Tjgaston7

    This is the government testing the waters and seeing what bs they can pull and for how long. They want your freedom period but they now they need to go about that slowly and surely to succeed. If you want to know what we are really fighting its the communist movement. Which no one has brought up. And you never hear about it anywhere else. That shows you what a hell of good job they did.The Communist Goals of (1963) I would be surprised if anyone on this form has read or even heard of it. http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/com... The 1st time i read it i couldn’t find one goal that they haven’t accomplished or are on the brink of succeeding. This list is so detailed but not at the same time it is straight to the point and as clear as anything could be. They want what you have (or real think you still have) they have taken it away in everything but name. I personally think the whole list is important but here are some of the more scarey one as fallows … 15,16,17,20,25,27,30,32 and there is also 28 which hits home my point at what the church and the American people are fighting. I will type is out for the people that are to lazy to click on the link and read it …Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” Key is any phase (reffering to the the problem at hand- HSS) and “separation of church and state which is our legal argument.

    Im only 2o years old and i know im not near as smart you all but i still thought i should raise my views and what i know to be undoubtedly true about the — i was going to say communist movement but i dont know what happens to a movement when they’v one? Well i would think they’d be in power at least the kind of movement I’m talking about…which is world domination and utter control and as you can see they are working night and day on that project. Its time to grow some balls America and step up to the fight that is way past our door way. It’s in our living rooms, on the tele, in our music, all over the web and our schools ect… please step up before its really to late.
    Ps. ya i know numbers look like a dam fortune cookie lol

  • Kyld

    If Catholics are so gun ho about there religion n want to follow the bible were it says to “obey gods law rather then mans” regarding this matter at hand, they would have to actually start reading the bible properly and and not just pick and choose the parts they want to follow, if u want to have a religion that has a bible, pick it up and read it for your selves, don’t just sit their while a so called priest tells u whats right n wrong, let’s face it they don’t really have a good track record when it comes to whats right and wrong.

    It’s so funny how nearly every religion has the same bible and yet they all claim something different, why’s that u may ask? NO BODY ACTUALLY READS IT, and then they try to justify supporting wars, don’t get me wrong I respect the troops that protect the country’s that we live in but it all comes back down to what the wars are over and most of them a based on religion. ISAIAH 2:4 .

    On another point entirely if any one has ever wondered what the name of god is if u look at PSALMS 83:18 this has the answer, 90% of bibles still have his name printed in this verse even Tho its been taken out of other parts of the bible.

  • JamesStone

    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
    And the women come out to cut up what remains
    Jests roll to your rite an’ blowout your brains
    An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
    The Americans Nation is belonging to Homosexuals. The Big mistake of U.S. history were always a mistakes, that’s they are under estimates the other Nation’s of the Worlds. They make issue for other Countries They Think that they are very Wise, Nice, or Cleaver, BUT They are Mad, Sadist NATION, FOOLISHNEES IDEA, Bush, & the Bush father’s Idea Failed in the World. The Obama are puzzled in these DAYS. Why? They THINK AFTER WORK. They don’t know what they are doing. ? What they gained from Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, & Iraq Wars. Why the 11/9, Projects was Failed, Why ISLAMIC REVOLUTION CAME IN Islamic Countries. ?. It’s due to Obama’s speechlessness .The big mistake of Jewish Lobby of the world Borne of the U.S. in history were always a mistakes, The Politics of HEROIN in Afghanistan, Succeed by American’s, and others. The Ten years war is very good for this Heroin Politician. It was War for Heroin, not for Humanity, well-done Americans, well-done Israeli’s, well-done British, Canadian, Germens, Italian, France, Saudi Arab, Pakistan, ISI, RAW, RAAM, INDIA, puppet Pakistani Taliban, Afghani Taliban, Hindu Taliban, Al-Qaeda, MI5, MI6, World Anarchist, The ISRAEL, is The Founder Terrorist International Organization of The World. They are The Mother of Terrorism in The World. The Terrorism is in their guan’s, & Nature of Israeli’s, BY BIRTH, from more then Two Thousand years ago, There fore its a Not New Thinks, FOR THEM, They are Killings every day in the parts of The Worlds. They are Killed Six Million people in Three Decade’s, (its equals to Six millions Jewish are Living United States of America) and injured Ten Million peoples of The World. It’s a Fun for them, but it’s not a Fun for the World. They are Touristy of Human Blood. They have Black History. They are PERSTITUED OF The EARTH. They are a Sadist NATION. The story of Holocaust is a big Lie’s of Jewish history, LIKE 11/9 FOOLISHNEES of Jewish Lobby, & CIA. The CIA’s support operation for the Mujahidin is in Afghanistan via Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s CIA. ISI funneled 70 per cent of all material aid — money, uniforms, weapons, including stinger missiles and demolitions — to radical Islamic fundamentalists. Now radical Islamic fundamentalism is one of CIA major problems. This problem goes to next century, because of their own Foolishness. The CIA is a retired agency, & out of Date org.
    They are failed in every felids of The Life, in POLITICS, in WARS, IN “PATRIOTISM”, in every crisis of the World… In these days The KGB IS IN THE POLITICAL GROUND OF THE WORLD, against the CIA, and Jewish Lobby. The USSR Policy is going well in the Muslim Countries…!
    What they gain, CIA & Jewish LOBBY from this Play-by-Play Dirty Games in the World. ? They are all way’s FAILURE in Their LONG AND SHORT term PROJECTS, EVERY WHERE IN THE WORLD. They are all ways in Killing mode. They are living in Deep ration & Fear all ways, day & night. The Jewish are Master in Drag, Oil, Gas, & Aram’s, etc. Why Jews are under estimates Americans & other Nation’s of the Worlds. ? They blackmail issue for other Countries. Why? WHY The Jewish Lobby of the World is wrong thinking that they are very Wise, Nice or Cleaver’s of the World. ? Thanks

  • Kent

    Ron Paul endorses Gary Johnson for President. Vote Gary Johnson in 2012! We can have our country back from the two party duopoly infringing on our rights! Start the party NOW!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X