religious employers must cover birth control

[SoonerTexan]

Cheri, I'm sorry, that is not what I meant by that statement and was trying to specifically avoid giving that impression. I meant to explain more but see above post about one handed posting while nursing

I don't think people should leave because their beliefs differ in some areas. Not at all. I would argue it would be worth it to do more investigating because if you trust a faith on some beliefs, to me it would follow that you would want to find out why you disagree in other areas.

BUT my point was that people have been disagreeing and leaving for a long long time. It's nothing new.

I'm still not explaining myself well enough, but it's just not going to happen until I can sit down and focus.

[reciprocity]

I think what you will find is that a lot of them are structured much like Mayo Clinic. The Clinic is a non-profit, the catholic hospital, and the other hospital are also non-profits. The docs, residents, etc. are actually payed by a separate legal entity even though it is related to the catholic hospital, the hospital is not technically the employer.

This was my thinking as well, although I don't know enough about these sorts of structuring questions to really make an educated guess. But university-affiliated hospitals are often separate organizations from the school, and I would imagine that at some of them the doctors are employed by yet a third organization. Why isn't that a solution here?

[SoonerTexan]

I think this is taking a bad turn again and I don't like where it is going, but I'm not sure how to get it back where it belongs. I'm truly sorry Cheri, that wasn't my intention.

[scrub-jay]

This was my thinking as well, although I don't know enough about these sorts of structuring questions to really make an educated guess. But university-affiliated hospitals are often separate organizations from the school, and I would imagine that at some of them the doctors are employed by yet a third organization. Why isn't that a solution here?

Has everyone read about Catholic Healthcare West? The Catholic parent company has announced that they are cutting ties to the Catholic Church to better serve their hospitals, some of which are Catholic while others secular. Many of the Catholic hospitals have made similar announcements that they will retain their ties to the Catholic Church. This was a decision made to increase growth potential and not in response to the mandates we are discussing here. But, this brings up a good point - where do secular hospitals fall if they are managed by a Catholic organization?

[SuzySunshine]

No, ST, I'm sorry. That was out of line. Judgement based on religion is my BIGGEST pet peeve and it is deeply rooted in a family situation. I shouldn't have added that.

[SoonerTexan]

As far as taxes go, I subscribe to "Give unto Caesar..." However I think differently about my donations to Catholic Charities.

[Pollyanna]

And, after posting the above statement I had another thought: Perhaps this is all about money. Perhaps there is a bet here that the Catholic church will just shut up and pay enormous fines year after year instead of complying. I'm sure the federal government would love that extra income. And, then it also becomes somewhat of a tax - the Catholic church would essentially be paying a yearly tax (in the form of a fine) to the U.S. government in order to continue practicing a particular part of its beliefs.

Excellent point. Also a way to force more people onto government funded healthcare (yes, that is entirely different ball of wax).

[diggitydot]

It's also a way to generate fees from a tax-exempt entity.

[scrub-jay]

Excellent point. Also a way to force more people onto government funded healthcare (yes, that is entirely different ball of wax).

What government-funded healthcare? Currently, there is no government health insurance in place except for Medicare/Medicaid and the insurance exchanges will include private & non-profit insurance companies while the govt will incentivize participation.

As a side note: If we want to talk about government regulation, look at how much control is exerted over the insurance companies through the ACA... can't exclude individuals for pre-existing conditions for example.

[SoonerTexan]

This is the last night at of free babysitting at my in-laws, so if I'm going to write this post, it's now or never. I have to admit I've been avoiding it a bit as this has been such a controversial topic and I doubt my ability to do the Church's teaching's on the subject justice. But I'll attempt anyway. Be kind If any of the other Catholics on here have more to add, please do.

To be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone here of these beliefs, just explain what they are and the theology/thought behind them. Additionally, I'm not going to pretend they are popular or easy beliefs meant to make life easier. They aren't supposed to be. The Catholic Church teaches that sacrifice and struggle are a daily part of living our lives in the way Christ taught us and that we must accept and even embrace these struggles. Though it isn't easy, it is what is right and good for us, and will eventually lead us to something better. Honestly, I don't think that message is too far off what many of us would teach our children anyway, religious or not.

Finally, I don't think it will come as a surprise that Catholics (and many other religions) believe sex is a beautiful act created for marriage only. I know many of you don't share that belief, but don't take this is a personal judgment, please. It's the context all of what I'm about to write "lives" in.

Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)

Entire document here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...-vitae_en.html

Contrary to popular belief, the Church did not turn a blind eye to the new scientific advances in contraception 50s and 60s, but instead carefully considered them. Pope Paul VI gave the final answer on the subject in his encyclical Humanae Vitae.

The Pope first reaffirmed the Church's teachings on responsible parenthood

(in a nutshell)

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

And married love

This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare.

And draws this conclusion:

Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.

And lays the foundation for NFP:

Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

And finally touched on what he believed the consequences of contraception in society would be:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

So that's a lot of the "what" and a little bit of the "why." Obviously there is a whole lot more to the document and what went into it, but I think it does show that there was a lot of thought put into it and it wasn't simply a "nah nah nah I cant hear you response to changing culture and scientific advances."
cont. below

[SoonerTexan]

Theology of the Body

This is the "why." Pope John Paul II first covered this in a series of 129 lectures over the course of many years in the 1970s and 1980s. There is a HECK of a lot there and no way I can cover it all here. Since the original lectures, a few people have done an excellent job of condensing/explaining them in a way that is more accessible to a layperson. Christopher West is my personal favorite. I'll do my best to do it justice, but if you are interested in more, I recommend checking out his books and the articles on his website. I'm going to use a lot of his quotes because he says it better than I could ever hope to. I'm not even going to hit most of it here.

http://www.christopherwest.com/

In a (very large) nutshell:

As Catholics we believe that we were created in the likeness and image of God. Both body and soul are one in the human and are both worthy. Catholics reject the notion that the body is a sinful shell completely separate from our soul that we will one day cast off completely. Our body, not just our soul, has a divine dignity meant to be respected and loved.

Angel nature is spiritual and animal nature is physical, but human nature is both at the same time. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but their union forms a single nature” (365): human nature.

In the same way we believe we were created in the image of God, we believe sex is the ultimate "representation" of the love Christ had for us. I know that sounds totally weird, so I'm going to hand it over to Christopher West again:

We all know that the body has a “language.” A wave of the hand says “hello” or “goodbye.” A shrug of the shoulders says, “I don’t know.” A raised fist expresses anger. What is sexual intercourse meant to express? What is it’s true language, its true meaning?

According to Scripture, the sexual embrace is meant to express divine love. Precisely here, in the consummation of their sacrament, spouses are meant to participate in the “great mystery” of divine love. Whether spouses realize this or not, this is the sacramental power of their love. It’s meant to be an image and a real participation in Christ’s love for the Church (see Eph 5:31-32).

As John Paul II candidly expressed, “Through gestures and reactions, through the whole ...dynamism of tension and enjoyment – whose direct source is the body in its masculinity and femininity, the body in its action and interaction – through all this man, the person, ‘speaks.’ ...Precisely on the level of this ‘language of the body’ ...man and woman reciprocally express themselves in the fullest and most profound way made possible for them by... their masculinity and femininity” (TOB 123:4).

But if sexual love is meant to express Christ’s love, we must properly understand the “language” of this love. Christ gives his body freely (“No one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord,” Jn 10:18). He gives his body totally—without reservation, condition, or selfish calculation (“He loved them to the last,” Jn 13:1). He gives his body faithfully (“I am with you always,” Mt 28:20). And he gives his body fruitfully (“I came that they may have life,” Jn 10:10).

If men and women are to avoid the pitfalls of counterfeit love, their union must express the same free, total, faithful, fruitful love that Christ expresses. Of course, as fallen human beings, we’ll never express Christ’s love perfectly. Even so, we must commit ourselves to the life-long journey of learning how to express this love and, at a minimum, never willfully act against this love. The name for this commitment is marriage.

This is precisely what a bride and groom consent to at the altar. The priest or deacon asks them: “Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage? Do you promise to be faithful until death? Do you promise to receive children lovingly from God?” The bride and groom each say “yes.”

In turn, spouses are meant to express this same “yes” with the “language of their bodies” whenever they become one flesh. “In fact, the words themselves, ‘I take you as my wife/as my husband,’” John Paul II says, “can only be fulfilled by conjugal intercourse.” With conjugal intercourse “we pass to the reality that corresponds to these words” (TOB 103:3).

Intercourse, then, is where the words of the wedding vows become flesh. It’s where men and women are meant to incarnate divine love. It’s a fine thing when a couple returns to the church to renew their vows on a special anniversary, but this shouldn’t undermine the fact that every time a husband and wife have intercourse they’re meant to renew their wedding vows with the “language of their bodies.”

And this is where contraception gets in the way. It takes "fruitful" and "fully" out of the equation and changes it to, "I give myself to you...under these circumstances and without all of myself."

There is SO SO SO much more here, but I know I cant explain it all, so I'll finish with this one last quote

It seems what we often call “love,” when submitted to honest examination, amounts to little more than mutual using for pleasure. In the language of John Paul II, the opposite of love is not hatred. The opposite of love is using another person as a means to an end. I know this is a cliche, but why do so many wives claim “headache” when their husbands want sex? Might they feel used rather than loved?

The Catholic teaching on sex is an invitation to embrace the love that really corresponds to the deepest desires of the human heart. That is a demanding love, to be sure. Should we expect it to be otherwise as followers of Christ? “Love one another,” Jesus says, “as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). This means it’s going to hurt. It’s going to demand sacrifice.

St. Paul says it plainly: husbands are to love their wives “as Christ loved the church” (Eph 5:25). Then he concludes this marvelous passage with the most exalted presentation of sexual love in all of human history: “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:21-32).

The Church, so often accused of devaluing sex, ascribes to sexual love the highest possible value – it is meant to be a merging of the human and the divine. Anything less, the Church proposes, is a counterfeit for the love we yearn for at the deepest level of our being. Sexual love is meant to image the mysterious and eternal “exchange of love” within the Holy Trinity. In the normal course of events, the mutual exchange of husband and wife leads to a “third” – a new human life conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the Giver of life.”

Contracepted intercourse marks a determined “closing off” of the sexual act to the Holy Spirit, to the very life and love of God. In short, whether they realize this or not, contracepting couples are saying, “We prefer the momentary pleasure of sterlized sex over the opportunity of participating in the eternal love of the Trinity.” To which I respond ...bad choice! But do you think if couples really knew they were saying this, that they would continue to do so? “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34).

Most couples simply have no idea what they’re getting themselves into when they sterilize their sexual acts. So none of this is about assigning culpability. If I drink a cup of poison – but don’t know it’s poison – I haven’t committed suicide; I’m not culpable for my own death. But it will still kill me, because whether I think it’s poison or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is poison or not. Furthermore, if you know it’s poison and I don’t, what would be the loving thing to do if you saw me reaching out to drink it?

The Church is not trying to impose her morality on us. Like any loving mother, she is trying to prevent her children from unwittingly ingesting a very dangerous “poison to love.”

Natural Family Planning (NFP)

I think this deserves a little more explanation too. The Catholic Church does *not* ascribe to the Quiverfull Movement (a la the Duggars) that says any form of birth control whatsoever is sinful. The "Rhythm Method" aka Vatican Roulette isn't what were talking about with NFP either.

NFP uses the natural signs of a woman's cycle (cervical mucus, basal body temp, and characteristics of the cervix itself) to determine fertile and infertile periods. From there a couple can choose to abstain or have sex according to whether or not they are trying to achieve or avoid a pregnancy at the time. Many of you know it from the book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility." The basis for this method was research done in the 1950s by a Catholic doctor (Dr. John Billings) and his work has since been refined into the methods we have today. (Off the top of my head, TCOYF, CCL Sympto-Thermal, Billings, Marquette, Creighton, and Serena).

To me, this is another sign the Church is not anti-science or anti-woman. These methods are grounded in scientific research and ironically have about the same length of history as artificial methods. They provide a safe form of birth control that has absolutely no side effects and doesn't put the burden fully on either the man or woman like all other methods--it is meant to be shared and usually results in a lot of good communication about sex in a marriage.

I think it is interesting that it is becoming increasingly popular in a secular world that is becoming more concerned about the environmental effects of hormonal birth control and the potential health side effects to most other types of contraception. Apparently the Church was a little ahead of its time in this regard

Some people argue that there is no difference between artificial contraception and NFP because they both can be used to avoid children. To address that, I'm going to be lazy and use another quote here:

We’ve observed that sexual intercourse is meant to incarnate the marriage commitment itself, and that an integral part of that commitment is openness to children.
So, does fidelity to the wedding vows imply that couples are to leave the number of children they have entirely to “chance”? No. In calling couples to a responsible love, the Church calls them also to a responsible parenthood.

Pope Paul VI stated clearly that those are considered “to exercise responsible parenthood who prudently and generously decide to have a large family, or who, for serious reasons and with due respect to the moral law, choose to have no more children for the time being or even for an indeterminate period” (HV 10). Notice that large families should result from prudent reflection, not “chance.” Notice too that couples must have “serious reasons” to avoid pregnancy and must respect the moral law.

Assuming a couple have a serious reason to avoid a child (this could be financial, physical, psychological, etc.), what could they do that would not violate the consummate expression of their sacrament? In other words, what could they do to avoid conceiving a child that would not render them unfaithful to their wedding vows? You’re doing it right now (I presume). They could abstain from sex. There is nothing wrong with abstaining from sex when there’s a good reason to do so. The Church has always recognized that the only method of “birth control” that respects the language of divine love is “self-control.”

A further question arises: Would a couple be doing anything to falsify their sexual union if they embraced during a time of natural infertility? Take, for example, a couple past childbearing years. They know their union will not result in a child. Are they violating their vows if they engage in intercourse with this knowledge? Are they contracepting? No. Contraception, by definition, is the choice to engage in an act of intercourse, but then do something else to render it sterile. This can be done by using various devices, hormones, surgical procedures, and the age-old method of withdrawal.

Couples who use natural family planning (NFP) when they have a just reason to avoid pregnancy never render their sexual acts sterile; they never contracept. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. Readers unfamiliar with modern NFP methods should note that they are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. Furthermore, any woman, regardless of the regularity of her cycles, can use NFP successfully. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”

To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.

If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands—just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do—and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).

If you made it through all of this, I'm impressed. Again, this was not intended to offend anyone or belittle their views/lifestyle. I do hope it provides a little more understanding on the history and content of the Catholic Church's teaching regarding contraception, though.

[oceanchild]

If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands—just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do—and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).

Ok, I've been avoiding this thread the whole time, because frankly I don't think anybody cares what I think about this subject (nor should they). But don't we take the powers of life into our own hands all the time? Isn't continuing nutrition via feeding tube - something Catholic medical ethics *requires* - taking life into our own hands? Isn't every medical advancement *ever* taking life into our own hands?

[reciprocity]

Yeah, I don't really grok the analogy either. I don't see the rhetorical relationship between putting on a condom and killing my grandmother.

[SuzySunshine]

Infertility is one of those things that until you've been there you probably can't say what you would or wouldn't do or how far you'd go. I'm just going to leave it at that.

[Pollyanna]

Infertility is one of those things that until you've been there you probably can't say what you would or wouldn't do or how far you'd go. I'm just going to leave it at that.

I think that is certainly true for some but that doesn't make the teachings of the Catholic church wrong simply because they don't jive with our own choices.