|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
The thing about the RCC position on insurance for contraception that infuriates me is the number of RC men who may be scholars or canon lawyers or priests or bishops or any of a number of other things but who are not physicians say absolutely asinine things like contraception is a "life-style product," that it's "non-essential" (unlike medications like antibiotics or Viagra), that women don't need it and if they want it they can just buy it for themselves.
It doesn't matter how many times you point out that oral contraceptives are used to treat endometriosis, PCOS, excessive menstrual bleeding, excessive menstrual pain, premenstrual dysphoria syndrome, and a long list of other disorders, that they're used to prevent pregnancy when pregnancy is contraindicated by another essential medication the woman is taking, to prevent ovarian cancer in high-risk women.
The primary reason that a majority of women who are taking the pill are taking it is not contraception; it's some other medical need. The contraceptive effect is secondary.
Bishops and priests and canon lawyers are not doctors. For them to decide that oral contraceptives are not an essential medical need for a woman is quite simply hubris.
And the fact that contraception is not considered sinful when used by someone who is not married makes the RC furor over covering it all the more exasperating. Why should a single woman with endometriosis be denied insurance coverage for the pill just because it's possible that a married woman might take it for contraceptive purposes? We might as well refuse to ordain any more priests because some of them might decide to molest little children.
Oh, but that's awful to say, because most priests are good and decent men trying to serve God in the Church. That's true. I believe that. I think it's wrong to suspect all priests of pedophilia just because some of them might. So why should the church suspect all women of using contraception illicitly, just become some of them might?
The Catholic institutions should cover contraception, and instruct the faithful of the conditions under which it is licit to use it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Third, so this friend of yours, for whom we are supposed to feel sorry, is prepared to lie under oath in order to obtain something to which she knew she wasn't entitled.
Fourth, any Tribunal in any diocese in America could have told her how to obtain a canonical separation (cans 1151 to 1155).
Either your friend was scandalously lacking in integrity or you know or have given us something short of the full picture. I suspect either the latter to be most likely.
"For whom we are supposed to feel sorry"
"Scandalously lacking in integrity"
Yes that's the attitude of the organization you are a "lawyer" for to a woman who was the victim of violent abuse. As was finally said to Joe McCarthy back in the day, "At long last, sir, have you no decency?"
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Hoo, boy, Malik! Godwin's law, McCarthyism... who's next to compare to?
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
The Amish?
Of course, I have heard the argument that, since many Anabaptists are pacifists, if RC's don't have to pay for health insurance that covers things they find morally objectionable, the Amish and Mennonites shouldn't have to pay taxes for things they find morally objectionable, like the military. I'm not sure this is a valid objection—after all, they do already enjoy conscientious objector status and there's no way to "earmark" your own tax money—but, that said, as a religious pacifist myself, I do find that big five-sided building in Arlington something of an affront to my religion.
Enough of an affront to start rioting in the streets, or even spamming everyone's facebook feed? Perhaps not. However, there is a point where, if you start considering one group's religious objections just because they're large, powerful, and well-connected, you might run into trouble down the road. While I think "accessories to murder" is a bit harsh (okay, more than a bit), I do think some of the hyperbole from the likes of Francis Cardinal George (nobody's going to be martyring his grandsucessor) is also over the top.
The good of the commonwealth needs to be the first and foremost goal of public policy. Call me a Lockean, even a Marsilio-Hobbesian on alternate Thursdays, but there are times when even religious objections can't trump the public interest. If Mennonites are subject to the draft, even for the sorts of civil service that (arguably) frees up other young people to fight as combatants, then the idea that all people in the United States ought to be entirely free from government interference when the state's interest and their religious interest conflict has already been compromised.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
He went through the business of getting the explicit consent of the other realms and territories. Canada/Australia/New Zealand et al are not likely to be pleased with him, in the least, if -- having done this -- he now reneges on something they all support. Cameron -- and the UK -- are going to look more than slightly out of touch with the modern world if they are the only ones standing in the way of this reform, especially as he/it is the one who brought it up in the first place.
John
There is no chance of this not being enacted, John. I was being mischievous.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Yes that's the attitude of the organization you are a "lawyer" for to a woman who was the victim of violent abuse. As was finally said to Joe McCarthy back in the day, "At long last, sir, have you no decency?"
The point, Malik, is that I don't believe the story as presented. Genevieve either doesn't know or isn't telling us key pieces of information. She was using the story to make a point but the point is entirely dependent in the factual matrix of the story. If the factual matrix doesnt stand up to scrutiny then the point falls.
Now she's entitled to do that but if it's ignorance of the relevant details then her story should be subjected to rational scrutiny and it's deficiencies highlighted. That I did. If her friend had wanted to or had remarried then, subject to the religious discrimination laws in the state concerned, she might have needed to regularise the position of her second marriage in order to retain her job with the Church. However, since our storyteller doesn't say that she had or did want to remarry, we don't know and ought to assume not. Whereupon the story starts to look unbelievable. In any event, Genevieve tells us explicitly that her friend believed her first marriage to be valid in Catholic sacramental terms. If her friend did that and she didn't want to remarry, as I said, she didn't need an annulment and could obtain a canonical separation. If she thought the first marriage was valid in Catholic sacramental terms, and Genevieve says she did, why did she feel she was free to marry again in Catholic sacramental terms or why did she feel that she should lie on oath to secure something which she knew was untrue. You see Malik, Genevieve hasn't given us sufficient evidence to make the story stack up and to this person experienced in dealing with these cases - actually for most of my time in Tribunals acting on behalf of those seeking decrees of nullity and, as is universally the case, doing so for no fee - there are only three possible causes of that:
1. the story isn't true;
2. the story is partially true but Genevieve doesn't know enough of the detail for the story to make sufficient sense to support the point she was trying to make; or
3. the story is partially true but Genevieve chose to withhold from us key items of information that would make the story actually stand up to scrutiny but would compromise its ability to support her point.
I am well aware that the purpose of Hell threads is to sling shit at the target in the hope that it will stick. I am also aware that for many hereabouts the Catholic Church deserved to have all the shit in the world thrown at it because of what it believes, what it teaches or how some of its members (from the highest down) have and continue to behave. None of this worries me or even remotely surprises me and where it is down to the egregious behaviour of individuals, you'll find me slinging the shit IRL. But if you are going to sling shit, it had better be on the basis of it being deserved and the shit Genevieve slung was on the basis of a grievance that was either fabricated, so incomplete as to be worthless or thoroughly distorted to cover up for the fact that the portrayed victim of ecclesial injustice was in fact the architect of their own misfortune.
There is, I suppose, a fourth option, and the one you seem to suggest is the only decent position for me to take: that Genevieve's story is in every respect true and the sympathy due to her friend means that the Catholic Church should dismantle its belief in the indissolubility of marriage, that seeking to analyse the details of the case is simply indecent and that I should subject myself to a self-denying ordinance whereby my posts in shell should be subject to rules applying on other boards.
If its the second option then Genevieve's argument deserves to be shown up as inadequate - and if this were not Hell she could expect it to be done with greater charity but it is and she isnt entitled to any greater charity here than anybody else. If its either of the other two explanations then either Genevieve or her friend aren't telling the truth. If it's the fourth, I may have no decency in your eyes, but you just show yourself up to be a shill.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But many animals have sex exclusively of them "wham bam thank you ma'am" type.
On the other hand, apparently God created Bonobos. I've never seen this satisfactorily explained.
[ 17. February 2012, 07:39: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
God also created male giraffes. Which can spend 90% of their time fooling around with other male giraffes.
Or is that just because some animals are more sexually fallen than others? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 17. February 2012, 07:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The primary reason that a majority of women who are taking the pill are taking it is not contraception; it's some other medical need. The contraceptive effect is secondary. [...]
The Catholic institutions should cover contraception, and instruct the faithful of the conditions under which it is licit to use it.
I agree, actually. If, which would be news to me but I'm prepared to accept, the majority use of the pill is non-contraceptive then Catholic policies should cover it but only when prescribed specifically for those medical needs.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
If her friend had wanted to or had remarried then, subject to the religious discrimination laws in the state concerned, she might have needed to regularise the position of her second marriage in order to retain her job with the Church.
There is another possibility - the husband wanted to "regularise" the position of his relationship with the woman he left her for, and the church was putting pressure on her to agree the annulment so that he could.
Also, it's perfectly possible that some trumped-up Catholic boss believed that divorce itself was sinful, and that unless the Church "officially" recognised the cessation of relationship through granting an annulment she could no longer be employed.
I find both of those possibilities more believable than the idea that Genevieve is making the whole thing up.
quote:
...the sympathy due to her friend means that the Catholic Church should dismantle its belief in the indissolubility of marriage, that seeking to analyse the details of the case is simply indecent and that I should subject myself to a self-denying ordinance whereby my posts in shell should be subject to rules applying on other boards.
Not at all. It simply means that the RCC should care more about people than the law. I seem to recall hearing about some itinerant Galilean preacher from 2000 years ago who had ideas along those lines...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes Marvin, absolutely. The whole business of setting up a rule that says "one marriage only", and THEN spending an awful lot of time finding ways of making sure that the letter of the rule doesn't get in the way when it doesn't suit, sounds incredibly reminiscent of some of the things that the Pharisees got criticised for by that Galilean preacher.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
You know, I've never been in the 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers' but Trisagion's priggery and self-righteous posturing in this thread makes me wanna go find a rope.
Guess when the good Lord was handing out mercy and charity, himself didn't bother picking up even a minute dose. Figures that there book of rules he spends all day looping through the holes works better.
[ 17. February 2012, 10:39: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Wronger than a wrong thing in Wrongville! The heart is not 'primarily' about keeping breath in the body; it is ONLY about keeping breath in the body. Whereas sex is not ONLY about reproduction.
I assume that is "lungs" not heart, unless there has been a bit of a medical revolution. I have been at pains to talk about the primary biological function of sex. If you care to look this up in a dictionary, you will find that it is not a synonym for "only", and in fact allows for or even implies other, secondary functions.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
You talk about the Church vetoing IVF (for example) because the method separates sex from procreation. How about the dangers of separating sex from the formation of a spiritually and physically complete married relationship?
These are grave dangers indeed, since fornication and adultery are mortal sins. It is also terrible if this happens within a marriage, as I've already noted above, 2nd paragraph. However, the situation then is a bit different. The RCC does consider marriage to be a kind of contract by which the spouses grant each other "sexual access". Thus "loveless" sex within marriage violates the spirit, but not the letter, of the Divine regulation of sex. The falling short, i.e., the sins, involved in that are hence not really about the sexual act as such, but about the relationship.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It really comes across as if the argument being put forward is: sex (within marriage, of course) is fine so long as the opportunity for conception is always there, and anything in addition to that ie, satisfaction, enrichment, relationship-building, comfort etc is just a bonus, and never to be mistaken for a justifiable reason for having sex.
That is a regrettable outcome. However, I have not been asked "What should sex in a Roman Catholic marriage ideally be like?" I've been asked to explain why natural family planning is morally licit, but using contraceptives is not. To answer this one has to make a series of careful distinctions largely concerning the sexual act itself. I think it would be only fair if people did not confuse an in-depth look at one specific aspect of RC teaching on sexuality with a definitive statement on married life as a whole.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Now now, let's not confuse the poor man by suggesting that the body is capable of having parts with multiple functions.
Frankly, I was aware of the non-sexual function of my penis long before the sexual one... My arguments have in no way or form relied on a claim that organs have only one function. I have rather made the claim that the primary biological function of sex is reproduction, and argued this largely from the anatomy and physiology of genitals, the organs used in sex. If you wish to refute that argument, you will need to address it.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And since I'm busy learning things, no one ever answered this one:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What I've always wondered is why "artificial" birth control is such a bad thing when medical intervention to save life isn't. Shouldn't one be just as willing to accept God's will when God's will is that you die a miserable death as to accept God's will when God's will is that you get pregnant?
I also don't understand why a Catholic couple can't be regarded as being open to having children when all they want is to not have them right after they're married or to space them a bit. Someone's going to say "make me holy, Lord, just not yet," but I don't see why God would be offended at them wanting to build the strength of their marriage for a few years before introducing the unbelievably life-altering phenomenon that is a child.
To answer your unanswered question: Firstly, I consider it ill appropriate to compare pregnancy to a death-threatening illness. Any new human life, any child, is an occasion to rejoice as such. A fetus is no bowel cancer! That is not to deny that a pregnancy can mean terrible misery for a woman, or indeed even endanger her life. But that is saying something about how horrible this broken world can be. It is not saying that this child is a horrible entity. I utterly refuse to go there.
Secondly, that Christians should bear their crosses does not mean that they have to pick up all possible crosses along the way. Christianity has never been against alleviating misery, in particular not illness. After all, Christ Himself worked most His miracles as healer. Nobody is saying that the outcome of contraception is necessarily evil! It can indeed be good, even very good, for a woman to not get pregnant (at least not right now, or not with this man, etc.). However, the question must be asked whether the way this good is achieved is itself morally good (or at least neutral). Because one may not do evil to achieve good. And that's where the use of contraceptives (within marriage) becomes a problem for the RCC.
As to your second question: You should really inform yourself better here. Nobody is denying that it can be good for a married couple to wait with their first child or space children or even not have any more children. As Humanae Vitae explicitly states:
quote:
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.
The RCC has a problem with the means contraceptives, not necessarily with the end sought with them. (Though it also has to be said that total DINKdom is at odds with what the RCC considers sex and marriage to be for.)
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It doesn't matter how many times you point out that oral contraceptives are used to treat endometriosis, PCOS, excessive menstrual bleeding, excessive menstrual pain, premenstrual dysphoria syndrome, and a long list of other disorders, that they're used to prevent pregnancy when pregnancy is contraindicated by another essential medication the woman is taking, to prevent ovarian cancer in high-risk women.
The RCC does not outlaw at all the use of the pill for non-contraceptive medical purposes. (There is however an unresolved debate about the "medical" use of contraceptives within marriage.) I do not really wish to get into the parallel debate about health care provisions. But if such "medical" uses of the pill can be distinguished sufficiently from "contraceptive" ones, then one cannot make any moral argument against financing the former.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The primary reason that a majority of women who are taking the pill are taking it is not contraception; it's some other medical need. The contraceptive effect is secondary.
Seriously? I would be surprised if that was the case. Do you have references to back this up?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There is another possibility - the husband wanted to "regularise" the position of his relationship with the woman he left her for, and the church was putting pressure on her to agree the annulment so that he could.
Genevieve doesn't mention that at all, but I suppose that's possible. It would be odd not to have mentioned that though, don't you think? The Church is not in the habit of pressuring people out of marriages they believ to be real. I've never even heard of the Church putting pressure on a wronged wife or husband to agree that a mariage was null when that person believed otherwise. What makes that seem likely to you?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Also, it's perfectly possible that some trumped-up Catholic boss believed that divorce itself was sinful, and that unless the Church "officially" recognised the cessation of relationship through granting an annulment she could no longer be employed.
But Genevieve says her frind was employed by the Catholic diocese itself, not by some hectoring ignoramus. Again, why raise this "posibility" when it is neither mentioned by nor is compatible with Genevieve's story?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find both of those possibilities more believable than the idea that Genevieve is making the whole thing up.
You seem to find any explanation that is least flattering to the Church more believable than that Genevieve's story is straight - even though she herself admits "I'm likely giving you less than the whole picture, but it's the picture I know."
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
...the sympathy due to her friend means that the Catholic Church should dismantle its belief in the indissolubility of marriage, that seeking to analyse the details of the case is simply indecent and that I should subject myself to a self-denying ordinance whereby my posts in shell should be subject to rules applying on other boards.
Not at all. It simply means that the RCC should care more about people than the law.
"Putting people before laws" sounds great, but what practically does that mean, if not that it should disregard the "rule" that under certain circumstances a marriage is indissoluble? The notion we have of the indissolubility of marriage comes from a certain "Gallilean preacher", by the way, and people accused him of teaching too harsh a doctrine too.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Now now, let's not confuse the poor man by suggesting that the body is capable of having parts with multiple functions.
Frankly, I was aware of the non-sexual function of my penis long before the sexual one... My arguments have in no way or form relied on a claim that organs have only one function. I have rather made the claim that the primary biological function of sex is reproduction, and argued this largely from the anatomy and physiology of genitals, the organs used in sex. If you wish to refute that argument, you will need to address it.
Given that 'sex' is not part of my body, I don't exactly understand what it is I'm supposed to be refuting. That an activity primarily has a biological function? An activity has whatever primary function I decide when I choose to engage in the activity.
To describe an activity as having a biological function just sounds like you're reducing human beings to a bag of chemicals.
Eating: biological function is fuel, so let's throw away pleasure, social interaction and everything else built up around eating.
Laughing: Doesn't appear to achieve anything much. Let's dispense with it.
Running: Hmm. Well, I might be doing it to get somewhere quickly. I might be doing it to get AWAY from somewhere quickly. I might be doing it to improve my fitness (what with all those things I ate that tasted nice but weren't strictly biologically necessary, I'm having some chocolate right now as a matter of fact).
Sex: I've got news for you Ingo. People have sex for a variety of reasons and to achieve a variety of different goals. When I'm having sex for the purpose of making a baby, I'll let you know.
[ 17. February 2012, 10:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But Genevieve says her frind was employed by the Catholic diocese itself, not by some hectoring ignoramus.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Religious heirarchies are full of hectoring ignoramuses.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm going to sign off for the night, but I'd just like to put on record that the fact that Ingo, rather than some atheist, has managed to reduce the meaning of life to essential bodily functions - "eat, sleep, defecate, procreate" - is going to resonate in my mind for quite a while.
[ 17. February 2012, 11:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But Genevieve says her frind was employed by the Catholic diocese itself, not by some hectoring ignoramus.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Religious heirarchies are full of hectoring ignoramuses.
My point was that the diocese would know that the Church does not consider people in this woman's situation sinful simply for seeking a civil divorce. That's based on a misinformed prejudice. They would just know better than that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eating: biological function is fuel, so let's throw away pleasure, social interaction and everything else built up around eating.
I think the example of eating actually supports IngoB's case rather than detracting from it. The primary function of eating is to take fuel on board. As you say, it has secondary functions - for one, eating good food is a pleasure.
But if someone wants to enjoy the pleasure of good food without taking any fuel on board - for example by purging after eating, or abusing laxatives, we'd call that an eating disorder, wouldn't we?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
My point was that the diocese would know that the Church does not consider people in this woman's situation sinful simply for seeking a civil divorce. That's based on a misinformed prejudice. They would just know better than that.
In the same way that a diocese would know that child abuse is wrong, and would "just know better than" to attempt to cover it up?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Look, Marvin. I'm not saying that there are no rogues, knaves or fools working for the Catholic Church - but simply that the "civil divorce by wronged partner is so bad that peole must resign form Catholic paid employ if they commit it" line is such a weird outlier that I'd never even heard of it before. It's unlikely because its weird and rare, not because Catholic employees are too wise, prudent and good to be so assholish.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eating: biological function is fuel, so let's throw away pleasure, social interaction and everything else built up around eating.
I think the example of eating actually supports IngoB's case rather than detracting from it. The primary function of eating is to take fuel on board. As you say, it has secondary functions - for one, eating good food is a pleasure.
But if someone wants to enjoy the pleasure of good food without taking any fuel on board - for example by purging after eating, or abusing laxatives, we'd call that an eating disorder, wouldn't we?
I think that you just argued wine tasting is sinful.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eating: biological function is fuel, so let's throw away pleasure, social interaction and everything else built up around eating.
I think the example of eating actually supports IngoB's case rather than detracting from it. The primary function of eating is to take fuel on board. As you say, it has secondary functions - for one, eating good food is a pleasure.
But if someone wants to enjoy the pleasure of good food without taking any fuel on board - for example by purging after eating, or abusing laxatives, we'd call that an eating disorder, wouldn't we?
I think that you just argued wine tasting is sinful.
I didn't actually say having an eating disorder was sinful at all. Because I don't think it is - it is disordered.
I wouldn't say wine tasting was disordered. But I *would* say that if you went to a bar with a friend on a Friday night and instead of drinking his wine, he swilled it around his mouth and spat it out, and did this for a whole glassful, that you would be perplexed and embarrassed by his behaviour.
If not, you obviously go to very different bars from me.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
the "civil divorce by wronged partner is so bad that peole must resign form Catholic paid employ if they commit it" line is such a weird outlier that I'd never even heard of it before.
I can well believe that it's a line that would be taken by an over-zealous diocesan manager. People who take things to extremes are prevalent in all religions, and many of them seem to get to management level.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The primary reason that a majority of women who are taking the pill are taking it is not contraception; it's some other medical need. The contraceptive effect is secondary. [...]
The Catholic institutions should cover contraception, and instruct the faithful of the conditions under which it is licit to use it.
I agree, actually. If, which would be news to me but I'm prepared to accept, the majority use of the pill is non-contraceptive then Catholic policies should cover it but only when prescribed specifically for those medical needs.
According to research cited here, "more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons."
Based on this, I trust that you will be contacting your bishop today, and urging them to clarify that they do not in fact oppose the use of oral contraceptives for reasons other than contraception by anyone, and that they do not oppose the use of oral contraceptive for contraception as a form of harm-reduction by persons who are having sex outside of marriage.
If that were coupled with an offer of a different compromise -- "of course we'll cover oral contraceptives for our employees who need them for medical reasons, as long as we don't have to pay for them for married women who use them solely for contraception" -- it would perhaps redeem them (at least in part) from the charges of ignorance and bigotry which people are rightfully lodging against them and their church at the moment.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sex: I've got news for you Ingo. People have sex for a variety of reasons and to achieve a variety of different goals.
Of course they do. However, they would not be having any sex of any description for any purpose, if it were not for the simple fact that the primary biological function of sex is reproduction. Because this particular bit of human anatomy and physiology happens to have evolved for procreation. And I have already dealt with this particular misunderstanding above.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm going to sign off for the night, but I'd just like to put on record that the fact that Ingo, rather than some atheist, has managed to reduce the meaning of life to essential bodily functions - "eat, sleep, defecate, procreate" - is going to resonate in my mind for quite a while.
You are going on record with a slanderous lie there. I have neither said nor implied anything of this kind.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
But if wine tasting isn't disordered and bulimia is, then intent and purpose obviously informs the distinction. Which fits perfectly well with my point.
But also, the reason that those eating disorders is a practical, physical reason - that essential needs are not being met. It's nothing to do with a MORAL failing which is where Ingo is inevitably trying to take us whenever we start talking about the 'wrong' kind of sex.
And probably even more importantly, eating is an essential need of every human being. Making babies, funnily enough, isn't. My body doesn't wither away and die because of my failure to go around attempting to impregnate women, or one particular woman. It couldn't even remotely be said that I'm somehow endagering the species, rather than me as an individual. There are plenty of others doing the job perfectly well.
The reasoning that because one important function of sex is to procreate, having sex for other reasons is invalid is just as silly as the idea that because one terribly important function of eating is to fuel the body, eating for other reasons is invalid.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can well believe that it's a line that would be taken by an over-zealous diocesan manager. People who take things to extremes are prevalent in all religions, and many of them seem to get to management level.
If I grant that this is at least an imaginable scenario, will you admit that we have no reason to think this is what actually happened in the case Genevieve raised?
[ 17. February 2012, 13:33: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
There was a thread about three years ago about a similar employment situation. In that case a Catholic high school fired an English teacher because her fiancé was previously divorced.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sex: I've got news for you Ingo. People have sex for a variety of reasons and to achieve a variety of different goals.
Of course they do. However, they would not be having any sex of any description for any purpose, if it were not for the simple fact that the primary biological function of sex is reproduction. Because this particular bit of human anatomy and physiology happens to have evolved for procreation. And I have already dealt with this particular misunderstanding above.
That's like saying that no-one would be using their hands to play the piano if it were not for the simple fact that hands evolved to grab things. What am I supposed to conclude? That playing the piano is 'unnatural'? (PS Listening to Beethoven right now, it was the first analogy to, erm, come to hand...)
PS It's Hell. You'll get over the slanderous lies.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
'Libellous', shurely, since written down?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
'Libellous', shurely, since written down?
You think what this thread needs is more lawyering? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The primary reason that a majority of women who are taking the pill are taking it is not contraception; it's some other medical need. The contraceptive effect is secondary. [...]
The Catholic institutions should cover contraception, and instruct the faithful of the conditions under which it is licit to use it.
I agree, actually. If, which would be news to me but I'm prepared to accept, the majority use of the pill is non-contraceptive then Catholic policies should cover it but only when prescribed specifically for those medical needs.
Just out of curiosity, do you see any possible problems with having employers micromanage their employee's medical treatment like this?
In a similar vein, if it's considered valid for a Catholic employer to forbid an employee to use their company-provided health insurance to obtain treatments the Church disapproves of, wouldn't it also be valid for them to forbid employees from using their company-provided salaries to do the same? If not, what's the distinction? And if so, doesn't this invalidate the "they can just pay out of their own pockets" argument that's been popular on this thread?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There was a thread about three years ago about a similar employment situation. In that case a Catholic high school fired an English teacher because her fiancé was previously divorced.
First, that's not why the teacher was sacked - she was sacked for contracting a marriage with a divorced man whose first wife was still living and for refusing to seek an annulment for that first marriage.
Also it's quite different from what we know of Genevieve's case. There, Genevieve is claiming that her friend was sacked for not seeking an annulment from a marriage she herself stuck by but which her husband abandoned. Taht's quite a disanalogy, I would say.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eating: biological function is fuel, so let's throw away pleasure, social interaction and everything else built up around eating.
I think the example of eating actually supports IngoB's case rather than detracting from it. The primary function of eating is to take fuel on board. As you say, it has secondary functions - for one, eating good food is a pleasure.
But if someone wants to enjoy the pleasure of good food without taking any fuel on board - for example by purging after eating, or abusing laxatives, we'd call that an eating disorder, wouldn't we?
I think that you just argued wine tasting is sinful.
Only if you spit instead of swallowing ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 17. February 2012, 13:55: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If I grant that this is at least an imaginable scenario, will you admit that we have no reason to think this is what actually happened in the case Genevieve raised?
No reason at all. I'm just saying I find it more likely than either Genevieve made the whole thing up or she's deliberately missing out some putative misdeed on behalf of the woman to whom she referred.
I mean, come on. Do you really think it's so unlikely that there are small-minded zealots who enjoy going on power trips and forcing their own interpretation of holiness and morality onto others working for the RCC? Hell, the RCC forcing their own interpretation of holiness and morality onto others is what this whole thread is about!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think that you just argued wine tasting is sinful.
Only if you spit instead of swallowing
Which is, of course, how the pros do it. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, do you see any possible problems with having employers micromanage their employee's medical treatment like this?
Not off the top of my head, no. What did you have in mind?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In a similar vein, if it's considered valid for a Catholic employer to forbid an employee to use their company-provided health insurance to obtain treatments the Church disapproves of, wouldn't it also be valid for them to forbid employees from using their company-provided salaries to do the same? If not, what's the distinction? And if so, doesn't this invalidate the "they can just pay out of their own pockets" argument that's been popular on this thread?
No. Not in the least. Paying a salary to an employee for a specific job which you have commissioned them to do is not the same as purchasing a particular product for them. What an employee does with her own salary is her responsibility. But if an employer buys insurance to cover specific medical treatments for an employee the employer bears some responsibility as the purchaser of that particular insurance product should the employee choose to use the services bought on their behalf.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's like saying that no-one would be using their hands to play the piano if it were not for the simple fact that hands evolved to grab things. What am I supposed to conclude? That playing the piano is 'unnatural'?
It would be more along the lines of saying that if you want to stop a toddler from grabbing all kinds of things, then you shouldn't inject curare into his hands to shut down the muscles. Grabbing is what hands were made for, naturally. And if you have a problem with grabbing under certain circumstances, then the solution is not to simply remove the natural grabbing ability of hands with potent drugs.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS It's Hell. You'll get over the slanderous lies.
What I'm actually saying surely is contentious enough to feed the flames of Hell. It's an annoying distraction to have to to spit out words people put in my mouth.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If I grant that this is at least an imaginable scenario, will you admit that we have no reason to think this is what actually happened in the case Genevieve raised?
No reason at all. I'm just saying I find it more likely than either Genevieve made the whole thing up or she's deliberately missing out some putative misdeed on behalf of the woman to whom she referred.
No-one's suggesting Genevieve made the whole thing up. It's just that the story as we have it doesn't merit us drawing any such conclusions. So why did that explanation trump the "incomplete story" one for you? We have evidence for the "incomplete story" hypothesis - Genevieve's own admission. What evidence do we have for the "hard-ass-on-divorce-even-without-remarriage boss" hypothesis?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, come on. Do you really think it's so unlikely that there are small-minded zealots who enjoy going on power trips and forcing their own interpretation of holiness and morality onto others working for the RCC?
No, I don't. And I never suggested I did.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm going to sign off for the night, but I'd just like to put on record that the fact that Ingo, rather than some atheist, has managed to reduce the meaning of life to essential bodily functions - "eat, sleep, defecate, procreate" - is going to resonate in my mind for quite a while.
Hey, I'm still stuck back on page 2:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
.... Still, a good rule of thumb is that sex is licit if God could make it result in a baby without having to overcome any "unnatural" factors (if God would not have to explode a condom, remove a coil, cleanse the chemicals released by a drug,...). ...
I know it's not what IngoB means, but it sure looks like "there ain't no miracles no more". The God that made a virgin conceive is apparently now stymied by condoms and imperfect sex acts. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, do you see any possible problems with having employers micromanage their employee's medical treatment like this?
Not off the top of my head, no. What did you have in mind?
For starters, using their ability to control their employees' (and their families') access to medical care as a lever to control their actions.
"Well Johnson, you can either report our illegal toxic dumping to OSHA or your daughter can get her braces. Your choice."
And that doesn't even get into the problems with non-medical professionals deciding which treatments are really "necessary".
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In a similar vein, if it's considered valid for a Catholic employer to forbid an employee to use their company-provided health insurance to obtain treatments the Church disapproves of, wouldn't it also be valid for them to forbid employees from using their company-provided salaries to do the same? If not, what's the distinction? And if so, doesn't this invalidate the "they can just pay out of their own pockets" argument that's been popular on this thread?
No. Not in the least. Paying a salary to an employee for a specific job which you have commissioned them to do is not the same as purchasing a particular product for them. What an employee does with her own salary is her responsibility. But if an employer buys insurance to cover specific medical treatments for an employee the employer bears some responsibility as the purchaser of that particular insurance product should the employee choose to use the services bought on their behalf.
The problem with this assessment is that the employer isn't buying "specific medical treatments" for an employee, they're paying (partially, in most cases) for general access to medical care, the details of which are worked out between the employee and her physician. As I noted before, this position seems to hold that employees are akin to serfs or slaves who need to have their personal decisions made for them by their masters.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
According to research cited here, "more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons."
"At least in part" - right. But for how many of them is the non-contraceptive use the primary reason for their taking it? Because wht you initally claimed was:
quote:
The primary reason that a majority of women who are taking the pill are taking it is not contraception; it's some other medical need. The contraceptive effect is secondary.
Which, with respect, is different from the claim you cite from Guttmacher.
Anyway, as I said above, I'm happy to accept your majority claim just for the purposes of argument here.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Based on this, I trust that you will be contacting your bishop today, and urging them to clarify that they do not in fact oppose the use of oral contraceptives for reasons other than contraception by anyone, and that they do not oppose the use of oral contraceptive for contraception as a form of harm-reduction by persons who are having sex outside of marriage.
1) I'm in Edinburgh, Scotland, where this is not currently a hot topic for debate.
2) You can use the male pronoun here instead of the gender-neutral "they" - I'm pretty sure all the Roman Catholic bishops are still men.
3) I'm not sure that there's much doubt or worry out there in this country about whether Catholics may legitimately take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons. Most Catholics here seem either to be aware of that or not to worry about it. A Catholic friend of mine was prescribed the pill for her dismenorrohea decades back, for example. I think it's pretty widely known that nuns in missions were they are likely to be raped have been prescribed the pill too. I don't see the urgency of this plea to my bishop, whose a very busy man.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No-one's suggesting Genevieve made the whole thing up. It's just that the story as we have it doesn't merit us drawing any such conclusions.
Trisagion flat out refused to believe that the story as told could possibly have happened.
quote:
So why did that explanation trump the "incomplete story" one for you? We have evidence for the "incomplete story" hypothesis - Genevieve's own admission. What evidence do we have for the "hard-ass-on-divorce-even-without-remarriage boss" hypothesis?
Hard-ass religionists exist in vast numbers, especially in churches which have very specific and rigorous moral laws. That's evidence enough for me to assume that the fault lies with such a person, in the absence of any reason to think otherwise.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, come on. Do you really think it's so unlikely that there are small-minded zealots who enjoy going on power trips and forcing their own interpretation of holiness and morality onto others working for the RCC?
No, I don't. And I never suggested I did.
You described it as "weird and rare", and it took several posts before you'd even accept it as an imaginable scenario.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's like saying that no-one would be using their hands to play the piano if it were not for the simple fact that hands evolved to grab things. What am I supposed to conclude? That playing the piano is 'unnatural'?
It would be more along the lines of saying that if you want to stop a toddler from grabbing all kinds of things, then you shouldn't inject curare into his hands to shut down the muscles. Grabbing is what hands were made for, naturally. And if you have a problem with grabbing under certain circumstances, then the solution is not to simply remove the natural grabbing ability of hands with potent drugs.
Nice how you've declared what the solution isn't. Now please declare what the solution IS. Having created a hypothetical situation where grabbing is a problem, I'd be fascinated to see how you deal with it without purposefully restricting the grabbing. Or will you just throw your appendages up in the air and say "there's nothing we can do, grabbing just happens"?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For starters, using their ability to control their employees' (and their families') access to medical care as a lever to control their actions.
"Well Johnson, you can either report our illegal toxic dumping to OSHA or your daughter can get her braces. Your choice."
That's just ridiculous. No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover. The Catholic bishops are asking for a single exception to be made - by the legitimate authorities, not by the employer on an ad hoc, autonomous basis - on the grounds of conscience.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with this assessment is that the employer isn't buying "specific medical treatments" for an employee, they're paying (partially, in most cases) for general access to medical care, the details of which are worked out between the employee and her physician. As I noted before, this position seems to hold that employees are akin to serfs or slaves who need to have their personal decisions made for them by their masters.
Effectively, buying coverage for specific treatments is precisely what employers are doing if there is an agreement to cover some options without co-pay and others not. Will nose-jobs or botox be covered under most schemes? No. Why not? Because most employers (I'd guess) have not agreed to fork out to cover that - but the employee is not thereby being told by the employer she can't pursue those treatments. The only "decision that is being made by the employer for the employee" is what treatments they will be able to avail themselves of free, and which they will have to pay for themselves.
Now, if you'll forgive me, I've a paid job to be getting on with which I'm currently not.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No-one's suggesting Genevieve made the whole thing up. It's just that the story as we have it doesn't merit us drawing any such conclusions.
Trisagion flat out refused to believe that the story as told could possibly have happened.
"As told" is the key phrase here.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hard-ass religionists exist in vast numbers, especially in churches which have very specific and rigorous moral laws. That's evidence enough for me to assume that the fault lies with such a person, in the absence of any reason to think otherwise.
But we did have another reason - Genevieve's admission that she may not have got the story straight or whole as it happened. But you discouted that.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, come on. Do you really think it's so unlikely that there are small-minded zealots who enjoy going on power trips and forcing their own interpretation of holiness and morality onto others working for the RCC?
No, I don't. And I never suggested I did.
You described it as "weird and rare", and it took several posts before you'd even accept it as an imaginable scenario. [/qb][/QUOTE]No: I called one paticular instance of that kind of assholishness weird and rare, because I had never myself enountered it before.
[ 17. February 2012, 15:00: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nice how you've declared what the solution isn't. Now please declare what the solution IS. Having created a hypothetical situation where grabbing is a problem, I'd be fascinated to see how you deal with it without purposefully restricting the grabbing. Or will you just throw your appendages up in the air and say "there's nothing we can do, grabbing just happens"?
It's more, "Since grabbing is the original and primary use of hands, you mustn't do anything that prohibits the possibility of grabbing." I would like to see some argument for why couples must always allow for the possibility for the original and primary use of sex, given that it has other uses which are admitted to be legitimate.
Why must we be slaves to our bodies in this one area? We have evolved (or if reality isn't your bag, gifted with) the ability to use sex for other purposes. What does the original reason for the evolution (design) of sex have to do with prohibiting its use, now that it has other uses? Especially since this "open to the possibility" wording is so Jesuitical on the face of it. This doesn't prove it's wrong, but surely asking for an explanation of how it makes sense and why it's insisted on is hardly blameworthy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For starters, using their ability to control their employees' (and their families') access to medical care as a lever to control their actions.
"Well Johnson, you can either report our illegal toxic dumping to OSHA or your daughter can get her braces. Your choice."
That's just ridiculous. No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover. The Catholic bishops are asking for a single exception to be made - by the legitimate authorities, not by the employer on an ad hoc, autonomous basis - on the grounds of conscience.
First off, the kind of preferential government treatment you describe as "a single exception" isn't really consistent with American ideas about the law being equally applicable to everyone. If the Roman Catholic Church (or even just employers who are adherents of the faith) gets to provide substandard health coverage to their employees, why not others? Can an employer who claims to be a Christian scientist just pocket a chunk of company funds on the premise that his prayers for his sick or injured employees qualify him as a "health care plan"? Second, your claim that "No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover" is directly contradicted by your assertion that certain oral contraceptive prescriptions would be allowed by the Church, but not others.
[ 17. February 2012, 15:15: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's just ridiculous. No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover.
Well the proposed Blunt amendment seems to come pretty darned close:
no exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title ... shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of such plan's, sponsor's, provider's, or person's unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services.
[ 17. February 2012, 15:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
