You asked me:
"Would you have criticized the Catholic Church if it had OPPOSED the Stupak/Pitts Amendment and it failed to clear the House?"
Here's my answer: Of course not. I think everyone should support the Constitution. In this case, the Catholic bishops have stripped more than half of all Americans of their constitutional rights. If the bishops had upheld the rights of all Americans, I'd be applauding their actions.
Instead, they decided to push their narrow religious viewpoint on the rest of us. That's why I spent yesterday morning on a panel of religious leaders who, like me, opposed the bishops' amendment. This press conference at the National Press Club brought together Catholic, Protestant and Jewish organizations to call on the U.S. Senate not to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the Senate version of the bill.
Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, made an interesting point. He said, "[T]here are only 200 bishops in decision-making positions in the U.S. church. Sadly, these 200 are often referred to as the 'Catholic church.' This is far from the case. The Catholic church in the United States is made up of all 68 million Catholics and all of the Catholic institutions.
"A majority of American Catholics," he continued, "think that reproductive health care services should be covered in any eventual reform of the U.S. health care system -- including pre- and postnatal care for women, contraception, condom provision as part of HIV/AIDS prevention, and yes, even abortion.
"A small minority of Catholics, fewer than 15 percent, are in line with the bishops in believing that all abortion should be banned," he concluded. "The rest can see circumstances in which legal abortion is an acceptable, even essential, aspect of health care."
Other speakers at the press conference included leaders from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society, Catholics for Choice, National Council of Jewish Women and the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.
All of us came together because we agree on one thing: there is a lot at stake here. This amendment threatens not only the rights of women, but also hinders the religious freedom of all Americans who do not want to see the theological views of any group imposed on every one of us.
I said it last week on this blog, I said it yesterday at the press conference, and I'll say it again now: it would be better to dump the entire bill than to allow it to become law with these noxious provisions intact. It saddens me to say this, and that is why I hope it never has to reach that point. There is still time for the Senate to do the right thing, and I urge them to keep this amendment out of their version of the bill.
"A majority of American Catholics," he continued, "think that reproductive health care services should be covered in any eventual reform of the U.S. health care system -- including pre- and postnatal care for women, contraception, condom provision as part of HIV/AIDS prevention, and yes, even abortion.
"A small minority of Catholics, fewer than 15 percent, are in line with the bishops in believing that all abortion should be banned," he concluded. "The rest can see circumstances in which legal abortion is an acceptable, even essential, aspect of health care."
Other speakers at the press conference included leaders from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society, Catholics for Choice, National Council of Jewish Women and the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.
All of us came together because we agree on one thing: there is a lot at stake here. This amendment threatens not only the rights of women, but also hinders the religious freedom of all Americans who do not want to see the theological views of any group imposed on every one of us.
I said it last week on this blog, I said it yesterday at the press conference, and I'll say it again now: it would be better to dump the entire bill than to allow it to become law with these noxious provisions intact. It saddens me to say this, and that is why I hope it never has to reach that point. There is still time for the Senate to do the right thing, and I urge them to keep this amendment out of their version of the bill.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Re;Boris
Nope that is not what I wrote. Thanks for your lack of respect. At least I am trying to stick up for people who can not defend themselves. Unlike yourself who is stuck in some sort of blob of tissue world, giving way to the killing of innocent lives.
Cara
Rich, hope you had a nice Thanksgiving...I certainly think I am 10 lbs heavier.
The Christian resistence to gay marriage, legalized prostitution, and OUT OF CONTROL gambling is due to its affects on society and the stabilization of the family unit. Gay "marriage" also goes against God's creation of marriage between one man and one woman.
You are very misguided on your view of the Catholic idea of sex. Take it from me...one who has been married in the Catholic Church, taken several courses on marriage in the Church and received training on Natural Family Planning...and someone who has sex. The main points are these: 1) Sex is created specifically between one man and one woman for the unity of the marriage, the procreation of life, and the complete self-giving of each other to the other spouse. 2) It is never to be used as a means of self-pleasure without regard of the other person. 3) Spouses are to enjoy the pleasure of one another through self-giving and in that God-given act replicate the self-giving love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The whole deal is don't use sex as masurbation and self-pleasure and don't use contraception because your marriage is there partially for the procreation of life through God. Married couples are to be responsible humans and parents by use of Natural Family Planning in which you use the woman's natural cycles to know when she is most likely to conceive and avoid intercourse if they need to keep from having children. This method is VERY effective. It is also very effective in knowning the exact date you conceive if you choose to.
Sex between infertile married couples is not a sin as long as the other conditions of unity are met. They are also encouraged to adopt.
I'm sorry Rich, but once again you are very misguided in your understanding of the Church. The Church is built off of love. And the Church teaches that you should hate the sin, not the sinner. So, would we throw women in jail who have abortions? NO! Would we jail doctors who perform them? Absolutely. Women don't get abortions because they are evil, self-centered people who hate babies. They get them because they are scared and don't know what else to do. What would we do for a woman who had an abortion? We would show her love, invite her to speak with a priest or counselor and if it were her will to go to confession.
The separation between Church and state is not even in the Declaration of Independence. It is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson. If the Church wants to stand up for what it believes and bring certain immoral issues to light, then I think that is completely acceptable. If it wants to tell members of its faithful that it cannot accept a holy sacrament only suited for those in communion with its teachings, then that is acceptable. The church isn't forcing anyone to do anything, it is merely telling the Congress what its teachings are and that it and its TRUE faithful will not support anything against those teachings. What is wrong with that? What if the Church petitioned Congress for housing and food for all the homeless people in America? Would you tell them to butt out? No, you wouldn't.
Rich, in your last remarks to me you clearly have shown me your distrust of religion. I understand there are reasons for that, but you have to understand that most of them are unfounded. The way that people view the Catholic Church is so misunderstood that it is scary. I know that sometimes what they do is not the most popular thing at the moment. But you have to realize that it is always in the best interested of the Faith and the faithful.
I'm still holding you to reading that book. Don't make me buy it for you for Christmas. Oh wait, you don't celebrate the birth of Christ do you? Well, I will send it to you in the spirit of good holiday cheer.
Peace be with you, brother.
Paul
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I am generally undecided as to who posts the best gibberish, you or Cara.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter to me.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I think Cara generally gets the 1st place award for her general inability to string words together in a coherent sentence whereas you should get the prize for most-hyperactive cult member.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, well. I guess will just have to live with that. Heh.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
Just plain hard to say who is more nutty and is deserving of the overall trophy.
-----------------------------------------------------------
We're sure that, if you try real hard, you'll be able to come up with an answer.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
A toss-up I suppose, you two may have to share.
-----------------------------------------------------------
B-b-b-b-b-but I wanna be number one!
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
As to responding to your comments, there was nothing that merited a response.
-----------------------------------------------------------
And, still, you responded. Make up your mind.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I think it was all nothing but you saying, in all humility of course, just how wonderfully saved you are...
-----------------------------------------------------------
I can speak nothing but the Truth of the Word of God. In Him, there is no lie.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
... and just how righteous you are...
-----------------------------------------------------------
In faith, those who are born again are Righteous through Him.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
... and just how in tune with Jesus and God you are.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nothing but the Truth.
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
Not much to say in response to all that humility, other than 'unbelievable'.
-----------------------------------------------------------
We don't expect scoffers to believe it. But, so what?
Rich
November 26, 2009 2:53 AM
I am generally undecided as to who posts the best gibberish...
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 2:14
So, the fault is with YOU, not us.
Barry,
Would you be opposed to a universal single payer system which did not fund abortion except in case of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother? I would support a universal single payer plan whether it did or did not ban abortion; I certainly hope you would also. Seems to me that the Stupak ammendment is doing essentially what a ban on government funding would do under a universal single payer system. To argue that Provider plans which are paid for solely by individuals are not also government subsidized by being on the exchange and having customers who are government subsidized is like saying the church is not being helped by the government in receiving funds to run a rehab program that meets in the midst of its religious symbols.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.