Brethren, Peace and Good to you in Jesus Christ.
You’ve heard said repeatedly by mostly Democrat (and women) politicians: “98 percent of all Catholic women use contraceptives”. This is supposed to be enough justification to force Church-affiliated institutions to serve or fund contraceptives in opposition to the Church’s moral stance. Where did this number come from and what does it mean?
The “98 percent” number comes from a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute - the question asked was whether women ages 18-45 had EVER used contraceptives. So the stat means that 98% of Catholic women, by the age of 45, state that they have used some form of contraception on at least one occasion. This did not even attempt to make a distinction between one use, occasional use, or frequent use. It did not attempt to make a distinction between what someone may have done at one time in her life and what she does now, with what she has come to know and understand now. And it did not attempt to distinguish between what a woman may have done at least one time and what she believes is right or appropriate to try to live up to. It is not a useful number to quote but it is showing up all over the place recently.
Therefore, the number is a “flat” number and meaningless to the debate. Consider this, what about those women who use contraceptives to regularize their menses so that they can conceive? Then it would not be a proper contraceptive use, is it? Yet the survey doesn’t answer that.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the number is true and accurate across categories and throughout time. What bearing should the “98 percent” have upon Catholic teaching and conscience? Answer: no bearing. Why? Because this is to argue ad populo, it’s good because everyone does it and that’s a fallacy. Let’s say that 98% of Americans cheat on their taxes. Would that make the cheating right? Should “Thou shall not steal” stricken from the Ten Commandments if everyone were to steal? Should moral truth be up for a vote?
Democrats politicians who push for this mandate, along with those Catholics who have compromised their consciences and also favor this mandate, don’t have to believe or accept the moral demands of the Catholic religion, or even like it.
What they need to understand is that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion which includes with it freedom of conscience – and not merely of “worship” like this disgraced Administration of ours paints it – and of association. Freedom of association doesn’t only mean that we are free to congregate in groups or gangs to have fun or to protest in mass demonstrations, but that we can form societies of mutual help, of commerce, and manufacture and that all we are free to shape these association according to the same values shaping our consciences, hence the formation of religious medical institutions in general and Catholic in particular.
There are signs that the Administration is beginning to backtrack on its attempted violation of our freedom of religion and association, the fact remains that their little exercise in tyranny should not have happened in the first place. This is not their first attempt, nor will it be their last, so we should remain vigilant now more than ever as their ilk will not rest until they muffle people of faith from meaningful participation in the public arena.










7 comments:
I'd love to know what % of Catholic women have reached that age in life that would make the possibility of becoming pregnant virtually nil. Let's guess 30% just for an example. Add the % of Catholic women that haven't reach the age in life yet that it would be possible to conceive. (~20%). Add the % of Catholic that are not in a sexual relationship at this present time. (20%). Add % that are still virgins (10%). We now have 98% of Catholic women taking medicine for a cause that doesn't even effect them. Sure, now let's make it free and I bet we could get nearly 175% of Catholic women taking harmful medications for absolutely no reason at all. I don't know if I should be more upset about the moral implications or the fact that the media is free to classify Catholic women as the stupidest single group of females on the face of the earth. That more than half of all Catholic women pay for medications that are of no use to them and is dangerous to their health and puts their immortal soul in jeopardy. As a Catholic male I am very proud that almost 98% of Catholic women over the age of seventy find me so sexually attractive and virile that they live in great fear that just being in the same cathedral with me may cause them to spontaneously conceive. All this coming from media and people who laugh at the idea of Jesus's mother being a virgin. Here's an idea. Drop the HSS mandate and the whole same-sex marriage travesty and we will allow a check box to be added to the 1090 Form where taxpayers can voluntarily send money to a fund that will help poor gays and lesbians receive the contraceptive medicines they so desperately need. All owe allegiance to their homeland, but each persons soul is their own. I'll keep my rosaries off your ovaries if you'll keep your hate off my God given rights.
Those hateful Catholics, they cling to their God and their families. We'll have to pry their beautiful children out of their cold dead hands before they will sacrifice they children for Obamanations.
OK, so 45% of households owe no taxes(1) and 30-40% of the rest cheat on their taxes(2) leaving 16-22% of the total who are honest taxpayers (neglecting the overlap of the two groups).
Maybe they should say "the heck with it" and just make taxpaying optional.
(1) http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
(2) http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_citizens_cheat_on_their_taxes
"Consider this, what about those women who use contraceptives to regularize their menses so that they can conceive? Then it would not be a proper contraceptive use, is it? Yet the survey doesn’t answer that."
Haven't you just argued in favor of health insurance including contraceptives even for religious institutions?
Haven't you just argued in favor of health insurance including contraceptives even for religious institutions?
I made this statement fully aware that I would "called on the carpet" for it. Thank you for obliging. ;-)
Such use would not be properly "contraceptive," would it? Because its telos or finality would not be contraceptive, right?
Less we fall in a categorical error (you know, "apple and oranges"), the exception has no bearing on the policy and conscience matter, right?
Much of the confusion on this issue is due to lazy, sloppy thinking.
-Theo
But you make no distinctions in your arguments about when contraceptives should be covered. You believe contraceptive coverage should not be provided in catholic institutions at all, therefore excluding women who need them for other purposes from getting the help that they need.
Shouldn't it be up to the individual catholic to choose whether to use or not use contraceptives? Is it your duty to make the choice for them? Don't we have free will?
@Esceptico
No one is preventing them from getting contraception if they want it. It's just that it's not fair to make someone pay for it against their conscience (or free will, as you say).
People say they don't want Catholic morality in their bedroom, but they're more than happy to stick their hand into the Catholic wallet.
But you make no distinctions in your arguments about when contraceptives should be covered. You believe contraceptive coverage should not be provided in catholic institutions at all, therefore excluding women who need them for other purposes from getting the help that they need.
They are not contraceptives when they are not used as such. Have the pharm companies rebrand them when their use is different than from contraception.
Shouldn't it be up to the individual catholic to choose whether to use or not use contraceptives? Is it your duty to make the choice for them? Don't we have free will?
Certainly, Catholics can choose to sever a perfectly good limb, or crash a car against a wall for no reason, or not to wear seatbelts. It is our duty to warn about the consequences of those choices.
Same with contraception.
-Theo
Post a Comment