Posted on 12/17/2012 8:38:45 AM PST by marshmallow
Since this isn’t a Catholic Caucus, casting opinion on whether the religious argument against Jindal is the point of the thread; dismissing opinions that disagree with the church by saying the church says so isn’t a good argument — as it would be if you were discussing in a caucus thread.
And so long as you understand that Obamacare doesn’t cover OTC, I disagree with your opinion of what might happen in the future, and dismiss your attempt to use your own prediction of the future to attack me for a position I don’t even hold based on your opinion of the future.
As for “Canon Law”, it is a specific thing, and I provided a link to the current “Cannon Law”. Since you had to go to a different link, and cite something other than the Canon Law, my guess is you are using a different definition of the Canon Law than “The thing called “The Canon Law”.
And I will note that even your non-Canon-Law reference doesn’t say what you claimed it said; it says what I knew the teaching was, and then you applied your opinion as to how that would “have” to be construed. Interpretation of Papal decree is not Papal decree, interpretation of Canon Law is not equal to the Canon law. You CLAIM that your quoted reference REQUIRES something that the reference itself does NOT require. Nowhere in that document does it say that the pill is REQUIRED to be dispensed via a prescription, or that a person using the pill must have a doctor to provide “proof”.
In general, God does not require “proof” that one is adhering to His law. God is all-knowing, and will see the hearts of his people. You might as well argue that since Catholic teaching says a woman should be a virgin until marriage, that it is a requirement that a woman be examined by a Doctor and provide proof of virginity before a Priest will perform a marriage ceremony.
So now I feel confident to assert that there is no reference in Canon Law, OR Papal Decree, that dictates that birth control only be provided by prescription, which was your assertion. I don’t have to be a Catholic to see that you are unable to provide a quote which shows a direct reference.
I dismiss your scientific claims because this is a religion thread based on a religious attack on Jindal, and that religious attack was that a public official could not suggest the pill be move to OTC because the Catholic Church opposes the use of contraception. Their religious decree had no statement of a scientific basis.
You are introducing a different argument, to make a different point. That isn’t useful to the discussion of the point that WAS made, and the scientific aspect of the question has NO BEARING on my religious claim.
So I guess you can attack my religious argument by raising an unrelated scientific argument, but it is illogical.
“I disagree with your opinion of what might happen in the future”
On what grounds? Now that contraception is covered, do you seriously believe that if they were OTC that the Democrats wouldn’t attempt to simply extend Obamacare to continue to cover contraception? Jindal’s argument is flawed. That’s the problem I have with it. The perceived ‘loophole’ isn’t one at all - it leads to a box canyon. If we take Jindal’s lead, it’s not going to take us where we want to go.
“Since you had to go to a different link”
Humanae Vitae is very much a part of Canon Law. Once again, you are demonstrating your profound ignorance on this point.
“Interpretation of Papal decree is not Papal decree.”
Where does Humanae Vitae affirm your position that the statement, “I’m taking this for medical purposes” is sufficient evidence?
“Nowhere in that document does it say that the pill is REQUIRED to be dispensed via a prescription, or that a person using the pill must have a doctor to provide “proof”.”
It states that hormonal contraception is only licit when proven that it is taken for medical purposes not related to contraception. How would one go about proving this? A doctor’s prescription stating such.
“In general, God does not require “proof” that one is adhering to His law.”
According to whom? The prophet Charles Wayne?
“God is all-knowing, and will see the hearts of his people.”
Then why did he establish his Church?
“You might as well argue that since Catholic teaching says a woman should be a virgin until marriage, that it is a requirement that a woman be examined by a Doctor and provide proof of virginity before a Priest will perform a marriage ceremony.”
Where does Catholic teaching state explicitly, “that a woman should be a virgin upon marriage?” It says no such thing.
“So now I feel confident”
Cool story bro. That and 4 bucks buys you a cup at starbucks.
“I don’t have to be a Catholic to see that you are unable to provide a quote which shows a direct reference.”
I have provided a citation that demonstrates that contraception is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church.
“I dismiss your scientific claims”
Because they destroy your argument? Tough. It doesn’t work that way, unfortunately.
“That isn’t useful”.
Sure it is, that is why you are attempting to dismiss it. It cripples your entire case.
Call me when you actually advance an argument rather than declaring yourself the victor, and perhaps we can have a constructive conversation. :)
The word proven does not appear in the text you linked. Here is the full text:
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)There is nothing in that text about "proving" anything. It doesn't even specifically mention the pill. It states that any treatment meant for some other legitimate purpose is OK (not illicit), even if those treatments have the effect of contraception. The prohibition is based on the INTENT of the person. Which supports MY argument, not yours, as a doctor's note doesn't show intent, it shows need, and a person could get a doctor to show need when the intent of the person was to circumvent the rules.
But frankly, my argument was that the "Canon Law" did not state a requirement for prescriptions for birth control. I made that argument based on the absurdity of Canon Law actually saying that birth control could only be obtained by prescription, and by a search on the official church Canon Law website.
And it is clear I am correct -- you are casting your own interpretation into the Canon Law and the Papal decree you posted. You are free to interpret your Canon law as you like, but not to insert your own words into Canon Law. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty confident about that. Unless you ARE the Pope, I guess....
As for whether the Humanae Vitae is literally part of the Canon Law or not -- well, there was a council that instituted something that is named The Canon Law, and the Humanae Vitae REFERENCES The Canon Law, so it seems to be something different. I believe it is ABOVE Canon Law -- I haven't yet found any reference to encylcicals that say they are a PART of "The Canon Law".
My guess is you did not use the term "Canon Law" literally (meaning the official published document that has the name "Canon Law"). But I'm not going to argue since even IF the Humanae Vitae was literal "Canon Law", it doesn't say what you claimed it said.
The entire notion of Canon Law of course had nothing to do with the original argument -- I simply thought it absurd that you were claim, which were analogous to expecting the U.S. Constitution to contain the words known as the "Miranda Rights". If you claimed that Miranda Rights were the law of the land, I wouldn't argue. If you claimed that the words of the Miranda Rights were spelled out in the constitution, and couldn't be changed, and that a law proposing a modification to the words would be unconstitutional, that would be a bad argument.
Your unjustified condescension aside, I would note that I did not start trying to argue about the fine point of church law. This is not a Catholic Caucus. It is a religion thread where Jindal is attacked for suggesting BC be OTC, on the basis that birth control is against Catholic Teaching.
My argument was that this religious appeal was inappropriate. Your responses have been all over the map, from arguing that his idea was bad science, to falsely claiming that Canon Law explicitly says that all Birth Control must be by Prescription, and therefore calling for OTC itself violates that law. (Of course, if the Canon Law actually SAID that, it wouldn't prove my assertion wrong, because my argument wasn't that they were misinterpreting Church Teaching).
So rather than continue the circular discussion and talking past one another (the sad fact being that I am not disagreeing with you on much of what you are saying, or making a value judgment on your church teaching), I'll simply re-summarize my point of this thread.
Jindal is an elected representative of the people. As such, I do not expect him to legislate particular tenets of his religious faith. If the pill WAS safe enough to be OTC, given that the pill is universally available already, already dirt cheap, and that for poor people the prescription can be obtained at no cost and little fuss, that it is NOT a given that making it OTC would cause people who otherwise wouldn't use the pill for religious reasons to now use it.
My argument is that the moral issues related to the pill are LESSENED if we remove the requirement for the FDA to control, insurance companies to cover, and doctors to prescribe the pill.
A Catholic Doctor currently is pressured by the law to prescribe birth control to non-Catholics, which would be against his beliefs. If it was OTC, there would be no pressure. Pharmacists are pressured to dispense, and wouldn't be if it was OTC. Insurance companies are pressured to cover under their prescription drug coverage, and wouldn't if it was OTC. People buying insurance see parts of their premiums underwriting coverage for birth control, and that would cease. Poor people get birth control under government prescription drug programs paid for by taxes, which would end (although I'm sure that the government would still try to establish SOME program to provide free birth control, either directly or through grants to free clinics, it wouldn't be worse than it is now).
In exchange for these moral benefits, the moral harm is that for those women who make the conscious decision to sin by using birth control, the ACT of that sin would be easier, because they wouldn't have to get a prescription first. But the woman would still have complete control over her own sin, whereas the rest of us have little control over our participation in the sin, and I think from a religious perspective that is an excellent trade-off.
Further, since even the Catholic Church does not oppose ALL uses of birth control, the existence of the pill is not itself immoral, and therefore making the pill OTC would benefit those who use the pill in a moral fashion.
That is the religious argument, and it isn't based on Canon Law, or whether Jindal is under the authority of the Church, or whether the Church has a RIGHT to make a decree.
BTW, lest you think I am being obtuse, I am aware that I took your reference to “Canon Law” quite literally. I know that the term “canon law” can refer to the entire legal system of the Catholic Church, including the systems set up to litigate matters of law.
But generally when someone says “Canon Law” they mean the actual documents that make up that highest level of proscriptions (not quite highest, as the encyclicals and Papal decrees are above Canon Law).
Since we were talking about a specific term being found in “Canon Law”, I took that to mean the document. If you HAD meant the more general application, you would have responded thusly; I never argued, because I wouldn’t know, if some church body somewhere in the Catholic church had made the argument you make. I was just arguing the notion that some Pope or council would have decreed that the pill had to be dispensed in the United States by prescription.
And I was open to being shown in a document where they did so — I wasn’t arguing infallibility.
So I wanted to clear that up.
****************************************
Thank goodness.
Other people are free to do as they wish. Jindal, on the other hand is not.
*******************************
Exactly right.
If the citizens of Louisiana aren't happy with his work, they may choose to vote for some other candidate in the next election. That's how the system works. Imho, however, he has a greater chance of re-election if he stays true to the church.
“I know that the term “canon law” can refer to the entire legal system of the Catholic Church.”
Papal encyclicals are a part of Canon Law. This is basic stuff, Charles.
How do you know it was in easy reach???????
Well, she reached up and grabbed it. I suppose she may have had to climb it, that is possible, but there is no indication in the Bible she did. In any case, there is nothing in the Bible that says it was difficult to get to the apple. And why would God make it difficult? He wanted to test their obedience to Him, had he not even put the tree in the garden at all then there would have been no test. God also allowed Satan to tempt Eve. Obviously He thought the test VERY important.
We can hardly be considered obedient to God if the reason we don’t sin is because it is simply too difficult to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.