BECAUSE; nothing in your example harmed anyone or deprived them of an inherent right. Depriving someone of an inherent right is what you're trying to do.

Denying women positions of authority DOES seem to be something the Church claims as an 'inherent right' since *every* *single* *one* of their positions of authority is held by a man. They just don't push it in the 'outside world' because they know they couldn't get away with it. Women HAVE pushed back inside the Church and the Church CAN get away with it there. Our government has never forced the Catholic Church to allow a woman to be an ordained priest.

Honest question here - and feel free to tell me it's none of my business - but were you or are you Catholic?

Yes, I'm Catholic. The State does not have the right to tell the church who can or cannot be a priest. It's a religious decision. It may be antiquated, but it's still within the purview of the Church.

I really think I finally used the correct word in my previous post as to the nature of these religious rights. The word is "inherent". The right to freedom of religion is an inherent right. The scenarios you contributed to support your belief that the church has to bow to the State in matters of employment and insurance cannot be implemented if they violate the Church's inherent rights.

Do you at least see where I see the difference?

To me, the Church has the right to say that a woman can't be a priest. But they do NOT have the right to say a woman can't be head of pediatric medicine at a hospital.

The Church has chosen (wisely, IMO) not to try and enforce THOSE tenets of their faith. They don't try to give alcohol to minors. They don't demand that all their patients be Catholic or that Catholics receive better care in their hospitals (whereas in the Mass Ritual, non-Catholics can attend but only Catholics in Good Standing may receive the eucharist).

The Church maintains that they don't have to employ women as priests and there's really nothing the government can do about it, despite protests from certain citizen groups.

Operating a hospital is a different matter. I seem to notice that there's no such 'push' for contraceptive coverage for Church employees *inside* the church (like a secretary in a rectory or something like that).

Inside the Church, they have the inherent right to discriminate. Outside, they don't. That's where the argument is going to eventually land.

I went looking for some other cases that might show an example of my inside/outside argument. I found something I didn't expect - here's an article from last December - long before the latest round of arguments started up:

Catholic Groups Fight Contraceptive Rule, But Many Already Offer Coverage : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

Some surprising quotes from the article:

- Catholic Healthcare West offered contraceptive coverage before it was legally required.
- Georgetown University (of Ms. Fluke fame) offers contraceptive coverage to it's EMPLOYEES but not it's students!

I still don't know why you bring up these straw dogs in trying to equate a Priest with a hospital employee. It makes no kind of sense to me. It's just baffling.

The Church will shut dump insurance plans before any more compliance. Under the new socialist ObamaCare Plan they would face huge fines which would shut them down, and they will.

The same way Catholic Charities shut down their adoption services after the State mandated they place children with gay parents. Who lost out here? Only the parentless children.

When the Universities and Hospitals close down, who will be hurt? You tell me.

That is why Obama is desperately trying to find a way out of this mess before he goes down with the ship.

Syracuse Diocese bishop takes up Catholic Church's fight with White House over health insurance | syracuse.com

White House May Be Ready To Compromise On Contraceptive Coverage Regulations

Fact-Checking the White House: False Claims About the HHS Mandate | Becket Fund

Birth Control Trumps Religious Freedom in Obama

Richie - I'm *not* equating a priest with a hospital employee. That's my ENTIRE POINT! They are NOT the same!

But I noticed you didn't address the fact that some Catholic-run organizations ARE providing contraception coverage.

Occam's Razor tells me that the Catholic Bishop's Conference (if memory serves, they're the ones that started protesting the mandate last month) is the right hand that doesn't know what the left hand is doing. That's the simplest explanation for the seeming inconsistency.

I have to be honest that I was *shocked* to find out the bit about Georgetown - the very institution that was at the center of the latest round of publicity on the subject.

And about Catholic Charities and the adoptions? I was surprised to find out that they accepted nearly $2.9B from the U.S. Government (out of a total of $4.7B - $140M coming from diocesan churches).

There's long been a tenet that, if you accept government money, you have to abide by government rules. Catholic Charities, Inc. made their decision. Apparently, Peter Meade (Chairman of the Board of Catholic Charities, Boston) thought differently. I think it's important to note that Catholic Charities, Boston board was "dominated" by lay-people. That's when the Archbishop got involved..

Yeah. Mitt Romney. THAT Mitt Romney.

Evidently, to that point, Catholic Charities, Boston had placed 13 of 720 kids with homosexual couples.

There are similar stories from Illinois and D.C.. However, I can't find references to other states offhand. The rest of the information *IMPLIES* that adoptions are still provided.. Going to their website, it appears that's correct..

Adoption - Catholic Charities USA

So Catholic Charities DO still perform or facilitate adoptions.

Well, on the first sentence, I seriously don't know what point you're trying to make if you agree that a Church's accepting of a man's vow's to his vocation, is not the same thing as their hiring an employee of a hospital administered by the Church.

To your second point: Just because on occasion I may be forced under duress to provide you something that is against all I believe; it does not change the rightness of my argument.

If you send a guy with a gun to take my property and I relent, it does not mean that I've given up my rights to my property. It does not negate my rights; my property was taken illegally; just as the State in compelling the Church to break their sacred beliefs is committing an illegal act.

Ok, Richie, on THAT, I can agree with you completely.

Being forced to do something because "it's the law" doesn't change your argument. And I wouldn't expect it to change the Catholic Church's argument. Honestly, nothing short of Vatican III would do that.

We *all* make those kinds of argument. There are things we pay for with our taxes that we don't like. The compromise is that we're having things paid for that we DO support that others might not.

If I left the impression that the Catholic Church should abandon their principle, I meant no such thing and I'm sorry if I got heated enough that I did so. My point was that they could be "in the right" for their conscience all they want - but in the arena of operating a public business (like a hospital) there are rules they have to follow whether they like them or not.

I may disagree with many of their principles, but the 1st Ammendment doesn't "say" they have those rights, it *reiterates* that they have them and they always did.

By the same token, there's a LOT of good done by the Church - and no, my hands didn't burst into flames when I wrote that. I like the fact that CatholicCharitiesUSA.Org highlights things like what they're doing in tornado response in the midwest. They *need* that kind of publicity to counter the idea that they're all pedophiles or conspirators (since that's most of what you'll hear on the news).

Yeah, I want the perps brought to justice. But I don't want the baby thrown out with the bath water.

Just because I left the heirarchy of the Catholic Church behind doesn't mean I left *everything* behind that I was taught.

Can someone explain the difference between this issue and those who are exempt from military service due to religious conscientious objection...?

DJ, if I were the Pope I would already be starting the process for the eventual shutting down of Church run institutions in the United States. Losing money is not easy, but easier than abandoning your faith and principles.

Then I would see what the U.S. Government's reaction would be to that. Do they just watch me continue these actions, or do they say "Uh, wait a minute Holy Father, let's talk about this, maybe we're being too hasty".

That's just me though, and it wouldn't be the first time that I chose principle over monetary concerns.

Maybe that is just what they want the Catholic church to do. Close up shop would accomplish two things 1- create more need for government assistance thus advancing the socialist agenda; 2- create an even more negative public opinion of the Catholic church thus advancing the need for a "more tolerant and benevolent" One World Religion, run by the state maybe...

The Catholic Church doesn't need help shooting itself in the foot. A bunch of detached old men who don't realize what the world is like have already done that far better than any government COULD do.

The Church needs two things in my admittedly arrogant-sounding opinion...

1) Positive publicity. Highlight the good deeds. Don't get all wrapped up in arguments that make you look out of touch, inflexible and clueless to what your own parishoners are doing in 95%-5% numbers.

2) When the defecation hits the rotary oscillator - POLICE YOURSELF. Don't hide. Cooperate with authorites - if members of the heirarchy are committing criminal acts then they should be *prosecuted*. I fail to see why it's so difficult to say "This person was obviously not working towards God's grace and we shall not shield him from due process".

Americans have show time and time again that we are a forgiving people. Admit your mistake, improve yourself and get on with things.