I wrote yesterday that the issue for me with the health law rules that govern large employers, is, well, large employers. The health care law is complicated, and the pieces fit together. The regulations pertaining to large employers are crucial if this thing is going to work, and that’s particularly true for low wage employers, like those in service industries. Part of the objective of the health care law is to force low wage businesses to either start covering their employees health care costs, or pay the federal government to cover their employees health care costs. Right now we’re all covering their employees (catastrophic or emergency) health care costs, and that can’t continue. The free ride for low wage employers is over.
That’s why I don’t think we should be issuing broad waivers right out of the box, because, assuming good faith on the part of those who are arguing religious liberty, issuing broad waivers weakens regulatory power and legitimacy.
That was no consolation to Catholic leaders. The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”
“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said.
Yes, the fight that the church’s defenders thought was about protecting Catholic Charities and St. Mary’s school down the street from purchasing health plans that violate their leaders’ conscience is now, as the Church sees it, also about protecting the right of all employers — including, apparently, fast food franchises — to deny contraception coverage to their employees. Somehow I don’t think this is what E.J. Dionne and many other heartfelt critics of the new administration policy had in mind. And somehow I suspect the White House may soon be ordering some Taco Bell chalupas to celebrate.
The people in media and the church who have been demanding an exemption on the grounds of religious liberty have to explain this statement from the Church lawyer. Were we misled? Is this about resistance to federal regulation of business? Is the broader goal here to remove this provision completely? Because that isn’t what we were told, and many, maybe most, people assumed church leaders and their media promoters were arguing in good faith.
I’d like to know why the church lawyer is now extending his objection to every single business owner who claims religion as the reason for not covering his employees, because this is quite literally what I was afraid would happen.
dr. bloor
Oh, yeah, because absolutely no one out there has earned the presumption of acting in good faith more than the Catholic Church.
Mino
Boehner is bringing it up in the House. Every Republican candidate for pres will be forced to endorse and Obama will get 75% of the women’s vote in 2012.
Mudge
This is the evangelical pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for the day after pill writ large.
jibeaux
By that logic, any Christian Scientist who owned a business could be exempted from providing any health insurance at all. If Tom Cruise starts a business he should be able to buy health insurance for his employees that excludes mental health coverage. Am I getting this right?
Kathy
So the Church doesn’t want a Catholic businessman who has been having sex for decades but only has 2 kids to “violate his conscience.”. Riiiiiiight.
Mark B
Well, duh. To these extremists, religious freedom means the freedom to impose your doctrine on everyone. And it’s not just people in the US, it also implies that you declare war on any infidel country who dares not to comply. It’s not hard to see the Catholic Church as anything but pure evil at this point in history, although to be fair it’s not a whole lot different than many other churches, it’s just a whole lot bigger.
Mino
Humm, won’t let me edit. 75+%
The Catholic spokesperson yesterday as much as admitted the Bishops were spoiling for a fight cause they were feeling pushed around by government lately.
MattF
It’s those (literally) damned users of contraceptives. Thwarting the Will of God. Going to Hell. Who would argue for that?
Mino
I double dog dare any journalist to ask Santorum what he would do about even the availability of contraception if elected.
Punchy
Uh…no they wont. If you think the media will highlight this hypocrisy and sleight of hand, I got some real estate in coastal Japan to sell you.
dr. bloor
@Mino:
Up next: The RC Church launches an offensive on the American Psychiatric Association to have pedophilia taken out of DSM-V.
Mino
Rachel was righteous on this subject last night …beltway Catholic male journalists without a clue. I never knew how many Catholics were Washington pundits.
Dork
Ficksed for what’s coming next.
28 Percent
Is it just me, or is this “we don’t want a victory, we want a fight” mentality of a piece with what Corey Robins has written about in Reactionary Mind? Is this another piece of the rope-a-dope? Give these people a fight on the initial point of disagreement and they shine, but compromise right away and they demonstrate just how completely nutty they really are.
capt
No different from Ron Paul’s “liberty and freedom” to refuse to serve people of color at a business because of “personal beliefs”
It is all about not allowing equality because that is now equated with socialism as a pejorative.
If these (so-called) religious leaders want to get involved in the politics they need to pay taxes like the rest of us.
gnomedad
Health insurance is not a gift from the employer, it’s something the employees earn. Perhaps they’d like to pay their employees in Vatican scrip that can’t be used for contraception.
Guster
I don’t understand why the White House doesn’t meet with a dozen leftie ‘pro-contraception’ or ‘anti-exception’ religious leaders, who demand that according to their religious beliefs all women should be given the same access to health care, and then have them issue a bitter press release attacking Obama for giving in too much to the Catholics and ignoring other faith traditions.
Make this into a Jew or Unitarian vs. Catholic thing, for example, instead of a Big Government vs. faithful thing. They want ‘two sides,’ so give ’em two sides.
Cat Lady
@Mino:
You don’t watch Morning Joe, do you?
dedc79
It needs to be emphasized again and again. Those currently screaming about religious liberty in this instance are simultaneously the greatest proponents of american theocracy
beltane
@jibeaux: Yes, you are getting this right.
Mino
@Cat Lady: I have the last few days. I wanted to watch them loop themselves in knots over the primary results. This contraceptive thing was just a bonus.
Kirk Spencer
Those of us who had actually looked at the rule already knew the Catholic bishops weren’t arguing in good faith.
The exemption “everyone” thought they meant was already there.
beltane
@Guster: Yes, not all religions teach that women are nothing more than breeding stock. Some religions even teach respect for all life, even female life. Fancy that.
Mino
@dedc79: Hypocracy is a feature, not a bug with fundies.
Egypt Steve
You know, if I was a good Cat’lic I wouldn’t want to pay any taxes that went to support the legal system, since it facilitates divorces and executions. Where are the bishops on this?
Let’s take this to the logical extreme: anybody who raises any objection on religious grounds to any government policy gets a pro-rata refund on their tax bill.
mistermix ... World Peace
The only good news about going up against the bishops, who have the media locked up, is that they tend to overreach and show their asses. This is the top of the buttcrack, there’s more coming.
Mino
@Guster: Already happening. Really bad timing for the Bishops with the Komen thing having everyone already bristled up.
Joseph Nobles
@Egypt Steve: The Nullification Crisis that could.
The Other Bob
@jibeaux:
You got that right. I believe there are greater, serious constitutional issues if a church affiliated business is given an exemption. The government will now be in the position of determining who is a legitimate religion and who is just using religion as a cover to get out from under the mandate. The government will be sanctioning certain religions which most would agree is seriously unconstitutional.
Plus, as Kay said:
Guster
@beltane: Yeah, and it just seems like this is an easy opportunity to use the media’s desire to see every issue as having exactly two sides for good, for once, instead of evil.
Guster
@Mino: Oh! Is it? Like on an official basis, where the White House is having high-level meetings with people arguing against the bishops?
The WH needs to set themselves up to very publicly be denounced by the Association of Reform Rabbis, or whatever, for being willing to withhold health care from Jewish women who work at Catholic hospitals.
The Other Bob
@Mino:
Santorum already said he thought states should be able to ban contraception.
Libby
Religious liberty, my lily white butt. This is all about religious coercion. Hell, the Catholics are getting as bad as the Teavangicals.
Rosalita
and Mr. Pierce has a good piece on this as well…
Mino
@Guster: No, it’s the typical signed petition sent to the White House thing that progressives do.
Mino
@The Other Bob: The Supreme Court has already done that with the Native American Church.
Elizabelle
@Libby:
Here’s the bishops’ problem, though: a majority of their parishioners are not with them on this.
You are hearing from the Catholic hierarchy on this one.
Their “flocks”, who have been beating feet out the door, are quite comfortable with access to contraception.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Guster: Because you couldn’t get around the idea of promoting a single religion over others that way. It should be up to the religious organizations to do that themselves. They did start with a press release yesterday. They just need to continue it.
Guster
@Mino: Oh, yeah. I saw that. Blah blah blah. I think the WH needs to play some politics with this. And if they do it right, they can reframe the issue in a day.
“Should Jewish women who work at Catholic hospitals be given less access to health care than Catholic women who work at Jewish hospitals?”
Svensker
@mistermix … World Peace:
Wow, thanks so much for that image. The taste of vomit and coffee is just fabulous of a morning.
Mino
@The Other Bob: I know. But I also know what he’d do if he had the opportunity and it wouldn’t be stopping at the states. I just want to hear him admit it.
Guster
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): But that’s the point! The only to not promote a single religion over overs is to make them all play by the same rules. All I’m saying is that the Obama administration should convene a high-level meeting with the people who signed that press release, and portray themselves as being pushed in different directions by different faith groups. That way instead of ‘White House Angers Bishops’ we get ‘Conservative and Liberal Religious Leaders at Odds Over Health Care.’
Elizabelle
Here’s a link for emailing comments to the White House.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
kay
@Elizabelle:
I see that, but what about the idea we heard from that commenter, where less rigorous Catholics have some duty to protect more rigorous Catholics from Obama? That’s what he/she was saying. IF there are Catholics who object to this, THEN all Catholics must protect them from it.
Does that resonate/make sense to you? In other words, is there sympathy for the religious Taco Bell large business owner?
Zach
This isn’t a first amendment question. Institutions owned by Catholics and the Catholic Church that aren’t churches are required to follow a billion Federal laws. For example, emergency rooms in Catholic hospitals, like all others, have to provide emergency care to the uninsured (I’d imagine they’d do this even if it weren’t required, but with the Prosperity Gospel taking hold…). Contraception is on the vanguard of Consciousness Clause opt-out issues… it’s not included in Federal Consciousness Clause legislation, but some states recognize it (which is why pharmacists in some states can claim religious exceptions to dispensing birth control). If the Congress wants to change this, they can do so. It’s not up to the executive to unilaterally decide what folks are and are not allowed to opt out of for religious reasons… Congress does that, the President can veto, and the courts can overrule if the 1st Amendment’s violated.
The whole to-do comes about because of two things:
1. There’s no support in Congress for extending the Consciousness Clause to cover contraception, and
2. Republicans won 95% of the Evangelical vote to balance losses in other demographics over the past 30 years. Catholics make up about a quarter of the general electorate; more in Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wisconsin, California, and more that are swing states nationally or have competitive House races. Catholics split ~50/50 in Presidential elections… lots of votes to win.
Steve
This is a good reason to take a strong position in the first place, like the White House did, because it puts you in a better position to meet in the middle. To be fair, though, both sides get to play this game, and maybe that’s all that’s going on here.
At the end of the day I am confident that no one is going to care even a little bit about the plight of the poor Catholic Taco Bell owner.
Ken
@jibeaux: By that logic, any Christian Scientist who owned a business could be exempted from providing any health insurance at all.
Exactly. And my Cthulhu-cult-owned chain of fast food restaurants will be exempt from the laws against kidnapping, murder, and cannibalism, because our faith says so.
Iä! Iä! Cthulhu supersize me!
kay
I have a compromise. On contraception, they can provide cash to supplement the policy. Wage increase. The administration argues that out of pocket costs are btwn 15 and 50 dollars a month. I don’t know what costs 50 dollars a month, but something does.
20 dollars a month. It can’t go into a dedicated account, because that’s then a privacy issue for the employee, and they could (rightfully) claim that as a non-Catholic employee of a Catholic institution they don’t want records on that. It can’t go to just women, because men use birth control. It can’t go to just younger people because then we’re talking about the employer getting too intrusive. So cash, in the form of wages.
That puts all large businesses on the same level, and if they don’t object to paying wages that go (or don’t go) to birth control, they can’t object to this.
It’s more expensive for them, because other employers will be insuring this provision, rather than paying the cost to the employee, but it’s the only way I can come up with that is EQUAL to other large employers.
gex
Church leaders argue in good faith? Have you seen the debate over gay people? All they fucking do is lie through their teeth to enrich themselves or demean others. No more fucking tax exemptions for the Christian war on secular society. Make ’em pay to play like the rest of us.
Cacti
I appreciate that the Bishops have shown their hand so early in the game.
It was never about “protecting Catholic-affiliated institutions”. It’s about the Bishops wanting State sanction to force Church views on non-Catholics.
“Protecting Catholic institutions” is a sympathetic argument for a fair number of people. “Your boss at the widget factory making religious choices for you” will be a bridge too far.
FormerSwingVoter
Y’know, I was thinking that, in the scheme of things, this wasn’t going to be a big deal. Churches can choose not to provide sufficient health insurance to their employees, companies would have to, and we’d find some sort of middle ground for church-run charities and hospitals that employ many people who want to help but aren’t as insane in their beliefs.
And now they’re trying to make it so that any employer can get this waiver?
FUCK. THAT. SHIT. Once again, the Catholic Church proves beyond any doubt that they are the purest force of evil in American politics. These vile, worthless little fuckers need to leave the rest of us alone, or I swear to fucking God that this right-wing front organization masquerading as a religion will be destroyed.
Many Catholics honestly believe that social conservativism is more important to their faith than the teachings of Christ. I’ve started calling such beliefs evil right to the people who hold them, because they’ve likely never questioned their blind obedience to the Republican church before. Any self-awareness that these fuckers can have clubbed into their worthless heads can only help.
SenyorDave
@mistermix … World Peace: Please, the imagery is too excrutiating
Elizabelle
@kay:
I don’t see it, because the policy under consideration affects a third, and very likely separate, group of people: employees of Catholic institutions or employees of Catholic individuals who own businesses.
And particularly no duty if denying these employees access to healthcare, including contraception, goes very much against the “less rigorous Catholic’s” conscience and own deeply held beliefs.
The issue is not force-feeding birth control pills to fervent Catholics who disagree with contraception. The issue is discriminating against a third party, employees.
It’s a public health issue that some want to dress up as a religious freedom issue.
dr. bloor
@kay: Or, the Catholic Church can simply acknowledge what’s been going on forever in Catholic-sponsored institutions. I worked in a Catholic hospital for several years, and this was a nonissue, if only from a competitive practices point of view. They knew damn well that if they ever tried to pull shit like this, the legion of Irish Catholic nurses on staff would kick the Bishop in the junk and go across town to Beth Israel.
Jay C
@Zach:
Don’t you mean “Conscience” Clause?
Jeez, if there were such a thing as a “Consciousness” Clause in Federal regulation, 99+% of the population would be exempted….
FlipYrWhig
This is totally repellent. I honestly can’t believe that someone who owns a business thinks he has the right to inflict his morality on his employees — not at the business, where it’s bad enough, but at the doctor’s office? Seriously? And this after years of fear-mongering about big government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor? I guess the guy who owns the business is totally free to get between you and your doctor? Total extremist bullshit.
stormhit
@FormerSwingVoter:
Threats with hints of violence. Cute.
shortstop
Good work as always, Kay.
Does this frankness not strengthen the administration’s hand? Even if some half-paying-attention voters are turned off by the idea of religious organizations having to obey the law, surely putting forth the idea that any individual in business should be able to claim religious exemptions will do the USCCB’s case no good. A lot of people think they’ll never work for a Catholic organization, but will be highly skittish at the idea that some cranky old generic boss can literally play god with their benefits.
rea
@Dork: “I’d like to know why the church lawyer is now extending his objection to every single business owner who claims religion as the reason for not
covering his employeeshiring gays, single mothers, Muslims, pro-choice advocates, etc”Well, Muslims are protected under the civil rights statutes. There is, however, nothing in present law making it illegal to refusee to hire gays, single mothers, pro-choice advocates, etc.
Villago Delenda Est
Time to open up a can of RICO whupass on the USCCB over their child sex ring.
kay
@dr. bloor:
It’s funny, because that’s such a business-based reason. Less lofty than “religious liberty”, certainly.
It occurred to me, the competition for employees issue, and that’s why they won’t take the op-out/pay feds 2,000 dollars choice, because no one would work there.
But those are business problems. They aren’t theological problems, or constitutional violations, or issues the broader public should have to deal with.
Their business model is going to have some trouble competing in the modern world? Okay. I don’t know why the burden isn’t on them to find some workaround, or deal with the business ramifications.
Bulworth
This reminds me of how vocal and adamant the Bishops were against the Iraq War…. //
Scott
@rea: I’m sure Republicans and the Catholic hierarchy would be more than happy to make it illegal to hire Muslims.
The Other Bob
@Ken:
Laugh out loud at work funny!
kay
@shortstop:
I suspect a lot of people who work at, say, a Taco Bell are going to be really surprised to find out they work for a “Catholic organization”.
Really. This lawyer is insane, even raising this. It’s ENDLESS, what he’s demanding. No state actor in their right mind would agree to a religious exemption this broad. It’s like a new category of “business”. We’ll have small business, large business, and religious business.
FlipYrWhig
If I start a business, making it an atheist business, I guess I’ll get to say that any employee who gets injured on the way to church isn’t covered by the health plan, because my atheist conscience can’t abide their gullible religiosity. This is going to work out great.
JGabriel
jibeaux:
So, if I belong to a church that uses marijuana or hallucinogenics to achieve a transcendent state closer to God, does that mean I can open a store that sells them to anyone?
Way kewl, dudes, I’m gonna be RICH!
.
The Other Bob
Legal question:
Could an atheist organization sue the federal government becuase their buisness had to provide insurance coverage that religiously affiliated buisnesses don’t?
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
Obama should hold these negotiations on C SPAN. I no longer trust this whole deal. I wanna know if the National Restaurant Association lobbyist is skulking around anywhere.
Mino
@JGabriel: Nope. The Supremes nixed that.
dr. bloor
@kay:
Make no mistake, this is
about business. Even though it was prohibited by hospital policy, they were also perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to staff including the word that started with “A” and ended with “bortion” during pregnancy counseling because they knew what would happen otherwise.
Zach
@Jay C: Hah. True.
rea
“Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.”–Employment Division v Smith, 494 US 872 (1990)(Opinion of Scalia, J)
redshirt
I demand my employees eat Pasta and nothing but Pasta as written in the Great Book. FSM be praised!
Villago Delenda Est
@rea:
Yeah, but that’s in regard to an “illegitimate” religion, not good old fashioned Christianity, of either the Protestant or Catholic flavors.
You can bet your ass that Fat Tony will sing a different tune for this, the Opus Dei shitstain.
FormerSwingVoter
@stormhit: Fuck you, dude. Play time is fucking over. I likely should have calmed down a bit before posting, but the complete and total destruction of the Church’s political power really should be a prime goal of people who want to live in a decent society.
Hey, I get why that pisses of Christians. It’d be cool if the ones who are involved politically would follow the teachings of Christ. We’d all get along great. But since they have no interest in doing that, fuck them.
(Note: As an ex-Catholic who once supported the Church, this probably gets me steamed more than it should. I think about the money I gave to them, and now that I look at what they spend those resources on, it really upsets me. Because it’s easier to be mad at them than myself.)
Napoleon
@kay:
Remember Bart Stupak who carried water for them in the ACA fight essentially coming to the same conclusion.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Bulworth:
It’s just like their outspoken honesty and openness when it came to rooting out those pedo priests.
Obama should drop that he’ll consider changes when they come forward and tell the truth about the long, sordid history of the sexual abuse of boys by the Catholic church.
I wonder if they would leap at that deal?
gene108
Don’t all the socialized-medicine Catholic European countries, like Italy, Spain and France, require all health care providers to cover birth control?
I think the Catholics should get those godless European nations to abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church, before they ram their religion down America’s throat.
Quincy
But Catholic taco bell owners already have enough moral dilemmas to worry about without the government butting in!
matryoshka
@28 Percent: Yes, I think you are correct. I came away from Robin’s book with the realization that no matter how much the conservatives win (which always requires some one else to lose big), they will throw themselves into another fight immediately. They like to fight and they bore easily, like the mental adolescents that they are.
GregInMA
Our tax dollars are already paying for contraception through Medicaid. You can expect the bishops to raise their objections to this any time now.
Tonybrown74
@SenyorDave:
Good lawd, people! “Showing your ass” is a saying, like showing your hand. The only difference is that showing your ass denotes showing your ugly/dirty side.
Comrade Dread
Whether he realizes it or not, what he’s arguing for what a lot of libertarians and other free market types argue: that employers should be free to set the conditions of employment as they see fit, and if employees don’t like it, they can find another job.
If he’s consistent with other church teachings, I doubt he would agree with the equal application of his argument to wages, workplace conditions, racial discrimination, and other aspects of employment that are currently regulated.
But I don’t honestly know anymore. Lots of us seem to have a problem these days with picking and choosing what theology matters to us and ignore the parts we don’t like.
Rick Taylor
I can’t in good conscience cooperate with invading other countries that aren’t threatening us, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and such. So I won’t be paying the portion of my taxes that go the so called defense department anymore. Thanks for your support.
pseudonymous in nc
The UCCB is now just another fucking wingnut godbotherer shop — a pretty fucking sad reflection on the state of American institutional Catholicism, which clearly has a sad about being disliked for all of that abuser-sheltering that its hierarchy did.
pseudonymous in nc
The UCCB is now just another fucking wingnut godbotherer shop — a pretty fucking sad reflection on the state of American institutional Catholicism, which clearly has a sad about being disliked for all of that abuser-sheltering that its hierarchy did.
sukabi
you know what would negate 100% of that shitheaded argument, the one about businesses having to buy insurance that covers
‘lady parts, and contraception issues and how it interferes with their religious freedom’ … a nationalized healthcare system, ie Medicare For All…. coverage cost comes out of the taxes that everyone already pays… and there would be no reason to use taxpayer $$ to fund ‘churches’ that provide charity health services any longer…
pseudonymous in nc
@gene108:
It works out a bit differently, because the structures aren’t the same.
Canada’s a better example and closer to home. Provincial Medicare uses private providers, including a lot of Catholic hospitals. There are also a lot of Catholic schools that receive funding from the provinces. All of their employees are covered by single-payer healthcare, and while subsidies for birth control vary, provincial Medicare definitely does cover abortions.
There aren’t really any Catholic hospitals in the UK, though there are hospices and supplementary care facilities; there are plenty of Catholic schools, which again receive funding from local government as well as the church, and all of their employees are, of course, eligible for NHS care, which includes highly subsidised (and sometimes free) contraceptives.
300baud
Well this is easy to explain.
In modern American culture, workers aren’t free citizens with rights, allowed to make moral choices for themselves. Employees are feudal subjects, obliged to follow every whim of their lord-protectors. If the duke of Haliburton or Koch sees fit to grant health care to his loyal followers, then they should be grateful. But if he in his wisdom (yes, always he) believes that something is immoral then they should act that way as well.
Which fits in nicely with the Catholic Church’s view; I’m sure they are breathing a sigh of relief at the winding down of democracy, which despite a few hundred years of opportunity they’ve never really gotten comfortable with.
JGabriel
@Mino:
The linked article in my original post says they didn’t.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006). Unless you know of a more recent SCOTUS decision that overrides it, I stand by my snark.
.
.
Peregrinus
@FormerSwingVoter:
As recently as 2008, Catholics were still voting largely Democrat – I remember articles in the wake of the election that showed that Catholics and Jews were still Democratic (something about how despite Republican overtures to both groups, really they were only managing to pull off their right wings). The 2012 election will be interesting on this topic for a number of reasons.
One is that I think I know more cafeteria/disengaged Catholics than members of any other religion. The Church, to some degree, encourages this, because it lets the hierarchy do what they want while still getting money from its followers. I don’t see a lot of moderate or conservative Catholics falling for the “religious liberty” argument. (Full disclosure: I am myself a Roman Catholic Democrat, employed by a relatively liberal Catholic institution, whose plans apparently cover birth control. I think out of the few Democrats who actually staff the place, none of them would be swung over by this issue.)
My worry is with the same sector of Catholics that worry you, because I’ve met them before. Many of them place social conservatism before the social justice the Church has historically supported, which is unconscionable to me. But then, that’s why I’ve had such a hard time picking a parish and mostly stick with the Jesuits and the Sisters of Saint Joseph.
darms
So Father Diddler & Cardinal Pederast get to tell us what is moral, eh? Sorry, xtians, but this is one 55 year old liberal who is done with folks of that faith, all creeds included. You want me to be tolerant of you as you ‘believe in the new testament & not just genesis, judges & revelations’? It’s way past time you threw the money changers out of the temple and until then, you’re just as bad as they are.