Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Iowa City debates whether police officers belong in schools
Southeast Cedar Rapids shooting under investigation
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Severe storms blow through Eastern Iowa
Interactive: Shelter from the storm
Updated: 16 April 2012 | 12:38 am in Gazette Guest Columnists
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Ms. Bioche, organizations do not have “consciences.” The people who belong to those organizations do. I will add that, should the Catholic Church choose to enter the business arena by operating hospitals and universities, then the church can obey the same laws and regulations which are binding on every other entity which seeks profit from their businesses.
You seem very sensitive to criticisms of natural family planning, yet show no respect for other means of practicing birth control. To get respect, you have to give it, Ms. Bioche.
Jeff,
The mandate applies to ALL employers. By the same logic one can argue that a person who opens a non-profit hospital should be forced to permit abortion.
Sure, why not?
You will find I don’t frighten, because I am not a “liberal” who will go to mush just to try and appease folks like you.
Why not? There’s something called the first amendment. This mandate is trying to define religious practise.
“Define religious (practice) …” How would such a mandate do that ? If using “artificial” birth control is “religious practice” howf would a mandate (if there were one) that the insurance company provide contraceptives, that no one is mandated to accept, control religious practice ?
Savia, I reject the premise of your question. You are trying to conflate the benefits package offered to employees with the medical services offered by the hospital. You cannot equate the two.
I was being a smart-aleck because your question is patently unfair. No, I don’t accept the premise that a Catholic hospital be compelled to offer abortions. That is totally different from the proposition, which you implicitly support, that the Catholic Church be exempt from the laws and regulations which govern how any business should treat its employees.
Savia, I could turn the question right back on you by asking if it’s okay for a church-owned business to refuse employment to people who are not church members. THAT would be illegal discrimination.
To be blunt, I question your understanding of the First Amendment, if you see religious discrimination as a necessary means of exercising your freedom of expression.
From my experience there is a side-effect from the use of NFP: Parenthood.
The Couple to Couple League on the internet is a good source for information regarding Natural Family Planning and it also provides nationwide class locations. Many women are concerned about the harmful effects of chemical birth control, as evidenced by the following petition:
http://www.womenspeakforthemselves.com
Joan, your post is misleading. The link does not provide a reader with more information about contraception, and the letter has almost nothing to say about birth control; it is only a call to sign a very tendentious document.
I suspect the intent was to lead someone to the petition in hopes they will sign it. Let’s hear from anyone who did.
NFP respects a woman’s fertility as natural and not to be managed by way of artificial contraceptives. Likewise, natural NaPro Technology assists with the ability to achieve pregnancy for those who experience difficulty. An additional source for NFP class information, lists of NFP pharmacists and doctors , books, documents, etc. is: onemoresoul.com
onemoresoul.com/
Joan, why do you disrespect the choices of women who prefer artificial birth control? And, how “natural” is the food you eat, the water you drink, or the work that you do?
Notice that I am not denigrating natural family planning. However, I will strenuously insist it is wrong, and an attack on my freedom, to tell me or women that they must obey Catholic doctrine on artificial contraception.
That’s why I commented up top: Bioche claims to dislike attacks on natural family planning, while simultaneoulsy showing disrespect for the choices made by people who choose artificial contracpetion.
Your ploy to put me on the defensive rings hollow, Jeff. You attack NFP without cause (“NFP is wrong”) – why?- while there is no maligning by me or Ms. Bioche of other women, but rather an effort to convey the healthful aspects of NFP vs. the unhealthful properties of artificial contraceptives. And like many people, I do strive to find the cleanest food and water. Your over-the-top and inflamatory accusation concerning the Catholic Church is absurb and rhetorical nonsense. This isn’t strictly a Catholic issue as people of many different faiths and/or no faith endorse it.
Why do you as a male, view fertility as the enemy and pregnancy as a disease?
I just re-read you statement “…. I will strenuously insist it is wrong….” and understand that you are not saying NFP is “wrong”
“Why do you as a male, view fertility as the enemy and pregnancy as a disease?”
Wow. If THAT is how you choose to interpret what I’ve posted, Joan, then we’re both wasting our time trying to talk to each other.
Joan, there are many other means of artificial contraception, from barrier methods to surgical alteration. And, hormonal treatment is not just used for birth control, so you must pardon me if I think your criticisms of hormonal contraception ring false.
I’m entitled to draw my conclusions, Jeff.
Hormonal treatment exists but is it without risks? Are the risks of cancer, heart disease, stroke, or infertility relating to usage of hormonal contraceptives widely known and discussed? I don’t believe so. And yet the HHS mandate would imperil many more lives with its actual disregard for the health of women.
Joan, you have no basis for arguing that the HHS regs will require women to use hormonal contraception. All those regs require is that employer-provided health insurance cover the costs of hormonal contraception. How you deduce that those regs will “imperil many more lives” is beyond me.
You have no rational basis for such a claim.
Regardless of how you dress it up Ms Bioche, Natural Family Planning is nothing more than a modern day version of the most unreliable form of birth control available, ie the rhythm method.
NFP is not the rythmn method. It’s 98% effective.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm
I don’t care what method you use. Stop showing contempt for those who choose to embrace NFP.
Ms. Bloche is right. If you are going to mandate something, why not include NFP as well.
Your linked study is over 5 years old. Have there been more recent studies corroborating this study?
What statements clearly “(show) contempt” ?
(Furthermore) Your “…mandate … NFP …” statement is senseless and would invite contempt. The original intent was to mandate that insurance plans include payment for birth control (for those who choose it). It would not have mandated birth control of which NFP is just one method. Try rational thinking. It might open a new world for you.
It’s not optional. The insurance has to cover oral contraceptives. This is mandating birth control that does not include NFP.
It’s quite funny. Environmentalists won’t eat a corn chip if it contracted a pesticide. But don’t think twice about contaminating a woman’s body with synthetic hormones that alter biological functions.
You should take your own advice about thinking.
Your reply is senseless or specious at best. Birth control is not mandated by insurance that covers oral contraceptives because practicing birth control is optional — the insurance doesn’t require birth control nor use of oral contraceptives. (You might as well say that insurance coverage for oxygen mandates breathing.) As far as the “does not include NFP statement”, that’s meaningless because NFP is not a medical treatment. The “hormone issue” in another subject.
Sorry Savia, but your link does litttle to convince me otherwise.
Fair enough. Some people just choose to not accept facts.
As evidenced by this thread, that’s true.
There are many NFP methods. One can choose what works best for them after consulting a trained physician.
http://www.marquette.edu/nursing/natural-family-planning/documents/FedStudyAdvertising2009.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920103822.htm
Lori,
Unless you have evidence to prove your skepticism. It is a refusal to accept facts.
“Evidence to prove … skepticism.” ???? That’s a nonsensical statement and skepticism is not a “refusal to accept facts”. Look the definition up in a dictionary.
I don’t have to “prove” anything, Savia, let alone why I’m skeptical of the effectiveness of Natural Family Planning.
“a refusal to accept facts” sums it up. I would add that there is a hostile prejudice in play here and a die-hard loyalty to the status quo.
That so called hostile prejudice, if it indeed exists, works both ways, Joan.
The point is that hostile prejudice in the face of facts is completely unwarranted. Where are your facts that disprove the effectiveness of NFP? The projection of your behavioral thought onto my acceptance or rejection of anything doesn’t apply here.
I’e said all along I’m skeptical of the effectiveness of Natural Family Planning, Joan. I’m not even attempting to be factual or sway anyone’s opinion here, only expressing my opinion (ie skepticism) of said birth control method.
If some women prefer that method, go ahead and use it, but I’m not convinced it’s as effective as other methods of BC, and will never even consider using it myself, as is my right.
Jeff,
These are non-profit organizations and the mandate applies to ALL employers, including private ones.
Contraception has nothing do with employment laws. Don’t conflate the two.
Threatening someone with fines, jail time, and closures is an attack on religious freedom.
Why should the anti-smoking league subsidize cigarettes?
Lori:
“Natural Family Planning Method As Effective as Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds” – Science Daily
apparently an admission that the statistics are favorable to NFP is even too much to expect. No one’s pleading for your endorsement of it.
You addressed your comment ot me, yet replied to Savia’s comment.
Huh.
Also, the study you’ve cited is from Georgetown University, a well known Catholic college, which one could say has a vested interest in scientific outcomes that reflect that which support its Catholic tenent.
Given that, you must understand why I still remain skeptical, Joan.
Lori,
Fertility is non-sectarian. These are non-Catholic sources.
http://www.justisse.ca/whynaturalbirthcontrol/
http://www.tcoyf.com/
Sandra Fluke is of Georgetown fame, Lori.
Indeed she is, Joan. However, Ms Fluke also is on the side of employer based insurance plans covering birth control for those women who choose to use it and was an advocate for Georgetown female employees who wanted such coverage.
Savia, birth control, and which methods women choose to use, is and should be a matter of personalchoice. that’s why I said I’m skeptical of the efficacy of NFP, and would never personally use it myself. I don’t however begrudge women who choose to go that route, just as no one should begrudge those like me who choose other methods like birth control pills or barrier methods instead of NFP.
and Georgetown invited Sandra Fluke to speak to undergrads….
one could ask how such an action protects the identity of this “Catholic” university.
Why go out of your way to besmirch NFP by called referring to it as comparable to the “unreliable rhythm method” ?
So it did. Kudos to the university for doing so, and too bad you had to put “Catholic” into quotes when describing the school just now.
so Georgetown receives kudos when it does something with which you agree, but, contrariwise, you dismiss out-of-hand its publications as biased in favor of Catholicism. Georgetown U. is Catholic-in-name-only, hence the quotation marks.
“Catholic-in-name-only”
Now who’s denigrating, Joan?
Lori, Georgetown University, via ex Corda Ecclesiae (apostolic constitution) requires that Georgetown U. by its actions and commitments must be in accord with its Catholic identity.
Only churches are and should be exempt from the same rules and regs every other business must follow. GU is not a church.
Savia, I reject your contention that health benefits are not subject to government regulations. They are, and Iowa for one requires employers to offer contraceptive coverage as part of any health insurance coverage offered to employees.
The Catholic bishops picked this fight only because they do not want to accept federal HHS regs, even though the church has acquiesced to state reglations for decades. You also exaggerate the consequences of the HHS regs, unless you can provide evidence that failure to comply will result in possible prison time for violators.
Why should a non-Catholic employee of a business entity owned by the church be subjected to Church doctrine banning the use of artificial contraception? Why is being exempted from the regs which govern every other business necessary for the Church to propagate its message?
Jeff,
The church did not pick this fight. It was Obama who said there would be conscience exemptions and then lied about it.
Yes, the church supporting socialist policies was a mistake, that has come to bite them back.
“You also exaggerate the consequences of the HHS regs, unless you can provide evidence that failure to comply will result in possible prison time for violators.”
You can look up the penalties for violating this.
“Why should a non-Catholic employee of a business entity owned by the church be subjected to Church doctrine banning the use of artificial contraception?”
It is a non-profit, started by the church before the govt. got involved. I know plenty of non-Catholic employees who are in opposition to this mandate.
Employees also sign a contract when they take a job, so they know what they are getting into. If someone does not like the rules of said organization. They can choose not to work there.
“Why is being exempted from the regs which govern every other business necessary for the Church to propagate its message?”
So the govt. so force a Jewish deli to serve pork, because some people deem pork is healthy?
Savia, you need to provide evidence to support your assertion that a person can be imprisoned for operating a business which refuses to provide contraception coverage in its health insurance. YOU made the claim, Savia, YOU pony up evidence, or concede you made a false statement.
How on Earth do you conflate HHS regs which govern the health insurance which an employer can provide with mandating that a Jewish deli serve ham!? There is no comparability to the two situations. And, are you then going to deny that a local board of health does not have the power and responsibility to license food establishments to ensure they comply with health regulations? The HHS regs are meant to ensure that employer-provided health plans do not illegally discriminate.
It is heartless to argue, “if you don’t like the fact we are imposing church doctrine on you by denying contracveptive coverage, go work soemwhere else.” Look up the Fourteenth Amendment and the “equal protection” clause. Employees of church-owned businesses have the same rights as every other American citizen, and that includes access to contraceptive coverage as part of employer-provided health insurance. The Catholic Church is not above the laws of the United States.
And “socialism!?” Really? You do know I am a socialist, and routinely laugh at the ad populum fallacy committed every time someone on this board presents socialism as some form of witchcraft we all must be frightened of?
Then again, your church used to burn gays, witches, and heretics at the stake…
“It’s important to remember that religious institutions that do not comply with this mandate will be fined roughly $2,000 per employee, which means that for most of our clients they will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year if they do not comply with this mandate. That kind of substantial burden on religious exercise is impermissible in the American legal system.”
https://www.stophhs.com/stop_hhs_mandate/obama-mandate-could-fine-religious-groups-2000-per-employee/
“The HHS regs are meant to ensure that employer-provided health plans do not illegally discriminate.”
There are lawyers who don’t think this is legal to begin with.
“And, are you then going to deny that a local board of health does not have the power and responsibility to license food establishments to ensure they comply with health regulations? ”
Are you going to deny that this includes informing the public about the side-effects of hormonal contraceptives?
I never called YOU a socialist. I just said the church has been backing state policies for a long time, that they should not have.
There is no need to respond with un-informed ad-hominem attacks.
Do learn to read.
BINGO! Thanks for implicitly retracting your unfounded assertion that the HHS regs mandate prison time.
The rest of your post is beside the point, Savia.
Karl,
Employers are mandated to provide this in their health coverage.
Xavier’s university that cancelled contraceptive coverage, makes an exception for medical reasons.
(I don’t know what the significance of the “Xavier reply” is but I really don’t care.) Bottom line, millions will practice NFL and for many it will work for them. That’s fine — for them. Many hundreds of millions will weigh the risks and benefits and choose contraception and will not care a flying fig about what they see as an archaic and irrelevant issue about it being “not natural”. ( If you’re hung-up on natural, then if you have a serious disease insist that you only receive “natural” treatment — you wouldn’t want your life extended by “unnatural” means which is most of modern medicine, right?) To change World opinion on contraception you might as well try changing the wind by whistling into it — or manufacturing clocks that run backwards.
Karl,
That’s a difference without a distinction, because modern medicine is supposed to make something function better, not to stop it from functioning.
“you might as well try changing the wind by whistling into it — or manufacturing clocks that run backwards.”
Denying the essence of things does not make you progressive. It makes you afraid of reality. Which makes you trying to do these things. Making you archaic in our minds.
You can certainly do this, but don’t be upset when someone else does not play along.
C.S Lewis called this the poison of subjectivism.
You can write all the “word salad” paragraphs (4th) you want but it changes nothing and I care nothing about what is in our (your) minds ( Why would I ?) and have no idea what reality you think I’m afraid of.
Why are Karl’s words are so very often reminiscent of Jeff’s turn of phrase? just wondering for some time now
“wingnuts” is uncivil, remember Jack? I flagged you in order to have it removed. The Gazette saw fit to delete a far from uncivil comment by me. I merely challenged Lori’s always having the final say.
If Karl is an independent being, then he’s a ‘student’ of Jeff’s because there are very many similarities time and again.
Sheesh, Joan, there you go again. Is your implied “all people to the left of me sound alike” similar to what I used to hear as a kid, that “all Negroes look alike!?”
I believe you realize that I’m talking about your phraseology and methods of retort, which is quite easy to identify. And why do you have a fixation with trying to pin racial prejudice onto others?
I’m just linking two different aspects of prejudice, Joan. You’re not the first person to think Karl and I are the same person. That says nothing about any similarity between my style and Karl’s. Instead, it reveals much about the lens through which you choose to see and conflate us.
deny all you wish, Jeff. your phrases and methods are virtually the same.
Really, Joan, when was the last time Karl mentioned something abstruse like the fact that Zhukov, Patton, and Rommel, my three favorite WWII commanders, all began their military careers in the cavalry? How often does Karl talk about guns, tanks, or horses!?
haven’t heard from Morris Kode for a long while
Joan, “wingnuts” is hardly uncivil when it is not directed at a specific individual. It has no racial, sexual, or religious connotations, nor is it used to denigrate those with disabilities. The term is merely a shorthand description for those in the lunatic fringe of the right wing. “Right wing” = “wing” +lunatics = “nuts” = “wing-nuts”, or as we Progressive Liberals abbreviate it, “wingnuts”. Get it, now? The term has absolutely nothing to do with flying testicles.
Lori,
Fair enough, but like I said, not everybody can play along with something that throws a blanket on reality.
The intention is not to begrudge someone else.
It’s just an honest analysis.
Indeed, some can’t grasp the reality of another’s situation, which is why in the case of whether or not to use birth control, or which method to use, is both a personal and individual choice best left up to the individual woman.
I don’t disagree, but you can’t force Catholic institutions to subsidize your situation, since this is not an accessibility issue.
If you are going to say, this is health care, then it would only be appropriate to cover NFP as well.
If a religiously backed institution other than a place of worship wishes to operate in the public arena Savia, it must abide by the same rules and regulations as every other business out there. The other option is to self-insure.
I don’t have a problem if health care beneifts cover NFP, Savia, so long as they also cover artificial means of birth control as well. After all, why should one person’s situation be covered, while another’s is not?
Lori,
A non-profit is not a business. Are you saying that people can pray behind closed doors, but they cannot follow the dictates of their religion in public without being forced to violate their conscience.
What is this Saudi Arabia?
This is not even an accessibility issue, since this can be got from elsewhere.
It’s an attempt to re-define religious practise as only belonging to a church.
The govt, needs to stop trying to define religion.
I disagree, Savia. Even places of worship can be seen as businesses, but they’re exempt from the same rules and regulations as other businesses, as they should be. All other religiously backed organizations that operate in the public arena, even non-profits, must be subject to the same rules and regs as other businesses.
Case closed, as far as I’m concerned.
and all women would benefit from an honest analysis of methods and data, and not by the suppression of alternatives and the refutation of facts regarding desirable alternatives
Indeed they would, Joan, honest as well as unbiased. that means informing women of ALL their choices, whether or not we disagree with them, and not attempting to sway them one way or the other.
The familiar accusation of “attempts to sway” another is what’s most noticable. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.
It was a rhetorical question, Joan.
And that brings us back to your hackneyed summation with the invariable finger pointing and lecturing….
If you truly wish to have all options available to women, then why did you originally so blithely dismiss the value of NFP?
Why so bitter, Joan?
Losing an argument can do that to some people…
Inaccurate labelling of the opponent is one way to avoid a legitimate question and to effectively end a discussion.
Good grief, Joan….
Though the federal government pretends to care about women’s health, it’s for certain that NFP will never be a consideration. The current HHS mandate hardly disguises its real agenda which is an attempt to destroy religious liberty by forcing its citizens to violate their consciences. It’s payback time by the Obama Administration to its Planned Parenthood cronies, who stand to gain financially by the fleecing of the taxpaying public sector. Isn’t it time to denounce the intrusion by the federal government into every single aspect of American life?
The irony is breathtaking…
It is isn’t it, Julie!?
Indescribable, really…
Lori,
You or Obama do not get to define what places of worship are.
There are exemptions for other places, such as a Jewish deli does not serve pork, a vegetarian restaurant does not serve meat etc.
What on Earth do restaurants have to do with birth control?!?! I’m pretty sure I won’t be filling a prescription there.
Lori brought up the fact nobody is exempted.
Churches are exempt, Savia, but not church run businesses.
Don’t twist my words.
Your example is a red herring, Savia. As Jeff pointed out above, people have consciences, business entities do not. Religiously owned usinesses that operate in the public arena must follow the same rules and regs as other businesses.
Lori,
Employers, doctors, nurses are people So yes, this is about individual conscience of those who object to sponsoring contraception, abortion drugs and sterlization.
I’m not talking about the individuals who work within the business, Savia, because they can object as individuals. Employers however, are required to run their businesses according to the rules and regs set forth by the government.
We can either keep doing this dance or we can agree to disagree, but the more you continue on, the more i will simply repeat the same thing over and over again.
What a totally meaningless comment. Savia, have you ever heard of the saying “better to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than speak and remove all doubt” ?
I see we are once again being accused of being the same person, Karl.
Sigh…
Well, perhaps the accuser would like to make a wager claiming we are the same person. I think with a fairly minor effort we could resolve that.
Ad hominem- the last resort to a failed argument.
First of all, what is the argument that has failed and how has it failed. Be specific. Secondly, you’ve played the victim card by claiming an Ad hominem attack. What was the Ad hominem — I asked you a question ?
Savia, A Jewish deli cannot be mandated to serve ham. However, that business in many cases cannot deny employment to Gentiles. Do you see the difference between legal and illegal discrimination?
Should the gentiles force them to buy their bacon, by a mandate?
I think you’ve probably topped-out on totally meaningless comments with this one and the best you can do now is produce more equally meaningless ones.
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves…That comment’s a keeper
All this talk about food is making me hungry! Time to gnosh…
Jeff,
The logical conclusion is that if the fines are not paid, you go to jail and face closure.
I refuted the rest of your arguments.
Curioser and curioser, Savia!
Let’s recap: the Catholic Church has the “ministerial exception,” created by the Supreme Court, which means the Church cannot be forced to ordain women as priests. Nor is the Church required to provide contraceptive coverage in the health insurance it provides to its clergy.
However, a university or a hospital are fundamentally different entities than a parish church. The Church does not use its universities and hospitals as central, necessary organs to propagate its doctrine. Its universities and hospitals function integrally with the rest of the economy, and routinely employ non-Church members. As such, those business ventures, since they are not part of the Church’s doctrinal mission, are not covered by the “ministerial exception,” and are thus subject to the same laws and regulations which govern every other business in the country.
Why do you refuse to accept that, Savia, and why do you keep resorting to abstract examples, instead of discussing the concrete issue of illegal employment discrimination? You haven’t refuted anything, and you have no proof beyond your suppositions that the HHS regs will cause anyone to be imprisoned.
“As such, those business ventures, since they are not part of the Church’s doctrinal mission, are not covered by the “ministerial exception”
Jeff. They are part of the church’s doctrinal mission to care for the sick and poor and instruct the ignorant.
They were started before the govt. even got involved.
You might want to read their mission statements.
Take this for example.
“Vision of Catholic Charities
Believing in the presence of God in our midst, we proclaim the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the person by sharing in the mission of Jesus given to the Church. To this end, Catholic Charities works with individuals, families and communities to help them meet their needs, address their issues, eliminate oppression, and build a just and compassionate society.”
You can find this on schools, universities and hospitals too.
Hence, this is an attempt to define someone else’s religion. It also a targeted attack on the nation’s largest non-governmental provider of services.
No sale, Savia. Nice try.
You omit several key facts. First, the church has accepted state regulations for decades: a local example is Mt. Mercy University, which offers contraceptive coverage to its employees in accordance with state of Iowa insurance regs.
Please do not conflate Catholic Charities with universities and hospitals. If Catholic Charities is run out of local parishes by volunteers and clergy, then it probably is covered by the ministerial exception.
However, Mercy Hospital in Iowa City is not run by any of the local parishes. It employs doctors, nurses, and clerical staff as any hospital does, and it is also subject to Iowa and federal anti-discrimination laws. Same with Georgetown or Notre Dame of any other Catholic university: those enterprises operate independent of the church hierarchy, and are subject to the same laws as any other university.
Let’s cut to the chase. The Catholic Church is a male-dominated, hierarchical organization run from the top down and which demands complete obedience to all doctrinal matters by its members. However, an undemocratic organization like that should not invoke freedom of religion in order to justify imposing its doctrine on the non-Catholics it employs by demanding it be exempted from the laws every other business organization in the country is bound by.
Practice natual family planning: that’s your choice. But please don’t put lipstick on the pig by telling me the Church must be allowed to deny contraceptive choice to its employees by deciding which benefits it will pay for in the health insurance it offers to its employees.
After all, how much choice does the Church give YOU in deciding which doctrines you do, or do not, believe?
Jeff, nice try at trying to put me on the defensive.
There is a religious exemption in Iowa, or the option to opt-out however the mandate accepts none of this.
“However, an undemocratic organization like that should not invoke freedom of religion in order to justify imposing its doctrine on the non-Catholics it employs by demanding it be exempted from the laws every other business organization in the country is bound by.”
This is really funny, since you don’t know what Catholicism is all about. Failed attempt at religious bashing.
“After all, how much choice does the Church give YOU in deciding which doctrines you do, or do not, believe?
Are you calling the state the church?
The last I checked I am not being forced to follow a doctrine by being fined if I don’t.
The Swiss guards won’t come get me if I miss Mass.
“instruct the ignorant.”
Wow.
“instruct the ignorant”
Wow…enough said…
I apologize if this is too blunt. I should have said teach instead.
No, you should have used a word other than “ignorant,” Savia.
People who choose not to follow the Catholic religion and its doctrine aren’t “ignorant” and don’t need to be educated otherwise.
This thread seems to straying from the topic too often and for too long, so we’re shutting it down.