The Fox News logo has the words "Fair& Balanced." However, their top brass, when challenged on their apparent lack of said qualities, claimed that the "opinion" shows, despite being part of the channel represented by the logo, are exempt from being "fair & balanced." But when you have Fox "straight news" tag teaming with Fox opinion on a right wing issue that Roger Ailes wants communicated, you have a steaming pile of propaganda. Such is the case with Fox's promotion of the views of the Catholic Church regarding the mandate that they, as well as secular employers, provide free birth control to their workers under their health care plans. Fox & Friends has run seven segments promoting the church's position. Fox News has run four in which only one was "fair & balanced." And yesterday, "straight news" guy Bill Hemmer gave us the fifth report about this issue which featured yet another opponent of the policy as well as the Fox "fact" that "Plan B" is an "abortion pill." "Fair & balanced" at its finest!
Words matter. In virtually all of the segments on this topic, the phrases connoting agitation, such as "up in arms" and "all fired up," are being used to describe those who oppose this policy. The phrase "war on religion" is also being bandied about by hosts, guests, and chyrons. So it was no surprise to hear Bill Hemmer say that "religious organizations are up in arms about what they feel is the White House war on religious freedom." The reality is that is only "some" religious organizations are upset and others are pleased about the ruling; but you aren't hearing about that on Fox. You are hearing about the opposition which was represented, on this segment of "America's Newsroom," by an attorney from the, as Michelle Malkin expressed it during her Hannity rant, "wonderful" Becket Fund which is representing a Catholic college that is challenging the policy. Hemmer didn't mention that.
Hanson's guest, senior counsel for the right leaning Becket Fund, Hannah Smith, spoke about her group's challenge to the policy. Hemmer (another conservative Catholic in Ailes' stable of conservative Catholics) then promoted, as fact, Catholic dogma: "The issue is contraception, right? But it also goes to providing the abortion pill." FACT CHECK - Emergency contraception prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. As the medical community (and other faith communities) do not believe that pregnancy begins until implantation it is not universally considered an abortion. If a woman is pregnant EC does not induce an abortion. The mandate DOES NOT include the real abortion pill, RU 486.
Smith stated that "many believe" that these drugs cause abortions and that this sentiment is not just a Catholic issue, that "many groups" oppose these "abortion causing drugs," and that it "spans many religious faiths." No mention was made of those large faith communities who have no problem with this type of contraception and that groups who have taken an official position are Catholics, evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews. After playing WH press secretary Jay Carney's comments regarding access to birth control, Smith claimed that the government "has already acknowledge that contraception are widely available" and that most employer plans already provide these drugs and services at clinics, Planned Parenthood, on the internet, at hospitals so "it's not about access" but forcing these groups to pay for it.
So let's see if "fair & balanced" Hemmer will interview an attorney involved with cases pertaining to contraceptive equality and the Catholic Church. Or somebody, anybody, who will admit that many Catholic hospitals and schools already offer plans that cover contraception. And while Ms. Smith blithely says that birth control is cheap and accessible, she represents a cause dedicated to shutting down Planned Parenthood and if that happens, good luck getting an appointment at neighborhood clinics whose limited resources are strained by increasing caseloads. And why should women, who work at Catholic institutions, not have the same kind of coverage as those in the secular world?
If Fox were "fair & balanced," maybe they could speak with this woman who says this: "My husband works at a Catholic hospital so our family health insurance doesn’t cover any kind of birth control at all. If I need to go to the doctor to discuss birth control, that doesn’t get covered either. So if I wanted the pill, a diaphragm, or IUD, not even the consult appointments would be covered by my insurance."
If Fox News were fair & balanced.....Meanwhile, the bishops get some nice free PR that parish newsletters could never match!
Your argument here is very appearant… jump from one extreme to the other instead of dealing with the issue. If “fundi whack job(s)” don’t accept this faceless idea of sexual abuse then they must be for that abuse. On the other hand if we do recognize it as the abuse it is we must not be homophobic about it because they are just like everyone else. This sounds just like the King without any clothes on riding down the village mainstreet and everyone yelling how beautiful his robes are so they won’t offend. Well you can just consider I am that innocent little kid pulling on his mother’s dress asking “Mommy, Mommy! …why doesn’t the King have any clothes on?”
I call it like it is… a male priest who forces or tricks a young boy into sexual acts is not only a sexual abuser but having disordered sex too! I count two strikes against him! In the case it was a male priest forcing a girl to have sex it would only be a single offense… period. And again you IGNORE the Church’s teaching against all of this! Who’s the real hypocrate?
And who is saying homosexuality is a crime? It wasn’t me! Again you jump to extremes so as to confuse an already confusing issue. Same sex acts are disorders which we treat… or at least used to until the AMA and APA gave into the Politically Correct thought on this. Nevertheless, just like the attempt to redefine marriage as other than between a man and woman, moving the beginning of human life to implantation so one can then use abortifacient BC pills is a fiction. Likewise to redefine normal sexual relations as between same sex “partners” or adults and children, or humans and animals …is still wrong! Period! You can’t get around truth by beating around the proverbial bush.
Sexual abuse is a crime… good! Let’s keep it that way. Homosexual acts are disordered… let’s insist the AMA and APA and our society come back to that idea. Let’s also accept that anything that interferes with the natural human sexual act is disordered too and needs to be brought back into order. Simple but true!
MODERATOR: Thanks for the defense but I’m not offended by his language. I’m used to it and realize it is a sign one has no counter argument. It’s sad but true of our cultural dialogue that has to volley between extremes instead of get right down to the real issues.
I give credit where it is due… you are correct in saying this nation is not “controlled by religious dogma” because it IS BEING CONTROLLED BY irreligious dogma! Now whether that former dogma will ever trump the latter is to be played out in time as history has already shown it can do. Given our democratic system of the will of the people this means it is possible to reverse the mixup of whose will will be followed. Given our system of governance is fundamentally a Republic we should not have to vote the right laws in place because they are supposed to be inherent as I’ve described previously. The point is right and wrong don’t change just because people are allowed to voice their opinion and vote for whom they want to represent them. The issue isn’t will someone control someone else but who will control who and for what reason? Will those in power respect the good of those they serve or will they dehumanize them by their immoral demands? Our country is built on the balance between laws that protect “unalienable rights” that persons were “endowed by their Creator,” hence “religious dogma” cannot be excluded from the public discussion, and a government of representatives who are entrusted to protect those “unalienable rights,” and is why they are to be voted in by “We The People.”
You state “over 85% of Catholics use some form of contraception” and I have to ask… exactly how do you know? Are you in their bedrooms? I thought only the Church did something as horrific as that! Whether 99% of Catholics did use BC it’s irrelevant to the argument the Church makes against it. That contraceptives are intrinsically evil stands or falls not on how many Catholics use them (who would therefore be hypocrates if they did while freely professing to be Catholics), but on the real ascertainable nature of contraceptives and sterilization in general. If Catholics do go against the teaching of their Church then it is for one of several reasons: either they are ignorant of what it teaches and means by that teaching or they are disobedient. So your point is beside the point.
As for “your world” …even one child abused is one too many! Is that the best argument you have against Church teaching? You have to attack my intent even though you have no way of knowing what my intent could be! The point of the statistics I gave previously was to impress across honest and open minded persons that Catholic priests are not the only offenders in this particular evil. I’ve not done it but I could gather up statistics of the secular and non-religious incidents of sexual abuse. Instead I refrain from it primarily because I don’t want to get into a statistical tug-a-war that in reality gets us nowhere. While stats can be useful they can’t tell us everything about every aspect of reality. This physicists know well as their field is one where statistical analysis is used profusely. Expecially those who work in quantum mechanics there is a disposition to be excessively concerned with mathematical figures to the point of thinking we can “create” new dimensions with them. On the contrary math and stats have to be applied properly in any field including that of comparing rates of abuse between social groups. What is more important is the mentality that would lead a person to believe sexual perversion in any form, including that of controlling “unwanted pregnancies” and same gender sexual intercourse, is a good under any condition. And of course here is where the Church’s area of competence lies as it has a comprehensive system of teaching in moral and natural theology. Sadly our “tolerant” society spurns that teaching to its own detriment and most who do so can’t even articulate the teaching. At the same time this culture insists we are not to “censor” another person’s view …and almost to the point of violence it will push away from Catholic understanding of human nature. I have only to remind you of the constantly touted proposition that the “church and state” are claimed to be separated by a wall to drive this point home. Religion in government is somehow the greatest evil. Why? Because it reveals the truth. I say it is better that we act according to what our society demands and at least hear out the Church’s position concerning sexual morality before we so flippantly dismiss it. This means being able to at least articulate it in a way the Church would say that is a correct understanding.
As for “those who were born gay” one need not be a psychologist or doctor in order to come to the conclusion that the jury is still out as to the truth of this proposition. I myself tend toward denying neither idea… that people are conceived with this defect as well as there is an degree of truth to the idea of cultural conditioning. Nevertheless, the point remains that homosexuality, no matter how it is formed, is a disorder to be carefully and lovingly corrected. Whether this should involve drugs, psychology or moral teaching I think only matters in degree. Medicine is about healing and not calling an abnormal condition normal. Nor is medicine about changing human nature from its definite and distinguishable form. Human beings are what they are, male and female, and to twist this is to deform the person. Men and women are compliments, they fit each other, and to say same sex relations are normal is to say fittingness is not normal. It’s to say complimentariness is not necessary and opens the door to making men and women enemies. This is a basic tenet of Communism in that men and women are locked in a struggle against each other and must fight it out in order to reach a utopia of nature. Radical feminism fell for this thinking and so pits men against women in their doctrines and this is why they support “gender equality” (not to be confused with equality of persons) and insist on abortion to force women to be “equal” to men who cannot carry a child in their womb (because they don’t have one!). So to make women “equal” to men the new feminists have taught our society they need to kill their children and then they will be just like men. Better yet… find a same sex “partner” then you can have all the sexual fun you want without having to resort to messy birth control pills that can fail or do what we want to be “safe, legal and rare” …that last resort… “ending a pregnancy,” because they are “just products of conception” anyway.
The point of all this is that the cultural rhetoric works together to conspire against human life and what is normal. That men and women are created to love each other as they are… male and female, and because they fit together so radically down to their biological parts and they are capable of generating new human life. Same sex relationships cannot do this which means they don’t compliment each other and fit together. We who are ordered correctly don’t need technology to devise ways for us to have children… UNLESS! …we have a defect! In english this means something is wrong. We fix things that are wrong with our medicine… not tell a person they need to just “believe” they are normal and then reorder society to “protect” our new special rights! So bottom line… save your guilt trip and drop the cultural pretense that somewhere in the U.S. Constitution everyone is owed BC pills just because they’ve been so confused to think what is not normal is normal. Contraceptives are contrary-to-conception and that is abnormal just as much as same sex acts of intercourse. They are deficient and this is why sound thinking religious people should not have to give into special interest groups that petition the government to force everyone to play the game of let’s make believe what is disordered is normal. Ratjaws@aol.com
On the contrary, what we need are role models infinitely better than the typical “Stars” and “Idols” of Hollywood, of whom the majority find it impossible to hold a permanent relationship, or political models like Anthony Weiner who disgracefully resigned over sexual misconduct while in public office. Like the Kardashians who are held up as a typical American family but are really aberations who would never be caught dead following any Church teaching, assuming they knew any, our culture is starved of holy role models while the Catholic Church to this day still canonizes saints. I happen to have had the honor of been taught by one, Fr. John Hardon, who is going through the beginning stages of beatification, and who in turn taught Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her sisters in the Missionaries of Charity. Although I myself am fartherest from sainthood I at least have a real idea of what a good model is.
Of course you are correct that Jesus Christ is the Preeminent Model of all other preeminent models, much like he is considered King of kings; but I fail to see how lesser contemporary role models detract from Christ’s ultimate image? Can you explain please? Futhermore need I remind you that Jesus did not come into this world in order to start a religion rather he initiated a Church (Matt. 16:16-20) In your passing judgment on the Church you overlook the thesis I laid out that it is both human and divine. Since it was initiated by a divine Person who also had a human nature this seems reasonable to me. Therefore since true, why should anyone doubt the capacity of such a Church to produce the badly needed saints of even today? And how can a handful of sinful human priests who are supposed to represent Christ overshadow the multitude of saintly priests who do (and have been canonized), except maybe in the case of a culture that spurns turning its eyes in their direction! The problem is not that the Church lacks holy models but that our society is intent on overlooking them… as it has a kind of least common denominator mentality when it comes to presenting good models.
Besides,I thought Jesus was the preeminent model? Or has that thought gone the way of the dodo bird,same as the church’s morality.
Of some 109,694 priests and permanent deacons, 4,392 were accused (41 were permanent deacons). This means 96% of priests have NOT been accused of any sexual misconduct. In addition 75% of these occured between 1960 and 1984, roughly during the time our society was involved in itâs sexual revolution, the so-called âfree loveâ hippie generation that initiated the anti-tradition/anti-authoritarian movements. Also itâs important to note that 81% of the victims were young males making this predominately a crime involving not just pedophilia but homosexualityâ¦ a fruit of this pornified and promiscuous generation.
So that’s ok then,I guess. It’s just 4,392 innocent children. I mean,gosh! Haven’t these lib’ruls got a heart? Think of the poor celibate priests!
BTW, homosexuality isn’t the crime. The crime is sexual abuse. It wouldn’t matter if the children were male or female. Abuse is abuse. Only a fundi whack job would try to turn a tragedy like that into a political circus against homosexuality. Let me guess,they also like to screw dogs too?
Edited by moderator: PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL and don’t engage in name calling.
You either provide complete health care including contraception to your employees as is already mandated in 28 states, or face the fines for your refusal to understand you have zero choice. The catholic church is so out of touch with reality it`s beyond understanding.
Many of the old catholic religious institutions are withering away. People are voting with their feet on Saturday and Sunday mornings: If that’s what religion is, I’m not interested is what you hear but are to stupid to understand. Over 85% of catholics use some form of contraception, do you really think that will stop because some old man with a funny hat says no?
Let’s do a Priscillian FACT CHECK on the subject you impose on birth control. This information comes from a CNN article dated 02/27/2004 concerning a report by John Jay College over the period of 1950 to 2002. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse12.htm)
Of some 109,694 priests and permanent deacons, 4,392 were accused (41 were permanent deacons). This means 96% of priests have NOT been accused of any sexual misconduct. In addition 75% of these occured between 1960 and 1984, roughly during the time our society was involved in it’s sexual revolution, the so-called “free love” hippie generation that initiated the anti-tradition/anti-authoritarian movements. Also it’s important to note that 81% of the victims were young males making this predominately a crime involving not just pedophilia but homosexuality… a fruit of this pornified and promiscuous generation.
I suspect these figures have changed since the report’s study period but what needs to come out is this scandal, is a mirror of what’s happening within our culture. Those priest who are monsters, as you correctly call them, have their counterparts in our society and it’s institutions. A recent incident involved Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky who just prior to his death, was arrested on charges of sexually abusing eight boys across a 15-year period; arraigned and released on $100,000 bail after being charged with 40 counts related to sexual abuse of young boys. Note again the alleged crimes are homosexual in nature. A typical article found on the Huffington post headlined with: “Jerry Sandusky On Joe Paterno’s Death: This Is A Sad Day!’” rather than as “the retired Penn State assistant coach who faces child sex abuse charges” (mentioned later in the article). In an ESPN article “Sandusky said in a statement, making no mention of the scandal that erupted after the abuse allegations came to light. ‘Nobody will be able to take away the memories we all shared of a great man, his family, and all the wonderful people who were a part of his life.’”
Why in most articles we see on Sandusky and Paterno don’t we see more focus on whether these men were guilty or complicit in these alleged crimes? Why not analyze to death the secular occurance of sex abuse? Why the preoccupation with only Catholic incidents? What you and others (who constantly bring up this subject) fail to talk about is that these “monsters” are breed by a culture steeped in sexual confusion. This culture lifts up a “sexy body” as the ultimate factor in “love” and writes prolifically on sexual technique and ways to obtain more pleasure from your lover… and mostly apart from any moral context. I say the reason is because the Church is the preeminent model of holiness in this world. This is precisely why it is singled out because it’s reputation should be without spot. Does this suprise you I’d admit this?
Well the Church is without sin depending on what aspect of the Church you consider; the divine or human? This is true since the Church is a composite of both. The former imperfect as it is the fallen human element. The latter without spot and cannot error since it is the divine element and this FACT, can be found in Church teaching. Did you know this? This applies to your comment on priestly scandal in that NO WHERE IN Church teaching will you ever find that homosexual acts, sodomy, rape or sexual abuse are good. No, rather it teaches that homosexual PERSONS are to be treated with dignity even though they are disordered in their behavior. The Church teaches sodomy, rape and abuse are evil and anyone who commits them, whether priest or laity, has sinned and needs to confess and make restitution. It also teaches sexual promiscuity and adultery are evils too. This Church upholds lifelong monogamous marriage between a man and woman as the only standard for human sexuality… AGAINST that culture! It teaches that authentic sexuality involves love and life with pleasure a secondary consequence meant to encourage the commitment and work these two purposes demand.
In short the Church you and so many others condemn for a small fraction of the priesthood’s monsterous behavior, probably less than 1% after we count actual convictions, SEEMS to have the only remedy for these “monsters.” It even seems to have answers for the victims in it’s teaching on compassion (Latin: cum, with + passio, suffer “to suffer with”) and forgiveness. And this contrary to our society’s anything goes attitude taken to the point of petitioning the government to change the definition of marriage! A culture that redefines the nature of the human person and sexuality and wants to impose divorce as good and normal; and has virtually legalized pornography as a Constitutional “right.” This porn I might add is closely related to the confusion at the root of sexual abuse and other sexual disorders like pedophilia, sodomy and rape. That same culture insists sterilizing the sex act is natural and good and when nature suprises a couple with “unplanned children,” it insists aborting them is another “good” because they are not persons unless wanted! And this just the tip of the cultural iceberg… So really, between the Church’s teaching and our cultural mindset whom do you think has the cure for those “monsters” in the Church? And why is birthcontrol ASSUMED TO BE NOT related to all those other sexual evils? Where is the consistency of teaching and it’s coherence in our sex crazed culture? Ratjaws@aol.com
Quote: “If Fox were ‘fair & balanced,’ maybe they could speak with this woman who says this: ‘My husband works at a Catholic hospital so our family health insurance doesnât cover any kind of birth control at all. If I need to go to the doctor to discuss birth control, that doesnât get covered either. So if I wanted the pill, a diaphragm, or IUD, not even the consult appointments would be covered by my insurance.’”
If I am to believe what you say about Fox News being so unfair and unbalanced I’m sure you will have to apologize too. Why are all your commentaries against the Catholic Church and Fox News… never in support? I mean if you were as “fair and balanced” as you claim they must be shouldn’t you present their pro’s and not just the con’s?
Anyhow, “FACT CHECK!” Once again you repeat the words that “Emergency contraception prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.” Then you say: “As the medical community (and other faith communities) do not believe that pregnancy begins until implantation it is not universally considered an abortion.” Ok, let’s be “fair and balanced” here and stipulate that according to those who oppose religious influence in culture and government it’s the always “scientific facts” we want, and not the “beliefs” or dogmas of religious believers. So how does this accord with your proposition that because some “do not believe that pregnancy begins until implantation” we all must accept the idea that “If a woman is pregnant EC does not induce an abortion.?”
Does anyone see the inconsistency here? I mean shouldn’t we be looking at the scientific findings to determine when a pregnancy first occurs? What person in the “medical community” or “other faith communities” would say the scientific findings tell us that an implanted “fertilized egg” is any different genetically than the egg a moment after feritilization (or later in life outside the womb even up to the point of natural death)? If this living being is not different except for growth, the exercise of potential powers and maturity of appearance then why would we make a distinction where it concerns the protection of human beings? Don’t we all have to pass through these early stages of life?
Beyond this fundamental point and going back to the first quote, I say the distinction I make above gives religious persons as well as Catholics, not just the right but the duty to question Obamacare and it’s mandates concerning all forms of birthcontrol. In fact I question why is the government in healthcare at all? Why can’t the American people continue the high quality of care they had in the past before government regulation became so heavily burdensome as we find it today? Don’t take me wrong… I am not a Libertarian as Ron Paul is, but I am not a Liberal/Progressive, or worse, a Socialist, or even worse, a Communist! I am for personal responsibility with the government intervening only after one of our fundamental rights have been violated… and these are our “right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.” And this only when the government is petitioned or has been asked to intervene. Bottom line it seems this issue of healthcare and who is going to run it, and how, concerns that very first and most fundamental right-to-life that cannot be violated and is the government’s first and most important duty to protect! If we as religious persons think abortifacient contraceptives harm human beings even in preimplantation stage, shouldn’t the government error on the side of caution and allow us exemptions from having to fund any law we think conflicts with our moral conscience? I mean come on…. if I were in an elected office and claimed blacks were only 3/5ths a person and therefore their life could be taken without just cause… wouldn’t you question my motives and at minimum claim a conscience claus for yourself if I ordered you from an official position of power to do so?
The US Council of Catholic Bishops should be investigated by federal authorities.
and the US Chamber of Commerce
and the Republican Party
and the Tea Party