That’s not quite true. They only prohibit artificial contraception, not contraception on the whole.
FTR, I’m not Catholic, and I don’t agree with their stance. I do think that it’s important to be accurate when presenting their views, though.
How is it discrimination to not enter a particular profession? Am I discriminating against you and your plumbing needs because I didn’t become a plumber? How is it any different if someone doesn’t enter the profession because that profession would require you to do things against your conscience?
I’m not seeing how someone deciding not to become a doctor is in any way unjust, unfair, etc. to anyone, regardless of why they don’t.
Right you are, but besides abstinence, the only other non artificial contraception that I am aware of is the rhythm method, which is a ridiculously ineffective and unreliable form of birth control. It could only work if a woman’s cycle was completely regular, and many are not, and even in the case that a woman does have a cycle like clockwork, sperm can live up to five days in a woman’s body…so this natural form of birth control is really almost a joke.
Not moral, ethical or legal … nor should anyone be required to provide a good or service that alot of Catholics would want.
I think we’ve got hung up on the hospital thing.
How about if one ran a general store, as I believe the American term is - would it be ethical to refuse to serve catholics because you feel they ought to be putting pressure on their church to enter then 21st century?
What about members of a neo nazi organisation?
(I’m aware it would probably be illegal)
Not necessarily.
But apparently I do not use the word how most people apparently use the word and so I must yield to consensus that I am mistaken about what it means to discriminate. It’s ok, I’ve been wrong before.
If you are asking how appeals to conscience differ from other kinds of justification, it sounds like a major hijack.
Refusal to act in a certain way is a time-honored technique of protest against various perceived injustices.
Generally speaking this would be legal and not ethical. It would also be dumb to target Catholics at random in the hope that the church would change in response. You wouldn’t know if you were discriminating against Catholics who support the church’s policies or oppose them, and what you would actually do is convince people you just hate Catholics. People usually don’t respond well to that kind of thing.
Are you implying that Catholic hospitals are currently run by insane people?
So ALL Catholics should be denied medical care because a couple of douchebags did something they have no control over and you don’t agree with? I can’t believe this is even being taken seriously by posters.
I would say that denying treatment due to religious beliefs for which there is not the slightest bit of supporting evidence is at least irrational
It is not “serious” of course. But it is interesting to explore. You are absolutely wrong to say they have no control over teh doucebags though. For a start, they can leave the church in protest.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Generally speaking this would be legal and not ethical. It would also be dumb to target Catholics at random in the hope that the church would change in response. You wouldn’t know if you were discriminating against Catholics who support the church’s policies or oppose them, and what you would actually do is convince people you just hate Catholics. People usually don’t respond well to that kind of thing.
[/quote]
It would be dumb, I agree.
I would argue that being a Catholic means that you support the church’s policy. It isn’t like being a republican.
That is interesting actually because what if one were a member of a neo-nazi party who was actually a liberal and opposed all their policies? Are they are a neo-nazi?
It doesn’t. According to recent polls, most Catholics think health insurers should have to cover birth control, and significant numbers of Catholics disagree with what the church teaches on issues like homosexuality, birth control, and women holding the priesthood to name a few obvious examples.
I’d probably say that person was a misguided reformer- or an idiot.
You can legally deny them service. You just face the possibility of a lawsuit. Or spray-painted swastikas. (From the neo-Nazis, not the Catholics).
Technically you can’t deny them service due to a “protected” reason like race, color, religion, or national origin. So as long as you can convince a judge that you thought the Catholics looked liked neo-Nazis too and you’re in the clear!
Then they should not remain members. By doing so they are implicitly endorsing it. They should quit and tell the church why.
This is what I expected, then: you’re using a definition of support or endorse that’s so broad it means almost nothing.
I’m sure some people have. It could work, or it could bring about a more extremist church where nobody disagrees with the official positions on those issues.
Actually I’m quite clear on it. The church clearly insists that its members hold these views, otherwise it would give the hospitals discretion. That its members are ignoring it (and thus presumably being “bad catholics”) is pretty much irrelevant - how crap a defence is that?
This organisation causes untold suffering and misery and distruction. If you join such an organisation you have to take responsibility for it.
(To be clear, I’m not seriously arguing for this policy here. But the reasoning stands up)
You may be clear on what you mean, but it’s not a good definition. They’re not supporting or endorsing anything; they’re just not doing enough about it in your opinion (so far as you’re aware of what they are doing).
No, the reasoning doesn’t stand up. You’re talking about indiscriminately targeting people based on views you assume they hold.
Yes, the Old Testament’s morality would suggest doing so (eye for eye and non-association with outsiders). You would be perfectly justified in doing so morally under what is sometimes called the right of vengeance and is actually in several tribal belief systems and arguably in our legal code.
Now if you want to subscribe to and live under this version of morality is up to you.
Oh, first it was discriminatory, and now it is indiscriminate. Make up your minds already! (I kid, I kid)
Isn’t it a defining part of Catholic doctrine that the Pope is kept right by divine fiat? You can no more believe the Pope has no special insight into these matters and be a Catholic than you can be a Christian who doesn’t believe Christ was the son of God who bought you a ticket to heaven, or a (male) homosexual who has no interest in other men and is only attracted to women.