Fr. Barron comments on the HHS Contraception Mandate

Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Father Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit http://www.wordonfire.org/

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Fr. Robert Barron
• Word On Fire
• Catholicism
• Catholic
• ministry
• Christianity
• God
• Jesus
• Lord
• Christ
• religion
• Christian
• Obama
• HHS
• Health and Human Services
• Neil Steinberg
• Chicago Sun Times
• Timothy Dolan
• Church
• Kathleen Sabelius
• Chicago Tribune
• Sara Paretsky
• fertility
• Roe V Wade
• Pro Choice
• Pro Life
• contraception
• abortion
• sexuality
• womens rights
• feminism
• liberal
• conservative
• democrat
• republican
• atheists

[ewlabontejr]

I'd like to respond to Father Barron's analogy that the claimed right of women over their sexuality is like a driver driving 120 miles an hour, or someone evading paying his taxes or a business fixing prices. This analogy seems incredibly disingenuous. Nobody is claiming that women have a right to impose their sexuality on others. Only that what a woman does sexually, without hurting others, is her business, not yours.

[wordonfirevideo]

So anything a woman wants to do sexually is okay, as long as she's decided it? And this includes the killing of the child in her womb? And this includes adultery and fornication? Do you see what I mean when I say that this view is irresponsible?

[Mike O'Brien]

What exactly is wrong with fornication?

[wordonfirevideo]

It violates the essential dignity of the human person and the integrity of the sexual act.

[petruscephas]

Since you are talking about money why don't you mention the billions of dollars that Catholic schools save city and state governments every year?

Or does this fact simply not fit into the false narrative you have constructed for yourself?

[JCistGottMitUns]

Neil STEINBERG not liking Catholicism or religion? Well, thats new... *cough, cough* Mhmm....

[jamaicanification]

@TheMenghi, though its not "de fide" as you put it, the fact that the previous Pope, John Paul ii made so many statements against its use is very significant

[TheMenghi1]

Furthermore, I guess your response would be no response, always falling back on 'we're not sure, there could be mistakes.' With that mentally, don't travel by train, plane or drive a car since there's the possibility of your being hurt. Argue for the truth of the matter regardless of the outcomes, not to win the argument. Your threshold is beyond human capacity. I wish you luck.

[TheMenghi1]

You would make a terrible juror. You really believe that those water-tight cases aren't 100%: Simpson, Manson,? You don't believe in circumstancial evidence? You might as well throw out a lot of history since you weren't there and deductive reasonsing has no sway with you!? These criminals get the benefit of beyond a reasonable doubt. There are things that the jury never hears of because the judicial system bends over backwards to safeguard the person from appearing terribly horrible.

[JRserver]

The problem with that is that the the very reason the 289 people exonerated by the Innocence Project were incarcerated to start with was because the legal system, at the time, had "100% certitude of guilt; forensic evidence, reliable eye witnesses, etc.", to include those saved from death row. It's easy to say "Life goes on" when the wrong people are locked up and/or executed, until someone you love or, God forbid, you yourself ARE one of the people who fell through the cracks.

[TheMenghi1]

I will answer by stating, once again, that the State has to execure those for whom they have 100% certitude of guilt; forensic evidence, reliable eye witnesses, etc. When we no longer protect the innocent, we in essence are declaring that the life of the criminal is of more importance than his victim/s. .Lastly, we know that raising the speed limit above 55 mph kills people, should we then lower the speed limit to save the lives of those who will inadvertently die? Life goes on.

[JRserver]

I would answer your question with a question; to paraphrase the Cheney one-percent doctrine, would you support the death penalty if you knew that there were a one-percent chance that having the death penalty means that some innocent people will be executed? Which is more important - punishing the guilty or protecting the innocent?