But don't you see how that line of logic would give the Catholic church (or any church) infinite power? If a church's insurance provider provides sleep aid to employees, aren't they providing the means to potentially commit the mortal sin of sloth? After all, sleep aids can be highly addictive. If they pay employees, aren't they potentially providing the means to commit the mortal sin of greed? Your line of reasoning just doesn't work in reality. You're picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to enforce.
With all due respect, those are rather faulty analogies. If someone genuinely has a sleeping disorder, then prescribing sleeping pills would be seen as a legitimate and proper use in order to treat that person's difficulty sleeping. That's not encouraging sloth whatsoever. If someone actually abused sleeping pills and also were using them without a prescription, then that's a different story because they are potentially doing bodily harm to themselves. And paying an employee a salary so they can have the ways and means to provide for themselves and their family is a form of greed? That's a new one.
But if you're saying, "This is our dogma. It's sacred and you can't step all over it," you can't base that indignation on something that's not in the "holy" text.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics do not believe in the concept
sola scriptura, i.e. that the Bible is the sole authority when it comes to God's will. They regard it as a "divinely inspired text" which, along with other writings and "sacred tradition," the practices handed down starting with Jesus' ministry. Now you might ask what gives a bunch of priests and bishops the right to interpret the Bible, but the explanation for this is they are considered the spiritual descendants of the original twelve apostles. The common analogy is that they are shepherds who have a responsibility and duty to look after their flock and make sure they don't wander away and get lost. They believe (and history has borne this out) that if the Bible is the sole authority and open to interpretation, then that creates all kinds of chaos and conflict.
They also distinguish tradition and dogma, in that tradition can change but dogma cannot. For example, it used be tradition that priest could be married, until it was decided centuries ago that priests must be celibate, believing this was the best way to serve God. That, however, could change (and there are in fact some priests who are married). However, in the case of say abortion, that's dogma which cannot change according to the church, as they regard it as akin to infanticide and thus a violation of the fifth commandment. ("Thou Shall not Kill" is considered to be the 5th Commandment in Catholic and Anglican churches).
But again, you're saying, "This is our religion. This is what we believe and that's why it's so important," but clearly it's not what you believe. Because "you" refers to all Catholics, and if nearly half of your people are using it, plus the implicit or explicit approval of their partners, then clearly you don't practice what you preach. And again, if you want to rely on the "It's so important to us" argument, you can't use that argument if the majority of your people don't practice it.
Ah, but you're making a common misconception: just because someone believes they are in the right doesn't automatically make it so. Yes, there are Catholics (some of which include those who don't regularly attend Church services and lapsed Catholics who still identify themselves as Catholic) that do not follow the Catholic's church's teaching when it comes to using artificial contraceptives; but that doesn't automatically mean the rules with regard to artificial contraception change. Nor does it change the concept that, if the Federal Government can dictate to a Church how they must practice their faith with regards to this, then they are free to dictate to Church on how they must practice their faith in order matters which their parishioners may take more seriously.
Have you ever bought birth control pill/had a partner buy it? Without insurance, it's unreasonably expensive. Hundreds of dollars per month. Condoms can be provided free by some universities/schools, but that does little for most adults.
It depends on what birth control method you use and how often you use it. According to Planned Parenthood's website, Birth Control Pills, while requiring a prescription, cost between $15 to $50 a month. An IUD, on the other hand, costs $500 to $1,000 dollars up front but can last for up to 12 years. Deprovera costs $35 to $75 per injection in addition to the $20 and $40 exam fee, but each shot lasts up to 3 months.
At the core, you just don't live in the same reality as I do. Your own people use it. You cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth as a church and claim an exception to a health and safety regulation on account of something that your own people don't abide by.
And make no mistake, birth control is a public health issue. Unwanted pregnancies are bad for the mother, the children, the economy and the health care system.
I know that some people live in a fairy tale world where no one ever has pre-marital sex and no one ever has an unplanned pregnancy, but that is not the world we live in. Asking these women to carry these children to term is cruel to both the mother and the child. Kids born to such circumstances are statistically more likely to have rough lives, lives filled with crime, violence and substance abuse. The whole country suffers when archaic "moral" codes are forced upon people that don't want them.
The church can cry victim all it wants. They're already being given tax benefits that normal employers are not given. They openly engage in political activities that they shouldn't. Now they want to deny basic health care to their employees because it goes against some extra-Biblical rules that the church made up and they don't follow? Yeah right.
No one is blind to the fact that we live in an imperfect world and that, on occasion people fail to live up to certain standards. We are all human beings, after all who are perfectly capable of making mistakes. But that doesn't automatically mean one should abandon those standards that they try to live up to. And again, just because someone may disagree with something doesn't automatically mean they are in the right. For example, and while not exactly comparable, 200 years ago, it was considered perfectly okay for people to own other human beings and treat them as property, even though a minority opinion disagreed. 100 years ago, it was believed and supposedly backed by science, that white people were genetically superior to other races, even though a minority opinion at the time disagreed. In other words, public opinion is not the same thing as truth.
Now, you are correct in saying that unwanted pregnancies can lead to problems or make life more difficult for the mother, the children, their way of life, health care, etc. But, and I know you may not like hearing this, but one way that is recommended to avoid this--and not just from Catholics or religious people--is to practice abstinence, or wait until you find the right person to have sex with, usually the person you marry. Because, even though birth control does reduce the chances of getting pregnant, there is still the possibility of getting pregnant regardless of what kind of birth control you use. Because, in the case mammals (which we human beings are) sex=kids, and the more often you have it, the greater your chances are of becoming pregnant. Yes, not waiting to have sex is generally the ideal, and yes, people do fail to live up that ideal, and no one should condemn them for it. But that doesn't automatically mean that ideal should be abandoned entirely.
Also, no one is forcing someone to join a Church. We are free in this country to belong to any religion of our choosing or no religion at all. But it is usually common knowledge that if one decides to belong to a Church, they is expected to abide by it's rules, doctrines and disciplines, just like any organization you choose to belong to that has it's own rules, guidelines, and disciplines.
And even though you may complain about Churches and religious organizations getting tax exemptions and how their parishioners and clergy are not practicing what they preach, it doesn't change what the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which means that while government cannot favor or officially adopt a specific religion, nether can they force a religion to practice their faith in a particular way. In other words, we are not a theocracy and Washington D.C. is not Rome, Jerusalem, or Mecca.
