Tony, are you deliberately trying to misinterpret me or just naturally pugnacious? What I said is quite correct. I did not say "immediately beforehand", though it is ideal.

Catholics are required to receive Communion at least once each year between Ash Wednesday and Trinity Sunday, and while reception of the Eucharist is not contingent on going to Confession (but on other factors including whether one is in a state of grace but which may nevertheless require Confession) one is also required to receive the Sacrament of Penance(Confession) once a year. Obviously, the natural order of this is Penance, then Communion, and even if one hasn't committed a mortal sin the Church encourages its flock to confess venial ones. Lent, starting tomorrow, is a penitential period, followed by Easter, which gives its name to our Easter Duty of taking communion once a year. Regardless, one must go to Confession once during the year prior to taking Communion.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Why_Confession.htm

Many exemptions already exist in the interests of protecting religious freedom. To what extent should governments turn a blind 'legal' eye. No Western government has yet to condone honour killings, FGM, child sexual abuse or stoning unfaithful women in a drive for religious freedom. Polygamy is overlooked in the US and even in Australia in the context of cultural or religious differences. The US has had to deal with problems in relation to very young girls being married off to sleazy old men. Where to draw the line when a religious practice is so morally wrong as to inflict pain or suffering.

I haven't yet met a Catholic woman who is not using contraception. Even the Billings Method is contraceptive method. Nothing 'godly' about mainly male Catholic leaders forcing women to have numerous babies they can ill afford. Not to mention the long term effects and risks for the mother of numerous pregnancies; often in conflict with doctors who advise 'no more babies'. A woman could abstain, but not with a priest demanding she obey her husband.

However, what about individual choice. One always has the option to leave a Church if one ignores for a moment some of the difficulties eg. the brainwashing effect and the risk of being separated from loved ones in sects who ban contact with 'outsiders'.

In relation to same sex marriage, the Australian Government is currently suggesting Churches won't have to perform SSM - it will be a matter of conscience. While I shudder sometimes at the absurdities of some religions it is not a huge problem accepting that marriage is ostensibly a legal contract or civil event.

The problem will arise when a homosexual Catholic or Muslim may seek a blessing in the eyes of God, however this is a time for individuals to reflect if their Church meets their own standards, values and moral code.

There is room for optimism, religion is evolving, many already re-examining their own prejudices, power structures and understanding of historical contexts.

The issues the author raises would be better approached from employer obligations vs government obligations.

Pelican, almost everyone has reacted as if Catholics are the ones trying to impose their beliefs on others. This is quite the opposite. This isn't about whether women have access to birth control - they already have it! - and this isn't about Catholics trying to restrict that access - they're not! All the US bishops are insisting upon is that employers don't have to pay for it. I do not consider birth control a government or an employer obligation, which is why I didn't take your suggested approach. The user should pay for it. Men have to pay for condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for the Pill?! And don't tell me it's a part of basic health care. Basic health care doesn't even pay for prescriptions that people need to stay alive. There are far more important 'health' matters than birth control.

Dear Pelican,

"Where to draw the line when a religious practice is so morally wrong as to inflict pain or suffering."

Government has no mandate to enforce morals, nor to determine which practices are religious and which are not.

The only way to ensure religious freedom is to abstain from stealing anyone's freedom, be they religious or otherwise.

The only morally-acceptable mandate of government, is to protect its citizens (eg. those who agreed to come under its protection) against violence and fraud. For that end, government has the right to restrain even those who haven't sought its protection from harming those who are under its protection, but it has for example no mandate to "protect" those who have not sought its protection.

Therefore, where people freely agree to inflict pain and suffering on each other, for whatever reason, or even to sacrifice each other, government must not interfere.

There is this grey area where it is not clear whether or not a person would have wished to obtain the state's protection, but in general governments tend to assume beyond reason that people want its protection, even when the balance of probabilities is otherwise.

A possible solution is to have citizens inform the government in advance, preferably in writing and long before a crisis occurs, whether (and if so in what circumstances) they want its protection. Like any deal freely entered, the government may in turn set its conditions for those who want to be protected by it.

Mishka
I do agree with your argument that governments, not employers should be providing universal health care. Apologies if that did not come across - the dangers of editing.

The Catholic Church does attempt to influence government policy on many issues and in that way they are dictating their views (as any other lobbyist including atheists).

Yuyutsu

'Government has no mandate to enforce morals, nor to determine which practices are religious...'

Do you apply that rule to Churches in attempting to influence governments on issues like legalising same sex marriage?

Governments have to make distinctions in some circumstances should religious organisations seek tax exemptions or funding ie. what constitutes a religion or religious practice. IMO governments should not be funding religious activities or atheist conventions. These are personal activities.

I agree, governments should not get too involved in morality issues unless there is harm to others. There is sometimes a thin boundary on that last point, what one group of people see as 'harm' others as acts of honour or obedience to (generally) a patriarchial body.

'Therefore, where people freely agree to inflict pain and suffering on each other, for whatever reason, or even to sacrifice each other, government must not interfere.'

I disagree on those sorts of extreme acts. They are illegal for a reason and have long term and far reaching effects on the rest of society. What constitutes agreement? There are many types of force - membership of a particular religous sect does not automatically imply agreement to some of the acts but it may be interpreted so.

It comes down to obeying Common Laws which serve to protect all people equally. On that basis sometimes discussions have to be had on religious and other practices.

Dear Pelican,

"Do you apply that rule to Churches in attempting to influence governments on issues like legalising same sex marriage?"

Yes, except I do not believe that governments should be involved with marrying people in the first place.

"IMO governments should not be funding religious activities or atheist conventions. These are personal activities."

I absolutely agree.

"what one group of people see as 'harm' others as acts of honour or obedience to (generally) a patriarchial body."

Therefore people who seek the state's protection must first declare exactly what they want to be protected from. Once protection by the state is no longer compulsory, this is a free and open deal and the state is also allowed to accept or decline its offer for protection.

"membership of a particular religous sect does not automatically imply agreement to some of the acts but it may be interpreted so."

I'm not proposing that the government asks "Excuse me Sir/Madam, are you a member of this or that group?". The only question is "Would you like the state to protect you?" and if the answer is 'Yes', then the terms of the protection-agreement must be open and agreed to by both sides.

"It comes down to obeying Common Laws which serve to protect all people equally."

This sounds almost demonic: not all people necessarily wish to be protected and/or protected by the same institution(s) and/or protected in the same way(s). The state may apply Common Laws in order to protect those who seek its protection, even against strangers who do not wish the same, but not in order to protect those who want nothing to do with the state.

"On that basis sometimes discussions have to be had on religious and other practices."

The state is a secular institution and as such it has no idea about religion and no skills to discuss religious issues. It should instead concentrate on its sole duty -to protect those of its citizens who seek its protection. Religion should not come into it at all. It's up to religious people to decide whether to seek the state's-protection.