Opinion

Why suing Notre Dame over ‘secret’ birth control settlement isn’t ko …

Aerial view of the University of Notre Dame campus near South Bend, Ind. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

(RNS) — Let’s suppose Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election. Also suppose that her secretary for health and human services, on taking office, introduced a new interpretation of the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurers cover contraception, among a host of women’s health services:

“Given the high failure rate of traditional birth control, and the gendered implications of the ACA covering certain kinds of reproductive choices but not others, it is now clear that abortion care must be included in the ACA mandate.”

Most reasonable people — even those who identify as pro-choice — would agree that, say, Notre Dame University, one of the country’s pre-eminent Catholic institutions, should be exempted from such a mandate.

A variety of birth control pills. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

After all, Catholic teaching insists that abortion is the violent taking of a vulnerable human life. How could Notre Dame be true to the kind of institution it claims to be and pay for its students and employees to kill the most vulnerable among us?

Answer: It couldn’t. The local bishop would withdraw an institution’s ability to call itself Catholic before he would allow such a thing to happen.

Yet last week The Intercept wrote about a lawsuit filed on behalf of Notre Dame University students against the school, arguing that a settlement the Trump administration reached last year freeing 74 American Catholic institutions from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate is unlawful. The students (and The Intercept’s writer) further argue that the settlement violates Notre Dame’s own commitment to inclusion.

If the lawsuit were over abortion, rather than simple contraceptives, would The Intercept have taken the same line?

One might object to the comparison by focusing on the differences between abortion and birth
control. The taking of a human life, of course, is an extremely serious moral matter — and contraception is not. One might be inclined to give ND the benefit of the doubt with regard to the former, but not the latter.

Here, however, one must (as Notre Dame does) distinguish between different kinds of contraceptives. Drugs that the university considers abortifacients (like Ella and the copper IUD) are not covered by its health plan, while non-abortion-inducing contraceptives are covered in some circumstances.

Nuns and their supporters rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington on March 23, 2016, as the court hears arguments to allow birth control in health care plans in the Zubik v. Burwell case. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

But this decision is hammered by The Intercept for being too Catholic, even as Notre Dame’s right flank criticizes it as not Catholic enough. The latter argues that Catholic teaching is that artificial contraception, even when it doesn’t result in the death of a human being, is still a grave moral matter.

Critics on the right also argue that contraceptives facilitate hookup and rape culture, that they increase the spread of sexually transmitted infections by encouraging riskier sex with a false sense of security and that by using them we cave to a patriarchal culture that insists women pump themselves full of hormones and suffer their potential side effects (depression, suicide and doubling the risk of HIV) in order to have social equality with men.

No authentically Catholic understanding of health care, the critics say, could include this kind of birth control. (Catholic institutions, it should be noted, do cover and even provide birth control when it is prescribed to treat an illness or disease.)

Traditionalists already consider it a major concession for Notre Dame to allow coverage of nonabortifacient drugs via university-provided insurance. For many in this camp, the current plan is already sacrificing the university’s Catholic identity in an attempt to keep an (admittedly dramatic and toxic) controversy at bay.

It’s true that Catholic institutions sometimes do a poor job of signaling their policies on contraception. Too often the policy is hidden away in embarrassment. The policies from school to school are often confusingly varied.

People walk in front of the Golden Dome administrative building on the Notre Dame campus in November 2013. Photo by Ken Lund/Creative Commons

Certainly, Catholic institutions of higher learning owe students and employees clear explanations of their contraceptive policies, as a matter of justice — and, perhaps, evangelization; many women, increasingly rejecting the patriarchal norm, are looking for nontoxic alternatives to contraceptive drugs.

But one doesn’t need to agree with Notre Dame to question the idea that students and employees should be able to force a university to go against its teaching. No employee who applies to work at, say, an Orthodox Jewish institution like Yeshiva University could reasonably demand anything other than kosher food. Unmarried people at a traditional Muslim institution like Zaytuna College shouldn’t go in with the expectation of dating or having sex.

(Charles C. Camosy is associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University and author of “Beyond the Abortion Wars.” The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

About the author

Charles C. Camosy

Charlie Camosy, though a native of very rural Wisconsin, has spent more than the last decade as a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University. He is the author of five books, including, most recently, "Resisting Throwaway Culture." He is the father of four children, three of whom were adopted from the Philippines.

111 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Let’s see: this article begins with a hypothetical scenario that never happened, piles on top of that another hypothetical scenario that cannot occur because it was dependent on the first occurring, which it didn’t, then proceeds to attempt to construct an argument based on these hypothetical situations which never occurred. Normally arguments require a stronger foundation than quicksand if they are to be believed.

  • The article actually deals with “…. a lawsuit filed on behalf of Notre Dame University students against the school, arguing that a settlement the Trump administration reached last year freeing 74 American Catholic institutions from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate is unlawful.”.

    Of course the suit will go nowhere, but the author seeks “…. to question the idea that students and employees should be able to force a university to go against its teaching. No employee who applies to work at, say, an Orthodox Jewish institution like Yeshiva University could reasonably demand anything other than kosher food. Unmarried people at a traditional Muslim institution like Zaytuna College shouldn’t go in with the expectation of dating or having sex.”.

  • Does Notre Dame get public funds for research, for student loans, for buildings, etc? I think there is a point where so called private institutions become public institutions and should abide by the laws that other public institutions abide by. If their founding organization objects they should reject all public funding and stay totally private.

  • Typical Camosy Claptrap

    “Most reasonable people — even those who identify as pro-choice — would agree that, say, Notre Dame University, one of the country’s pre-eminent Catholic institutions, should be exempted from such a mandate.”

    No, that is not true.

    Reasonable people, especially those who identify as pro-choice would agree that an employer of any type has no business making decisions as to what is and isn’t covered by the minimum standards of health insurance coverage. That the decision to use or obtain access to birth control is none of the business of one’s employers in any way.

    It all goes downhill from there. Charles Camosy is notorious for using obviously loaded language and wildly misrepresenting views concerning family planning.

  • There is also a point where an employer has no business delving into micromanaging the personal affairs of employees. Insurance is a form of compensation. How it is used is no more the rightful place of an employer than the money paid as salary.

  • Typical Spuddie Claptrap

    “’Most reasonable people — even those who identify as pro-choice — would agree that, say, Notre Dame University, one of the country’s pre-eminent Catholic institutions, should be exempted from such a mandate.’”

    “No, that is not true.”

    In fact it is true. Opinion polls consistently found the majority of Americans opposed forcing religious to procure abortion or contraceptive coverage for employees.

    “Reasonable people, especially those who identify as pro-choice would agree that an employer of any type has no business making decisions as to what is and isn’t covered by the minimum standards of health insurance coverage.”

    The exemption provides the coverage through the insurance company, not the religious institution at no additional cost to the insured.

    Therefore no harm, no foul UNLESS you’re motivated by some desire to make religions whose positions you personally disagree with do your bidding.

    “That the decision to use or obtain access to birth control is none of the business of one’s employers in any way.”

    The outfit that contracts for the insurance, and their religious beliefs, make it the employer’s business.

    So, mind your own business.

  • The receipt of funds for research, loans, and other non-sectarian purposes certainly does not make a private institution a public institution, nor does it give the Government a large enough boot to place it on the neck of a religious institution in contravention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law 103-141, which is what the Obama Administration attempted.

    If you happen not to agree with Catholic beliefs, don’t attend Notre Dame or send your children there.

  • His bona fides appear to be a bit more solid than yours on Catholic theology.

    https://equalrightsinstitute.com/leadership-team/dr-charles-camosy/

    https://www.fordham.edu/info/23704/faculty/6571/charlie_camosy/1

    http://www.charlescamosy.com/

    https://cruxnow.com/author/ccamosy/

    https://catholicmoraltheology.com/contributors/charles-camosy/

    https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/people/charles-camosy

    May we assume you have no problem with his acting as an advisor for Faith Outreach office of the Humane Society of the United States, but at some point he stepped on one of your feminist tropes?

  • Those poor, deprived students who are suing. Imagine! Calling themselves Christian it is too difficult to go 4 maybe more years abstaining from sex, as Christ did, and as He expects from us. Well, the poor victims can blame Christ for this affront to their precious, sensitivities. Maybe a community college would be a better resort for them?

  • Now remember the precious snowflakes may require some time in a safe place to overcome this trauma, Bob.

  • They have had two years since the election and they seem to be backtracking rather than improving.

  • A difficult job in manual labor such as construction or lumbering or a family farm would be a better idea.

    A little dirt under the nails never hurt an indolent overeducated youth.

    We can call doing it the “Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside Movement”.

  • I think it would be a dandy idea for the local bishop to withdraw use of the word “Catholic” from Notre Dame. A church is a church. A university is a university. They are not the same thing, do not really (really) have the same beliefs, the same purposes, the same constituencies, and universities have no real (real) reason for any kind of religious exemption from anything that is an expected norm for other secular employers. The “Fighting Irish” students and employees should enjoy the same health benefit rules as are honored at any other Big Football School. Religious exemptions for anything incorporated are a huge hoax.

  • Using the word “Catholic” does not signify a church.

    There are Catholic schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and so on just as there are Baptist schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and so on.

    The real reason for any kind of religious exemption from anything is that the exempted entity maintains some religious standards and are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law 103-141, as the Obama Administration found out.

    Religious exemptions for corporations are mandated and have post muster in the Supreme Court.

  • If “improving” involves accepting, accommodating or acquiescing to Donald Trump and his manifold flagrant abuses of the office he now illegitimately holds in any way, shape, or form I would hope that I never “improve” in that particular manner.

  • Here’s the answer. Don’t offer health insurance. Increase people’s salaries and let them decide for themselves what plan they wish to choose; with, or without contraceptives.

  • If you want to reduce the abortion rate, then you damn well better support contraception! And I”m damn tired of women being discriminated against in regards to health care.

  • The phrase “the office he now illegitimately holds” proved my point.

    I am not sure the country is pining for Barack “I Don’t Need No Stinking Laws” Obama.

  • “If you want to reduce the abortion rate, then you damn well better support contraception!”

    How about every woman who is “pro-choice” submits to surgical sterilization?

    That would end the debate forthwith.

  • For someone who says that Catholic campuses owe students and faculty a clear statement on their contraceptive policies, this column is remarkably muddled. The problem is highlighted by this statement:

    “One might object to the comparison by focusing on the differences between abortion and birth control. The taking of a human life, of course, is an extremely serious moral matter — and contraception is not. One might be inclined to give ND the benefit of the doubt with regard to the former, but not the latter.”

    The problem with this is that it judges the seriousness of the issue, whether it is IMPORTANT enough to warrant 1st Amendment protection, by the outsiders’ opinion rather than the church in question. Yes, there are circumstances that overrule the 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise clause (we aren’t going to start permitting human sacrifice, even voluntary). But the judgment of the importance of a doctrine or theological position properly lies with those to whom that doctrine or position belong, not outsiders.

  • You socialist! 🙂

    That was essentially the plan under the revised ACA after “Hobby Lobby”. To simply have employers sign a paper and let employees choose their own health care. Except “religious” employers found that even letting employees make their own decisions out of pocket was too much for their tastes (see Little Sisters of the Poor case).

    This not about contraception, it is about employers making inappropriate decisions for their workers.

    A better answer, single payer health insurance with employer insurance options for greater than normal coverage.

  • If I made the same suggestion you just did, you would call me a foaming at the mouth socialist. Evidently you agreed with actions from the prior presidency and didn’t realize it or didn’t want to acknowledge it.

    You are starting to come around to the sane side of things. 🙂

    Government should only be involved to the extent that people want them involved. In this case the overwhelming majority of Americans want access to effective healthcare.

  • And yet you remained silent when Trump accused Barack Obama of being an illegitimate president. What does that prove?

  • Stop using the term “pro-choice” and use pro-abortion. Be honest.
    Insurance companies should be paying for contraceptives.

  • Stop using “Pro-Life” when Fetus worship is a more honest description of your view.

    I am all about women having free reign to choose what they want to do concerning their own bodies. You consider them chattel property to be commanded. Not even worthy as human beings with lives of their own. Plus your concern for life ends after gestation.

  • If you are “all about women having free reign to choose what they want to do concerning their own bodies” then why do you want to refuse this same right to female babies in the womb who are aborted?

  • Evidently you labor under the assumption that a woman’s body is your to command. That they are nothing but property to control.

    Not people making intimate and personal decisions about their bodies you have no say in.

    What a woman does concerning a pregnancy is not anything you or I have any business with.

    You may not like their choices, but nobody has to give a crap. You have no part of it. Its not your body bearing 100% of all the physical burdens of a pregnancy.

  • But should not the bigger issue be that Notre Dame teaches and promulgates flawed theology and error filled history?

    To that end, once again the Great Kibosh:

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    “The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother’s womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. “

  • Bob ignores the fact that a great many women who have had an abortion quite often choose to have a baby later. Poor Bob van only think in black and white, never grey.

  • Catholic universities such as Norte Dame, Georgetown and Marquette are no more catholic than the local state school.
    They lost their way years ago as they chased the dollar, political correctness and an aversion to the traditional teachings of the church.
    It’s no wonder that the students at these schools who have no vested interest in the benefit package of the schools employees are fired up to promote contraception/ abortion.

  • LMAO! I agree with the sentiment.

    I have been saying she ceased to be relevant to the world after November 2016, for a while now.

  • Evidendently you believe that murdering a baby is ok.
    Just think. Most murders in the world are done by women.

  • Not at all. Babies are born. One has to be born to be murdered. No babies are killed in abortion.

    Also once someone is born, their bodies are their to do as they wish. People are not your property to command.

    “Most murders in the world are done by women.”

    Your disdain for women as people, as opposed to your personal property is duly noted.

    Your position is deeply immoral. It has nothing to do with preservation or the sanctity of life and everything to do with treating women as playthings to be controlled and commanded.

  • Babies are conceived in a womb. They don’t become human when they are born but are human beings at conception.
    I disdain any woman or man who justifies and supports abortion. It is a wicked moral belief.

  • Babies are born. Birth has to happen first. Much like you do not call a pile of mulberry leaves and silkworms a dress.

    One is not a person until they are born. Until you can remove a fetus from its mother’s body, it has no independent existence, so nobody but her has any say as to its existence.

    Funny thing is that you do not consider women human beings at all. Merely your property to command. Your “pro-life” stance is really, “control women”.

    You are a wicked and immoral person who has no regard for people or their lives. Your concern for the unborn is entirely phony. I don’t believe for a second it is something you care about. It is merely a pretext to show how much you dislike women for being people you can’t control.

  • *tartly* 50 percent of fertilized ova fail to implant. Pro-lifers fail to deal with this biological fact when they go on about life beginning at conception. If it truly did, why do so many fertlized ova fsil to implant? That’s something pro-lifers fsil to address.

  • I didn’t it was worth commenting on.

    What that proves is that I can focus on the big issues and let others take the bait, which you apparently did.

  • When a pregnant woman says that she is happy about having her baby growing in her that is not hopeful.
    You don’t care what a female baby in the womb would want.

  • How would you know what a woman says or means to say? You don’t even consider them people. You consider their bodies, your property to command.

    “You don’t care what a female baby in the womb would want.”

    Because they do not exist.
    Babies, male or female are not in a womb, they are born.

    Your inability to distinguish the differences between born and unborn are neither honest nor sane.

  • You don’t consider babies in the womb human beings but monsters to be killed. That is what the Nazis believed also.

  • I treat babies in the womb the same way I treat unicorns, daleks and all other fictional beings which do not exist in the real world.

    Nazis were anti-abortion, loved reactionary churches and also treated women as property. Nowadays American conservatives have aligned themselves with Nazis. Calling them very fine people. Your crowd.

  • I have killed so many unicorns in my time. Let me show you my collection 🙂
    http://cyber-security.engineer/

    So now you have metastasized your disdain of women in this article to a hatred of the LGBT crowd as well. Then again, you were never addressing anything relevant to this story anyway. So of course your addled mind wanders.

    I think you need a breather. Maybe put down the meth pipe. Go for a stroll around your trailer park. Then maybe start posting elsewhere.

  • What about aborting/murdering a fully formed human being in the 7th, 8th or 9th month?
    Partially removing that fully developed fetus from the mother’s body and severing its nervous system or scrambling its brain?
    Your words: not even worthy as human beings with lives of their own….
    How can you defend this?

  • So you you support the murder of a fully formed human being that has been partially removed from the mother’s body in the 7th, 8th or 9th month to have its nervous system severed or brain scrambled?
    That’s what you’re saying? Right?
    The baby is halfway out? Kept halfway in only to claim it’s not born?!
    Both sad and sick.

  • You are so full of it.

    “Late Term Abortions” are invariably done by women who were INTENDING TO KEEP THEIR PREGNANCY for medical reasons and can’t be delivered even prematurely.

    Being ignorant as to basic facts and just repeating brain dead memes, you wouldn’t know that the typical medical treatment for a fully formed 7-9 month old human being is known by the term BIRTH.

  • Way to miss the point and deflect on a ridiculous point as usual.

    Being an ignoramus on the subject, you would not realize that late term abortions as you are dishonestly and wildly inaccurately describing are invariably done by women who intended to keep their pregnancies for medical reasons. Invariably on a fetus which can’t be delivered alive.

    So we are not talking about typical abortion or any definition of murder. Your need to make a phony strawman argument is just more proof about how dishonest your view is.

    You can’t counter arguments as given so you make up your own arguments to oppose instead. Pathetic nonsense.

  • From wiki:
    A study from 2013 found that most women seeking late-term abortion “fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.” The study data did not include any women who were having abortions “on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” The researchers concluded that “Bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources.”[21]

  • From Wikipedia:
    A study from 2013 found that most women seeking late-term abortion “fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.” The study data did not include any women who were having abortions “on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” The researchers concluded that “Bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources.”[21]

  • Too scared to post the actual link
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

    I will do it for you.

    While a single first-trimester abortion carried no more mental health risk than carrying a pregnancy to term, abortion could not be proven safe in other cases as far as mental health was concerned. Women who terminate a pregnancy because of abnormalities discovered through fetal screenings have a similar risk of negative mental health outcomes as women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or experience a stillbirth or the death of a newborn. However, “the differing patterns of psychological experiences observed among women who terminate an unplanned pregnancy versus those who terminate a planned and wanted pregnancy highlight the importance of taking pregnancy intendedness and wantedness into account when seeking to understand psychological reactions to abortion.

    But also good to know s1utshaming is also the main focus of your POV. You are still trying to pretend that women are answerable to you for decisions concerning their bodies and their pregnancies.

  • Too scared to post the actual link
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

    I will do it for you.

    “While a single first-trimester abortion carried no more mental health risk than carrying a pregnancy to term, abortion could not be proven safe in other cases as far as mental health was concerned. Women who terminate a pregnancy because of abnormalities discovered through fetal screenings have a similar risk of negative mental health outcomes as women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or experience a stillbirth or the death of a newborn. However, “the differing patterns of psychological experiences observed among women who terminate an unplanned pregnancy versus those who terminate a planned and wanted pregnancy highlight the importance of taking pregnancy intendedness and wantedness into account when seeking to understand psychological reactions to abortion.”

    But also good to know s1utshaming is also the main focus of your POV. You are still trying to pretend that women are answerable to you for decisions concerning their bodies and their pregnancies.

  • Plain as day in the REASON section.
    I don’t want to hear how you care about immigrants or Turkish spies – how can anyone justify this??!

  • Everything is just a cheap dishonest slogan with you. You didn’t even bother with the article I linked to.

    Of course.

    Facts have been are inconvenient to you here.

  • Tell ya what. Since reason is not one of your strengths maybe a movie could do the trick. Go see Gosnell. I’m sure that would convince you of the evils of abortion.

  • A female baby in the womb really has no wants or needs. That baby is pretty much a symbiotic parasite with the woman’s body and all it’s needs are being met. You may not like the term ‘parasite’ but it’s more of a biological truth than calling it a baby.

  • You don’t seem to question whether a university has the right to subject all it’s students and employees to it’s religious creed even if those students and employees are not Catholic. I am willing to allow that to happen when said college is not accepting any tax payer funded government funds, but once that rubicon is crossed, it’s too bad for the University’s religious scruples. That’s the consequence they pay for making their choice to accept government funding.

  • How about every man who doesn’t give a crap about any kids he might engender be castrated? How about men start taking the birth control pills?

  • Good points. The same is true after the baby is born. Still needs others to keep it alive. Therefore it should be ok for the mother or father to kill it after the female baby is born if they don’t want it. Agreed?

  • No. I don’t agree. The baby is a separate entity after birth and breathing on it’s own. In Western Law it has rights at this point, no matter how far a long it was in it’s gestation. In Jewish Law it has rights with it’s first breath. In both situations, those rights involve both parents, not just one.

  • Gosnell was your guy. He couldn’t operate if there were sufficient clinics to choose from. Glorified “coat hanger” guy. Why are you fetus worshippers so dishonest?

    You want injured or dead women. They are not people to you. You consider them property. You are an immoral person.

  • The baby is a separate entity in the womb also. Its sex can be different than the mother’s, its blood and DNA. Different brain, arms, legs etc.

  • As a matter of law a religious university, order, church, privately-owned corporation (e.g., Hobby Lobby) can refuse to pay for contraception, birth control, or anything else in the way of healthcare coverage it has religious objections to. Acceptance of government funding has no impact on that.

    That’s the consequence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), that “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected.”

  • We always have hope in Christ remember son except for your sins will be the end of you and you will go to hell.

  • No. Christ has cleansed my sin and I repent regularly.
    What about you? Are you saved honey? Has Christ taken your sin on Himself while on the cross? Are you born again?

  • No you are not cleansed and you are not a real Christian. And I am not you’re honey. You are a real evil sinner and Christ told me so.

    You are not chaste in Christ are you? Then be silent of your evil and no more honey.

  • You’re hope is lost heathen and you will not be come Chaste in Christ. You are a fake Christian you evil sinner.

  • No you are not cleansed. You are a real evil sinner and Christ told me so.

    You are not chaste in Christ are you? Be silent now.

  • You can’t read. You’re hope is lost heathen and you will not become Chaste in Christ. You are a fake Christian you evil sinner. Now go in silence for Christ commanded you so.

  • do not insult your Maker’s makings with laughter. You sin again. Soon your knees will bend but you fake Christian will result in Hell and you will be phunished in the fires.

  • No you are not cleansed and no welcome came to you. You are a real evil sinner and Christ told me so.

    You are not chaste in Christ are you? Be silent and go.

  • Do not laugh in the face of your Lord sinner. You’re hope is lost heathen and you will not become Chaste in Christ. You are a fake Christian you evil sinner.
    Now go in silence for Christ commanded you so or you will be phunished in the fires.

  • You’re hope is lost heathen and you will not become
    Chaste in Christ. You are a fake Christian. Now go in
    silence for Christ commanded you so.

  • You can’t read. You’re hope is lost you will not become
    Chaste in Christ. You are a fake Christian. Now go in
    silence for Christ commanded you so.

  • You’re hope is lost heathen and you will not become Chaste in Christ.
    You are a fake Christian you evil sinner. Now go in silence for Christ
    commanded you so.

  • I am not hear to answer you’re questions you heretic. Christ is not with you and you so against him.

ADVERTISEMENTs