Comments on: An Analogy May Help Us Understand http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247 Just another WordPress weblog Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:25:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Ed Mechmann http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247&cpage=1#comment-19761 Ed Mechmann Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:20:08 +0000 http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247#comment-19761 Sadly, Catholic identity is extremely attenuated -- if it even exists at all any more -- at many institutions that call themselves "Catholic". See for example, this <a href="http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/sterilization-at-catholic-hospitals.html" rel="nofollow">study</a> that found 48% of "Catholic" hospitals do direct sterilizations, in clear violation of Church teaching. Sadly, Catholic identity is extremely attenuated — if it even exists at all any more — at many institutions that call themselves “Catholic”. See for example, this study that found 48% of “Catholic” hospitals do direct sterilizations, in clear violation of Church teaching.

]]> By: Sean Davey http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247&cpage=1#comment-19653 Sean Davey Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:36:29 +0000 http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247#comment-19653 I'm not assuming your authorities are wrong. I was wondering how the sisters can say the compromise is okay and still be Catholic institutions. Based on your tenor, I can guess your answer. As for whether the compromise is questionable because the opposing side "is very, very happy", posits the same underlying question (is there a grey area or is it black and white), and again, I can guess your answer. I’m not assuming your authorities are wrong. I was wondering how the sisters can say the compromise is okay and still be Catholic institutions. Based on your tenor, I can guess your answer. As for whether the compromise is questionable because the opposing side “is very, very happy”, posits the same underlying question (is there a grey area or is it black and white), and again, I can guess your answer.

]]> By: Ed Mechmann http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247&cpage=1#comment-19389 Ed Mechmann Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:06:31 +0000 http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247#comment-19389 Why do you assume that all the Catholic and Orthodox bishops, leaders of numerous Protestant and Jewish denominations, and hundreds of legal scholars are wrong, and merely tools of the "political right"? On the other hand, why would you assume that CHA, LCWR, and NETWORK are correct about the effects of the mandate, and should have the binding authority on this issue? Do they have no political inclinations themselves? (Pardon me while I suppress my laughter) Here we have a situation where the entire "reproductive rights" crowd are very, very happy with the "compromise". Doesn't that give you some pause to consider that maybe something is not quite perfect with the deal, and maybe the sisters in LCWR are off base? Why do you assume that all the Catholic and Orthodox bishops, leaders of numerous Protestant and Jewish denominations, and hundreds of legal scholars are wrong, and merely tools of the “political right”? On the other hand, why would you assume that CHA, LCWR, and NETWORK are correct about the effects of the mandate, and should have the binding authority on this issue? Do they have no political inclinations themselves? (Pardon me while I suppress my laughter)

Here we have a situation where the entire “reproductive rights” crowd are very, very happy with the “compromise”. Doesn’t that give you some pause to consider that maybe something is not quite perfect with the deal, and maybe the sisters in LCWR are off base?

]]> By: Sean Davey http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247&cpage=1#comment-19331 Sean Davey Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:51:49 +0000 http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2247#comment-19331 One of the problems with this discussion is that different facts are being bandied about. For example, I just read that the Catholic Health Association, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the Sisters of Mercy, and NETWORK all approve of the new rule. Why can they approve of the change and others still find the change objectionable? Were issues addressed as their approval suggests, or not? If the religious concerns were addressed to their satisfaction, the continuing kerfuffle has the appearance of “more of the same” from the political right: Let’s score political points regardless of the religious issues. In addition, it's my understanding that the insurance companies will be paying for the coverage as a service to the employers (NPR program from Wednesday) because group policies with this coverage cost less than policies that do not include this coverage. So the net effect is : the insurance companies are paying for the coverage not the employer (contrary to your claim), and the cost of the employer's policies will go down (so no indirect payment of the coverage by the employer). As for promotion objection, if all employers are required to provide it, what promotion is needed? Everyone will know to contact the insurance company directly and the cardinal/bishop will not have to say a word. Back in the 60s, a Papal Commission studying the issue recommended that the use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method, but this recommendation was rejected by Pope Paul VI. It begs the question of what would have been the result if another person had been pope at the time of the recommendation, such as Pope John XXIII. One of the problems with this discussion is that different facts are being bandied about. For example, I just read that the Catholic Health Association, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the Sisters of Mercy, and NETWORK all approve of the new rule. Why can they approve of the change and others still find the change objectionable? Were issues addressed as their approval suggests, or not? If the religious concerns were addressed to their satisfaction, the continuing kerfuffle has the appearance of “more of the same” from the political right: Let’s score political points regardless of the religious issues.
In addition, it’s my understanding that the insurance companies will be paying for the coverage as a service to the employers (NPR program from Wednesday) because group policies with this coverage cost less than policies that do not include this coverage. So the net effect is : the insurance companies are paying for the coverage not the employer (contrary to your claim), and the cost of the employer’s policies will go down (so no indirect payment of the coverage by the employer). As for promotion objection, if all employers are required to provide it, what promotion is needed? Everyone will know to contact the insurance company directly and the cardinal/bishop will not have to say a word.
Back in the 60s, a Papal Commission studying the issue recommended that the use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method, but this recommendation was rejected by Pope Paul VI. It begs the question of what would have been the result if another person had been pope at the time of the recommendation, such as Pope John XXIII.

]]>