My mind would boggle if I had any boggles left.
Cardinal Dolan, head of the USCCB and the ostensible leader of the fight against the unholy Obamacare mandates, admits that his own Diocese directly pays for employee health plans that cover contraception and abortion. Yes, the Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY pay for the killing of children. Their excuse? They do it under protest.
Well, I am sure that will make the dead babies feel better to know that they were killed ‘under protest.’
But even as Cardinal Dolan insists that requiring some religiously affiliated employers to pay for contraception services would be an unprecedented, and intolerable, government intrusion on religious liberty, the archdiocese he heads has quietly been paying for such coverage, albeit reluctantly and indirectly, for thousands of its unionized employees for over a decade.
The Archdiocese of New York has previously acknowledged that some local Catholic institutions offer health insurance plans that include contraceptive drugs to comply with state law; now, it is also acknowledging that the archdiocese’s own money is used to pay for a union health plan that covers contraception and even abortion for workers at its affiliated nursing homes and clinics.
“We provide the services under protest,” said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York.
I am sure the usual suspects will try to explain this away, these are Union rules, he inherited it, he has no choice.
THERE IS ALWAYS A CHOICE.
When it comes to the sanctioned and funded murder of innocents, the choice couldn’t be clearer.
Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY are complicit in a grave and intrinsic moral evil.
There needs to be complete and total moral outrage over this issue by Catholics. We need to force Cardnal Dolan to do the right thing, for the babies’ sake and for his sake.
May 29, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Per the Archdiocese's website:
"However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York."
The Archdiocese's priorities are clearly stated. It is more important "to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York" than to give full resistance to the culture of death. A review of the Cardinal's and Archdiocese's statements and actions, and lack of action, shows that giving full resistance to the culture of death is a lower priority than many things.
Harry Sheldon, your demand is unreasonable and impractical. The Cardinal's and Archdiocese's statements, on their face, are problematic and show a probable failure on their part. The Archdiocese, which styles itself in the healthcare business, has the staff and resources — and the profound moral obligation — to fully vet such issues. Your demand that anyone and everyone, the vast majority of whom will not be in the healthcare business or whatever other business the Archdiocese puts itself in (how about the salvation of souls?), must fully research and provide solutions to an issue would have the practical effect of silencing all comment and criticism. Or is that your whole purpose?
May 29, 2013 at 5:37 pm
So, does it mean that this is a decision between paying the union and closing the hospitals? Is that it? Do you know? Is the contract due to expire? When? Do you know? If it is due to expire in one month, should Dolan close the hospitals over that month? A year? Two years?
You don't know a thing. I don't. No one here does, apparently most of the Archbolds. We have no idea what moves are open to the Cdl. I'd love, absolutely love to tear him a new one because he deserves it over the Dinner and Biden…but I'm also about being honest and in this case everyone is talking out of an inappropriate orifice and should shut it.
May 29, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Half Heathen says: "… would have the practical effect of silencing all comment and criticism. Or is that your whole purpose?"
Harry Sheldon says: "Or shut up about it."
I think you have your answer, Half Heathen.
"Shut up," he explained.
May 29, 2013 at 5:40 pm
I went to Cardinal Dolan's twitter and asked him to clarify how "Under Protest" is any different than doing nothing? I asked him to clarify how capitulating even under protest in any way makes it possible for any other diocese or institution that is Catholic to protest further than his reasonable accommodation of yielding under protest. I suggest others do the same, to ask the Cardinal to explain how what he is doing/allowing is something other than tepid acceptance of an immoral but now legal law.
May 29, 2013 at 5:42 pm
A local parish has on it's bulletin an ad from a OB/Gyn office with a link that shows up on the the first page of the website announcing services for sterilizations and a myriad of contraceptives. When the pastor was asked about this ad, his response, "I can't control everything in this parish." Hmmm. I no longer attend that parish as it is impossible to know what the intentions are with staff and pastor. Apparently, one of the OB/Gyns is a parishioner and probably gives big bucks. Faith has a price.
May 29, 2013 at 5:49 pm
"A local parish has on it's bulletin an ad from a OB/Gyn office…"
OR perhaps the pastor really has delegated the responsiblilty for taking ads to someone else, and maybe he hasn't made a policy that a parish employee must review the website of every advertiser. And maybe he's tired of people calling every single thing in parish into question. I see his point, as I see yours…but your response should have been to offer to help with bulletin NOT TO DETRACT AND SLANDER HIM ON A WEBSITE. "Faith has a price"…GMAFB.
May 29, 2013 at 5:50 pm
"" "Shut up," he explained. ""
Everyone here who knows what detraction actually is raise your hand.
May 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm
He's a dangerous, scandalous buffoon.
May 29, 2013 at 5:55 pm
"He's a dangerous, scandalous buffoon."
Perhaps. On the other hand, what did it profit you to comment that? Riddle me this: Did you perhaps cooperate in a sin of detraction? If that is possible, then what did you gain that made it worthwhile?
The whole world?
May 29, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Mr. Sheldon,
Yes, it could very well be a decision between paying the union and closing hospitals. The Archdiocese's priority is always and everywhere and only the salvation of souls. Everything else is less than secondary, it is subsidiary. If any action does not tend to that end, it must be cut off. Better to enter into eternal life with no hospitals than to go to Gehenna with the finest healthcare system in the world.
The Catholic Church teaches a good many things that require the faithful to give up things that are good in themselves, but nonetheless hinder our eternal salvation. For example, asking a married couple to be fully open to children and not use artificial contraception requires many sacrifices – for example, having less resources to spend on any individual child. Given the direction of the world, these sacrifices will only become greater.
Again, the Archdiocese's actions in the case are problematic on their face and create a public scandal because they appear to contradict the Church's teaching. If there is a good explanation, the burden is on the Cardinal to give it, not the Archbolds. Really, do you expect that any such explanation would ever be forthcoming if someone did not force the Cardinal's hand? Bravo to the Patrick for pushing this.
Your demand might be more reasonable if this were the first such apparent scandal. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, thrice is a pattern. The Cardinal is well beyond three.
No, we don't know everything. To quote a respected early 20th Century philosopher, I only know what I read in the papers. But what we read in the papers is a problem.
May 29, 2013 at 6:17 pm
It is not detraction to repeat a fact that is already public knowledge. Neither is expressing a negative opinion about what is already public knowledge.
May 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm
"If there is a good explanation, the burden is on the Cardinal to give it, not the Archbolds."
There is an exception in the teaching on detraction for journalism. Journalism involves research. Research brings the truth to light. If the Archbolds are journalists, then I am Mickey Mouse. If they are not journalists, then they are just lay people who have a big microphone. If so, and they are teaching the rest of us to detract people, we are all in big trouble.
If they see it differently, then why in the world not lay THAT out in a post? Oh yeah…theology is hard.
May 29, 2013 at 6:24 pm
""It is not detraction to repeat a fact that is already public knowledge. Neither is expressing a negative opinion about what is already public knowledge.""
And what is public? The inner workings of the negotiations with this union? Of course not. We have no idea what is going on in there. It's not public. This is the same sort of Monday morning QBing that has been going on about P Pius XII and whether he stood up to the Nazis enough. What was the good pope weighing? The lives of priests and nuns in Germany? The lives of Jews hiding in the vatican?
I wonder what the Archbolds would have posted about Pius XII in 1942? I wonder if anyone would have commented "He's a dangerous, scandalous buffoon."
Maybe, I think.
May 29, 2013 at 6:28 pm
I expect most of the bishops, lead by the squishy C. Dolan, to also cave in to the HHS mandate "under protest" which means exactly NOTHING! Dead bodies float downstream and go with the flow and so do most of our bishops.
But then there are the few, the brave, the true men who may risk jail or fines or whatever the murdering administration wants to throw at them and in them lives the spirit of St. John Fisher.
For the rest of us, we need the spirit of a St. Thomas More.
May 29, 2013 at 6:35 pm
To fair to the Cardinal, there may very well be a (partial) good explanation. It might be, for example: "We have a contractual obligation to pay. If we stop paying now, the union will sue us in court and it will win and we will be forced to pay anyway. So stopping now will accomplish nothing."
But just saying that would be insufficient. At the very least the Cardinal should order a review of all contracts and procedures and policies to prevent this ever happening again. Some heads should roll. The Archdiocese should also use every other practical means to get out of the contract or push the union to drop coverage of contraception and abortifacients — up to and including "strong arm" or heavy-handed tactics to lean on the union.
May 29, 2013 at 6:43 pm
Heh, I wonder if the comments will disappear again.
May 29, 2013 at 6:45 pm
"" At the very least the Cardinal should order a review of all contracts and procedures and policies to prevent this ever happening again. Some heads should roll. The Archdiocese should also use every other practical means to get out of the contract or push the union to drop coverage of contraception and abortifacients — up to and including "strong arm" or heavy-handed tactics to lean on the union.""
Indeed, all of these seem like things the Cdl. should be doing, let us hope that he is.
May 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Again, this is lost energy if we do not start asking the princes of our Church to clarify..if it is a legalistic argument that puts them in this position, say so, but this middle mushy ground does not affirm the teaching of the church or illustrate witness against those who push a policy antithetical to the church, on the face, the Cardinal's statement seems a distinction without a difference, whereas we are called to always witness our difference from the world by calling to mind and heart, the distinctions which matter. I do not yet see how the decision to follow the HHS mandate and provide coverage for practices deemed immoral is in any way "under protest" other than the Cardinal has said so. He should clarify publically, what this means and why it matters. This we can do in full charity, asking and allowing the Cardinal the benefit of good faith, to explain himself or reconsider.
May 29, 2013 at 7:04 pm
Cardinal Dolan will not do a thing- he is all talk and no action- continuing to provide cover for teh Democrat party, to whom his loyalties lie first
May 29, 2013 at 7:06 pm
"This we can do in full charity, asking and allowing the Cardinal the benefit of good faith, to explain himself or reconsider."
Hear, hear.
Perhaps you should submit an application to the Register to become an official blogger. If you just promise not to proclaim that a Cardinal is complicit in grave and intrinsic moral evil in your posts, I'll vote for you.