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 7:08 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""
Ah, Agnes, I do hope you negotiated a good deal for yourself. Alas, since I still have my stuff, I don't think you even got the entire world. That's too cheap.
May 29, 2013 at 7:08 pm
A New York Times article is not public? (Okay, maybe not. It's readership is declining precipitously.)
It is not necessary (and generally not possible) that every fact be public. When the publicly known facts, by themselves, are problematic as they are here, the burden is on the Cardinal to provide an explanation, including the revealing of non-public facts. We the faithful have both the right and responsibility to demand that explanation. Really, Mr. Sheldon, are you saying that the faithful do not have that right? Or are you saying the public facts in this particular case do not require an explanation? Are you positing some expansive always-give-the-benefit-of-doubt rule that would get the Cardinal off the hook in this case? And you appear to contradict yourself. How can the Archbolds provide your demanded solution when they do not, and cannot, know all the facts you say are relevant? Should the Archbolds have gone undercover and ferreted out what happened in the closed-doors negotiations before commenting? Do you really want "real journalists" snooping about and cultivating moles in the chancellery?
Your "arm-chair quarterbacking" analogy is not appropriate here. The question is not whether the Cardinal should have run or passed, it's whether or not he threw the game.
At the very least, this is a potential teaching moment. All Catholics face the difficult choices of being true to their faith while negotiating the practicalities of living in a heathen culture. If there is a good explanation to be given, the Cardinal has the responsibility to give it so that the faithful can learn.
May 29, 2013 at 7:12 pm
Half Heathen posted:
""If there is a good explanation to be given, the Cardinal has the responsibility to give it so that the faithful can learn.""
Pat Archbold posted:
""Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY are complicit in a grave and intrinsic moral evil.""
I think, on that, I will rest my case. I can sum it up no better however many times I try. Your quoted statement is congruent with Catholic thought. Pat's is not, and I believe the point has been demonstrated.
May 29, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Fact (undisputed): "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."
Patrick Archibold conclusion: "Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY are complicit in a grave and intrinsic moral evil."
Does the fact support the conclusion? Change "complicit in" to the more neutral "participating in" or "involved in" and I cannot see how the conclusion is not supported. But "Complicit"? – "choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act" (dictionary.com). There are possible scenarios where the Archdiocese did not "choose" to be in the situation. It may merely have been negligent in failing to investigate when the contract was entered into. We do not know. We need to know. The Archdiocese has an obligation to come clean.
So, Mr. Sheldon, I think we agree. Patrick overstated his case. Whether or not that is technically "detraction," I'll have to look it up. It was at least irresponsible.
I would say that Patrick's irresponsibility is considerably less than the Archdiocese's, actively complicit or not.
May 29, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Fact (undisputed):
"My money is used to support abortions domestically and internationally through taxation."
Thankfully, we are all aware that the IRS will put me in jail if I do not pay and any cooperation with evil on my part is unwitting and certainly under duress, and that therefore I am not culpable.
I am not aware of the ramifications to the diocese of the Cdl. refusing to pay the money the SEIU is demanding. In other words, I do not have sufficient information to judge culpability, or even cooperation.
Ergo, this blog post should never have happened, and we should have had nothing to comment about.
May 29, 2013 at 8:41 pm
If you read the full article, you will find that, as far as those involved in administering the plan and representing the union side in whatever negotiations go on, there has been no public or private complaint from Church officials about having to pay for these intrinsic evils for 12 years or more. If you're hanging your hopes on Cardinal Dolan being involved in super-secret negotiations to end this moral travesty, your hopes are ill-founded. This issue did not just develop – it in fact began under Cardinal O'Connor. But Cardinal Dolan, according to the article, has done nothing to end it. "Under protest."
All the defenses of Dolan by Mr. Timeonhishands come down to the error of doing evil that good may come of it. Sorry, if the choice is operating hospitals or committing a grave evil, guess what, the hospitals have to go. If there is really no choice to operate the hospitals without keeping the abortion/contraception plan, they must be shut down.
May 29, 2013 at 9:14 pm
"All the defenses of Dolan by Mr. Timeonhishands come down to the error of doing evil that good may come of it"
I like the false dichotomy. To be against unnecessarily detracting a cardinal is to defend evil. Well done. You've got me, I'm actually an abortion doctor and Democratic party activist. We've been in negotiations with Dolan to have Jesus replaced with Obama on all NYC crucifixes. Good work sniffing me out.
Back in the real world..how many of you would refuse to kiss his ring? I'd kiss the ring, no matter the hand, and I've give extra deference to the hat, no matter the head. I'd certainly not go 'round convicting Cardinals of grave sins on widely read blogs. Some things, I admit, I am too afraid to do.
May 29, 2013 at 9:47 pm
"If there is really no choice to operate the hospitals without keeping the abortion/contraception plan, they must be shut down."
If the Catholic hospitals are shut down, what happens then? They are all taken over as public hospitals. And you can be sure the culture of death will then reign supreme in health care in New York. Abortion, contraception and sterilization can be forced on all Catholic health-care workers (especially if Gov. Cuomo's new "reproductive health" bill passes). No toehold at all for Catholic doctors, nurses or patients for treatment in accordance with Catholic morals.
Once again, do you have a workable alternative? In order to keep a toehold for Catholic practice of health care, the Cardinal has to tolerate an evil, while working to undo it. This is what Cardinal Dolan is doing with the HHS mandate – fighting for the legal principle that will help undo this situation.
Calling names does not help at all.
May 29, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Oh, and it's my day off. I had to work over the weekend, so I feel like I deserve it. And if I want to spend it on here, that's my business. I've been around the internet long enough to know that "Mr Timeonhishands" is just an insult and a debate tactic. I could have called you "Mr. JudgeofallincludingprincesoftheChurch". I didn't.
As Catholics we must presume good intentions where intentions are not known. Further, if I sin, I go to a priest and I certainly have never had one tell me I'm a "dangerous, scandalous buffoon" and so if I see a priest commit an apparent sin, what should I do? Call him a scandalous buffoon? Tell everyone about it?
Go ahead. Tell me about this Catholicism you speak of.
May 29, 2013 at 9:53 pm
FWIW, seeing the false defense of Dolan's sophistry reminds me of a similar recent comments I saw on another site using false charity and even more false tolerance to explain a decision for on going support of a Boys Scout troop at a local parish.
There may be more than the usual human foolishness involved. There is much more likelihood of direct demonic influence. For myself, I'm going to avoid these web sites and insure my devotions to St. Michael and the Holy Mother of God.
May 29, 2013 at 9:59 pm
Harry Seldon, thank you for your good and sensible words.
May 29, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Better some insults, than the excommunications you've pretended to hand out to several here today. In terms of judgment, you've not only assigned guilt of sin, you've gone so far as to dole out eternal judgment, such as telling others they have sold their souls. Nice. You seem to be an expert on detraction, perhaps you would be better off spending some time on hypocrisy.
Were you not asking for alternatives? And when I provided them, you immediately changed the subject, yet again.
There is no justification for maintaining these plans. None. If all the Catholic services in the country have to be shut down to avoid the commission of grave evil, so be it, but evil cannot be done that good may come of it. Period.
Cardinal Dolan has had several years to address this situation. According to those involved in the negotiations, he has uttered no complaint, made no move to change things in the slightest.
This is hardly Cardinal Dolan's first foray into scandal. It's about the 17th in the last year. I can quite understand that people's patience is wearing thin. But I would still kiss his ring, certainly, for the sake of his office.
May 29, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Lori:
What you just uttered was technically a heresy. You cannot claim that someone HAS to commit evil. You are falling for the trap that in order to do some good, we have to tolerate some evil. Even if it's the greatest good in the world (outside of God, natch!), we cannot commit even a small evil act to permit that good. Cannot be done.
Did you think I was calling names? Because of time on his hands? Sorry, I thought it was funny.
May 30, 2013 at 12:05 am
"As for the faith, I find it comfortable; as for the faithful, I find THEM intolerable."
— Hadrian VII (the novel)
May 30, 2013 at 12:13 am
This is a deeply troubling thing, to know that our Church has allowed itself to turn a blind eye to evil "for the greater good." Christ turned the other cheek but never a blind eye. He did not ever parse things such that you could hate a little and still love. You could not look at a woman with less than chaste intent/thoughts and commit adultery.
I have spent some time reading about this and the article by Katherine Lopez at National Review and skimmed the New York Times article. What is clear is the following:
The Arch diocese capitulated on a critical point regarding the conscience clause as part of an accommodation of labor agreements back in 1993, undermining its own moral authority and blunting its ability to speak out on issues such as contraception and abortion to the world. If you allow it some of the time but declare it immoral, you are at best a hypocrite, but if you know it is immoral and you supply another with the means to engage in immorality, you have the double effect of leading another to sin, and having caused scandal. Cardinal Dolan may have fought then, the Arch diocese may have lost then, but then they should have said, fine, we're not playing this game. There are always alternatives which hold to the Holy Spirit, but they cannot be found if they are not sought. After losing, they chose to simply remain silent. How under protest is it to pay for immoral things without complaint for 20 years?
May 30, 2013 at 12:37 am
What is important about this post is that now, the truth has come out and many comments about Cardl Dolan will help him see himself.
May 30, 2013 at 1:04 am
Veneremurcernui said to Lori –
""What you just uttered was technically a heresy. You cannot claim that someone HAS to commit evil. You are falling for the trap that in order to do some good, we have to tolerate some evil. Even if it's the greatest good in the world (outside of God, natch!), we cannot commit even a small evil act to permit that good. Cannot be done.""
Follow:
We cannot commit any evil to accomplish good.
To detract the Cardinal, to insult the Cardinal, to judge the Cardinal are all sins.
Many here are apparently committing these sins to bring about some vague good of reform.
This is my point. It is parallel to your point, so why are we arguing? I submit that the Cardinal cannot commit evil to bring about good, and so he has to figure a way out of his problems, and quick. Likewise, Catholics cannot sin against him or against justice in the name of reform, so they should not be blogging about how he is complicit with evil or posting useless insults against him.
Nobody should be sinning.
I hope that is clear.
May 30, 2013 at 1:12 am
Oh, an Veneremur,
You can descend into a spiral of judging me as being guilty of judging another of being guilty of judging another or being guilty of judging someone else. That way lies madness.
I have a simple point. Don't detract Cardinals. Don't insult them, don't accuse them of things you cannot actually know. Don't call them scandalous buffoons.
Feel free to demand that the NY Archdiocese close its hospitals. Feel free to demand that the Chancery staff stage a sit-in at the state capitol. Feel free to demand anything you want, you can do that. What you can't do, in my estimation, is what Pat did today. I will submit to any Bishop who says otherwise, and wear virtual sackcloth for a year.
May 30, 2013 at 1:18 am
One more.
I notice above that the Cardinal is actually accused of apostasy, someone accused him of having loyalty to the Democratic party, not the Church.
The fact that my critics are hectoring me, instead of howling over that, says more than I ever could.
It profits a man nothing to get involved in another's sin, why not just leave it alone? If Dolan is sinning, his enemies will out everything. They don't need any help from you or me. And for darn sure not from the Archbolds.
May 30, 2013 at 2:10 am
veneremurcernui said…
"Lori:
What you just uttered was technically a heresy. You cannot claim that someone HAS to commit evil. You are falling for the trap that in order to do some good, we have to tolerate some evil."
I did not say that someone has to COMMIT evil. I said he might have to tolerate it for a time while trying to remove it, because there are no options that might bring on a worse evil. These are quite different things.
The Church has many nuances in her teaching about these things. Indirect and remote material cooperation with evil is not always a sin, for instance.
Our Pope Emeritus Benedict, back when he was at the CDF, if I'm not mistaken, said that even voting for a pro-abortion candidate for office was not always a sin, if there were grave enough reasons, i.e. all the other candidates were even worse on the life issues, and this candidate might do the most to "limit the evil." Please note the language used.
I have no idea of who is sinning, and how badly, in this scenario, and frankly, neither do you. So please give it a rest and do some good by praying for everyone involved.