rkwright Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 A Catholic friend of mine sent me this article today. Originally from Commonweal.com. Respectful thoughts? [b] Obama Defends Conscience[/b] January 21, 2012, 12:56 pm Posted by [url="http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?author=28"][color="#1b4580"]Eric Bugyis[/color][/url] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-holds-to-birth-control-insurance-rule-but-gives-religious-groups-more-time-to-comply/2012/01/20/gIQAR84nDQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_national"][color="#6594c2"]Yesterday[/color][/url], the Obama administration upheld the original provision for religious exemption in the Affordable Care Act by not extending it to religiously-affiliated organizations that employ non-adherents. This is, of course, a victory for all those who care about the religious liberty of individuals and the freedom of individual conscience, which by definition is meant to be protected from the unwelcome coercion by institutions to do things (or not do things) that are not relevant to the performance of one’s explicit duties to them, including one’s employer. The Obama administration did offer one gratuitous concession to those religious institutions, like the USCCB, that seem to be muddled on what exactly conscience is by giving religiously-affiliated employers extra time to comply with the mandate. New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan responded to the announcement saying, “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.†In fact, the Archbishop could take the year to reflect on what the concept of “conscience†actually means. If he truly believes that the provision of contraception through insurance coverage involves a morally significant participation in evil, then it seems that he, as an individual, has options. He could resign. He could get out of the business of employing non-adherents. He could get out of the business of providing health insurance. He could get out of the business of lobbying for government subsidies. Something tells me, though, that one’s conscience has its limits. Closer to home, University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins [url="http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/28479-statement-from-notre-dames-president-rev-john-i-jenkins-c-s-c/"][color="#6594c2"]appealed[/color][/url] to the desire of religious organizations to participate in a “vibrant democracy†and called for “a national dialogue among religious groups, government and the American people to reaffirm our country’s historic respect for freedom of conscience and defense of religious liberty.†It seems to me that the dialogue has been had, and the best argument prevailed. Of course, it’s ironic that Jenkins is calling for a national dialogue when he has not even hosted a campus dialogue and represents a Church that is decidedly non-democratic in its constitution. Like Dolan, Jenkins too has options. Will he stop providing health insurance to his employees, as he [url="http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=15365"][color="#6594c2"]suggested[/color][/url] this past fall? Or, will he get out of the business of employing and instructing non-adherents by having them sign a [i]credo[/i], as is done at some other religiously-affiliated universities and colleges? Will Notre Dame stop applying for government grants? Again, something tells me that one’s conscience has its limits. Perhaps the most disheartening part of this whole affair is the fact that there seems to be very little faith afforded to the consciences of individual religious believers on the part of their religious leaders. If the USCCB really cared about religious liberty and freedom of conscience, it would, I think, trust that those who fill the church pews on Sunday just might have the ability to come to their own moral conclusions in consultation with the spiritual guidance they have come to receive. As it stands, the bishops and other religious leaders seem intent on protecting their prerogative to coerce rather than counsel, and this is a slap in the faces of the faithful, who have already endured and forgiven so much loss of moral credibility among their clergy. It is also a tacit admission that the clergy themselves are perhaps not so confident in their own charism to amplify the small, quiet voice of God in the hearts of those who hear them. In this case, as in all cases where the right to coerce is claimed over the right of individual conscience, fear, insecurity, and, indeed, unbelief seem to be drowning out the voice of faith itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1327430365' post='2374511'] Drivel. [/quote] Very understated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 LOL! Yeah, I imagine this article will generate LOTS of positive responses from this board... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1327430365' post='2374511'] Drivel. [/quote] Your thought is far more respectful of this sewage than any I could muster. Also, calling the author "Catholic" was far too generous. [quote] In fact, the Archbishop could take the year to reflect on what the concept of “conscience†actually means. If he truly believes that the provision of contraception through insurance coverage involves a morally significant participation in evil, then it seems that he, as an individual, has options. He could resign. He could get out of the business of employing non-adherents. He could get out of the business of providing health insurance.[/quote] Yes, all those in Catholic schools and other organizations who wish to follow their consciences on this matter have the option of quitting, of refusing to hire or teach non-Catholics, or of not providing any health care at all to employees. Well, how freaking generous of Dear Leader to his subjects! He allows the option to those who don't wish to follow his dictates of quitting their jobs or not providing health care plans! All praise his infinite benevolence! It's so good to see that this Mr. Bugyis sees that the Obama administration understands the meaning of conscience so much better than those stupid Bishops. (And incidentally this tyrannical and blatantly unconstitutional mandate does not just effect those receiving government subsidies. Christendom College has been fighting this mandate, and the college receives not a single cent of government money.) [quote] In this case, as in all cases [b]where the right to coerce is claimed over the right of individual conscience[/b] . . .[/quote] It is far beyond ironic that Mr. Bugyis is referring to the U.S. Bishops here. As if we needed more evidence that Commonweal is a liberal cesspool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327434774' post='2374558'] LOL! Yeah, I imagine this article will generate LOTS of positive responses from this board... [/quote] LULZ, yeah. Guess we all just need to stop worrying and learn to love Big Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327444344' post='2374639'] LULZ, yeah. Guess we all just need to stop worrying and learn to love Big Brother. [/quote] Good Dr. Strangelove reference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 A couple of questions. Do religious employers have to meet the Federal Mandate because they accept Federal Fund$, or is the the source of funds irreleveant to the requirement? Is it possible for religious employers to continue in business (even if smaller or limited) if they gave up Federal funds to avoid the requirement? Could it not be argued that religious employers who receive Federal Funds actually partially fund the contraceptive provision of health insurance with these Federal Funds. In effective, the Feds are saying that some of the $$ given to these organizations have to pay for the Federal mandates. It would be a different matter if religious employers are forced to fund the contraceptive mandate solely with $$ they raise, charge, or is donated to them. There is no such thing as Free Money, even if it comes from the Government. Just because the Government gives you money, you don't really have the expectation there are no strings attached. This is what citizens get when they think Government is there to help and they have altrustic motives only. Government is about control and rules. The bigger the Gov, the more control it has. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Question: Since federally supported actions destroy the value of money why the Hell shouldn't people attempt to get federal funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 As I understand it, it has nothing to do with receiving federal funds. It is any provider regardless of public or private. My general reaction is the same, however, is there some authority backing these thoughts up? Obviously there is a balance between informed conscience and humility to the Church. Perhaps that is what informed conscience means... I noticed that in response to the initial obamacare mandates, the USCCB formed a committee on religious liberty, interested to hear what they think on it? BTW why the one star rating? Sure the article doesn't reflect many of our views, but the article is written by an ill-informed brother in Christ and to dialogue with anyone you must first know their position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I answered you question in my previous post. No shot an answering my questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 The health care provisions apply to all insurance providers regardless of whether they receive federal funds or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 [quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1327451926' post='2374703']BTW why the one star rating? [/quote] that might have been me....when i'm phatmassing from my phone, my fingers often hit the "rating stars" instead of going back to phorum home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Normally I'd be the first person to extoll the virtues of Commonweal. But all this article does is attempt to extoll the virtues of individual conscience while ignoring the fact that by doing so, he is stomping all over the individual consciences of those who, oh I don't know...enjoy having religious freedom in this country. [quote]In fact, the Archbishop could take the year to reflect on what the concept of “conscience†actually means. If he truly believes that the provision of contraception through insurance coverage involves a morally significant participation in evil, then it seems that he, as an individual, has options. He could resign...(etc)[/quote] REALLY? Because a bishop would TOTALLY resign in protest. Because that's how the position of a bishop works, just like any other job, of course. And because that would really send a totally helpful message to his opponents. Oh wait. It's not. Edited January 25, 2012 by Basilisa Marie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Better option would be for Obama to resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now