Brother Adam Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 [quote name='Paphnutius' date='Jan 16 2006, 12:01 PM']You are correct, we are not bound by an unjust law, or a non law, but if we choose not to follow such we must be ready pay for it. Suffering is a part of persecution. [right][snapback]857702[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yeah, and I think we should. The Church doesn't have a lot of money as it is, so I don't see why NY should make a law and then fine us to death over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 it always seems like liberals only want "separation of church and state" when it's in their interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I did find this uplifting though:[quote]Perhaps more surprising is that the Catholics were joined by Baptist churches that don't oppose artificial contraception. They're concerned that the law lays the groundwork for requiring religious organizations to pay for abortion. [/quote] God can bring good out of every evil. So if nothing else, Hell is presenting something that Christians can present a united front against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 My impression from this article is that the current ruling in New York was critical to whether California would enforce the law on the Catholic Church. It seems to have been in limbo since the Supreme court rejected and appeal in Oct 2004. This makes the Alito confirmation very critical. [url="http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/1022/sweeney.htm"]http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/1022/sweeney.htm[/url] [quote]Sacramento Bishop William K. Weigand has made it clear that he will not willingly allow the church to cooperate in practices the church considers to be sinful, such as artificial contraception, he added.[/quote] Praise God for Bishop Weigand. He was bishop when I lived in Utah. I met him a couple of times. A very gentle man apparently with some backbone. He also told Gray Davis to not show up in the communion line about a year ago over his stance on abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Fine. I've said this before. The Church should just shut down all its schools, hospitals, charitable endevors, etc. Then when all the state agencies are overwhelmed, they'll be sorry. Extreme? Probably not as extreme as the interdicts of the Middle Ages. Of course, the only [i]legal[/i] standing the state may have is if any of these Catholic agencies receive state money. If that is the case, it's time we sever this relationship; better to lose some money (even if it means cutting back on some services) than lose our soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 And this, my friends, is why I voted for Bush. he has now appointed two solidly Catholic men to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, this law will be appealed all the way to SCOTUS. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and probably Kennedy will all side with the Church. I suspect that one or both of Souter and/or Breyer might also. I really doubt that this law will stand. If it does, I see a couple of options that the Church can take, none of which are particularly appealing. 1. They can essentially try and stick it to the government and just ignore the ruling. This will lead to many fines, taking money from the People of God who are in need of it. It's unfortunate, but religion isn't free. It costs money to help the poor, so this is not an ideal solution. 2. They can not provide health insurance for anyone. If the options are either no one receives coverage for contraception or no one receives coverage period, the Church really has no choice. This is clearly not desirable for the employees who need health coverage for themselves and their families. It really becomes an issue of justice, but by applying the Principle of Double Effect, it is a forseen but undesired negative consequence from a good action (refusing to provide coverage for contraception.) 3. If the contracts are worded correctly, they can fire those who wish to use contraception. I assume that a breach of contract argument could be made if the person in question signed a contract agreeing to live by the teachings of the Catholic Church. If the contracts are not worded correctly, then this option really doesn't exist. Like I said though, this will be appealed and hopefully, the Roberts Court will hear the arguments that the Rehnquist Court would not. I have no idea why the first case was not heard, but I'm sure there was a good reason. Only four justices are needed to vote yes in order for a case to be heard. I think that that is very doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Jan 16 2006, 11:49 AM']Fine. I've said this before. The Church should just shut down all its schools, hospitals, charitable endevors, etc. Then when all the state agencies are overwhelmed, they'll be sorry. Extreme? Probably not as extreme as the interdicts of the Middle Ages. Of course, the only [i]legal[/i] standing the state may have is if any of these Catholic agencies receive state money. If that is the case, it's time we sever this relationship; better to lose some money (even if it means cutting back on some services) than lose our soul. [right][snapback]857743[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's actually another option that I hadn't thought of. Can you imagine if all the Catholic hospitals, Catholic Social Services, etc. quit? This country thinks it has social problems now...Realize, I am not saying that I want this to happen, but if the government forces our hand... As an aside, this is exactly why you don't vote democrat, even for a pro-life democrat. A democrat is still a democrat and will still vote that way and will probably support a democratic president's or governor's judicial nominees. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that the judges who decided this case were appointed by Mario Cuomo and not George Pataki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 It doesn't "target religious practices"? People don't get it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 This is also ironic because I read a year or two ago that federal government employees (or maybe some of them) got a health insurance option that was "Catholic-friendly" and excluded contraception coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatboyluis Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 this is bad but i have hope in this matter, i believe that we as true Catholics can overcome this, we've been here for about 2000 years and we've been through reformations and loads of bad situations, i think we should b able to overcome this : i pray for America everyday cos i know of the great influence it has on the world God Bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 Most definitely the gates of hell shall not prevail. But it does seem they are trying. Pray! 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