The Bishops Are Wrong and Have No One But Themselves To Blame for This
#1
Quote:This past Sunday, bishops around the United States delivered to their congregations a short pastoral letter urging prayer, fasting, and legislative lobbying against the Obama administration’s announcement that all employers, most religious institutions included, will soon have to subsidize their employees’ contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs.

Given the terribly low expectations most Catholics have of their bishops, it is no surprise that many of my co-religionists, surveying the now-daily condemnations by clerics and laymen (on both the orthodox "right" and the dissenting "left") speak of a proverbial "waking" of "the sleeping giant." But I’m afraid a dose of ecclesiastical realism is in order. All indications are that the bishops’ approach to these events is woefully off the mark and cannot but backfire against them in the long run.

In short: the bishops themselves bear a significant share of the blame for these latest actions by the administration, and in some respects the Catholic faithful are receiving their just desserts.

Let me be clear: the bishops are absolutely on-target when they insist that the new regulations are both constitutionally dubious and morally atrocious, and that because these executive rules are unjust laws (an oxymoron if there ever was one) civil disobedience is the only legitimately Christian response to them.

But where they fail most miserably is in realizing why these regulations are wrong. To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees. Furthermore, in seeking exemptions solely for religious institutions the Church is neglecting to defend the conscience rights of for-profit employers whose Christian or other moral convictions would otherwise preclude them from complying with these regulations with a clean conscience.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/giunta1.1.1.html
Reply
#2
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.
Reply
#3
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Word.
Reply
#4
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Do we not have God-given rights to life, liberty, and property?
Reply
#5
(02-01-2012, 04:19 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Word.

This
Reply
#6
This paragraph sums it up for me:
Quote:What right do we Catholics have to be shocked and indignant at the latest show of religious persecution from the Obama administration and the Democrat Party? For decades our bishops have insisted, well beyond their competencies as successors to the Apostles, that the state must provide "basic health care" to its citizens, and they have raised no objection to that same state requiring private employers to provide such for their employees. Are we really surprised that Caesar, having been handed the Catholic imprimatur for these powers on a silver paten, has now decided that abortions, contraceptives, and sterilizations constitute "basic health care"? Every sensible libertarian, and many a mainstream "conservative," saw this coming: why didn’t any of the bishops?

When the Church concedes powers and responsibilities to the state, the state will turn on the Church EVERY TIME.
Reply
#7
(02-01-2012, 04:20 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Do we not have God-given rights to life, liberty, and property?

Define your terms.
Reply
#8
Matthew 20: 1-15

Quote:The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.  And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle. And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just.  And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner.

But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle?  They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard.  And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first. When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.  But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny.

And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, Saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats. But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee.  Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?
Reply
#9
(02-01-2012, 04:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:20 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Do we not have God-given rights to life, liberty, and property?

Define your terms.

Why don't you specify which term you are finding ambiguous.
Reply
#10
(02-01-2012, 04:26 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:20 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Quote:To this writer’s knowledge, not a single bishop has spoken out against the inherent immorality of the federal government forcing any employer to provide any particular benefit to prospective employees.

Probably because there is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Do we not have God-given rights to life, liberty, and property?

Define your terms.

Why don't you specify which term you are finding ambiguous.

Rights, liberty and property, in particular, though God-given also gives me pause.  There seems to be some level of confusion between the Declaration of Independence and Holy Writ at work.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)