Catholic Health Association snubs US bishops, accepts HHS mandate

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
If this is going to be the stance of the CHA, can the Bishops look at removing the ‘Catholic’ in their name?
Click to expand...
Sure, and they also remove the name of Catholic anyone who supports the Supreme Court decision against the voting act. :rolleyes:
 
_Abyssinia said:
If this is going to be the stance of the CHA, can the Bishops look at removing the ‘Catholic’ in their name?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. But I do know there is less and less difference between a nominally Catholic hospital and a secular hospital nowadays.

Several years ago I was surprised at the statement of a very highly regarded doctor who happens to be Catholic. He was being recruited by two hospital organizations; one Catholic and one secular to head a department.

He told me he was likely to go with the secular one (which he eventually did). I asked why he wouldn’t prefer the Catholic one. His remark was: “There’s really no such thing as a truly Catholic hospital anymore.”

Undoubtedly there are exceptions to that, but I’m inclined to doubt there are many.

As with lots of Catholic universities that are distinguishable from secular universities in name only, I think the ship left port a long time ago for what were once the “great Catholic institutions” in the U.S.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Excerpt

Catholic Health Association’s 3 Errors Supporting the Abortion-Pill Mandate
Click to expand...
So accounting tricks dictate moral theology now? As one of the commenters mentioned in that article, if a said insurance company funds abortions (as I understand it, most of them do) one cannot morally insure through that company. Creating a separate pool for abortion coverage vs no abortion coverage is not enough? Where are we going with this? Do we now stop using any technology products because they support Planned Parenthood who with their accounting tricks make the government pay for abortions? Do we then stop shopping at Office Depot because they supply pens, pencils, and paper to Microsoft? If enterprise is free to roam, then perhaps one day the U.S. will become one large corporation where morally we cannot buy anything because of the accounting methods used?

That said, it has not been demonstated that birth control pills are intrinsically evil. They have been approved by the Church in certain instances. How they are used is another matter; we can’t condemn the product simply because of misuse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rock_(American_scientist
In 1958, Pope Pius XII had approved use of the pill to treat menstrual disorders.
Click to expand...
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t know. But I do know there is less and less difference between a nominally Catholic hospital and a secular hospital nowadays.

Several years ago I was surprised at the statement of a very highly regarded doctor who happens to be Catholic. He was being recruited by two hospital organizations; one Catholic and one secular to head a department.

He told me he was likely to go with the secular one (which he eventually did). I asked why he wouldn’t prefer the Catholic one. His remark was: “There’s really no such thing as a truly Catholic hospital anymore.”

Undoubtedly there are exceptions to that, but I’m inclined to doubt there are many.

As with lots of Catholic universities that are distinguishable from secular universities in name only, I think the ship left port a long time ago for what were once the “great Catholic institutions” in the U.S.
Click to expand...
:sad_yes: You hit the nail on the head.
 
:confused:I disagree with ProVobis,and agree with Abyssinia. It is true that our economy and our society are interdependent, and any time I spend money, I am in some small way contributing to some bad action somewhere in the economy. But the case of the healthcare contraceptive mandate is not a case of minimum participation in an action that is many steps removed from me. It is a case of a large employer cooperating in an agreement which provides free contraceptives and abortifacients, for the purpose of avoiding the conception of babies. The employer is cooperating by directly financing the plan, and by cooperating in the administration of the plan in a direct way.
The CHP view seems to be, 'If I close my eyes while I pull the trigger, I am not shooting anyone. The gun is doing the shooting." :confused:
The CHP statement fails to explain how they are not cooperating in contraception and abortions.
I am still trying to understand why the Obama administration thinks that employed women cannot manage their income to pay for contraceptives, if they so desire. There has never been any evidence presented by the Obama adminstration to show that women who are employed do not use contraceptives due to a lack of funds. :confused:
It makes no sense, and only serves to encumber religious freedom. 🤷
 
:(“That said, it has not been demonstated that birth control pills are intrinsically evil. They have been approved by the Church in certain instances. How they are used is another matter; we can’t condemn the product simply because of misuse.” quote from post # 15.

Pro Vobis, are you kidding me? Birth control is intrinsically evil. Birth control pills, when used for the premier purpose for which they are intended, are intrinsically evil. When used strictly for hormone therapy, they are not effective as birth control. The Church is not condemning the product when it is used to the benefit of a woman’s health. 🤷 Gee whiz.
 
ProVobis said:
So accounting tricks dictate moral theology now? As one of the commenters mentioned in that article, if a said insurance company funds abortions (as I understand it, most of them do) one cannot morally insure through that company. Creating a separate pool for abortion coverage vs no abortion coverage is not enough? Where are we going with this? Do we now stop using any technology products because they support Planned Parenthood who with their accounting tricks make the government pay for abortions? Do we then stop shopping at Office Depot because they supply pens, pencils, and paper to Microsoft? If enterprise is free to roam, then perhaps one day the U.S. will become one large corporation where morally we cannot buy anything because of the accounting methods used?

That said, it has not been demonstated that birth control pills are intrinsically evil. They have been approved by the Church in certain instances. How they are used is another matter; we can’t condemn the product simply because of misuse.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rock_(American_scientist
Click to expand...
Baloney. Are you aware of the incredibly LIMITED medical reasons for use of birth control pills? The vast majority of these drugs are used to prevent contraception. Further, use of birth control pills for such medical reasons as ovarian cysts, is the easy route rather than the only route. If a medical provider wishes to avoid use of these drugs,which incidentally do have serious side effects, he/she can do so. It’s just easier to prescribe ABC and then wait to see if it’s resolved.

Your analogy is like saying we must keep abortion legal in all cases because in certain very limited situations, such as ectopic pregnancy, the loss of the baby is related to a treatment that saves the mother’s life.

CHA is simply doing a little dance to accommodate their lack of orthodoxy. This isn’t the first or the last time.

Lisa
 
CorinneV said:
I am still trying to understand why the Obama administration thinks that employed women cannot manage their income to pay for contraceptives, if they so desire. There has never been any evidence presented by the Obama adminstration to show that women who are employed do not use contraceptives due to a lack of funds. :confused:
It makes no sense, and only serves to encumber religious freedom. 🤷
Click to expand...
Because they are deliberately and systematically following the received “wisdom” :rolleyes: of the type of feminists who insist that anything less than contraceptives/abortifacients, and abortion on demand for that matter, = terrible, blatant oppression of all women. Sense? That horse left the barn decades ago and hasn’t been seen since. :mad:
 
CorinneV said:
I am still trying to understand why the Obama administration thinks that employed women cannot manage their income to pay for contraceptives, if they so desire. There has never been any evidence presented by the Obama adminstration to show that women who are employed do not use contraceptives due to a lack of funds. :confused:
It makes no sense, and only serves to encumber religious freedom. 🤷
Click to expand...
Realize that the Obama Administration is simply using this to buy votes. The party of “I am woman hear me roar” wants us to be “I am woman, hear me beg.” They want more and more Americans to look to Uncle Sugar for benefits, thereby giving Uncle Sugar control over our lives.

Obamacare was NEVER NEVER NEVER about getting care to more people. Everything they have done has increased costs, decreased access without providing benefits to the supposed group that was underserved.

Getting young women hooked on free birth control is just like luring a little kid with candy and then ratcheting up what you want in exchange.

Control is the agenda of the Left.

Lisa
 
CorinneV said:
It is true that our economy and our society are interdependent, and any time I spend money, I am in some small way contributing to some bad action somewhere in the economy. But the case of the healthcare contraceptive mandate is not a case of minimum participation in an action that is many steps removed from me.
Click to expand...
But that’s just the point. How many steps it’s removed depends on the company and national structure. If I merge enough companies together, would it change the underlying moral issue? I don’t think so. If an abortionist doctor were to buy out the entire food chain of the world, would it be a sin to eat because you would then be supporting the abortion industry? That’s what that article seems to imply IMO.

Sure you can say buying pencils from an office supplier which deals with computer products which fund a branch of Planned Parenthood is “removed” sufficiently but what if they all merged? Then you’re not so far removed, are you? As you say, the economy is very interdependent but there is the bottom line of whether you choose in participating in the evil ACTIONS themselves or not. However, that doesn’t mean everyone else is clean either. I’ll agree with you on that. The more you have in that merger, the more complex things get, because of the availability of “accounting gimmicks.” Spool them all off and you won’t be able to maneuver the same way but the evil is still there. They’ll simply find another way to justify it.
 
CorinneV said:
When used strictly for hormone therapy, they are not effective as birth control. The Church is not condemning the product when it is used to the benefit of a woman’s health. 🤷 Gee whiz.
Click to expand...
If someone intends to have sex while using birth control pills, whatever the reason, that would be against Church teaching, I would think. But that’s not Pius XII allowed.
 
Thanks for waiting three weeks after I posted before you asked. :rolleyes:

Point is/was that the bishops can remove the name “Catholic” for almost any reason they see fit.
 
This is just downright sad and sickening! Any Catholic who has donated to this organization in the past ought to immediately stop doing so. We should not go against the will of the US bishops on such an important matter. They are a leaders, not the Catholic Health Association!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top