Gonzaga University will cover contraception but promises to clearly communicate Church teaching

[iloveangels]

Politics. GRRRRRRR.

 

[Lucky7]

Politics. GRRRRRRR.

Yeah, I’m still not following where this is coming from. Could you at least quote those posts that seem to be all about politics? And be clear about what you think we should be focusing on?

And also, this is the Catholic News forum. Isn’t this forum (and World News) where we are supposed to talk about politics?

 

[NeedsMercy]

I always find it ironic that those who bring up not to judge are in effect … judging.

We meet again, Lucky 7! What I’m taking from your statement is–correct me if I’m wrong–that I have judged someone (sw85 and/or fix)? (This is soooooooooo OT.)

 

[iloveangels]

Yeah, I’m still not following where this is coming from. Could you at least quote those posts that seem to be all about politics? And be clear about what you think we should be focusing on?

And also, this is the Catholic News forum. Isn’t this forum (and World News) where we are supposed to talk about politics?

The TITLE of the THREAD is precisely “Gonzaga University will cover contraception but promises to clearly communicate Church teaching.” Cut and paste.

This is NOT ABOUT ELECTION POLITICS, DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS. That’s already been settled and there are a bazillion threads in CAF about politics.

THIS is ABOUT Gonzaga University and their decision to get regular insurance for their employees.

 

[iloveangels]

Yeah, I’m still not following where this is coming from. Could you at least quote those posts that seem to be all about politics? And be clear about what you think we should be focusing on?

And also, this is the Catholic News forum. Isn’t this forum (and World News) where we are supposed to talk about politics?

It was on the last page. This thread is about “Re: Gonzaga University will cover contraception but promises to clearly communicate Church teaching.” And that’s cut and paste from the title above.

We have some people who can’t tell the difference between American political parties and Churches.

 

[fix]

I always find it ironic that those who bring up not to judge are in effect … judging.

Yes, and I do not like false charges. The poster was not being uncharitable or calling names. Part of the problem is that the truth of any statement is often dismissed by claiming one’s tone is wrong.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Not only is this not settled but you misjudge the post and misdirect the poster’s position.

It’s nice that you’re defending sw85. I was defending someone, also. Now…

To which “post” are you referring? Yours or sw85’s?
How did I “misjudge” it?
How did I “misdirect the poster’s position”? Would you care to clarify for sw85 what s/he was really saying?

The poster is not guilty of your charges or misuse of the quotes you provide.

What “charges”? That s/he was being “uncharitable”?
In what way did I “misuse” the quotes? I mean, specifically, how did I “misuse” them?

He characterized a concrete situation.

Yes, the issue of Ms. Fluke, correct?

He was not admonishing the sinner.

I’m sorry. I thought that this was his line of defense, Counselor.

He was not being uncharitable.

And that is where we disagree.

Your misinterpretation seems to allow for scandal and rash judgement.

And I beg your forgiveness once again. Could you tell me what you mean by this sentence? What exactly is my “misinterpretation” i.e. tell me what you think I said. (You know, since this is sooooooooooo OT, it might be better to discuss this via PM. Your choice. )

 

[iloveangels]

It’s nice that you’re defending sw85. I was defending someone, also. Now…
To which “post” are you referring? Yours or sw85’s?
How did I “misjudge” it?
How did I “misdirect the poster’s position”? Would you care to clarify for sw85 what s/he was really saying?
What “charges”? That s/he was being “uncharitable”?
In what way did I “misuse” the quotes? I mean, specifically, how did I “misuse” them?
Yes, the issue of Ms. Fluke, correct?
I’m sorry. I thought that this was his line of defense, Counselor.
And that is where we disagree.
And I beg your forgiveness once again. Could you tell me what you mean by this sentence? What exactly is my “misinterpretation” i.e. tell me what you think I said. (You know, since this is sooooooooooo OT, it might be better to discuss this via PM. Your choice. )

This reads like a soap opera. Just sayin’.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Yes, and I do not like false charges.

:bigyikes:

I asked this earlier but what “charges”? And, if I did make any “charges”, what about them are “false” (since that’s a pretty pregnant accusation)?

The poster was not being uncharitable or calling names.

Where we disagree…

Part of the problem is that the truth of any statement is often dismissed by claiming one’s tone is wrong.

I wasn’t “dismiss[ing]” anything. And I never said anything about “tone.”

Just what is “the truth” in sw85’s post? That someone is making “life marginally easier for aggressive and remorseless degenerates like Sandra Fluke”? (His words, my emphasis) My original post was not to debate the state of Ms. Fluke’s conscience, soul, whatever. It was the nature of sw85’s post itself. If a poster wants to disagree with her viewpoint, that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is the use of ad hominem attacks. And—can we get a ruling on this?—wouldn’t such attacks be “uncharitable”?

OT, OT, OT. PM? Still your choice.

 

[NeedsMercy]

This reads like a soap opera. Just sayin’.

Is this “politics”? Just kiddin’ ya!

 

[iloveangels]

Is this “politics”? Just kiddin’ ya!

No, I don’t know what it is, but it’s probably not politics. [Although, I really can’t tell for sure.]

 

[Rence]

Then, as a practicing Catholic, I assume you are on board with the Pope’s newest Motu Proprio, just released:

News Article: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16408

The Motu Proprio itself: blackbiretta.blogspot.com/2012/12/de-caritate-ministranda.html

Please note the “Dispositive Part” where all the practical details of administration are.

I think part of the problem is that Catholic organizations are accepting money from organizations that favor things that are forbidden by the Church (such as medicare, and medicaid). In particular, when one accepts money from the government contingent on following criteria set by the government, that’s when they get themselves in trouble. So, yeah, I agree with the Pope: they should NOT be accepting funds from organizations that back issues that are contrary to Church teaching.

 

[iloveangels]

I think part of the problem is that Catholic organizations are accepting money from organizations that favor things that are forbidden by the Church (such as medicare, and medicaid). In particular, when one accepts money from the government contingent on following criteria set by the government, that’s when they get themselves in trouble. So, yeah, I agree with the Pope: they should NOT be accepting funds from organizations that back issues that are contrary to Church teaching.

Rence, we agree on something!!

Catholic institutions should not be taking money from the government or any other secular non-Catholic entity, particularly if the entity is hostile to the Church, to operate their charitable works. This system grew up and has turned into a nightmare. Taking money only causes trouble and causes people to be conflicted about what their purposes are for doing the charitable activities in the first place.

 

[Rence]

Rence, we agree on something!!

Catholic institutions should not be taking money from the government or any other secular non-Catholic entity, particularly if the entity is hostile to the Church, to operate their charitable works. This includes vouchers for schools and all such things. It only causes trouble and causes people to be conflicted about what their purposes are for doing the charitable activities in the first place.

Yep, I agree. However, Catholic hospitals, if they follow this new teaching by the Pope, may not be able to accept medicare and medicaid. That will greatly reduce their capacity to keep their doors open. I anticipate the Catholic hospitals will become secular institutions. Catholic schools will probably do better than the hospitals though.

 

[iloveangels]

Yep, I agree. However, Catholic hospitals, if they follow this new teaching by the Pope, may not be able to accept medicare and medicaid. That will greatly reduce their capacity to keep their doors open. I anticipate the Catholic hospitals will become secular institutions. Catholic schools will probably do better than the hospitals though.

I think that most “Catholic hospitals” are on their way to becoming secular hospitals too. Obamacare is going to force that in the short term, but it was only a matter of time anyway, I think. Same thing with many of the big Catholic universities. This motu proprio only confirms some of this stuff is going.

Catholic grade schools & high schools are going to have to do some fancy footwork to dodge the effects of Obamacare. I think that some of them are going to close, and some will be scaled back dramatically. How it rolls out will depend on how they’re set up in the diocese too…meaning who has the authority for them on paper–the diocese or the parish or a Catholic board or whatever. We’re going to have to re-evaluate their purpose somewhat, I think. But that needed doing anyway, IMHO.

Some little diocesan/parish stuff like food banks, retreat centers, soup kitchens, bookstores etc etc are simply going to close or be staffed minimally by volunteers or part-timers. No way around that for a diocese if the bishops are serious about their response to Obamacare. At any rate this motu proprio puts a damper on some of this activity with respect to government grants anyway.

 

[Lucky7]

We meet again, Lucky 7! What I’m taking from your statement is–correct me if I’m wrong–that I have judged someone (sw85 and/or fix)? (This is soooooooooo OT.)

I’m not sure what you are talking about when you say this is OT.

And yes, when folks go on a diatribe on how we should not judge, they are judging as well. Or is this not a true statement? I’m not even disagreeing with you that that particular statement was uncharitable and that we should try not to act like that, but your long post goes beyond just saying that.

 

[Lucky7]

Yes, and I do not like false charges. The poster was not being uncharitable or calling names. Part of the problem is that the truth of any statement is often dismissed by claiming one’s tone is wrong.

Eh, I happen to agree that calling Fluke a degenerate is uncharitable and judgmental. However, when pointing that out one can also sound judgmental themselves depending upon how it is done.

 

[Lucky7]

It was on the last page. This thread is about “Re: Gonzaga University will cover contraception but promises to clearly communicate Church teaching.” And that’s cut and paste from the title above.

We have some people who can’t tell the difference between American political parties and Churches.

I know which posts you are referring to and I think we can tone down the political references, but like I have said before, this particular topic is closely connected to a political issue. To expect posters not to touch on politics (or getting angry when they do) in a political forum is asking a bit much.

 

[iloveangels]

I know which posts you are referring to and I think we can tone down the political references, but like I have said before, this particular topic is closely connected to a political issue. To expect posters not to touch on politics (or getting angry when they do) in a political forum is asking a bit much.

Not really. The law is the law. All that electoral stuff is behind us now. This thread is really about what’s going to happen with Gonzaga and other Catholic institutions when the law finally kicks in. Lots of changes are coming.

 

[Lucky7]

Not really. The law is the law. All that electoral stuff is behind us now. This thread is really about what’s going to happen with Gonzaga and other Catholic institutions when the law finally kicks in. Lots of changes are coming.

The thing is who helped make it law? Who voted in such a way that it would remain law rather than be challenged?

Catholics did… many of which are part of these Catholic institutions. If the same Catholics didn’t care that it would remain law or didn’t think it was that big of a deal to make Catholic institutions provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients, why would they all of a sudden care about listening to the Pope now?

So I still disagree. This issue is political as well as religious.