Good Read: Obamacare vs. the Catholics

[iloveangels]

Cardinal George is entitled to his opinion, as is everyone else…

Except he’s a cardinal and we’re not. That does count, you know.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Except he’s a cardinal and we’re not. That does count, you know.

It does if we’re talking about Church teaching. When it comes to judging the motivations behind “patterns of behavior” his opinion is worth the same as everyone else’s.

 

[iloveangels]

So is your opinion in that case. Worth the same as anyone else’s and no more.

 

[iloveangels]

In that case the Lutheran Church was spared because the individual in question was officially instituted as a minister. That is simply not the case for nurses and professors.

It would be interesting to see how the SC would rule since states have similar laws that have not been struck down.

No, actually it was exactly the opposite. Teachers in the Missouri synod go through a program and at the end of the program are certified as ministers. This teacher went through the program, was duly certified as a minister, and was hired as a minister. (She had started as they all do as a contractor.) Then she had to leave her job for some reason and she wanted to come back. They didn’t want to take her back and she retaliated against them in a way that they considered inimical to her ministry. They took away her ministry certification. Her contention was that she was a minister; their contention was that she was no longer a minster as she had been removed from ministry. The Church/school won because it was held that the Church/school is the authority on what exactly constitutes fitness for ministry and/or possession of ministry. Neither the defendant nor the government could supersede that authority, the court said.

If it’s different to be a nurse than it is to be a Lutheran Church - MO synod minister (and it is), it’s a matter of standards of preparation and certification across institutions that mutually hold the same standard in an interchangeable way. IE getting hired as a nurse in X hospital requires the same general standards as getting hired in Y hospital since the positions are equivalently understood. The expectation for prospective nurses in preparation for working in X hospital is generally the same as Y hospital, etc.

It was also determined in this case, that the % of time spent in actual religious duties did not have to be a majority of time spent in service. Many of the teacher’s activities during the day were not specifically religious in nature. The court said this was not the deciding factor in the definition of ministry.

Had this woman not been certified as a minister in the first place, then she would have been just another contractor in a temporary position and it never would have gotten any farther than that.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

So is your opinion in that case. Worth the same as anyone else’s and no more.

Yes. We all have opinions and can discuss our rationale for those opinions.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No, actually it was exactly the opposite. Teachers in the Missouri synod go through a program and at the end of the program are certified as ministers. This teacher went through the program, was duly certified as a minister, and was hired as a minister. (She had started as they all do as a contractor.) Then she had to leave her job for some reason and she wanted to come back. They didn’t want to take her back and she retaliated against them in a way that they considered inimical to her ministry. They took away her ministry certification. Her contention was that she was a minister; their contention was that she was no longer a minster as she had been removed from ministry. The Church/school won because it was held that the Church/school is the authority on what exactly constitutes fitness for ministry and/or possession of ministry. Neither the defendant nor the government could supersede that authority, the court said.

Exactly. It was an internal Church issue of who is a minister and who is not. That is not the case with the contraception mandate.

It was also determined in this case, that the % of time spent in actual religious duties did not have to be a majority of time spent in service. Many of the teacher’s activities during the day were not specifically religious in nature. The court said this was not the deciding factor in the definition of ministry.

Indeed but it still revolved around the fact that the Lutheran Church considered the role to be a minister and thus the USCC ruled that government can’t tell Churches how to regulate their ministers.

Had this woman not been certified as a minister in the first place, then she would have been just another contractor in a temporary position and it never would have gotten any farther than that.

If she was just a regular worker than the nondiscrimination laws would have been possibly applicable.

 

[iloveangels]

Exactly. It was an internal Church issue of who is a minister and who is not. That is not the case with the contraception mandate.

Except of course that we have an internal doctrinal standard about what constitutes moral behavior, and that standard has stood since the time of Christ. Whether Joe Blow in Pittsburgh and his gal Floozie in the back of a Chevy always observe it or not. Doctrine is one thing. Statistics about behavior are another.

Indeed but it still revolved around the fact that the Lutheran Church considered the role to be a minister and thus the USCC ruled that government can’t tell Churches how to regulate their ministers.

Correct. Since the matter involved a standard interior to the Lutheran Church - Missouri synod.

If she was just a regular worker than the nondiscrimination laws would have been possibly applicable.

Correct. The way the case was composed, it wasn’t an FMLA sick-time claim or anything like that. IT was a claim that she still maintained the property of ministry and therefore deserved to be re-instated on the merits of that property.

Don’t any of you have to go to work in the morning or is this welfare central???

 

[iloveangels]

You know, long ago I was Lutheran. Lutherans are not eager, but not hesitant to dump off people who don’t behave morally. I know that sounds a bit funny, based on their ideas about salvation by faith alone and all that. But it’s how I found them to be.

Catholics are not at all willing to dump off people who misbehave even egregiously. In fact, they let them hang on and on and on, even while they act like complete zoo animals, no offense to zoo animals. There might be some merit in expecting people to behave and being more willing to dump a few people in the corner for some focused consideration of their behavior. Maybe this case is meant to be a lesson to us, no?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Except of course that we have an internal doctrinal standard about what constitutes moral behavior, and that standard has stood since the time of Christ. Whether Joe Blow in Pittsburgh and his gal Floozie in the back of a Chevy always observe it or not. Doctrine is one thing. Statistics about behavior are another.

I agree the statistics about behavior are irrelevant. However, the case revolved around the ministerial exemption. There is nothing in the duties/role of a doctor, nurse, or professor of a secular subject that can be used to qualify for the ministerial exemption. The only possible exception is a professor of Catholic theology in a Catholic university.

Don’t any of you have to go to work in the morning or is this welfare central???

LOL, some of us have varied schedules or can’t sleep.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You know, long ago I was Lutheran. Lutherans are not eager, but not hesitant to dump off people who don’t behave morally. I know that sounds a bit funny, based on their ideas about salvation by faith alone and all that. But it’s how I found them to be.

Yes, but doesn’t Lutheran theology declare that faith can be revealed in works?

Catholics are not at all willing to dump off people who misbehave even egregiously. In fact, they let them hang on and on and on, even while they act like complete zoo animals, no offense to zoo animals. There might be some merit in expecting people to behave and being more willing to dump a few people in the corner for some focused consideration of their behavior. Maybe this case is meant to be a lesson to us, no?

Yes and no. The Catholic Church doesn’t divide people into good and bad. There’s many shades of gray in the Catholic understanding of the human person. We’re not into total depravity.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes, but doesn’t Lutheran theology declare that faith can be revealed in works?

Yes and no. The Catholic Church doesn’t divide people into good and bad. There’s many shades of gray in the Catholic understanding of the human person. We’re not into total depravity.

Well, I hate to point this out to you, but some people ARE into total depravity in the way they behave. In fact, there are a lot of people who into Total Depravity. We need to realize that. We got suckered for not believing it this time. I should point out to you that I understand the theological concept of “total depravity.” That’s fine to not believe that people are totally depraved, but how much depravity does it take to cause evil to set in??? How much??? Does it require theologically total depravity? NO.

I’m female. Women who always give their dates the benefit of the doubt in every case end up raped. Hitch-hikers who always give their drivers the benefit of the doubt end up dead.

It’s called “trust but verify.” If the common practice in the Church before 2001 had been “trust but verify” we wouldn’t have endured the nightmare we did in 2001. The Church got blamed for all kinds of things that it simply didn’t do, but failing to “trust but verify” was really the big problem. They didn’t do proper personnel checks and when they found something wrong they didn’t follow up on it which was careless and stupid. Luckily the USCCB has finally started to pick up on that now because now they know they have to. Good, because it’s common sense and mortal self-preservation. God helps them that helps themselves. Living the Christian life does after all take some effort!

You don’t get up in the morning and say, “I’m not going to fix breakfast because God will feed me. So I’ll just sit down here and wait.” You don’t neglect to pay your traffic tickets because you think God will do it for you. HE won’t. You’re supposed to do that as part of a Christian life.

 

[iloveangels]

I believe in visiting prisoners in jail. It’s a good work as you know, and it’s even prescribed in Scripture. No argument there. Every human person has been made in the image and likeness of God. Scripture says that too. BUT prisons have rules and the rules are made to protect people. I would urge anyone going to visit prisoners not to just waltz into the most dangerous psychologically pathological prisoner’s cell and take a nap there in their street clothes and everything. That would be a bad idea. A very bad idea. And they won’t let you do that. Prisons have rules; people who work there day in and day out understand how to do their work.