Notre Dame Complies With Contraception Mandate

[RC_Sojourner]

The irony is that it can be Christians who persecute other Christians.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand the irony. Barrack Obama is not a Christian. The 2012 Election was the first time both parties ran non-Christians. And no, I’m not calling Obama a Muslim, I’m simply calling him a secularist. He can call himself a Christian all he wants, but if you’re a secularist, then you’re no more Christian than a Mormon… and that’s my point.

In 2012 this country saw 2 non-Christians vie for the Presidency for the first time in our history. We need to wake up. We need to start evangelizing. America is becoming Godless, Pagan Rome.

Barrack Obama is a secularist. And he doesn’t know God.

How could he? He’s an enemy of the Church. That’s all I have to say.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
And pray for all those who do not have recourse to thee…
especially the enemies of the Church.
Amen.

 

[fastenatingguy]

I’m a proud graduate of ND, class of 1980.

This saddens me, but I am not surprised.

 

[fastenatingguy]

The Fighting Irish have lost their fight.

Oh well, there is still football to look forward to out of Notre Dame.

Not so much.

Womens’ hoops and Mens’ soccer are recent champs!

 

[fastenatingguy]

I’m sorry but I don’t understand the irony. Barrack Obama is not a Christian. The 2012 Election was the first time both parties ran non-Christians. And no, I’m not calling Obama a Muslim, I’m simply calling him a secularist. He can call himself a Christian all he wants, but if you’re a secularist, then you’re no more Christian than a Mormon… and that’s my point.

In 2012 this country saw 2 non-Christians vie for the Presidency for the first time in our history. We need to wake up. We need to start evangelizing. America is becoming Godless, Pagan Rome.

Barrack Obama is a secularist. And he doesn’t know God.

How could he? He’s an enemy of the Church. That’s all I have to say.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
And pray for all those who do not have recourse to thee…
especially the enemies of the Church.
Amen.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[ishii]

http://cdn.ph.upi.com/pv/upi/0544ebb65f92ef0bf99d4e507407d972/Obama-Notre-Dame.jpg

Figured they’d fold like a cheap tent and comply rather than fight it.

Of course, I always figured they never believed in the “fight” anyway, based on the above picture.

Notre Dame, it profits a university nothing to gain the world but lose its soul. But for Obama?

Ishii

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m sorry but I don’t understand the irony. Barrack Obama is not a Christian. The 2012 Election was the first time both parties ran non-Christians. And no, I’m not calling Obama a Muslim, I’m simply calling him a secularist. He can call himself a Christian all he wants, but if you’re a secularist, then you’re no more Christian than a Mormon… and that’s my point.

In 2012 this country saw 2 non-Christians vie for the Presidency for the first time in our history. We need to wake up. We need to start evangelizing. America is becoming Godless, Pagan Rome.

Barrack Obama is a secularist. And he doesn’t know God.

How could he? He’s an enemy of the Church. That’s all I have to say.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
And pray for all those who do not have recourse to thee…
especially the enemies of the Church.
Amen.

I wasn’t talking about Obama.

There are plenty of Catholics willing to sell out Church teaching for personal gain.

 

[CaptFun]

Note Her Shame

http://www.selkirk.bordernet.co.uk/news/images/large/2526-2.jpg

Comply!

 

[RPRPsych]

I am hesitant to judge the victims of this because it is being forced on all by the civil law, and I have to assume that they are under duress.

I think this is the point, really. Let’s not be Novatians over this. I don’t think Notre Dame is enjoying this in any way, and they’re in a tight spot. Hopefully, deliverance will come from another source.

 

[Cojuanco]

This is why I strongly beleive that ALL Catholic colleges, universities and schools should at least have a dotted line to their local Bishop. When the Religious run a Parish, they still have a dotted line to the Bishop in regards to taking care of the flock.

So why should Religious (or Laity) run schools/colleges/universities be exempt? After all, the institution is taking care of the Bishop’s flock (or from another Bishop’s flock).

Don’t get me wrong, I have lots of respect for the Religious, but we need a consistant message here.

The same reason a monastery is exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. Parishes are under diocesan authority because they are erected by the diocese. Abbeys and universities are not. In all likelihood there will be a rather heated meeting between Fr. Jenkins, his superiors in the Holy Cross Fathers, the Bishop, and probably the Vatican. All behind closed doors, as is prudent.

That said, the problem is that even if there is a satisfactory solution reached, the Holy Cross Fathers actually habe little civil legal authority over the university. The university, when suing, is acting as a legal person under civil law. But that civil person is under the authority of a mostly lay board (which was naive of them back in the 60s, but that’s for another time). The Holy Cross Fathers pretty much only own the land the university sits on. I mean, they might be able to evict the university from the land (yes, it would be likely contrary to the rules of their particular congregation, I speak here of the civil law) but there seems little else they can do without the consent of the lay board. It’s the same reason why the Jesuits keep failing to institute pro-life policies at some of their universities even though they desperately want to - they’ve been shut out of the governance of their own universities.

TLDR: Fr. Jenkins basically is likely acting under duress.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

I wasn’t talking about Obama.

There are plenty of Catholics willing to sell out Church teaching for personal gain.

Well, if you’re referring to Kathleen Sebelius, I would call her a “Judas Catholic”.

Yes, I agree with you there. There are certainly Catholics who are going against Church teaching. But, its one thing to disagree with Church teaching, its another thing to be responsible for forcing the Church to participate with evil.

If the Church is forced to comply with the mandate, the guilt of that sin won’t be upon the Church or faithful Catholics who are forced to comply. The guilt will be upon those who forced those to sin. It is a sin of scandal. “It would be better to tie a millstone around your neck and jump into the sea, than for you to cause one of these little ones to sin”- paraphrased from memory.

Again, I don’t feel bad by saying that if someone is an enemy of the Church, they’re not a Christian. They might be a Baptized, Confirmed Catholic who receives daily Communion [Nancy Pelosi does].

But, ifthey’re an enemy of the Church, they’re not a Christian. And I’ll stand by that.

We need to obviously pray for such people.

 

[DrDanno]

This is very disappointing. I have always thought of Notre Dame ans one of the premere Catholic Universities.

What is the Message that the school is sending to the Students and to the World? They can uphold values but when it comes down to it they decide to deny their values and take the easy road out.

 

[Ender]

If the Church is forced to comply with the mandate, the guilt of that sin won’t be upon the Church or faithful Catholics who are forced to comply. The guilt will be upon those who forced those to sin.

Let me start by saying I understand that Notre Dame and other religious entities who oppose the HHS mandate literally risk bankruptcy if they choose not to comply with the mandate. That said, it is not clear that they are not guilty of sin if they do because no one can actually force us to sin; that option always remains a choice, and that is the choice Notre Dame has made in this instance. Under extreme duress to be sure, but their choice nonetheless.
*Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions…are universally binding. … Negative precepts are [also] universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance…without exception. … Only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances…it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.

The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions* (Veritatis Splendor #52)
Ender

 

[Havard]

Notre Dame has a very strong orthodox Catholic presence, which includes prominent faculty and even department heads. ND is far from a “lost cause”. So please pray for Our Lady’s university. Her role in the greater battle is far from over.

 

[CarolNoel]

They should consult with the Little Sisters of the Poor!!

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Let me start by saying I understand that Notre Dame and other religious entities who oppose the HHS mandate literally risk bankruptcy if they choose not to comply with the mandate. That said, it is not clear that they are not guilty of sin if they do because no one can actually force us to sin; that option always remains a choice, and that is the choice Notre Dame has made in this instance. Under extreme duress to be sure, but their choice nonetheless.
Ender

It is a sin of scandal.

You decided not to quote that. The sin of scandal exists. So, if scandal exists, then what I’m talking about necessarily happens. That is, if people commit the sin of scandal, then they force other people to sin.

CCC: 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, **make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”**88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

There are already a number of state laws which compel Catholic hospitals in those states to provide contraception. I’ll link to a map of it at the bottom. Were the Catholic Bishops guilty of sin because they didn’t close those hospitals down? Answer that question at your own peril.

The Bible tells us that [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:6[/BIBLEDRB]

So, people can force you to sin. The Bible says so.

Also, its one of the 3 conditions for a mortal sin:
grave matter, full knowledge, and free will.

Obviously in this case, the free will of the Catholic hospitals are in question.

So, I think you’re misreading that Papal Encyclical that you quoted. because my post was based firmly in the Church’s teaching on both the sin of scandal, and the conditions for mortal sin. I think the Catechism more than addresses your claim that “no one can actually force us to sin”.

Bishops don’t have guns to their heads, but draconian fines which could force ministries/ charities/ hospitals to close within a year or two bare a similar weight as having a gun to your head. Imagine a diocese actually paying those fees until they were bankrupt, and had to close all their parishes?

No diocese would do that, but it could hypothetically happen. So, if the Bishops comply, the culpability lies with the lawmakers, not them.

 

[gracepoole]

Barrack Obama is a secularist. And he doesn’t know God.

You aren’t remotely in a position to know his relationship with God. None of us is.

 

[ishii]

You aren’t remotely in a position to know his relationship with God. None of us is.

His policies certainly are of, by and for the secular left. If he knows God’s laws, he certainly is not paying attention to them in terms of the policies he imposes on the nation. Draw your own conclusions.

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

His policies certainly are of, by and for the secular left. If he knows God’s laws, he certainly is not paying attention to them in terms of the policies he imposes on the nation. Draw your own conclusions.

Ishii

I don’t need to – I can disagree with his policies and fight them, vote for those who oppose them… But my conclusions about his relationship with God are completely irrelevant. The state of his soul is God’s business and thankfully not mine.

 

[Ender]

It is a sin of scandal. You decided not to quote that.

I quoted only what JPII said in Veritatis Splendor. Since he didn’t say anything about scandal there was nothing for me to decide on.

That is, if people commit the sin of scandal, then they force other people to sin.

JPII begs to differ: a person “can never be hindered from not doing certain actions” A person can be pressured into doing evil but he cannot be forced to do it; that is always his choice.

There are already a number of state laws which compel Catholic hospitals in those states to provide contraception.

No, they cannot compel them. They can only offer a difficult choice: provide contraception or else, but “or else” is always a choice.

Were the Catholic Bishops guilty of sin because they didn’t close those hospitals down? Answer that question at your own peril.

I don’t know; did they knowingly do something Church doctrine forbids? If so then it is hard to see how one can claim they didn’t commit a sin. “*…one may **never *choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments” (JPII)

The Bible tells us that Matthew - 18:6
So, people can force you to sin. The Bible says so.

No, that is not what the Bible says. Other people can lead us into sin but they cannot force us into it. That passage is about causing others to fall, not making them.

So, I think you’re misreading that Papal Encyclical that you quoted. because my post was based firmly in the Church’s teaching on both the sin of scandal, and the conditions for mortal sin. I think the Catechism more than addresses your claim that “no one can actually force us to sin”.

It is hard to see how a person can be made to do evil if JPII is right in asserting it can’t happen if a person “is prepared to die rather than to do evil.”

Bishops don’t have guns to their heads…

No they don’t, but we certainly know of martyrs who faced that choice … and chose to die rather than commit an evil act. How do we justify the bishops’ act of choosing the sinful act without condemning the martyr for acting foolishly?

So, if the Bishops comply, the culpability lies with the lawmakers, not them.

The bishops face the choice of doing evil or suffering catastrophic consequences. It is a hard choice but it is nonetheless a choice and it is a clear teaching of the church that “One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC 1756)

Ender

 

[_Abyssinia]

Court rules against Notre Dame in health care law appeal