(NY) Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control (and abortions)

[HappyCatholic01]

Cardinal Dolan has not misunderstood the Church’s teaching on material cooperation. He is applying that teaching correctly in his decision to pay for health insurance.

Then why is the Archdiocese of New York suing the Federal Government over the ACA?

becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/

 

[_Abyssinia]

Major Obama backer negotiated Archdiocese of NY’s coverage of contraception, abortion

 

[Francoist]

C’mon people! What do you expect them to do? Get imprisoned? Get thrown to lions? Pay a fine?

Talk about extreme. You’d think we were Muslims or something.

 

[Teelynn]

It sounded like they got into a contract with the union and then the union changed the health plan.

This makes sense to me. Health plans change on a dime, even without informing their members, as wrong as it is. I happen to know this from personal experience working quite a few years ago for a local hospital. They can sometimes change their policy from one day to the next.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Are all employees of the Archdiocese of NY unionized? For those who aren’t surely the archdiocese could find a Catholic insurance company that wouldn’t cover birth control and abortion?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Then why is the Archdiocese of New York suing the Federal Government over the ACA?

becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/

The principle of cooperation with evil applies when your act is related to the sinful act of other persons. The Archdiocese is fighting the law because it is unjust; it is sinful. But given that the sinful law is in force, the diocese can cooperate materially “under protest” (so that the cooperation is implicit, not explicit) if there are proportionately grave reasons.

 

[markomalley]

The principle of cooperation with evil applies when your act is related to the sinful act of other persons. The Archdiocese is fighting the law because it is unjust; it is sinful. But given that the sinful law is in force, the diocese can cooperate materially “under protest” (so that the cooperation is implicit, not explicit) if there are proportionately grave reasons.

Not applicable.

The “mandate” is not mandatory. They could, instead, just stop health insurance and pay the fine (oh, excuse me, tax).

If they provide insurance as a benefit that covers abortions, sterilizations, contraception, etc., etc., etc. – under protest – they are cooperating in a immediate material fashion. If they pay the fine (oh, excuse me, tax), they are cooperating in a far more remote, mediate fashion.

All the difference in the world between the two.