Oh wait.....Trumps campaign was wire tapped after all

[Ridgerunner]

don’t think I am imposing my values here. I am trying to apply Catholic teaching, and it seems to me that it is remote cooperation with evil and hence, not really an issue.

Directly participating in providing contraceptives and abortifacients to others really can’t be considered “remote” because the act itself is evil. The USCCB and Catholic writers agree on that.

Six Things Everyone Should Know About The HHS Mandate | USCCB

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Admin-Religious-Freedom.pdf

Cooperation is Not an Option – Catholic World Report

If you are a non-Catholic attempting to interpret Catholic teachings, I respectfully suggest that simply adopting an Obama administration talking point doesn’t do it. Besides, what the Church actually teaches would not command your respect, and your view would naturally be colored by your own values.

We’re awfully far afield from the topic as well. Probably my fault that we are.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Directly participating in providing contraceptives and abortifacients to others really can’t be considered “remote” because the act itself is evil. The USCCB and Catholic writers agree on that.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-021.cfm

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Admin-Religious-Freedom.pdf

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/04/18/cooperation-is-not-an-option/

If you are a non-Catholic attempting to interpret Catholic teachings, I respectfully suggest that simply adopting an Obama administration talking point doesn’t do it. Besides, what the Church actually teaches would not command your respect, and your view would naturally be colored by your own values.

We’re awfully far afield from the topic as well. Probably my fault that we are.

Again, sending a letter saying that you won’t provide for contraceptives to be covered in the insurance plan you pay for does not seem to mean formal cooperation with evil. What you have posted seems to have come before the compromise. I don’t particularly like the compromise either, as I do not think it is generally a matter of woman’s health to have access to contraceptives through insurance, but I don’t see a compelling argument that signing a letter is formal cooperation with evil.

I am Catholic and what the Church teaches does command my respect. I’m just not convinced this argument makes sense and I will pay close attention to what my archbishop has to say on it.

 

[dvdjs]

Thanks. I think his point on etymology is interesting but linking that to contemporary usage obscures rather than clarifies.

 

[J_Peterson]

I am Catholic. My starting point is the human experience. My experiences led me to the Church and her teachings.

I should make it clear that I do believe in universal truths so we are essentially on the same page. I was speaking more about our acceptance of those truths. I think the key phrase you used is “subjectively experienced” and that does accurately describe what I am trying to say. That doesn’t preclude the fact that there are universal principles that are true everywhere and always. I think that’s where faith comes in. I experience the world subjectively but my experiences have led me to accept that there are universal truths (for the record I went from Catholic to atheist to agnostic to deist and back to Catholic).

Perhaps it comes down to whether we use inductive reasoning or deductive. Liberals do tend to use inductive (particular to abstract) whereas conservatives tend towards deductive (abstract to particular). I hope I didn’t get that backwards.

I’m getting a better idea of what you are talking about though and I think we agree more than disagree. Sorry for the off topic but this is interesting to me. Part of my problem is I’m not as articulate as I’d like to be.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, sending a letter saying that you won’t provide for contraceptives to be covered in the insurance plan you pay for does not seem to mean formal cooperation with evil.

The affected institutions did not agree with your analysis, and neither do I.

What the Obama administration did is switch from “You must sign up to provide insurance for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations or be fined.” to “You must affirmatively refuse to sign in order to provide insurance for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations or be fined.”

One or the other of those actions would be required, and either would have the same result, The “compromise” was a sham, and the organizations knew it. Either would equally lead to the providing coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Part of my problem is I’m not as articulate as I’d like to be.

You and I have the same problem in this regard. When one gets out into the “thin air” of philosophical or theological discourse, it’s hard to express oneself as well as one would wish.

 

[Jig_Saw]

The affected institutions did not agree with your analysis, and neither do I.

What the Obama administration did is switch from “You must sign up to provide insurance for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations or be fined.” to “You must affirmatively refuse to sign in order to provide insurance for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations or be fined.”

One or the other of those actions would be required, and either would have the same result, The “compromise” was a sham, and the organizations knew it. Either would equally lead to the providing coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations.

I don’t know if all the affected institutions disagreed with my analysis given the number that just signed the form.

Again, I’m not sure how not agreeing to pay for these contraceptives and signing a form saying so results in material cooperation with evil. It seems by the same logic that any employee of the Little Sisters that take money they were paid by the Little Sisters to buy contraceptives would also result in the same level of cooperation with evil. After all, the result is the same.

 

[Ridgerunner]

don’t know if all the affected institutions disagreed with my analysis given the number that just signed the form.

Again, I’m not sure how not agreeing to pay for these contraceptives and signing a form saying so results in material cooperation with evil. It seems by the same logic that any employee of the Little Sisters that take money they were paid by the Little Sisters to buy contraceptives would also result in the same level of cooperation with evil. After all, the result is the same.

Well, the plaintiffs were the plaintiffs, and they stayed with the lawsuit even after the bogus “compromise” was offered.

And the “compromise” was bogus. No offense, but I think if the thing in question was an AR-15 with a bump stock, you might think of it differently. Analogies always limp, but let’s suppose the NRA somehow gained control of the country, and let’s say you’re an employer and let’s say the NRA gave you the following choice.

1. You could pay for an AR-15 with a bump stock for every employee.
2. You could sign a paper refusing to pay for an AR-15 with bump stock, in which case the NRA would provide each employee with an AR-15 with a bump stock.
3. You could refuse to do either one, in which case you would be fined to your last farthing and possibly jailed.

Choices #1 and #2 have exactly the same result, and the result is CAUSED by you either paying for the gun or signing the NRA’s paper saying you refuse to pay for the gun. Either way, the result is the same and your action caused it. Your “refusal” is not a refusal at all. It’s a pretended refusal; an approval of the end result.

Now, if the NRA said, “we really think it’s good for people to have AR-15s with bump stocks, but since your conscience will not allow you to participate in providing them with those things, we will not require you to do anything that will cause anybody to have an AR-15 with a bump stock” you would think that a genuine concession to conscience.

It would have been easy for Obama to do that, but he just wouldn’t. And he wouldn’t because he wanted to force complicity on the Sisters and the other plaintiffs. He did, of course, with the “compromise” allow them the alternative of living a lie they both knew was a lie. But the sisters wouldn’t play that game.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Well, the plaintiffs were the plaintiffs, and they stayed with the lawsuit even after the bogus “compromise” was offered.

And the “compromise” was bogus. No offense, but I think if the thing in question was an AR-15 with a bump stock, you might think of it differently. Analogies always limp, but let’s suppose the NRA somehow gained control of the country, and let’s say you’re an employer and let’s say the NRA gave you the following choice.

You could pay for an AR-15 with a bump stock for every employee.
You could sign a paper refusing to pay for an AR-15 with bump stock, in which case the NRA would provide each employee with an AR-15 with a bump stock.
You could refuse to do either one, in which case you would be fined to your last farthing and possibly jailed.

Choices #1 and #2 have exactly the same result, and the result is CAUSED by you either paying for the gun or signing the NRA’s paper saying you refuse to pay for the gun. Either way, the result is the same and your action caused it. Your “refusal” is not a refusal at all. It’s a pretended refusal; an approval of the end result.

Now, if the NRA said, “we really think it’s good for people to have AR-15s with bump stocks, but since your conscience will not allow you to participate in providing them with those things, we will not require you to do anything that will cause anybody to have an AR-15 with a bump stock” you would think that a genuine concession to conscience.

It would have been easy for Obama to do that, but he just wouldn’t. And he wouldn’t because he wanted to force complicity on the Sisters and the other plaintiffs. He did, of course, with the “compromise” allow them the alternative of living a lie they both knew was a lie. But the sisters wouldn’t play that game.

I would be fine with signing a paper saying I’m not buying an AR-15, so I guess your analogy didn’t work. And please don’t call me a liar again.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would be fine with signing a paper saying I’m not buying an AR-15, so I guess your analogy didn’t work. And please don’t call me a liar again.

All analogies limp, and I said that going in. But you might want to reconsider whether you would want to be the cause of someone buying an AR-15 with a bump stock or an abortifacient, either one.

Personally, I’m not ant-gun. But I would never enable a person to get an AR-15 with a bump stock, whether by direct or indirect action on my part, and exactly because I would not want to be responsible for some use to which they might put it.

I really am surprised that you would.

 

[Jig_Saw]

All analogies limp, and I said that going in. But you might want to reconsider whether you would want to be the cause of someone buying an AR-15 with a bump stock or an abortifacient, either one.

Personally, I’m not ant-gun. But I would never enable a person to get an AR-15 with a bump stock, whether by direct or indirect action on my part, and exactly because I would not want to be responsible for some use to which they might put it.

I really am surprised that you would.

Yeah, there really isn’t much I could do about someone getting an AR-15 with a bump stock from the perspective that you propose. Personally, I would write the letter and be done with it. Of course, I would hope that my employees would either not partake or be responsible owners of the weapon, but I couldn’t really control what my employee does outside of work hours provided it is legal and does not hurt others.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yeah, there really isn’t much I could do about someone getting an AR-15 with a bump stock from the perspective that you propose. Personally, I would write the letter and be done with it. Of course, I would hope that my employees would either not partake or be responsible owners of the weapon, but I couldn’t really control what my employee does outside of work hours provided it is legal and does not hurt others.

I think most of us would take the path of least resistance upon being presented with violation of conscience on the one hand and fines or possible imprisonment on the other. But the Little Sisters and the other plaintiffs in the HHS mandate case are more hard core, and more ready to pay the price for morality than are most of us. Cowardly as we are, we still should at least try to emulate the saints among us.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I think most of us would take the path of least resistance upon being presented with violation of conscience on the one hand and fines or possible imprisonment on the other. But the Little Sisters and the other plaintiffs in the HHS mandate case are more hard core, and more ready to pay the price for morality than are most of us. Cowardly as we are, we still should at least try to emulate the saints among us.

Again, not sure that I see it as cowardly but rather I see no reason why I am morally liable for what my employees do outside of work time. So i don’t see it as a question of conscience, but a misapplication of Church teaching.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, not sure that I see it as cowardly but rather I see no reason why I am morally liable for what my employees do outside of work time. So i don’t see it as a question of conscience, but a misapplication of Church teaching.

The Little Sisters and many other religious organizations including the USCCB are misapplying Church teaching and Obama understood those teachings better than they did?

Never did I say you’re responsible for what your employees do outside of work, taken by itself. But if you provide them with the means to commit evil, knowing evil is the only use for what you give them, then you’re complicit with the evil. Nothing mysterious about that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Leaving it with you all. Won’t be back for probably a couple of days.

Be of good cheer!

 

[Jig_Saw]

The Little Sisters and many other religious organizations including the USCCB are misapplying Church teaching and Obama understood those teachings better than they did?

Never did I say you’re responsible for what your employees do outside of work, taken by itself. But if you provide them with the means to commit evil, knowing evil is the only use for what you give them, then you’re complicit with the evil. Nothing mysterious about that.

I should have said possible misapplication of Church teaching. I really just don’t understand how it can be applied. As I said, most Catholic organizations seemed to have no issue signing the form.

Again, I don’t really understand how you can come to the conclusion that providing the means makes you complicit in evil. If I teach someone chemistry and they make a bomb, does that make me complicit in evil? If I pay them and they use the money to buy contraceptives, am I complicit in evil? I think saying that you can sign a form saying you will not provide for contraceptives does not make you complicit in evil.

 

[josie_L]

Trump can do his job with or without my support - he’s choosing not to. The fact that a lot of social conservatives voted for him tells me that they have no core values and that’s not going to change either. For years, I have heard the garbage from the Catholic right about how the Democrats were immoral and that voting for them was a sin, well, the right voted for a scummy, unethical person and now they have ceded their moral authority and I am just here to remind them of that.

Now, given the amount of judging that went on during the campaign and throughout the Obama years that I don’t remember you ever calling out, I’m sorry to say that you also have no moral authority as well. Good day.

So, basically, this is payback???

 

[Jig_Saw]

So, basically, this is payback???

No, it is factual. Catholics that lurk deserve to know that they are not beholden to either party and that neither party follows Catholic teaching. There have been far too many misrepresentations of Church teaching applied to politics on this site and it is important that the truth be told.

 

[josie_L]

josie_L:

So, basically, this is payback???

No, it is factual. Catholics that lurk deserve to know that they are not beholden to either party and that neither party follows Catholic teaching. There have been far too many misrepresentations of Church teaching applied to politics on this site and it is important that the truth be told.

To an extent what you say is true, but most Conservatives stand for upholding religious freedoms ( and other inalienable rights), limited government, and/or traditional views of marriage, and definitions of gender, and are pro-life, as expected of one who follows Catholicism, the same cannot be said of those leaning left, i.e., progressives.

In other words, only one holds close to the truths espoused by the Church, while the other is pretty much man-made bull crap, i.e., based on secular humanism.

 

[josie_L]

But you are not the purveyor of that truth as can be discerned by your posts, which are more politically charged than they are religiously based.