This whole issue (mandated birth control coverage) is being used to make political hay -- by both Dems and GOPs and by conservative religious groups. I haven't heard much from more progressive religious groups on it, but they might be milking the issue too. 

I guess this is the season when employers announce changes to their health insurance coverage because I've heard numerous Facebook friends complaining about increases in copays and decreases in coverage. My own insurance went up 7%, but I'm very lucky that because it's only me who is covered my employer pays the whole thing (including birth control, which has always been covered). I shared this story on my wall earlier in the week. Working people are being squeezed by the rising cost of health care. Our nation is headed toward a lot of problems regarding rising health care costs and the aging population (and the ramifications of that on entitlements and the economy in general). But everything is so politicized nothing gets done. We all snipe at each other over birth control of all things, and meanwhile social security and medicare are going bankrupt. 

Ah well, pass me a beer.

May 25, 2012 -- 1:30PM, mokantx wrote:

There may be a time and place to stand up and claim persecution. But when your own leadership seems willing to throw your good work, and what has been for many a lifetime commited to such work, under the bus for political reasons, then I have to wonder: who is really doing the persecution here?

Standing up to real persecution is one thing and hamming it up for the camera is another. And that's what Dolan et al. seem to have lost, first their sense of the absurd and then the ability to tell the difference between sound moral argument and hysterical hyperbole. But here we go again.

May 25, 2012 -- 5:21PM, SeraphimR wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 1:30PM, mokantx wrote:

Chris

I think you're missing quite a bit here.  To begin, you characterize "you all" as if we all hate the church.  That's just plain wrong.  Quite to the contrary, at least some of us see the church as suffering greatly under the mismanagement of the current and previous generation of leadership in that church.  As MANY of us here have posted, time and time again, this particular issue seems like a really silly one for the bishops to choose as a rallying point.    But in making that choice, and when that choice is coupled with the simply horrendous manner in which those SAME bishops have handled the sexual abuse, the fiscal abuses, and all of the other problems in the church, it becomes pretty clear that there is a definitional problem out there these days: one I define as the definition of church itself? 

How is refusing to comply with a mandate that violates the moral teaching of the RCC coulpled with the issue of how the SAME bishops have handled the sexual abuse cases?

I don't see any overlap.  If the sexual abuse scandal had never occurred would you support the bishops in this case?

Now, if you are suggesting that the vast majority of Catholics are happy with the way the bishops have handled the sexual abuse of minors over the last 50 years, or you're happy with the $2+ Billion the church in the US alone has had to pay out thus far (not to mention what has happened in Ireland, Austria, Germany (etc.), then by all means, you have every right to be upset with those of us who must appear radical indeed if that's how you feel.    But if you really aren't all that happy with seemingly endless parade of scandals that afflict the church these days, then does that not also dump you into our ranks as one who "hates" the church?

Dolan has chosen to take the church's position into a game of brinkmanship with elected politians.  I suppose he's free to do that, since it appears that bishops and cardinals are> not to be held accountable for their actions nor their words.  But I think there are a LOT more Catholics than we few who post here, that are more than just a little uncomfortable with Dolan's games here.

I think quite a few in the church and outside the church support Bishop Dolan.

I would suggest to you that most of us here are strong supporters of the good work done by Catholics across the globe.  We tend to believe that THAT is the real church, a church that tends to believe that the best use of that catholic "voice" is through such actions, by those who try to actually live the beatitudes.  There may be a time and place to stand up and claim persecution. But when your own leadership seems willing to throw your good work, and what has been for many a lifetime commited to such work, under the bus for political reasons, then I have to wonder: who is really doing the persecution here?

Is then the real church only that part which does good works?  Ought the Mass be discontinued as a distraction from the REAL CHURCH?

Seraphim

I think when the bishops are asking Catholics, the majority of whom disagree with the bishops on the issue of birth control, to vote, to pressure, and to support their fight against the government's actions to make it more available, on the basis of some moral grounds, or some moral teaching, with which most of those catholics disagree, then yes, I think the bishop's actions relative to the scandal ARE relevant to the discussion.  "Progressives" in the church are often branded for being "Cafeteria Catholics," are they not?  Yet, is this not EXACTLY what we're seeing from the bishops themselves?  Heck, the issue on which they went off the reservation could not be ANY more clear, for Jesus himself stated that it was "better for a man to have a millstone tied around his neck..."  Yet, I'm pretty sure that Jesus didn't say much of anything at all on artifical birth control, did he? 

{{As an aside, this is getting eerily reminiscent of the scandal in at least one way.  In the scandal, we saw bishops take positions that ultimately  have cost the church in the US North of $2.6 Billion.  Stated a bit differently, they were willing to put the church's treasury on the line, often forfeiting the handiwork of generations of Catholics at the local level, to maintain their position.  So now, we've got Dolan running around saying that he's willing to pull the plug on a lot of much needed Catholic services to maintain his position that the church is being persecuted.}}

To be honest, I think the real issue here is that the bishops find themselves contending with the fact that THEY are unable to make the "sale" on that teaching to Catholics.  So what we're really seeing here is something akin to an end game, wherein the bishops, instead of finding a way to convince Catholics that they (the bishops) are right on this, they now want to block the access to abc being mandated by the feds, under the banner of "persecution."  So to your question of "would my position change" if it weren't for the scandal?", the answer is no.  And the reason is simply that the bishops haven't made that sale.  The scandal is more evidence that these guys are in a VERY different place than most Catholics.  The wider that gap gets, the tougher it's going to be for the church.

May 25, 2012 -- 6:19PM, mokantx wrote:

So now, we've got Dolan running around saying that he's willing to pull the plug on a lot of much needed Catholic services to maintain his position that the church is being persecuted.

Persecuted or betrayed? 

I can't help thinking that pedophilia in the RCC has been going on for many centuries and probably many more than that.  Somewhere in all that stands in-the-know politicians, police, the courts, many catholics themselves but not the wider laity.... and others. 

These perverts have been caught by more disinterested parties and the whole shebang is crumbling - trust, respect, resources. Man if they don't have those how can they be confident clergy?

Dolan beakin' off like that does more harm to his church than to anyone else.  He's likely speaking to a narrow audience with specific interests with those comments, than his own church laity. 

I wonder if it's betrayal or the ornament piece of 'persecution'.

May 25, 2012 -- 6:19PM, mokantx wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 5:21PM, SeraphimR wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 1:30PM, mokantx wrote:

Chris

I think you're missing quite a bit here.  To begin, you characterize "you all" as if we all hate the church.  That's just plain wrong.  Quite to the contrary, at least some of us see the church as suffering greatly under the mismanagement of the current and previous generation of leadership in that church.  As MANY of us here have posted, time and time again, this particular issue seems like a really silly one for the bishops to choose as a rallying point.    But in making that choice, and when that choice is coupled with the simply horrendous manner in which those SAME bishops have handled the sexual abuse, the fiscal abuses, and all of the other problems in the church, it becomes pretty clear that there is a definitional problem out there these days: one I define as the definition of church itself? 

How is refusing to comply with a mandate that violates the moral teaching of the RCC coulpled with the issue of how the SAME bishops have handled the sexual abuse cases?

I don't see any overlap.  If the sexual abuse scandal had never occurred would you support the bishops in this case?

Now, if you are suggesting that the vast majority of Catholics are happy with the way the bishops have handled the sexual abuse of minors over the last 50 years, or you're happy with the $2+ Billion the church in the US alone has had to pay out thus far (not to mention what has happened in Ireland, Austria, Germany (etc.), then by all means, you have every right to be upset with those of us who must appear radical indeed if that's how you feel.    But if you really aren't all that happy with seemingly endless parade of scandals that afflict the church these days, then does that not also dump you into our ranks as one who "hates" the church?

Dolan has chosen to take the church's position into a game of brinkmanship with elected politians.  I suppose he's free to do that, since it appears that bishops and cardinals are> not to be held accountable for their actions nor their words.  But I think there are a LOT more Catholics than we few who post here, that are more than just a little uncomfortable with Dolan's games here.

I think quite a few in the church and outside the church support Bishop Dolan.

I would suggest to you that most of us here are strong supporters of the good work done by Catholics across the globe.  We tend to believe that THAT is the real church, a church that tends to believe that the best use of that catholic "voice" is through such actions, by those who try to actually live the beatitudes.  There may be a time and place to stand up and claim persecution. But when your own leadership seems willing to throw your good work, and what has been for many a lifetime commited to such work, under the bus for political reasons, then I have to wonder: who is really doing the persecution here?

Is then the real church only that part which does good works?  Ought the Mass be discontinued as a distraction from the REAL CHURCH?

Seraphim

I think when the bishops are asking Catholics, the majority of whom disagree with the bishops on the issue of birth control, to vote, to pressure, and to support their fight against the government's actions to make it more available, on the basis of some moral grounds, or some moral teaching, with which most of those catholics disagree, then yes, I think the bishop's actions relative to the scandal ARE relevant to the discussion.  "Progressives" in the church are often branded for being "Cafeteria Catholics," are they not?  Yet, is this not EXACTLY what we're seeing from the bishops themselves?  Heck, the issue on which they went off the reservation could not be ANY more clear, for Jesus himself stated that it was "better for a man to have a millstone tied around his neck..."  Yet, I'm pretty sure that Jesus didn't say much of anything at all on artifical birth control, did he? 

{{As an aside, this is getting eerily reminiscent of the scandal in at least one way.  In the scandal, we saw bishops take positions that ultimately  have cost the church in the US North of $2.6 Billion.  Stated a bit differently, they were willing to put the church's treasury on the line, often forfeiting the handiwork of generations of Catholics at the local level, to maintain their position.  So now, we've got Dolan running around saying that he's willing to pull the plug on a lot of much needed Catholic services to maintain his position that the church is being persecuted.}}

To be honest, I think the real issue here is that the bishops find themselves contending with the fact that THEY are unable to make the "sale" on that teaching to Catholics.  So what we're really seeing here is something akin to an end game, wherein the bishops, instead of finding a way to convince Catholics that they (the bishops) are right on this, they now want to block the access to abc being mandated by the feds, under the banner of "persecution."  So to your question of "would my position change" if it weren't for the scandal?", the answer is no.  And the reason is simply that the bishops haven't made that sale.  The scandal is more evidence that these guys are in a VERY different place than most Catholics.  The wider that gap gets, the tougher it's going to be for the church.

That is all an argument ad hominem.

The fact is that the Federal Government is threatening legal precedings against a religious organization unless it violates religious principals that were in effect long before there was a Federal Government.

I am not Catholic. I hold Catholic Bishops in very low regard because of the sex scandal.  But I think they are on the right side in this one.

The RCC is not "blocking access to birth control".  It simply objects to having to subsidize it.