Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Cardinal Dolan's Response

Despite taking the lead against the HHS mandate and encouraging lay Catholics to risk their businesses by resisting an attack on religious liberty, Cardinal Dolan has allowed his archdiocese to pay insurance premiums that cover abortion and contraception, the exact thing he insists we must not do, a moral compromise he insists we must not make.  The archdiocese has been doing this for twenty years.

The archdiocese has had options here.  The insurance in question has been in place per a union contract - and such contracts can be negotiated when they expire, which is usually every few years.  In addition, if this issue is as fundamentally immoral as Cdl. Dolan is telling us, then the archdiocese is under no obligation, for one cannot be compelled by contract to perform a grave evil.  Concern for the covered employees can be addressed by the archdiocese self-insuring, which any Catholic diocese in this country has the resources to do.

The cardinal's official response is lame.  In fact, it is shameful.  As a friend of mine points out,

According to Mr. Zwilling [Dolan's mouthpiece] the Archdiocese faced the "dilemma" of "choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs". They have chosen evidently to violate their sincere religious beliefs.

His unofficial response is not much better.  It amounts to this ...

We willingly compromised in the past.  We will be forced to compromise in the future!

Cardinal Dolan, we are with you in this fight.  If you take the lead and clean up your own backyard, we're with you all the way.  If you don't take the lead, or if you compromise because you're compromised, then we'll move forward without you.  But we'd rather not do that.

You are a good man, a good bishop, and a St. Louis Cardinals fan.

Don't let us down.


Tom Leith said...

Yep, lame.

I don't get why his Eminence waffles between arguing on liberal grounds "but the CONSTITUTION says..." and on moral grounds "this must not be done regardless of what the constitution (or the HHS Mandate) says". The whole Religious Liberty campaign with American flags and Bald Eagles reeks of this. Reeks.

Kevin O'Brien said...

45 years of silence and dissent on "Humanae Vitae", utter incompetence and criminal negligence regarding child abuse, and now the leader of the fight against HHS is compromised in his own back yard and has no effective response.

The good news: only one of the original 12 bishops stood by the cross - and he ran away first in fear before coming back.

So it's nothing new.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I honestly don't think it's this simple. The Catholic Church in the US is in a state of free-fall, and not for the reasons most Catholics think it is.

The plain fact of the matter is that most Catholics have no idea why they should oppose abortion, or forego birth control or any of the other prohibitions that Catholics are supposed to adhere to. Why? Because the Church has forgotten why it exists. Hint: It doesn't exist as a vehicle for pageantry and fancy lace vestments--Christ didn't have any of those and probably wouldn't have been caught dead in them anyway if he did. The Church doesn't exist as a hereditary family society either. It's not an "I'm OK, you're OK" society or conversely a guilt trip. And most of all it's not a top-flight law school or a football team.

Most Catholics could not possibly care less whether the USCCB caves in on birth control or not. In fact, they'd rather not hear about it, if you want to know the truth. Cardinal Dolan keeps hoping though because that's apparently what HE thinks the Church should be like. It's an echo chamber out there.

Anonymous said...

PS. At least the picture you have there doesn't have Cardinal Dolan, standing in front of the camera in ORANGE full-body vestments with lace cuffs. I know what it looks like to Catholics who are about 20% of the US population on Christmas day, but do you have any idea what it looks like to the other 80% of the population? Really?

Anonymous said...

And just in case you had any doubts about what's going to happen still lingering, here's an article citing the recent comments of a highly placed advisor to the USCCB.

Draw your own conclusions.

People in the pews don't really want to hear about birth control or ethics anyway, but don't shut down their schools 'n' stuff. God forbid.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Janet Smith, supporter of Lying and Christopher West, and now Cardinal Dolan's weakness, has lost all credibility in my eyes.

Anonymous said...

This sounds suspiciously like covering up to protect the reputation of the Church to me.

Which prompts the observation: Apparently we didn't learn anything from the last round.

bill bannon said...

Kevin O'Brien,
Lying in the Live Action case is supported by Jehu lying in 2 Kings 10 where Jehu, appointed by God to kill the House of Ahab, urges all Baal worshippers to their temple for a great sacrifice to Baal whereupon he slaughters them and shortly after is told by God, " The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well what I deem right, and have treated the house of Ahab as I desire, your sons to the fourth generation shall sit upon the throne of Israel."
Thus St. Jerome affirmed in this passage some deceptions. Aquinas' retort against Jerome made no sense:
"There is no need to excuse Jehu's dissimulation from sin or lie, because he was a wicked man, since he departed not from the idolatry of Jeroboam (2 Kings 10:29-31)"
Aquinas sounds like a combox quickie here because Jehu was a hero against Jezebel, trampled her, and was a prophet and king and God spoke to Jehu, blessed him as noted above and he did end the Baal
worship but failed to end the golden calf idolatry at Dan
and Bethel. The latter came after the whole slaughter and deception of the Baals for which God noted..." you have done well what I deemed right.
Aquinas conveniently also forgets Judith, another hero(ine) who deceived Holofernes and cut off his head.

Burt said...

What a surprise, A Catholic Archbishop caught out for being as complicit in behaviour he publicly condemns. Who would be surprised if he isn't another faggot like Scotland's Cardinal Keith O'Brian. What will Anti-Pope Francis will do? Nothing.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Bill Bannon, how did Jehu lie? He invited them to the temple to sacrifice. They came to sacrifice. After they came, and before they sacrificed, he killed them. Where's the lie?

Please, Bill, read my "sticky post" on this, where I answer as many objections as I can ...

And please read the link there that points to the HUNDREDS of Old Testament and New Testament verses that condemn lying and liars.

Anonymous said...

Prediction: This will mess up some RCIA candidates. It will roil the vocal Catholics on the internet. But most of the people in the pews won't give a damn, and the 80% who don't go to Church anyway won't care. They wouldn't protest birth control anyway.

bill bannon said...

Verses 17-19...2Kings10

When he arrived in Samaria, Jehu slew all who remained there of Ahab's line, doing away with them completely and thus fulfilling the prophecy which the LORD had spoken to Elijah.
Jehu gathered all the people together and said to them: "Ahab served Baal to some extent, but Jehu will serve him yet more.
Now summon for me all Baal's prophets, all his worshipers, and all his priests. See that no one is absent, for I have a great sacrifice for Baal. Whoever is absent shall not live." This Jehu did as a ruse, so that he might destroy the worshipers of Baal.
Jehu said he would serve Baal more than Ahab did.
Secondly Jehu said he had a great sacrifice in store for Baal. Thirdly Jehu said if anyone were absent, they would not live implying you would live if you were present. Fourth St. Jerome clearly saw these as the ruses the Bible tells you they were. Aquinas saw them as lies but disapproved.

Next we have Judith in the book of her name:
She prays to God and tells Him she will use lies:
9:13. " Let my guileful speech bring wound and wale on those who have planned dire things against your covenant, your holy temple, Mount Zion, and the homes your children have inherited."

Here she is doing so to Holofernes:

Judith to Holofernes:  " I will lead you through Judea, till you come to Jerusalem, and there I will set up your judgment seat. You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd, and not even a dog will growl at you. This was told me, and announced to me in advance, and I in turn have been sent to tell you."
Her words pleased Holofernes and all his servants; they marveled at her wisdom and exclaimed..."

PS...she killed him at the location they are the passage. She lied. Lastly the entire Magisterium has never forbade spy work or undercover work...impying...common sense or as Jerome said...some decption is needful.

Anonymous said...

Oh Bill give it up. We aren't fooled and I, for one, no longer give a crap about any of this. The laity is getting had and the sooner they realize it, the better off they'll be. Maybe someday they'll demand that Catholicism actually morphs back into a religion instead of a tribe. Until then, whatever.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Bill, why are all of your examples from the Old Testament? What if I were to argue that since Moses allowed divorce and remarriage, that divorce and remarriage was fine and dandy?

So, OK, you have demonstrated that Jehu and others lied. But how does that fit in with the HUNDREDS of Bible verses condemning lying? How does that fit in with Our Lord telling us that Satan is the Father of lies and if we lie we belong to him?

What if I were to say, since polygamy was rampant in the OT, polygamy is just fine. Many polygamists were praised and hailed as heroes and saints - Solomon, the Patriarchs, David.

I would grant, Bill, that if the liars you point to in the OT were the only examples given in the Deposit of Faith, then yes, lying would be a good thing. But please, Bill, read these verses and then come back and respond to them. I have responded to your two or three Old Testament examples. Please respond to these hundreds of verses from the OT and NT.

As to your point about the Magisterium. Does the Magisterium rule on every single possible human activity? Are we allowed to do everything not explicitly condemned by the Magisterium?

Your point is very strained, Bill, particularly if you don't take into account the Whole Story of Church Teaching on Lying -

Kevin O'Brien said...

So, Bill, please respond to the whole story on Lying from Scripture and to the overall case I am making in my Synopsis, both of which I included in the comment above as links.

OR if you'd rather not do that, then lie, my friend. Lie as much as you want whenever you want. And may your conscience give you rest.

Anonymous said...

Besides, if you actually knew anything about Scripture, you'd know what the 9th Commandment says:

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Exodus 20:16 NRSV-Catholic Edition.

Yes, it's even in the Catholic Edition, but you wouldn't know it the way Catholics act.

Tom Leith said...

> Maybe someday they'll demand that
> Catholicism actually morphs back
> into a religion instead of a tribe.

This is great -- I'll have to steal it.

The Latin Mass enthusiasts are halfway there -- they're a religion AND a tribe. Sounds kinda Jewish, now that I think about it -- a religion and a tribe. I wonder what it means. But there is a rich history there...

bill bannon said...

The ninth commandment is about not coveting thy neighbors wife.

Explain why nowhere does the Church condemn undercover and spy work. Divorce was permitted to the Jews because they did not have the sacrament of two baptised persons in Matrimony. Even the Church allows a second marriage if a Christian was formerly married to a non baptised person who divorced the Catholic partner. All Jews were in that boat...unbaptised.

God forbids lying but He wants you to notice that even Jesus in Mt.15 used a ruse when The Canaanite woman sought His help and He didn't answer her but said to the apostles: " I have come only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel.". But that was a ruse...Christ had already helped a Roman centurion earlier in Matthew chapter 8:5-7 without resistance:

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully."
     He said to him, "I will come and cure him."

Christ was using a ruse on the Canaanite woman because she was proud and He knew she needed an apparent "no". After she kneels and kibitzes with Him some more, Christ stops the ruse:

     And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, "Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon."
But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, "Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us."
 He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But the woman came and did him homage, saying, "Lord, help me."
He said in reply, "It is not right to take the food of the children 11 and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters." Then Jesus said to her in reply, "O woman, great is your faith! 12 Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed from that hour.


Long story short, we and the catechism suffer from using one word " lie" to cover ruses also of an adversary nature which are found in Solomon, Judith, Jehu, and Christ who had come primarily for the Jews....not ONLY for the Jews as Christ's ruse indicated. Christ also helped a Samaritan leper without putting up any fuss and fraternally corrected the Samaritan woman at the well without saying He only came for the Jews.

Bottom line: lies and ruses of an adversary are different and Jerome saw that and Aquinas and Augustine didn't.
Pope Francis gave his id papers to a guy so he could escape Argentina....Pope Pius XII got false papers for Jews to use. Lies are wrong....ruses of an adversary are not.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't talking about trads or libs or any other flavor of Catholicism. I was talking about the whole thing, which resembles a Martian cargo cult more than anything else at this point. Weird, and getting weirder by the day.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Bill Bannon, you didn't do anything I asked you to do. You did not comment on the HUNDREDS of Scripture verses condemning lying, nor did you respond to any point I made in my Synopsis on Lying post.

I have patiently responded to you, but you are ignoring me.

Beyond that, you are implying that Jesus lied.

I'll give you another chance. Engage the points I'm making, and deal with what Scripture says, or you're out of here. And if you say, in so many words, "Jesus lied" again, you're not only out of here, your very soul is in jeopardy.

bill bannon said...

The hundreds of Scriptures that forbid lying are correct but then when you see the passages I brought up, your job is to confront what is called an apparent not real contradiction....per Jerome, the man who translated the Bible who held that you cannot void one scripture with another which is what you are doing if you use the do not lie passages to void the concept of the ruse. I read the Bible cover to cover and remembered much. Antilogies abound. Christ says, " I and the Father are one" John 10:30. Christ also says, " The Father is greater than I" John 14:28. They seem to contradict each other but not really...the Father is greater only in the sense that Christ willingly took on human vulnerability while the Father stayed secure in Heaven.

adieu folks....Jerome is key in these matters.

Anonymous said...

Bill Bannon,

Twisting scripture to create an excuse for the fact that the head of the USCCB does exactly what he excoriates others for is pathetic.

It's like all the twisting of facts I've heard over the abuse scandals. Also pathetic.

IT is what it is.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Bill, the 10 commandments appear twice in Scripture, once in Exodus and once in Deuteronomy. I don't know what list you're using, but here they are are Deuteronomy. Count down the list.

Burt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Wow, that's the most extreme attempt to find someone else to blame that I've seen yet. We're really beating the bushes now, aren't we?

The fact of the matter is that the Church needs to come clean about what's secularly run & staffed by under the Church's auspices as an artifact of history, and what they really run and who staffs it. They also need to be open about who's paying for what and where the proceeds of the collection plate go. That's yet another scandal.