Three months after the US Supreme Court gave a temporary victory to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, and other plaintiffs who objected to the HHS mandate, the Diocese of Pittsburgh contended that the Obama administration is trying to force its insurance providers to cover contraception.
I am sorry to say I am not surprised. With the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on many of these issues, the administration thinks it can get away with anything. We saw the same thing with various courts ruling against voter ID laws that were OK previously because the judges know they will not be overturned until after the election, if ever. Some government agencies continued to rule against churche sponsored schools even after the 9-0 Hosanna Tabor decision.
The diocese has no one to blame for this evil but the Bishops that supported this bill, and the as well as folks like the parishioners and posters on this website who supported this and many other things antithetical to our faith.
The fault is theirs. Why are they now surprised? The fact is, many appear not to care whether or not the Little Sisters get destroyed in the court system.
Why do nuns and clergy have to pay for contraception? Western Catholic contraception are chaste, anyhow…
I agree that many bishops and Catholic institutions were wrong to support the ACA, on subsidiarity grounds, but the contraception mandate was not part of the law. That came about through a regulation of HHS that was allowed under the law. The bishops were flat out lied to by the Obama administration at the highest levels to get that support. If we have to assign blame, the liars have greater responsibility than those who believed the liars.
Perhaps it is the jaded part of me, but I have little sympathy for anyone who felt betrayed by the Destroyers of Hope. Did they honestly expect anything but contempt for their beliefs and deceit at all turns?
It reminds me of the fable about the frog and the scorpion. At least the frog has the excuse of having the brain of a frog.
*A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion
says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”
Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."*
I need help in understanding this. If it is the providers that are paying for contraception and not the employers I don’t know how/where the employers have been wronged.
Is it the case that the clergy is paying for contraception? The article says it is the providers that are paying for it.
Well, in this case, they won. But they had to be covered, which meant a larger insurance policy of some sort for the organizations of nuns (if I’m understanding this correctly).
If the cost of covering those that want birth control coverage were distributed over the fees of those policies that include birth control would that still result in a conflict?
In other words, lets say organization A didn’t want birth control coverage but organizations B, C, D, E, and F were paying for birth control coverage. If the insurance company figured the cost of covering those in A and calculated that into the fees being paid be B-F would that be an acceptable resolution?
I’m not sure whether that would result in a conflict necessarily. These are actual organizations, not random principles interacting (though that is part of it). :shrug:
Other versions of this are “the lady and the snake …” and the song “The Snake” by Al Wilson. youtube.com/watch?v=Xd82HxYyHZg < with lyrics. Same story about gullibility, casting one’s pearls before swine … etc.
With regards to this story I recall another fable, equally pertinent to this situation:
The Leopard’s Revenge.
youtube.com/watch?v=gvHS8QmZJVE < told here in less than 2 minutes.
The Leopard’s Revenge
A leopard was watching his cubs playing …
“Be sure you stay here by my side. Don’t wander away, it is dangerous out there in the open.”
They did … for a while, but then one lively cub forgot his father’s warning entirely, and ran out to explore the strange country by himself.
Along came a herd of elephants, moving slowly and silently through the countryside, and one of them inadvertantly stepped on the leopard cub and killed him, and passed on without even knowing what he had done.
A jackal saw the accident, and ran to tell the leopard the sad news.
“Wake up, wake up, your son is dead.” He led the father to his son’s body.
The leopard cried out in grief and anger:
“Who killed my son? He will suffer for it! I will have his skin! Revenge! I will drink his blood! Tell ne, who did this?”
“It was the elephants. Your son was playing in the undergrowth, and the elephants passed by and trampled him without noticing what they had done.”
The leopard was silent for a long time. Then he jumped up and cried out,
"The elephants! The elephants? Nonsense! Why would the elephants kill my son? You are mistaken! It was not the elephants – I see it now, it was the **goats. **
The wicked goats have killed my son, and I will have my revenge on the whole tribe of them!"
And the grieving father called together all his family, and they went went down to the meadows and fell upon the goats,
and killed the whole herd of them, crying, “Revenge! Revenge!”
It is easier to gain a satisfying “victory” over a weaker opponent (than say, hard to catch terrorists, terrorist sponsoring countries backed up by bigger countries (I’m thinking Syria here), and such). So, like the “scapegoats” in the story, the driven Leopard targets “enemies” that are unsuspecting, trusting (or gullible or imprudent per defense) or that tend more toward turning the other cheek than fighting, or are maybe as totally helpless as an innocent obscure video maker … or unborn children.
The cited motivation is often “Justice” instead of the “Revenge” of the fable. But **injustice ** is what gets foully put forth as virtue in the end. IMO.
While this is arguably an accurate statement, for it to be accurate it has to be made clear that a temporary victory was also given to the government. Because the Court was likely split 4-4 they didn’t want to actually decide the case which would have resulted in a decision that set no precedent and created a circuit split in enforcement. They basically worked out a way to send it back to lower courts for more litigation. The Little Sisters’ temporary victory was the Court concluding that there could be a different procedure for opting out of providing the coverage, but it was made clear that whatever solution is reached employees covered under the organizations’ plans should receive contraception coverage under their basic employer health insurance, not some separate plan.
In many cases the dioceses are self-insured or part of a co-op of other Catholic organizations. So they ARE paying for it.
Further, the Little Sisters case was about requiring an explicit authorization to fund contraception by the religious group. It doesn’t just “happen” that the provider pays. This is viewed as material cooperation, which is barred in Catholic teaching.
This is just one of the examples of why the appointment of Supreme Court justices SHOULD be important to Catholic voters in the upcoming election. But, alas, few think beyond party when they vote.
And isn’t that sad?
Remote material cooperation is not always barred.
The argument is that this isn’t remote. But for now the Little Sisters authorization, the mandate would be implemented. It takes a conscious, intentional act on their part to trigger coverage for contraception.