From the NY Times: As the nation’s leading Roman Catholic bishop, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York has been spearheading the fight against a provision of the new health care law that requires employers, including some that are religiously affiliated, to cover birth control in employee health plans.
But even as Cardinal Dolan insists that requiring some religiously affiliated employers to pay for contraception services would be an unprecedented, and intolerable, government intrusion on religious liberty, the archdiocese he heads has quietly been paying for such coverage, albeit reluctantly and indirectly, for thousands of its unionized employees for over a decade.
The Archdiocese of New York has previously acknowledged that some local Catholic institutions offer health insurance plans that include contraceptive drugs to comply with state law; now, it is also acknowledging that the archdiocese’s own money is used to pay for a union health plan that covers contraception and even abortion for workers at its affiliated nursing homes and clinics.
Now, more than ever, we need to call to mind the words of [Archbishop Charles Chaput]("http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2766094/posts"):
[INDENT][INDENT] We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times**, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they *can’t *provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.
[/INDENT] Things of the Church reported in the secular media need to be viewed with the most jaundiced eye.
With that jaundiced eye, I recognize that there may be more to this story. The *Times *quotes His Eminence’s spokesperson, Mr. Zwilling, stating that the coverage is made “under protest.” I don’t know what kind of “protest” would cover paying for abortions.
In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II stated:
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”
There is no “protest” that can have any liceity here…outside of the “protest” of ceasing to fund abortions or abortifacients. Period. None. There is no work of “social justice”, no work of “catechesis”, nothing that can be so blasted important as to allow direct participation (and…ethically…direct material cooperation) in such an evil.
In other words, the Archdiocese goes to SEIU and says “this stops today. If this doesn’t stop today, we are closing up shop and you will all be out of jobs.”
Having said that…it is likely that the Times either got it wrong (intentionally) or that there is a WHOLE lot more to the story than was reported. We are talking about the Times here.