[Ransomed]

I tried to google it before, but of course all that comes up is the obamacare fiasco. I would really like to know how it is different in places that have socialized healthcare for years and years compared to the US and what the Church did or didn’t do about it in those places. It might give a clue as to what they will actually do here about it.

Freegards

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not sure --- and I hope others will chime in to make up for my deficiencies here --- but I think part of the difference here is the distinction between

• "remote mediate material cooperation" (indirectly paying for something by paying taxes),
• "proximate material cooperation" (directly paying fo something by paying into a fund establuished for that purpose), and
• "formal cooperation" (paying for something with deliberate intention, as a willing accomplice.)

The first, is almost always innocent. All taxpayers are paying for things they don't intend, and may even oppose. But you simply don't have the power to stop the government for funding the evil things they want to spend your money on.

The third, is always morally culpable. If you cooperate with intent to enable an evil thing to be done, you are an accessory and share in the guilt.

It's that second thing, "proximate material cooperaiton," that's iffy. Grant that a Catholic insitution does not INTEND that its employees alter themselves hormonally to impair their fertility, or spay themselves, or kill heir newly-begotten offspring. Can they provide funding into an insurance polcy that is clealry inended to facilitate these practices?

Abp. Raymund Burke, the head of the canonical equivalent of the SUpreme Court, recently stated that no, they cannot. The degree of cooperation is too direct: they would still be considered accomplices.

Long story short: in other countries with a fully-socialized, tax-funded, singke-payer system, you do not incur moral huilt for murder simply by paying your taxes.

But in a system like Obamacare, where you (the employer or the insurer) are paying into a fund that is not technically "taxes" but rather is a purchase of goods or services, you CANNOT purchase these goods or services (even by simply purchasing an insurance policy) without becoming an accomplice.

Yes, I think it's haisplitting, too. But I also think it's true. You know what the policy provides. When you buy into the polic, you buy into the moral responsibility.

I think it's a good thing that Obama has forced the Bishops into a corner where they don't even have a mousehole to escape into anymore.

Now they have no choice. Now they have their game face on. Now they'll fight.

Now that they're learning to flex heir muscles, they may even save their souls.

Thank you, Mr. Obama.