NY Archdiocese Health Plan Has Covered Birth Control, Abortion for Over a Decade

The Christian Post ^ | May 28, 2013|4:57 pm | Leonardo Blair

[haffast]

Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns
Catholic News Agency ^ | Feb 20, 2013 / 02:00 am | CNS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2990320/posts?page=1

USCCB President Says ‘Now Is the Time’ To Reform Immigration System (Dolan, Gomez)
April 22, 2013
http://usccb.org/news/2013/13-075.cfm

L.A. Archbishop Gomez urges lawmakers not to delay on immigration (4-24-13 Chavez mentioned)
L A Times ^ | April 24, 2013, 2:22 p.m | By Evan Halper
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3014757/posts

DC Cardinal McCarrick: Church Will Push for Immigration, Gun Safety
Newsmax ^ | Thursday, 28 Mar 2013 07:56 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3001669/posts

LA Archbishop Gomez keeps Mahony’s promise to push for immigration reform
Take Two ^ | March 27th, 2013, 7:35am | Charles Castaldi
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3001516/posts

[haffast]

“Before he was a devoted husband and father, or a U.S. Senator, or a presidential candidate of historic accomplishments, Barack Obama took a job working as a community organizer for a group of eight Catholic parishes in one of the nation’s largest cities. With funding from the U.S. Bishops and working for three years out of an office in a Catholic church rectory, he embarked on a campaign to empower the lives of thousands of people who were suffering through economic circumstances not unlike what has befallen our country today. “

http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/the_catholic_case_for_obama.php

Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control
By SHARON OTTERMAN
Published: May 26, 2013 - New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-reluctantly-paying-for-birth-control.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&;

[JCBreckenridge]

Yeah you’re ‘confused’.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,”151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”152 “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”153

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.”155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 “Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny.”161

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.

Now you can *stop* being confused.

[SamuraiScot]

So, your saying that the church had to compromise in order to exist?

In the mission territory that New York State has become, yes in a sense. But "compromise" is not quite the right word. As Christians, are we compromising our principles when we kill an intruder who is shooting at us? Most on FR would say that we're not. Our intent and our duty is to defend our life. Unfortunately, to neutralize the threat typically means neutralizing the criminal's life. We would agree—and the Church agrees—that this is moral, but it's still a serious action that would be a grave evil if we committed it under different circumstances for its own sake, say, as part of a "knock-out" game.

Another example would be exceeding a posted speed limit while driving your wife to the hospital when she is in labor.

Under what St. Thomas Aquinas calls the "Law of Double Effect," the negative, secondary effect has to be 1) not directly intended; and 2) heavily outweighed by the good being pursued. It's dealt with in the Summa Theologica II-II, Question 64, Article 7. In the view of the Archdiocese of New York, the good of tending the souls of 2.5 million Catholics from birth to death, plus the charitable good it could do for millions of non-Catholics, outweighed the evil of making insurance premium payments for plans the Church was legally forced to offer the laymen on their payroll. Notice that to a Catholic, 1) the good of saving souls is real; and also, 2) teaching employees not to use the illicit services offered under this plan, such as abortion, mitigates the unintended side effect of having such services included in the plan. You're making it less likely anyone will actually get an abortion covered in the plan.

But to a Marxist atheist, such as a typical reporter or Democrat (I repeat myself), 1) tending souls and feeding the poor is not a benefit unless it advances the Progressive project; and 2) it's hypocritical to reduce the possible side effect by preaching against abortion. This definition of "hypocrisy" is only applied to the enemies of Communism. Communists themselves believe in doing evils they actually intend and hope to accomplish, such as killing off their opponents, while falsely claiming to intend to make a better life for all—when their goal is just to seize power.

Intention matters, and yes, it can be sorted out from side-effects.

[ubipetrusest]

Here is the statement issued by the Archdiocese of New York, as posted at the Archdiocese’s site: “Joseph Zwilling, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of New York, released the following statement today, May 27, 2013.

“Today’s New York Times story, “Archdiocese Pays for Health Plan That Covers Birth Control,” incorrectly equates the health care benefits of the members of Union 1199 – including those 1199 employees at Catholic facilities – with the Health and Human Services mandate that improperly attempts to define the Church’s religious ministry and could force religious employers to violate their conscience. The Constitution and other provisions of federal law prohibit the government from imposing the mandate on the Archdiocese. A labor union is not subject to the same constraints as the federal government in this regard, and so the fact that 1199 requires these benefits as part of its plan does not excuse the government’s violation of the Archdiocese’s federal rights.
What the 1199 health plan and the HHS mandate share is that the Archdiocese has objected to the dilemma of choosing between providing health care to employees or violating its sincere religious beliefs in both instances. ArchCare did not exist at the time the contract with 1199 was finalized. When ArchCare was formed, it inherited this situation and objected to these services being included in the 1199 health plan. However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York. Similarly, the Archdiocese has attempted to negotiate with the Administration, advocated for a change in legislation in the Congress, and filed a lawsuit last May objecting to the HHS mandate. In all cases where the health insurance benefit plan is under the control of the Archdiocese, including for all non-union ArchCare employees, contraceptive care services are not provided.” (www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/?i=29417)

This specious reply neglects to point out that these “contraceptive” services include aabortion.The NY Times article states that “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.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-reluctantly-paying-for-birth-control.html?_r=0)

What a lesson in hypocrisy. How shameful that a successor of the apostles—Cardinal Dolan—puts social welfare before the sanctity of life as he proudly wears his “seamless garment” and acts as an enabler and apologist for the Democratic Party and other pro-abortion groups; for more details, see http://dorothydayworker.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-faith-takes-licking-his-eminence.html.