tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post8360322571945571415..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: Not Really, Really WrongAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-41355651672220956662012-02-18T09:54:59.248-05:002012-02-18T09:54:59.248-05:00I wonder if the discomfort over same-sex marriage ...I wonder if the discomfort over same-sex marriage has to do with how thoroughly we've disconnected sex and fertility over the last 50 years. Many of us knew that Catholics felt this was a dangerous and unacceptable decoupling, but we were sure they were over-reacting. Now we find ourselves unable to articulate what's so wrong with loving, stable homosexual unions that doesn't also indict our many forms of childless heterosexual practice.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-91558693052659593682012-02-18T06:51:52.335-05:002012-02-18T06:51:52.335-05:00I don't know the specifics of if and when Cath...I don't know the specifics of if and when Catholic leadership had talks with the Obama administration about nationalized health care and birth control. I would be surprised if they did in any specific way.<br /><br />My intuitive guess would not be that Catholics begged to be lied to, but that they didn't foresee this particular incarnation of health care coming down the pike. They probably assumed that whatever the Obama administration came up with would be a government-based, universal health care system, in which case whether the government covered birth control as a matter of course would be largely out of their hands and not require any sort of action or statement on their part.<br /><br />However, that's not what happened. Instead the Obama administration came up with its current plan which gives everyone the worst of both worlds and still requires individuals and corporations to purchase health care from insurance companies. Companies go into very long, detailed negotiations with insurance companies to choose the benefits packages that they offer to employees, and they have the ability to exert some influence on what insurance companies offer, though that influence is extremely limited.<br /><br />Because this new health plan still requires some choice and input by companies/corporations choosing their health insurance, it leaves the Catholic Church the impression that it still has a stake in the game and a responsibility to be anti-birth control in whatever capacity it can until the whole responsibility for health insurance coverage is no longer under their purview.<br /><br />I don't think the Catholic Church would have said anything about birth control if Obama had passed nationalized health care.terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40002189089420775282012-02-17T22:30:29.406-05:002012-02-17T22:30:29.406-05:00Excellent, excellent article. It goes in somewhat...Excellent, excellent article. It goes in somewhat different directions than my little thought, but does indeed capture some of the contrast.<br /><br />CS Lewis spoke about this contrast - mostly as a positive, but I have always thought the reservations he expressed he himself underplayed.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-43084451894038981992012-02-17T19:38:27.597-05:002012-02-17T19:38:27.597-05:00"What good is it?" Did you read Carl Tr..."What good is it?" Did you read <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/articles/reflections-on-rome-part-1-connecting-the-mind-and-the-tongue.php" rel="nofollow">Carl Trueman?</a> Sometimes there seems to be a major disconnect between the pews and altar. Not just in Catholicism.jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01792036361407527304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-54469007570974609362012-02-17T17:43:01.698-05:002012-02-17T17:43:01.698-05:00I agree with the odd divide of Catholic hospitals....I agree with the odd divide of Catholic hospitals. I will note that the Church doesn't seem to be putting in any effort to protect conscience for Catholic dentists, or contractors, or anyone else who employs others and provides insurance for them.<br /><br />I also note that everyone saw this coming and pretended it wasn't there. The Catholic bishops wanted to be closer to universal health care, which they believed was a moral right, and so went along with the Obama administration, saying repeatedly "but you won't make us touch this, right?" The administration knew years ago that Catholics would object to this but went ahead anyway.<br /><br />And BTW, contrary to their statements, have offered no compromise after all. The bill went forward today, unamended, with only vague promises that it would be looked at in the future.<br /><br />I would like to be sympathetic to the Catholics that they have been lied to and snookered. But they begged to be lied to - every step of the way in the run-up to the vote, they were repeatedly thrown under the bus. It didn't stop them, so Obama had every right to believe that they didn't really mean it and it was all for show. In the absence of any real moral stand by them, he took his own, asserting that the women's issue was the more important morality - rather predictably for a liberal.<br /><br />Wind. Whirlwind. I'll bet they still fall for it next time, though. The simple belief "well, but they want to give things to people who don't have them so they must be nice, well-meaning, and honest people" seems to trump all sophisticated theology.<br /><br />One of the things I have liked about Catholics is that they often do have sophisticated moral theology, rather than bromides. But if those are all just for show, and they fall for politicians' lies (left and right) throughout history, what good is it?Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-25287210627858642432012-02-17T11:49:07.922-05:002012-02-17T11:49:07.922-05:00I'm not sure there is any way out of the conun...I'm not sure there is any way out of the conundrum. <br /><br />Eventually we have to make choices to either do something, or do nothing, and those choices will have consequences. I think most well-meaning people try to figure out which choice they perceive will have the least negative consequences for the majority and then go with that choice.<br /><br />I have gone back and forth on this whole birth control issue. On the one hand, no religious person should be forced to actively do something that is a violation of their conscience. <br /><br />On the other hand, the Catholic Church operates many entities that could very easily be considered businesses. I'm thinking of two very large, Catholic-affiliated hospitals in my area that employ thousands of people. Does that mean that all of the people working there have health insurance policies that don't cover contraception, which would also include contraceptive procedures like vasectomies and tubal ligations, from doctors all the way down to the custodians?<br /><br />Although, I do remember knowing a few years back that many health insurance companies, as a matter of practice, weren't covering birth control....and this was seen as a women's issue that needed correcting.<br /><br />The Catholic Church has the upper hand in claiming a conscience-based exemption.<br /><br />The government had a point in viewing these large entities as operating mostly as businesses.<br /><br />At what point does a church/charity become a business? I don't know. Could the Catholic Church make a choice to only hire Catholics at its hospitals? No.<br /><br />Could it make the choice to only hire Catholics for its Catholic Schools? I think so.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Is there a difference in requiring a hospital to provide coverage for its employees , rather than an actual church/seminary/ministry to provide coverage for its employees.<br /><br />I think the Obama administration was right to rescind the requirement, but I don't think the general thrust was completely off-base.<br /><br />That's the danger in trying to pass any universal, national standard. Somebody is not going to be happy.terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-44556705642875282282012-02-16T23:04:23.701-05:002012-02-16T23:04:23.701-05:00I could be wrong --- but I'm not.I could be wrong --- but I'm not.Dubbahdeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00075702513873912334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-84686663827870522432012-02-16T22:21:25.361-05:002012-02-16T22:21:25.361-05:00I have avoided discussions of same-sex marriage.
...I have avoided discussions of same-sex marriage.<br /><br />Mainly because there doesn't seem to be a place to hash out the assumptions that drive the different conclusions.<br /><br />It's two different visions of how people derive their sense of identity from their sexual life, and how that life interacts with the broader tribe. <br /><br />A fair bit of blame can be placed on religion, but I think the real culprits are biology and cultural tradition. <br /><br />After all, while marriage has not always been one-man-and-one-woman, most non-Judaic cultures had marriage as male-and-female. Even the randy Greeks, who had poets praising the love of men for boys, had a legal and cultural framework around heterosexual marriage.<br /><br />Anyway, on the broader concept of tribal thinking...I can't escape the fact that it explains most of the nuttiness of consevatives vs. liberals. Or global-warming-skeptics vs. climate-change-catastrophists.<br /><br />Or even Protestant-vs-Catholic.<br /><br />It's a powerful concept; but it is also a humbling concept.karrdehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00205160745963596856noreply@blogger.com