Nuns Urge Passage Of Health Care Bill

[BG45]

[url="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_Ug4ob_BnBCfuvKzjuWhiHTk8ZQD9EGE7JO0"]Catholic Nuns urge passage of health care bill[/url]

[quote]By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — Catholic nuns are urging Congress to pass President Barack Obama's health care plan, in an unusual public break with bishops who say it would subsidize abortion.

Some 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns Wednesday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. It contains restrictions on abortion funding that the bishops say don't go far enough.

The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."[/quote]

Just a wee bit disobedient to the Bishops there...

Edited March 17, 2010 by BG45

[Apotheoun]

No doubt this type of disobedience is one of the reasons for the Apostolic Visitation.

[laetitia crucis]

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 March 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1268840579' post='2074568']
No doubt this type of disobedience is one of the reasons for the Apostolic Visitation.
[/quote]


What?!? Catholic nuns openly disagreeing with a USCCB prudential political call????!????

(The USCCB, a governing body which has no ecclesiastical authority, btw)

the horror the horror the horror

this clearly ranks right up there with allegations of pagan worship and female ordination

Visit Them IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

[BG45]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1268841075' post='2074573']
What?!? Catholic nuns openly disagreeing with a USCCB prudential political call????!????

(The USCCB, a governing body which has no ecclesiastical authority, btw)

the horror the horror the horror

this clearly ranks right up there with allegations of pagan worship and female ordination

Visit Them IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
[/quote]

I hope Todd corrects me if I'm wrong, but what I think he is getting at is that while the USCCB has no formal ecclesiastical authority as an entity, the individual Bishops do. These individual Bishops who are over these religious orders, and it's less about the disagreement of a political call, and the fact that the heads of these orders are supporting the intrinsic evil that is abortion by supporting a bill which does allow for publicly funded abortions (depending on who is analyzing it this week). That's just what I got out of his statement.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='BG45' date='17 March 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1268841500' post='2074581']
I hope Todd corrects me if I'm wrong, but what I think he is getting at is that while the USCCB has no formal ecclesiastical authority as an entity, the individual Bishops do. These individual Bishops who are over these religious orders, and it's less about the disagreement of a political call, and the fact that the heads of these orders are supporting the intrinsic evil that is abortion by supporting a bill which does [b]allow for publicly funded abortions (depending on who is analyzing it this week)[/b]. That's just what I got out of his statement.
[/quote]


Yeah, what you said, in bold.

I happen to agree with the USCCB.

And obviously you have to resist the bill if you think its going to finance abortion.

But that is a prudential judgment call, is it not.

I have known individual Bishops to support certain expansions of the welfare state

And I voted "no" anyway, because in my prudential judgment the feds blow chunks at helping the poor

What the USCCB or an individual Bishop has to say about politics matters a lot

But it is not an act of disobedience to disagree.

becuz we are Catholics

and full of Independent Thoughts

[Winchester]

Using the word 'thought' in reference to support of the health care bill isn't appropriate.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1268842849' post='2074597']
Yeah, what you said, in bold.

I happen to agree with the USCCB.

And obviously you have to resist the bill if you think its going to finance abortion.

But that is a prudential judgment call, is it not.

I have known individual Bishops to support certain expansions of the welfare state

And I voted "no" anyway, because in my prudential judgment the feds blow chunks at helping the poor

What the USCCB or an individual Bishop has to say about politics matters a lot

But it is not an act of disobedience to disagree.

becuz we are Catholics

and full of Independent Thoughts
[/quote]
Isn't it, however, an act in line with the pro-abortion agenda, to support this bill? Is it even really about the bishops? Seems to me that it's about the principles behind this, which are being tacitly supported by the nuns in question.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='17 March 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1268844180' post='2074608']
Isn't it, however, an act in line with the pro-abortion agenda, to support this bill?
[/quote]


Like BG said. It depends on who is interpreting the bill [i]this[/i] week.

I think a lot of bishops have no clue how to determine what legislation means.

A lot of law-making is just mopping up the unintended consequences of legislation

Or its taking a second stab at fixing something the previous legislation intended to fix, but didn't

All because the professionals (i use the term loosely) couldn't figure out the link between cause and effect

obviously you have to oppose the bill if it funds abortion

but some people say it will and others say it will not

deciding what the consequences of it will be ... that's something professional lawmakers themselves can only make a best guess on ...

the bishop's best guess is an important one ... but not the only one "allowed"

[Winchester]

If you fund a group that performs abortions, it's merely a form of money laundering. We already fund abortions indirectly.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Winchester' date='17 March 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1268845227' post='2074617']
If you fund a group that performs abortions, it's merely a form of money laundering. We already fund abortions indirectly.
[/quote]


Yes. Like when Susan G. Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood. It is only for breast cancer screening ... but every $1 less that Planned Parenthood has to spend on breast cancer screening, they can use to promote their (far more lucrative) abortion services

[Apotheoun]

Catholics are free to disagree with the bishops when they support the expansion of the welfare state, I certainly disagree with them on that issue (especially in connection with a federal take over of health care), but a Catholic cannot disagree with the bishops when they put forward a proposition - in this particular case opposition to the expansion of coverage for abortion by the federal government - that is in line with Catholic moral doctrine.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 March 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1268850236' post='2074673']
Catholics are free to disagree with the bishops when they support the expansion of the welfare state, I certainly disagree with them on that issue (especially in connection with a federal take over of health care), [b]but a Catholic cannot disagree with the bishops when they put forward a proposition - in this particular case opposition to the expansion of coverage for abortion by the federal government - that is in line of Catholic moral doctrine.[/b]
[/quote]

agree with the bolded part.

but...

the question is about whether the proposed health reform will do that -- expand coverage for abortion by the federal government

some people say yes, others say no

the people who make laws rarely understand all the consequences of what they do

apparently its a grey area

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='BG45' date='17 March 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1268841500' post='2074581']
I hope Todd corrects me if I'm wrong, but what I think he is getting at is that while the USCCB has no formal ecclesiastical authority as an entity, the individual Bishops do. These individual Bishops who are over these religious orders, and it's less about the disagreement of a political call, and the fact that the heads of these orders are supporting the intrinsic evil that is abortion by supporting a bill which does allow for publicly funded abortions (depending on who is analyzing it this week). That's just what I got out of his statement.
[/quote]
Yes, except that I would say that the opposition of the bishops acting conjointly in the USCCB is an exercise of formal ecclesiastical authority (albeit limited), and on a moral question like this - i.e., where increased support for abortion is likely the end result - the faithful should respect the decision of the bishops and work with them to hinder the expansion of abortion services.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1268850850' post='2074682']
agree with the bolded part.

but...

the question is about whether the proposed health reform will do that -- expand coverage for abortion by the federal government

some people say yes, others say no

the people who make laws rarely understand all the consequences of what they do

apparently its a grey area
[/quote]
If the legislation is that imprecise, then the moral thing to do is to work against it, since the outcome is morally uncertain.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

I find it extremely likely that there is support for abortions snuck in there somewhere. Since it is (in my opinion) very likely given the political climate, and very dangerous, the morally safer route should be opposition.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 March 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1268840579' post='2074568']
No doubt this type of disobedience is one of the reasons for the Apostolic Visitation.
[/quote]
Indeed. I'm thinking, "no wonder the visitation isn't going well in their eyes."

You know, the very thought of standing up and saying, "we're smarter than the bishops, ignore them and listen to us," is so foul and maliciously anti-Christian to me that I can't believe they'd do it. I mean, this is not at all what God had in mind for nuns.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 March 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1268851065' post='2074687']
If the legislation is that imprecise, then the moral thing to do is to work against it, since the outcome is morally uncertain.
[/quote]


Okay. If I think its imprecise, I should work against it.

But I don't think its imprecise. I think it will expand funding of abortion (so I'm against it.)

And then there are other people who don't think its imprecise. They think no way will it expand funding of abortion. So its okay for them to be for it?

Voting for a bill I think will expand abortion funding, that's anti-life
Voting for a bill I think will not expand abortion funding, and will do other things I consider good ... thats ... what?

Disagreeing with a bishops committee about what the consequences of legislative language will be is .... ? wanton disobedience? what?

These Sisters think the bill is the "pro-life" option. Well, I don't think it is. Does that mean I'm anti-life according to them?

What makes me uncomfortable is the syncretism of mixing religion and politics.

FYI Sisters, Bishops etc: Jesus is not a politician. Remember that next time one of youse decides to throw pigs blood on a missile silo.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1268852007' post='2074699']
Okay. If I think its imprecise, I should work against it.

But I don't think its imprecise. I think it will expand funding of abortion (so I'm against it.)

And then there are other people who don't think its imprecise. They think no way will it expand funding of abortion. So its okay for them to be for it?

Voting for a bill I think will expand abortion funding, that's anti-life
Voting for a bill I think will not expand abortion funding, and will do other things I consider good ... thats ... what?

Disagreeing with a bishops committee about what the consequences of legislative language will be is .... ? wanton disobedience? what?

These Sisters think the bill is the "pro-life" option. Well, I don't think it is. Does that mean I'm anti-life according to them?

What makes me uncomfortable is the syncretism of mixing religion and politics.

FYI Sisters, Bishops etc: Jesus is not a politician. Remember that next time one of youse decides to throw pigs blood on a missile silo.
[/quote]
You have convinced me . . . I now support the bill.

I know that you personally are opposed to it, because [i]you think[/i] it will increase abortion coverage, but that is just what [i]you think[/i] and you admit that there is no objective basis to [i]your thoughts[/i] on this issue; therefore I agree with the nuns, [i]who think[/i] it is pro-life, even though there is no objective basis for [i]their thought[/i]s on this issue. If I must choose between the nuns and Lilllabettt . . . I will go with the nuns, because they outnumber her by many thousands.

Ah, relativism certainly makes a person feel free and powerful.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='17 March 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1268852007' post='2074699']
Okay. If I think its imprecise, I should work against it.

But I don't think its imprecise. I think it will expand funding of abortion (so I'm against it.)

And then there are other people who don't think its imprecise. They think no way will it expand funding of abortion. So its okay for them to be for it?

Voting for a bill I think will expand abortion funding, that's anti-life
Voting for a bill I think will not expand abortion funding, and will do other things I consider good ... thats ... what?

[/quote]
What we're looking for is the morally safer option, IMO.

This relates to what I've read about Æquiprobabilism and St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

[quote]Æquiprobabilism holds that it is not lawful to follow the less safe opinion when the safe opinion is certainly more probable; that it is not lawful to act on the less safe opinion even when it is equally probable with the safe opinion, if the uncertainty regards the cessation of a law; but that if the existence of the law is in question, it is lawful to follow the less safe opinion if it has equal or nearly equal probability with the safe opinion.[/quote]

Less safe: support a bill which may contain pro abortion provisions.
Safer: oppose a bill which may contain pro abortion provisions.

Which is more probable?
Who is in the White House? Congress? The Senate? What was one of the first things Obama did while in office?
Basically, to find probability, you need to look at the political climate. In my opinion the political climate is pushing hard to get clandestine support for abortion in any way possible.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Nihil Obstat