Tax Free, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
May 26, 2012 Martha Thomases 2 Comments
Because I have an old-lady’s tendency to fall asleep with the television on, I awoke one morning this week to the unpleasant sound of Cardinal Dolan. He was on CBS This Morning to talk about this lawsuit, in which the Catholic Church is objecting to providing comprehensive health insurance to its female employees. You can watch the interview here.
The Catholic Church has a lot of money, and they are entitled to spend it however they wish. However, when they use their money to lobby on the political stage, they deserve to be questioned. And they deserve to be treated the same way as other organizations that lobby.
Organizations that lobby are exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech. I’m in favor of free speech (including the right to disagree with these organizations). However, according to our laws, these organizations are not entitled to tax-exempt status.
For example, the American Civil Liberties Union, which fights for the aforementioned First Amendment, is not tax-exempt. Neither is my beloved War Resisters League. Both groups have programs that qualify for tax-exempt status, but a donation has to be given in certain very specific ways to satisfy one’s accountant that the IRS will allow it.
The Catholic Church should have to play by the same rules. If it expects to get a religious exemption from federal, state and local taxes, it should get out of the political sandbox. And it should take its pail and bucket when it goes.
Similarly, if the Catholic Church finds the issues so important that it must lobby, then pay taxes (just like the ACLU and WRL).
It’s possible that the Catholic Church is having some cash-flow problems at the moment, what with various scandals hitting the courts. There’s trouble in Pennsylvania and California and Colorado, for example. And in Italy, there’s this problem. which should be the plot of a Francis Ford Coppola movie.
So maybe money is tight, but that’s no excuse. Fire your lobbyists. Don’t try to have it both ways and declare it to be “religious freedom.”
—
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, actually finds herself somewhat more religious than most of her friends. However, that religion is Reform Judaism, which doesn’t require a belief in a God, and certainly not a God who would endorse this.
Mike Gold
May 26, 2012 - 9:31 am
But the Catholic Church doesn’t see itself as engaging in political activities. They’re sticking to their righteous character, saving the heathens from the wrath of a megalomaniacal überführer with severe control issues.
They should start with their own agents and followers. While their agents are either playing hide the sausage or hide the sausage-hiders, their followers are taking birth control, fucking like bunnies on crack, cheating on their spouses, screwing dogs and cats, and voting for the occasional Democrat. They should consider cleaning their own house before they tell us how to clean ours — but, of course, they think their house is sparkling clean and anybody who disagrees with them is anti-Catholic. I’m sick of that shit. The next time some priest buggers a child, his father or mother should come after the fucker with a gun. And then hold a press conference while the gun is still smoking.
Mike Gold
May 26, 2012 - 9:35 am
Oh, and as for the Providence Road Baptist Church… there is no finer example of that good, old-time Christian love for humanity. “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” What utter bullshit. This damnable shithead isn’t about loving anybody but his fat ego and the worship of his evil, disgusting hate-driven followers.
Mike Gold
May 26, 2012 - 9:35 am
And have a nice day.
Carol
May 26, 2012 - 10:11 am
You make a really good point here.
johanna Hall
May 26, 2012 - 10:31 am
Right on Martha!
Thanks for another morning wake-up call. You always make so much sense. Rachel Maddow should hire you!
Mike Gold
May 26, 2012 - 7:01 pm
You’re right, Johanna — Rachel would have somebody to talk comic books with. Not a lot of Green Lantern fans among the policy wanks.
Rene
May 27, 2012 - 8:12 am
I just gotta say, I love the cartoon illustrating the article.
It’s such a perfect depiction of how the religious often confuse religious freedom with “the right to persecute.”
George Haberberger
May 30, 2012 - 10:33 am
Well first of all, the cartoon’s point is the about various religious denominations’, (and the Catholic Church is hardly alone in that regard), objection to gay marriage. That’s not what the suit that Cardinal Dolan was talking about concerns.
Likewise, the clergy abuse scandal has nothing to do with the suit. It is a terrible thing obviously, but child abuse among the clergy is commensurate with that of the general population, (about 4%). Nevertheless, it has become the go-to argument against the moral authority of the Church for every other subject. I can’t blame critics for using it. But that 4% is low-hanging fruit.
Finally, Martha believes that churches that lobby should lose their tax-exempt status. The first amendment protects churches from the state, not the state from churches. Churches, by their very existence, lobby their congregants to certain kinds of behavior and lifestyles. If that behavior and lifestyle runs in opposition to stated government policy… well, see the First Amendment. The Catholic Church is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) permits public charities to lobby as long as they do not devote a “substantial part” of their activities to attempting to influence legislation. Besides that, this suit is a civil court action. It is not lobbying.
The Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion dates back to the 3rd century. It’s opposition to various types of contraception, whether that be prophylactics, an IUD or the Pill, has been well known ever since each of those methods appeared. To force Catholic institutions to provide or pay for those services is nothing less than a violation of church and state.
Martha Thomases
May 30, 2012 - 12:46 pm
The scandal of the Catholic Church is not only the child-raping priests — it’s the systematic cover-up of the child-raping priests, and the insistence that the Church is above the law when it comes to hiding them.
Also, the Church is not paying for abortion or contraceptives. They are paying for health care as party of each employee’s compensation package. It is up to the employee how she chooses (with her doctor) to tend to her health. For most women,this includes birth control. In the same way, Beth Israel Hospital (where my husband was briefly a patient) can follow kashrut when running their kitchens, but cannot forbid their employees to buy shrimp.
I know what a 501(c)3 is. I sit on the Board of Directors of one. If the Church wants to accept money from the federal government for running schools and hospitals, it should abide by the federal laws. And if they don’t want to abide by the laws, they shouldn’t take the money back. Principles work both ways.
Mike Gold
May 30, 2012 - 12:54 pm
Well, let’s score one for consistency, George.
You note the Catholic Church — as opposed to the Catholic people — is hardly alone in its opposition to homosexual rights. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. If you’re referring to non-Catholic gay-haters individually, sure. If you’re referring to American religious organizations who claim to speak for all those of their faith, no, that’s not true.
Sure you’ll find some conclaves of religious gay-haters hither and yon, but you’d have a hard time finding another monolithic religious organization taking such a militant stand. Is there one Baptist organization that claims so vociferously to speak for all Baptists? Methodists? Moslems? Jews? Buddhists? Sure there’s a bunch of hardcore ultra-orthodox rabbis who get all bent out of shape over gay rights, but there’s hardly enough of them in any one place to constitute a minion; overall, American Jewry is pretty positive on the gay rights issue.
If the various Protestant organizations felt the same way as the gay-hating litigious Catholic cardinals who are so bent on shoving their beliefs down everybody else’s throats (having been woefully inept at being able to do so to their own flock), then this wouldn’t be an issue at all and we’d still have the death penalty for homosexual behavior like it says in their bible.
I’d be hard pressed to say that the Catholic Church doesn’t devote a substantial part of their activities, good and bad, to the political process. If this is not the case, then the Catholic church should stop bragging about it under the defensive posture of all the “good” they accomplish. I’ve had many a priest sitting next to me at politically-oriented action meetings protecting Head Start, changing our drug enforcement laws, expanding our freedom of expression laws, opposing the Viet Nam and/or Iraqi wars, changing laws governing VA hospitals, expanding opportunities for prisoners to reintegrate into society, and so on.
Jeez, folks. Let’s all mind our own damn business and live and let live. And unite as Americans and beat up those fucking Arabs!!!
George Haberberger
May 30, 2012 - 2:04 pm
” In the same way, Beth Israel Hospital,,, can follow kashrut when running their kitchens, but cannot forbid their employees to buy shrimp.”
“CAN follow kashrut.” But they certainly cannot be obligated by the government to offer shrimp.
Martha Thomses
May 30, 2012 - 2:36 pm
Neither can Beth Israel prevent patients from bringing in their own food (unless for medical reasons). And they can’t stop employees from eating at the Sugway across the street. Or the no -kosher Starbucks in the lobby.
Catholics want special rights.
George Haberberger
May 30, 2012 - 2:50 pm
The only “special rights” the bishops are asking is that they not be forced by the government to provide something that is against the precepts of their faith. In your example, the government is not involved at all.
Martha Thomases
May 30, 2012 - 2:54 pm
My example is a direct parallel to yours. In both cases, employees are free to use their wages and benefits as they see fit.
George Haberberger
May 30, 2012 - 3:21 pm
Is the shrimp is the Beth Israel hospital kitchen mandated by the government?
Martha Thomases
May 30, 2012 - 4:40 pm
Beth Israel does not demand special treatment. I suppose if Jehovah’s Witnesses can offer special health insurance that doesn’t allow anyone to get blood transfusion s, we could talk. Otherwise, I say Cathics expect special rights.
Rene
May 30, 2012 - 5:10 pm
It’s an old debate, and I remember making these points elsewhere.
1) If my Catholic uncle gives me a library card, and I use the card to read LOLITA, FANNY HILL, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and other nasty stuff, it cannot be said to be my uncle’s fault. The Church is required to pay for health insurance, period. The Church is not being forced to be accomplice to a “sin” when it’s the individual that uses the coverage that made the choice to use the benefit to commit a sin.
2) Many Catholic organizations already offer full health insurance. The whole situation is for show, to cast Obama as anti-Christian.
George Haberberger
May 30, 2012 - 6:00 pm
Sooo…. the shrimp at Beth Israel’s hospital kitchen is NOT mandated by the government. If the hospital decided to observe the dietary restrictions of the Jewish faith and removed all pork and shellfish dishes from the menu but the government said, “No, you must offer pork and shrimp.” you’d be fine with that demand? Do people at a Jewish restaurant have a right to shrimp? The Catholic Church has never sanctioned abortion or contraception and now they are being required to.
Regarding the library card analogy: did the government force your uncle to give you a library card?
People and institutions can be as strict or lenient about their principles as they want. The problem is when the government decides for them.
Martha Thomses
May 30, 2012 - 6:11 pm
Health insurance for women includes contraception as an option. Ask a doctor. There is no good reason for the Catholic Church to get involved in a woman’s personal medical decisions. Especially if that woman is not Catholic, and her only relationship to the Church is being employed by a non-religious business the Church happens to own.
I would be delighted if the Church got out of the medical business. Barring that, I would like it if they competed with other hospitals (and universities, and real estate developments) on an equal basis. At the very least, they can obey the law of the land and stop treating women like incubators ( and children like temptations).
George Haberberger
May 31, 2012 - 8:24 am
“I would be delighted if the Church got out of the medical business. ”
You may be delighted but you’d be in the minority. Cardinal George of Chicago said recently that the Church may have to close its hospitals, clinics, schools, and all other organizations that would otherwise have to comply with the HHS mandate. What would this mean?
This from Ed Morrissey of the Fiscal Times:
“The Catholic Church has perhaps the most extensive private health-care delivery system in the nation. It operates 12.6 percent of hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., accounting for 15.6 percent of all admissions and 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses, a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion. Whom do these hospitals serve? Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.”
“Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.”
If the Church got out of the education business, the cost to the government would be significant. My parents paid tuition for 12 years of Catholic education even though the local taxes they paid supported the public school. This from the same article:
“Of course, it’s not just hospitals. The Catholic Church runs over 7500 primary and secondary education schools in the US (where over a third of students are non-Catholics), educating more than 2.5 million students. Thanks to a near-blanket moratorium on vouchers, taxpayer money doesn’t get used in teaching these students in a system that has a 99% graduation rate and a 97% success rate at placing students in college. Based on an average student cost of $8000 in public schools, Catholic schools save taxpayers about $20 billion dollars a year.”
I can give you the URL for this article but including one always seems to hold up a post.
Does any of this entitle them to special treatment? No. But they don’t want special treatment. They want what is guaranteed in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Mike Gold
May 31, 2012 - 10:35 am
“You may be delighted but you’d be in the minority. Cardinal George of Chicago said recently that the Church may have to close its hospitals, clinics, schools, and all other organizations that would otherwise have to comply with the HHS mandate. What would this mean?”
It would mean Cardinal George of Chicago is a murderous asshole.
George Haberberger
May 31, 2012 - 11:03 am
But the administration is of course blameless in forcing this confrontation; one that the Church did not ask for or desire.
Rene above said that this controversy is designed to cast Obama as anti-Christian. You’d get a lot of push back in certain sections of the country implying that Christian is synonymous with Catholic. The American bishops were all for the Health Care Act. There were meetings in our parish hall explaining what a good thing it would be and how it was an extension of Christian caring. The bishops did not expect this abortion/contraception mandate but apparently they should abandon their principles or be murderous assholes. Besides no one needs to die, (except of course the aborted); the federal government can just pick up the slack.
Martha Thomases
May 31, 2012 - 11:12 am
The Church, according to the article cited, accepts Medicare and Medicaid payments. Therefore, they should have to follow the law of the land, which includes allowing women to have health insurance that meets their needs as part of their compensation package. Reproductive choice is not a frivolous item that can be omitted from women’s health care.
George Haberberger
May 31, 2012 - 11:51 am
“Reproductive choice is not a frivolous item that can be omitted from women’s health care.”
No, it is certainly not frivolous in the eyes of the Church. If it were, the bishops wouldn’t have taken this stand. Contraception and abortion are anything but frivolous, although that does seem to be the opinion of many.
The article cited also explained how much Church-sponsored hospitals relieve the burden that would fall to secular institutions. As Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis said, “We help people because we are Catholic. not because they are.”
Martha Thomses
May 31, 2012 - 1:02 pm
I look forward to your equally impassioned defense of Muslim institutions enforcing sharia law.
George Haberberger
May 31, 2012 - 2:04 pm
You’re analogy is flawed. I am not advocating changing our laws or negating the Constitution to accommodate Catholic dogma.
What the bishops are wanting is what is already the law.They are supporting the Constitution. Muslim institutions that adhere to Sharia Law, an honor killing for example, would violate the Fifth Amendment, (aside from being murder). Aspects of Sharia Law run contrary to the Constitution.
Rene
June 2, 2012 - 10:08 am
I’m not dismissive of all the good the Church does (nor of all the evil, I mean, covering up pedophiles, what the hell?), but it really seems to me like that is a manufactured scandal to make Obama look bad and feed the meme that he is some radical atheist.
Yes, the government doesn’t force my uncle to give me a library card, but even if it did, I don’t see how my using the card to read non-Catholic books reflects on my uncle, when it was MY CHOICE to read the books.
The Church is required to pay for a beneft (health coverage), the Church is not required or even allowed to supervise how the benefit is used by the individual. That would be as absurd as the Church forbidding the employee from using money he got from the Church to buy services and goods that harm Catholic dogma.
I mean, what is the difference, George? If the guy uses health coverage paid by the Church, or uses money from the wage paid by the Church, or a vacation bonus or whatever, it’s all the same: the employee is the one taking the decision to use what the Church gave him to buy contraceptives.
If we follow the Church’s logic, then ALL the money an employee gets from the Church should come with strings attached: you can’t buy condoms, contraceptives, porn mags, books with anti-Catholic messages, etc.
In all cases it’s the Church desiring to interfere in the private life and choices of the employee. What is the difference between paying health coverage and giving the employee wage money so that she can buy condoms and pills herself?
George Haberberger
June 2, 2012 - 5:00 pm
“but it really seems to me like that is a manufactured scandal to make Obama look bad and feed the meme that he is some radical atheist.”
It may seem that way to you but that is not the case. The bishops supported the Health Care Act before the abortion mandate. The scandal is not manufactured, at least not by the Church, the administration, maybe.
“The Church is required to pay for a beneft (health coverage), the Church is not required or even allowed to supervise how the benefit is used by the individual. ”
There are no state or federal laws that require private U.S. employers to offer health insurance benefits to any employees at all. It is just common practice, especially among larger employers, to offer health insurance benefits as a means to attract and retain workers. Maybe if the Catholic Church is allowed, (and isn’t that an frightening verb), to exclude abortion and contraception from its insurance plans, they will lose employees and have a more difficult time getting employees who want those services. But I believe they would take that deal.After all, it is the way things are now. As you said, people can take their wages and buy whatever they want.
“I mean, what is the difference, George?”
The difference is, as I said on the 30th is that the government is making the decision on what to provide, not the employer.
Rene
June 3, 2012 - 7:43 am
No, what I meant was, what is the difference between the Church paying wages that the employee will use to buy contraceptives and the Church paying for health coverage that the employee will use to buy contraceptives?
Why is one against the Church’s morality (or sensibilities) while the other is not?
Shouldn’t the Church depend on its own moral authority to persuade people not to use contraceptives, instead of chickening out and making it harder for people to have access to them? Seems to me the real problem is that annoying statistic of at least 70% of Catholic women using contraceptives.
George Haberberger
June 3, 2012 - 11:15 am
“No, what I meant was, what is the difference between the Church paying wages that the employee will use to buy contraceptives and the Church paying for health coverage that the employee will use to buy contraceptives?”
The difference is that the employee would be buying contraception FROM the Church and the Church doesn’t want to be involved in a practice that is against their principles.
“Why is one against the Church’s morality (or sensibilities) while the other is not?”
Oh, they are both against the Church’s sensibilities. Acquiring contraception or an abortion is viewed as a grave matter regardless of the method of procurement.
“Shouldn’t the Church depend on its own moral authority to persuade people not to use contraceptives, instead of chickening out and making it harder for people to have access to them?”
Suppose someone you knew was planning to kill someone. You argue against it. You attempt to persuade them not to to it. How persuasive is your argument if you also sell them a gun?
Mike Gold
June 3, 2012 - 11:42 am
Wait a minute. Does the Catholic Church only hire Catholics? And, if so, do they have to pass a test to prove they’re not part of the 90% of adult US Catholics who use or have used contraceptives?
If that’s the case, then these people have a point. But if they do not discriminate in their employment practices, they are obligated to follow the laws and procedures of the nation.
Yes, yes, I’ve heard these braying bandits babble discrimination, none louder than the hypocritical fuck that runs their New York City operation. But we impose such “discrimination” upon religion all the time. We don’t give the Rastafarians a pass on our drug laws, we don’t allow human sacrifices, we get all pissy about Shariah law (if only the United States was like-minded about the imposition of Christian law), and we won’t let Grandpappy Romney keep his bevy of wives. These assholes should shut the fuck up and act like Real Americans.
Oh, and while we’re at it, we should tax these bastards.
George Haberberger
June 3, 2012 - 4:46 pm
“But if they do not discriminate in their employment practices, they are obligated to follow the laws and procedures of the nation.”
They have been following the law. It is the law that the administration wants to change. This the suit. Maybe the Supreme Court will make the suit moot. Besides, as I said above, no one is obligated to offer insurance.It is supposed to be a perk. Can the government tell an employer what the perks should be? Or wages for that matter?
I addressed the Shariah Law issue on the 31st.
“It would mean Cardinal George of Chicago is a murderous asshole.”
“none louder than the hypocritical fuck that runs their New York City operation.”
Always charming when you tag in Mike. I often think your bombastic writing style is only intended to drive traffic to this site. But that would be cynical.
Rene
June 3, 2012 - 5:24 pm
“Suppose someone you knew was planning to kill someone. You argue against it. You attempt to persuade them not to to it. How persuasive is your argument if you also sell them a gun?”
Huh? So, the Church knows people are “planning” to use it? That is how much they know they have lost the battle for hearts and minds, right? In any case, like our gun-activists might tell you, possessing a gun doesn’t mean you have to kill someone. Having access to full health coverage doesn’t mean you have to use contraceptives.
“The difference is that the employee would be buying contraception FROM the Church and the Church doesn’t want to be involved in a practice that is against their principles.”
How are they buying contraception from the Church? I don’t understand the logic. The Church provides health insurance, period. The Church doesn’t sell contraception. The Church offers the capability to acquire contraception, true, but one has to exercise that ability. I don’t see the difference between that and any wage money the Church pays, that also offers people the ability to use the money to fund all sorts of non-Catholic vices.
I suppose the next step would be “marked” Catholic money that doesn’t allow you to buy certain services?
Mike Gold
June 3, 2012 - 10:59 pm
George — no, I save that stuff for ComicMix.
George Haberberger
June 4, 2012 - 7:38 am
“Huh? So, the Church knows people are “planning” to use it? That is how much they know they have lost the battle for hearts and minds, right?”
The Church doesn’t “know” people what people are planning but everyone is a sinner. I am a sinner, You are a sinner. Everyone is a sinner. That is the default setting of humanity and the reason for Christ’s sacrifice.
“How are they buying contraception from the Church? I don’t understand the logic”
If the Church supplies the insurance, either through a third party or being self-insured, as many hospitals are, the employee is provided contraception or abortion services from the Church. They will not be a party to that.
Martha Thomases
June 4, 2012 - 7:50 am
But the Church will be a party to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/cardinal-authorized-payments-to-abusers.html
Paying pedophile priests — child rapists — is an acceptable use of money. Access to health care (and health care for women includes reproductive choice ) — not so much.
George Haberberger
June 4, 2012 - 1:14 pm
As I said in my first post of this thread, the clergy abuse scandal is a terrible thing and I cannot blame critics for using it, even when it has nothing to do with the current subject.
As the story that Martha linked to explains, when a man becomes a priest the Church is expected to care for his needs for a lifetime. The practice of paying abusers to go away is a cost-saving measure. It is cheaper to laicize them without their objection than to have them fight the process or to continue to pay them for the rest of their lives. It is essentially a severance package.
Martha Thomses
June 4, 2012 - 1:20 pm
So saving money is more important than obeying the law and protecting children. Interesting moral position.
George Haberberger
June 4, 2012 - 1:37 pm
Nothing in the article implied that the laicized priests were absolved from legal, (or moral), consequences. Defrocked priests still face civil suits and criminal court.
Rene
June 5, 2012 - 5:58 am
George, that is precisely the problem. We’re talking about children being raped, you’re talking of Church regulations. Hang the regulations! The ONLY thing the Catholic Church could do to regain a little of its moral authority would be to change its regulations so that any priest identified by internal investigations to be a scumbag rapist is immediately throw out with no bonuses or severance payments whatsoever AND all the data gathered on the internal investigation would be immediately released to the authorities. And not years later so that the scumbag can make new victims, but immediately.
The abuse scandal has everything to do with the current subject, since it’s another example of the Church thinking it’s above the rules that govern ordinary mortals.
George Haberberger
June 5, 2012 - 11:07 am
Although you and many others may believe that the abusers should be set adrift, the Church believes it has a responsibility to these men. Civil authorities are being brought in now. That has not always been the case. In the past, offenders were given treatment for their proclivities and reassigned after treatment. This practice was based on the psychiatric profession’s stance at the time that there was a cure for pedophilia. That is no longer considered true. but the Church acted on the best information available at that time.
Aside from attempting to rehabilitate the offenders. the Church has paid out over 2 billion dollars to victims, so no, the Church does not think it is above the law. The news item that spawned this thread concerned the Church going to court to decide an issue about health insurance that, as an employer, they are not obligated by law to provide.
Rene
June 6, 2012 - 8:19 pm
C’mon, you actually believe that?
Showing Christian compassion for pedophiles is one thing, even believing they’re curable is okay, but “reassigning” them? Keeping them as priests? Withou alerting anyone? Would you be as understanding if your kid had been abused by a repeat offender let loose by the Church? Would you be as understanding if a secular, or worse, liberal organization had done the same?
I mean, even if they honestly believed in a cure, the Church’s actions would be only excusable in the least if it happened only once. The very same instant that they knew of a repeat offender attacking again after “cure” and “reassignment”, any sane human being would have pulled all “cured” priests immediately instead of risking more children being raped!
This is absurd. There is no excuse and no explanation except that the Church thought the “greater good” it represents would be threatened by the reveal. That children had to be “sacrificed” for avoiding giving ammunition to critics of the Church.
2 billions? Fuck the 2 billions. It will not unrape the victims. The real scandal is not the rapes, it’s that no higher Church authorities are in jail for “reassigning” child rapists. That is a signal of how much undeserved power and influence the Church still holds.
George Haberberger
June 7, 2012 - 2:47 pm
“C’mon, you actually believe that?”
Well, yes I do, whatever it is you’re referring to.
Your point: “There is no excuse and no explanation except that the Church thought the “greater good” it represents would be threatened by the reveal.” is exactly right. It was a concern for the “greater good” rather than contempt for the law.
It was stupid to expect to keep a lid on the scandal indefinitely. The Catholic Church has always had enemies and critics of varying intensity, and this kind of news would, and did, play right into their hands. The American bishops’ imprudent method in the past of attempting to keep a lid on the scandal has damaged their credibility. But regardless of those bad decisions, they do not consider themselves above the law.
When I jumped into this thread, (and I had reservations; I put it off for 4 days), I knew I would be outnumbered and the abuse scandal was already used in Martha’s original post to discredit the bishops. But my point has never been to excuse the handling of the clergy abuse issue, only that that does not weaken their point about abortion and contraception.
This from the National Review: “The question is not whether contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs will remain legal and available — it is whether religious organizations can be forced to provide free access to them. No one is forced to work for a Catholic institution. And those who do are perfectly free to get these drugs on their own, for free from the government, or from the many sources that willingly distribute them. Indeed, in no other context has anyone ever suggested that an employer’s failure to distribute an item for free is “imposing doctrine” on anyone. Catholic institutions also do not give out pornography, Big Macs, or trips to Disneyland. Failure to provide these things for free does not impose anything on anyone or restrict anyone’s freedom in any way.”
I am personally opposed to abortion for any reason except to save the life of the mother. Yes, I am even opposed to abortion in the case of rape. I believe human life begins at conception and the circumstances of the conception are not the fault of the conceived.
I am not as on board with the Church over the contraception issue but I still don’t believe they should be required to provide it.
I just saw a new movie, “For Greater Glory”, about the Mexican government’s attempt to make religious observance illegal in the 1920s. What I found most interesting is that I was never told about it in school. We were taught about martyrs but those martyrs were killed by the Romans in the early days of the Church, not by the Mexicans during what was then, 40 years ago. One the actors, who is Mexican and went to school in Mexico, said in an interview that none of that was in the history books. Does any of this have anything to do with the Health and Human Services mandate? No. But then neither does the abuse scandal.
Mike Gold
June 7, 2012 - 4:13 pm
George, of course you’re outnumbered. That’s what makes your comments so interesting and valuable. And with the knowledge that you’re outnumbered, you show the courage of your convictions. So there.
These bishops don’t need Martha to discredit them. The church did untold damage to itself when it started playing “hide the pederast.” This behavior addresses the very heart of trust in the institution (and I mean that very word) and in the faith business, trust affects everything in which the institution is involved.Those who do it or who support it by playing pass-the-pederast while standing behind their 10 commandments have lost all credibility and bring the entire institution into question.
Rene
June 8, 2012 - 4:02 pm
But it does weaken their point.
They are so worried about protecting the poor children that would’ve been aborted that they’re willing to let them be raped a few years after birth, just to safeguard the Church’s reputation. That’s how worried they are about protecting the innocent.
It’s a shame that the Vatican responde to the scandal has been fueled by a sense of persecution, and your own responses are an indicator of that mindset. Apparently, it’s us unbelievers that have commited the greater crime of dragging your Church’s name through the mud because we’re anti-religion. The rapes themselves are a lesser crime, I suppose.
George Haberberger
June 8, 2012 - 5:56 pm
Mike:
“These bishops don’t need Martha to discredit them. The church did untold damage to itself when it started playing “hide the pederast.”
I agree about the untold damage. I did say it was the go-to argument against the moral authority of the church. But even after church reforms and the revelations of abuse in secular institutions, it is the clergy abuse that remains paramount issue regarding any other subject.
In April, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released its annual audit of compliance with the 2002 Dallas Charter, the initiative by the bishops to deal with accusations of abuse by priests. The report concluded that in 2011 there were seven credible abuse accusations against Catholic priests in all of the United States involving minors. That of course, is 7 too many.
However it recently came to light that 248 complaints of sexual misconduct involving school employees were reported in New York City public schools just in the first three months of 2012. The NY Times did not report this except in a blog. I’d supply the URL if it wouldn’t delay this post.
Rene:
“They are so worried about protecting the poor children that would’ve been aborted that they’re willing to let them be raped a few years after birth, just to safeguard the Church’s reputation. That’s how worried they are about protecting the innocent.”
Well obviously it is not a “either this or that” situation. Ideally no one would be aborted or raped.
“The rapes themselves are a lesser crime, I suppose.”
The rapes are not a lesser crime than covering it up, but the killing the unborn will always be the greater offense.
That sense of persecution may be well earned judging by the stats quoted in my 3rd and 4th paragraph.
Rene
June 9, 2012 - 6:38 am
Yeah, I suppose those 7 “credible” accusations are like the 3 people that were tortured by the Inquisition throughout all of its existence. Why should I trust the reports of an organization notoriously prone to damage control and spin? An organization that withheld any and all information about the abuse for decades and that even today is more worried about shifting the blame to its accusers?
Every single word out of of the Vatican’s mouth about the scandal has been arrogant and defensive. It doesn’t not inspire trust in anyone who is not already an indocrinated believer.
Rene
June 9, 2012 - 3:11 pm
Another thing I’m tired of: religious guys saying they’re against this, against that, but when push comes to shove, they take the easy way out.
Tell me something, George. Are you 100%, absolutely sure that, if YOUR WIFE were brutally raped by someone you knew, would you convince her to have the baby and pay for all the expenses and go with her to lamaze class and stuff? I’m not talking about a stranger, about some statistic, I’m talking about YOUR WIFE.
And if you’re not 100% sure of that, you have no business telling some stranger they got to carry a rape baby to term.
Yeah, I’ve met a lot of Christians that have divorces, that use contraception, and Russ Maheras posted an interesting stat some time ago, that 80% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted. Do you think all of those 80% are atheists and agnostics?
Many Christians, when faced with a Down Syndrome baby, have chosen abortion. And I bet they would say their case is special, God will forgive them, etc. But the other people, oh no, those have to live their lives by strict Christian guidelines, even those who are unbelievers.
Hypocrites.
George Haberberger
June 10, 2012 - 1:28 pm
Rene:
I only speak for myself and do not intend to proselytize. Your doubt about the 7 credible accusers is understandable but you must concede that there is nothing the bishops could do or say to convince you of their sincerity.
“Every single word out of of the Vatican’s mouth about the scandal has been arrogant and defensive. It doesn’t not inspire trust in anyone who is not already an indocrinated believer.”
Probably not but even though the Church has erred badly in handling the scandal, there are those who see this as an opportunity to make a quick buck claiming abuse where none happened but knowing the Church dare not attack “victims”. Before you explode in moral outrage let me tell you I have first hand knowledge of the Church paying accusers who were lying. It would have been worse to fight it and winning would have been a pyrrhic victory,
“Tell me something, George. Are you 100%, absolutely sure that, if YOUR WIFE were brutally raped by someone you knew, would you convince her to have the baby and pay for all the expenses and go with her to lamaze class and stuff? I’m not talking about a stranger, about some statistic, I’m talking about YOUR WIFE.”
Yes.
I don’t mean to sound flippant and I don’t want to imply it wouldn’t be difficult. How could it not be? Besides in your scenario, it more likely would be my wife that would be convincing me.
“Yeah, I’ve met a lot of Christians that have divorces, that use contraception, and Russ Maheras posted an interesting stat some time ago, that 80% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted. Do you think all of those 80% are atheists and agnostics?”
And your point is there are a lot of hypocrites in the world? I already knew that.
The Church knows people are flawed. The Church is flawed. That doesn’t mean they and we shouldn’t at least attempt to maintain our principles. We can fail over and over again, but we only really fail when we give up.
As I said back on May 30th: People and institutions can be as strict or lenient about their principles as they want. The problem is when the government decides for them.