7 thoughts

  1. “If the spate of anti-Obama(care) suits really issues from a concern with moral integrity, then shouldn’t Catholic institutions care more for the sins they commit directly and willfully then for the sins they enable indirectly and reluctantly?”
    I am absolutely sure the are both equally important. Then again, we always focus on one sin rather than the other one… we go step by step or little by little.

    I would not generalize as “Catholic institutions”, even though I do realize the relevance on the subject. Every institution commits sins (as humans do), but the sin changes from one person/institution to another, irrespective of their religion.
    Any type of freedom is about doing and not doing things. Freedom is part of the capacity to do good things and bad things. We are free to lie (even God grants us this freedom) even if we ought to tell the truth. – Now that I think about it, It is actually interesting that God provides us with more freedom than other humans do: He grants us freedom even it is means killing and destroying other people/the world/Him.

  2. Thank you Katie for an excellent post which gets to the heart of the gospel message. Scripture is insistent on the rights of workers to just wages and on the dignity of the human person, but silent on contraception.

    Catholic schools ought to be living the gospel by encouraging union membership and by paying the Living Wage.

    It is a sad indictment on Catholic failings that most of our U.S. Catholic schools were once also racially segregated.

    All the posturing around contraception smacks of special pleading and is a distraction from the real issues. Pope Francis has framed a much better set of priorities for the Church.

    God bless

  3. I love it! This is one of the things I’m talking about when I say I “don’t like” rights language. I think it’s limits our scope and concept of what’s important. Therefore the emphasis on rights and “freedom from” encourages people/institutions to think about themselves in individualistic ways. Well, that and this kind of moral inertia.

  4. Vigorous and well argued.

    OT, an economist I esteem very greatly, Warren Mosler, @wbmosler argues cogently that “As a matter of economics and public purpose it is counter productive for health care to be a marginal cost of production.”

    A business’ success or failure should be based on their core competencies, not on the health (or lack of a few workers).

    IMHO, Mosler’s ideas on health care are worth a look.


  5. Gah, this is awesome.
    Though I do feel there are some strong points made by those concerned for religious freedom, the discourse itself is thoroughly secular. As you said (and other commenters noted) the assertion that a religious institution should be exempt based on a religious paradigm beckons an altogether more important conversation: if an institution is “Christian,” what does it mean to engage in the world? What’s missing from the answer, if one is ever given, is exactly what you pointed out: total inconsistency.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s