Every sperm is sacred.....unless.....

Farscry wrote:

This reminds me of the time when I said I was morally against tax fraud, then my accountant found a loophole to exploit and net me extra money back on my tax return even though it violated my moral stance, and I let him do it because it was legally defensible to do so. Then I claimed I was still morally opposed to tax fraud.

Why would that violate your moral code? You committed no fraud, no misrepresentation.

If you were morally against paying the absolute minimum amount of tax you could legally pay within the confines of the tax code, then sure....

Well, first, it's not a true story. Sorry, figured that'd be clear (I can't afford an accountant, geez!).

Second, I tried to make it clear that the analogy was that I was against the action that I was legally allowed to take. But took it anyway, and then claimed that I was still against taking that action on a moral level.

I though the analogy was clever, because it illustrates this story well: there is a certain "greyness" to the whole mess depending on precisely how you look at it. Different perspectives will zero in on different specific aspects of the analogy and take issue with it. Much like the topic we're debating.

Farscry wrote:

Well, first, it's not a true story. Sorry, figured that'd be clear (I can't afford an accountant, geez!).

Second, I tried to make it clear that the analogy was that I was against the action that I was legally allowed to take. But took it anyway, and then claimed that I was still against taking that action on a moral level.

I though the analogy was clever, because it illustrates this story well: there is a certain "greyness" to the whole mess depending on precisely how you look at it. Different perspectives will zero in on different specific aspects of the analogy and take issue with it. Much like the topic we're debating.

For added illustration, remember that you've been fighting for decades to close the loopholes your accountant used.

Wouldn't it be more accurate that it be Farscry's friend who's fighting the loopholes, and who employs Farscry and absolutely tells everyone that Farscry is an alright guy? Accountant puts through tax break without consulting friend. People call friend a hypocrite for actions done by accountant.

True, should've noted that rather than just being morally opposed, I'm outspoken about it.

Stepping back a bit, perhaps it's more accurate to say the Church is "anti-contraceptive". That is, it rejects the use of any device that does not leave it to God whether someone gets pregnant.

It might be even more accurate to say the Chruch is "pro-conception", since ultimately that's what it boils down to.

The Church calls that lying and asks you to allow being burned at the stake or shackled to a wall such that we can hammer your knees.

FIXED.

This is the most similar case I could think of:
http://dailybail.com/home/must-see-bust-mortgage-bankers-association-strategic-default.html

If the Pope is looking for a new slogan for his church I recommend "The Catholic Church: Exactly as much integrity as the Mortgage Banker's Association."

fangblackbone:

Can I take the modern monarchy of England to task for serfdom, torture, and war crimes? How can Americans today stand being slave-owners? And they talk about slavery like it was evil, too. Hypocrites. It's almost like they were different from what they used to be.

Are the lawyers working on behalf of the church? If so, I understand what you're getting at Yonder. If they're working on behalf of the hospital, then I understand the moral discrepancy but the link to the church? Meh... not so much. It's sort of like taking this example:

Farscry wrote:

This reminds me of the time when I said I was morally against tax fraud, then my accountant found a loophole to exploit and net me extra money back on my tax return even though it violated my moral stance, and I let him do it because it was legally defensible to do so. Then I claimed I was still morally opposed to tax fraud.

And tying it all to theoretical Farscry's theoretical spiritual group. They have jack to do with the decision theoretical Farscry reached with his theoretical accountant. If they give overt approval of it, then there's something substantial to talk about there IMO.

By the way, it looks like the church has taken an interest and is investigating. This indicates that the church had nothing to do with the decision/defense. How they decide to respond is another matter, of course.

Let's say that the bishops do take a direct hand in the case. I'm unfamiliar with how you guys do things there. Here's some questions I had been meaning to ask.

Does the Catholic Church own or run Catholic Health Initiatives?

If they do, what's the organizational structure like? Why weren't the bishops made aware of day to day business?

If the Catholic Church doesn't own or run CHI, why should the input of bishops have any impact on state proceedings? Do they or should they have any legal power? Would this not imply a blurring of State/Church lines and contravening of State prerogatives?

LouZiffer wrote:

And tying it all to theoretical Farscry's theoretical spiritual group. They have jack to do with the decision theoretical Farscry reached with his theoretical accountant. If they give overt approval of it, then there's something substantial to talk about there IMO.

That is also true; the hospital's legal team working without communication with the religious organization backing the hospital is entirely plausible. However, as we've seen now, the church is now aware of the legal team's approach and has to decide whether to approve of its actions, or adhere to their stated beliefs and mission.

Farscry:

I stand by what I've said earlier. There is no reason why CHI cannot mount this defense from either a legal or moral standpoint. It is consistent with what the Catholic Church says. If the Colorado bishops go against this defense, I would consider it grandstanding more than moral integrity. They don't have to do that. If they do, they're just playing to the crowd.

The hospital calls itself a Catholic organization and benefits from Catholic funding because it operates according to Catholic standards. That doesn't mean the church operates the hospital. It's merely an affiliated organization. However, that affiliation can be severed by either party. That's where the findings of the bishops and the resulting opinion of the church count. I'm not a Catholic and have no dog in this fight, but I'm interested to see how this pans out.

Here's where that rubber is hitting the ground.

IMO, the Church stance on this should be "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Whatever is legal, follow the law. Outside of that, they can act as moral advisors according to their own traditions, which is to advise CHI in closed proceedings and advise them on what is moral according to those proceedings.

However, the moment they start levying financial penalties on CHI by withdrawing funds or by coercing them to pay, then they are beginning to act like executive agents of a second State - a State within the State. That is not acceptable.

This is not a case where they're just obeying the law--there is no legal requirement to contest suits brought against oneself. This is a case of using the law to attempt to shirk responsibility.

What's CHI's legal responsibility according to US law? What's CHI's moral responsibility according to Catholic law? I doubt that those would be very similar. I don't know that Catholic doctrine officially assigns financial damages to moral victims. I'm willing to be proven wrong on that.

That's not the point. You keep saying they're just obeying the law, when they are not. There is no legal requirement they contest the suit. Again.

They're not just obeying the law by contesting the suit? Surely you mean something else. If there is no legal requirement to either contest or surrender, surely the defendants (CHI) are free to pursue whichever legal course they prefer? How is recognizing the Colorado definition of person morally inconsistent with disagreeing with that definition on a moral plane?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

That's not the point. You keep saying they're just obeying the law, when they are not. There is no legal requirement they contest the suit. Again.

I think he means follow state law in terms of defining what constitutes a person, which was the hospital's legal defense.

LarryC wrote:

How is recognizing the Colorado definition of person morally inconsistent with disagreeing with that definition on a moral plane?

Because the hospital states that it operates according to Catholic doctrine. Either it does or it does not. Accepting the state definition is directly at odds with that, unless the church can find some way to justify that. The same actions can be judged under both moral and legal grounds. In this case, the legal definition does indeed appear to be inconsistent with the moral one. As far as I know, the Catholic church does not operate in a "when in Rome" (hah) mode when it comes to doctrine.

With that said... What happens if a suit is deemed to be overly punitive in nature yet the only available legal argument is an inherently immoral one from a doctrinal standpoint? That may not be true in this case, but it's an interesting puzzle.

LouZiffer:

The Church already accepts the state definition as legal. If they didn't accept the state's legal powers and prerogatives, there would be no need to lobby to change the law. Just disregard it completely. Accepting the legal definitions of the state when it disagrees with personal or organization morality doesn't mean that you agree with it. It just means that the proper venue for disagreeing is the lobby.

Furthermore, as stated, it isn't codified in Church doctrine, as far as I know, to adhere to penal codes in assigning penalties for moral responsibility or to sabotage legal assumptions by surrendering where an adversarial system is the presumption. The same action can be judged under legal and moral grounds, but condemning it under moral grounds doesn't mean surrendering the legal ground!

I think this is where our main POVs collide. I've come from a country long subjugated by brutal colonial powers. Even now we work under the duress of our once-colonial masters. I accept that reality, but it doesn't mean that I agree with it.

LouZiffer wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

That's not the point. You keep saying they're just obeying the law, when they are not. There is no legal requirement they contest the suit. Again.

I think he means follow state law in terms of defining what constitutes a person, which was the hospital's legal defense.

I know that's what he means, and it's a bullsh*t excuse, because, like I said, they are under no legal obligation to defend themselves, or even use that defense. They chose to because it was convenient. No deflection changes that.

LarryC wrote:

The same action can be judged under legal and moral grounds, but condemning it under moral grounds doesn't mean surrendering the legal ground!

Oh man, I think this may be my favorite line from this whole pedantic exchange.

I see a concrete example is in order.

Let's say I have a hypothetical moral code called LarryCode. Under this moral code, I consider mosquitoes as important and if I kill a mosquito the code demands that I pay whoever survives that mosquito in some relation (owner or whatnot) $2. If someone sues me for the death of his mosquitoes as cattle and demands legal redress in larger or smaller amount, I can contest that legally while still forking over $2 in extralegal proceedings, as my moral code demands.

I hope this makes it clearer.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

They chose to because it was convenient. No deflection changes that.

If you're not open to discussion, why are you engaging me in a discussion thread? Or is this one? Is this a Catholic Church bashing thread? I'm not all that privy to the social game cues.

LarryC wrote:

I see a concrete example is in order.

Let's say I have a hypothetical moral code called LarryCode. Under this moral code, I consider mosquitoes as important and if I kill a mosquito the code demands that I pay whoever survives that mosquito in some relation (owner or whatnot) $2. If someone sues me for the death of his mosquitoes as cattle and demands legal redress in larger or smaller amount, I can contest that legally while still forking over $2 in extralegal proceedings, as my moral code demands.

I hope this makes it clearer.

Yeah, not only does that not actually seem to translate at all to the situation at hand, it doesn't address the core point: It's a moral sticking point until actually adhering to that point caused them a problem.

The core point doesn't seem to apply. The Church's moral point is that fetuses should have right to life, not that Catholics should adhere to legal penalties under a nonexistent extended legal definition. That's another fundamental POV difference, I deem. I differentiate between what's legal and what's moral, as a necessary corollary of separation of Church and State. Just because I was convicted of murder doesn't mean I've been morally judged. Those are different proceedings. Likewise, Church marriage is not the same as legal marriage under the state.

I perceive that you folks do not see this distinction?

If I start seeing posts to the effect of "WTF is this guy talking about?" then I'll conclude that I've hit upon the core axiomatic cultural difference.

You keep using that word, "moral."

I don't think it means what you think it means.

This is, despite your attempts to prove otherwise, not a cultural divide, not an issue where you are just being far more factual and dispassionate, or anything like that. This isn't a "agree to disagree" moment where we all share our weird varied experiences and shrug and laugh. You're very pointedly trying to absolve the Church of any need to actually adhere to what it professes by taking a small divide provided by the dictionary definitions of two words, and prying it wide open with a crowbar labeled "complete lack of logical associations".

Moral is Catholic law. Legal is State Law. Those are not the same things. That is what I mean by those terms. Whatever you think it means, redefine the words as I've defined "moral" in this post. I simply don't see a contradiction in the Church's actions so far, particularly because the legal team in question is twice removed from actual Catholic authorities.

There is a difference between State law and Catholic doctrine. You can simply find the two documents and compare them word for word, side by side. This is not a small divide. The list of penances and interventions recommended by the Church for various sins in no way approximates any penal code of any modern state I'm aware of.

To my knowledge, Catholic Church doctrine has never recommended legal actions for sins committed. Willing to be shown wrong.

EDIT:

As an aside, it looks like I've finally hit pay dirt.