The previous discussion was about contraception, not abortion. Excluding abortifacient methods of contraception, the prohibition against contraception must have a different basis. However, whether or not a teaching meets the rather strict criteria for infallibility is something of a red herring. A course of action can be so imprudent as to be a grave evil, even though the action engaged in is not intrinsically evil. Some of Santorum's actions may well meet that standard.
"In fact, what you want is to establish the Catholic Church and have the Federal government enforce its doctrine on non-Catholic employees of Catholic hospitals and universities. That would be unconstitutional."
Now that's a bit of a stretch --- although I believe that the mandate is not unconstitutional, allowing a religious exemption to it would not be a violation of the First amendment. Telling the Church that it doesn't have to undertake an action that it is morally opposed to is not enforcing its doctrine on non-believers just as allowing a Muslim employer to ban the consumption of bacon in his lunch room is not imposing sharia.
That itself is not necessarily true; again, read the cited article, by a supporter of the position that the teaching is infallible, for a survey of authoritative opinion.
There has been much scholarly debate over whether the doctrine against artificial contraception is an infallible teaching of the Church, see, e.g., the article at link to ts.mu.edu. However, it is clear that there is a category between the definitively infallible dogmas and "opinions of the USCCB" and, although the post cites the USCCB for support, the teachings Santorum is charged with neglecting amount to far more than "opinions of the USCCB." Several papal encyclicals have declared support for the "living wage" and conditions for the use of the death penalty have been set forth that only the invincibly ignorant could be excused for not seeing are violated in many contemporary American executions.
Although he cites to the U.S. Bishops' Conference for support, most of what he cites as Catholic teachings are in fact (in somewhat more generalized form) teachings of the universal Catholic Church as promulgated in papal encyclicals.
"Catholics who don’t want to pay for contraception… can’t refuse. They MUST violate their consciences, under penalty of law."
More accurately, everyone will have to participate, to some extent, in a pooling of resources to cover everyone's health care costs. Contraception, if prescribed by a physician and the prescription is accepted by a health care recipient, could be one of those costs.
"the teaching on contraception is not a “third-order” teaching, rather it strikes at the heart of Catholic Faith. The teaching on respect for the innocent unseen life is directly linked to the teaching on respect for the innocent, unseen Christ present in the Eucharist."
Don't confuse the Catholic teaching on contraception with that on abortion --- they have different bases and are not equivalent. If you want to argue about whether specific methods of contraception are abortifacient (and facts to support that belief) then do so.
The cooperation with what the Church teaches is evil seems at least as remote in the case of the mandate as it does in the case of a Texas taxpayer paying for one of the executions that clearly violates the teachings of the Church.
Not really -- the quickening rule was a result of the Church (and everyone else, for that matter) not knowing the facts of embryology and thinking nothing was happening until movement occurred.
The previous discussion was about contraception, not abortion. Excluding abortifacient methods of contraception, the prohibition against contraception must have a different basis. However, whether or not a teaching meets the rather strict criteria for infallibility is something of a red herring. A course of action can be so imprudent as to be a grave evil, even though the action engaged in is not intrinsically evil. Some of Santorum's actions may well meet that standard.
"In fact, what you want is to establish the Catholic Church and have the Federal government enforce its doctrine on non-Catholic employees of Catholic hospitals and universities. That would be unconstitutional."
Now that's a bit of a stretch --- although I believe that the mandate is not unconstitutional, allowing a religious exemption to it would not be a violation of the First amendment. Telling the Church that it doesn't have to undertake an action that it is morally opposed to is not enforcing its doctrine on non-believers just as allowing a Muslim employer to ban the consumption of bacon in his lunch room is not imposing sharia.
That itself is not necessarily true; again, read the cited article, by a supporter of the position that the teaching is infallible, for a survey of authoritative opinion.
There has been much scholarly debate over whether the doctrine against artificial contraception is an infallible teaching of the Church, see, e.g., the article at link to ts.mu.edu. However, it is clear that there is a category between the definitively infallible dogmas and "opinions of the USCCB" and, although the post cites the USCCB for support, the teachings Santorum is charged with neglecting amount to far more than "opinions of the USCCB." Several papal encyclicals have declared support for the "living wage" and conditions for the use of the death penalty have been set forth that only the invincibly ignorant could be excused for not seeing are violated in many contemporary American executions.
Although he cites to the U.S. Bishops' Conference for support, most of what he cites as Catholic teachings are in fact (in somewhat more generalized form) teachings of the universal Catholic Church as promulgated in papal encyclicals.
Two things-
"Catholics who don’t want to pay for contraception… can’t refuse. They MUST violate their consciences, under penalty of law."
More accurately, everyone will have to participate, to some extent, in a pooling of resources to cover everyone's health care costs. Contraception, if prescribed by a physician and the prescription is accepted by a health care recipient, could be one of those costs.
"the teaching on contraception is not a “third-order” teaching, rather it strikes at the heart of Catholic Faith. The teaching on respect for the innocent unseen life is directly linked to the teaching on respect for the innocent, unseen Christ present in the Eucharist."
Don't confuse the Catholic teaching on contraception with that on abortion --- they have different bases and are not equivalent. If you want to argue about whether specific methods of contraception are abortifacient (and facts to support that belief) then do so.
The cooperation with what the Church teaches is evil seems at least as remote in the case of the mandate as it does in the case of a Texas taxpayer paying for one of the executions that clearly violates the teachings of the Church.
Not really -- the quickening rule was a result of the Church (and everyone else, for that matter) not knowing the facts of embryology and thinking nothing was happening until movement occurred.