Zubik & Rooney
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Nov. 11, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In Paul Kengor's column “Church v. State: The unreported scandal involving Dan Rooney & the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh” (Nov. 3 and TribLIVE.com), he raises the issue of why Bishop David Zubik has not addressed Dan Rooney's active support for the Affordable Care Act.
He cites the lawsuit that Bishop Zubik has filed addressing the violation of religious freedom in the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That mandate requires that contraception, sterilization and abortifacients be included in the medical coverage provided by the Catholic Church and church-related entities.
As early as 1919, the U.S. Catholic bishops outlined their support for the right to universal health care for all. That remains the position of the U.S. Catholic Church, including the Diocese of Pittsburgh — that everyone have access to affordable health care.
The lawsuit does not call into question the ACA itself, whose intention it is to provide health care coverage to all. To clarify, the lawsuit brings to the courts our most serious objection to one aspect of the ACA as imposed by HHS — specifically, the mandate that takes away religious freedom by forcing religious institutions and private business owners to violate their consciences and religious beliefs.
It should be noted as well that Zubik has met and will continue to meet and dialogue with leaders in the community whose positions might appear to violate a Catholic understanding of social justice and human rights. When he does so, those discussions remain private.
Helene E. Paharik
The writer, associate general secretary of the Diocese of Pittsburgh (diopitt.org), directs its Department for Human Life and Dignity.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Saved her life
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Drought answer?
- Conspicuous by absence
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Not reviled abroad
- Guzzardi for guv
- Enslaving themselves
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Tarentum’s ‘questionable practices’