The news broke Friday that Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Healthcare Association (CHA) has broken with the Obama administration's plan to force abortion drugs and contraception on religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities that offer medical insurance.
The dramatic move was announced in a 5-page letter (PDF here) signed by Keehan and two CHA board members.
The move is momentous because Keehan famously broke with the U.S. bishops to endorse the original passage of the administration's Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") and then broke with them again to endorse the Department of Health and Human Services abortion drug and contraception mandate, providing political cover for the administration.
Both acts were widely criticized, and it appeared to many that Sr. Keehan was a willing tool of the administration's "divide and conquer" strategy for dealing with the Catholic community--playing the role of an alternative Catholic authority that could be pitted against and thus neutralize the voice of he bishops.
But she is not so willing today, it seems, and the new move must come across to the administration as an act of betrayal of it and its agenda.
In the letter, Keehan makes two principal points:
1) The unprecedented and excessively narrow definition of what counts as a religious employer that the HHS mandate contains needs to be broadened.
2) If the administration wants people to have free abortion drugs and contraception, it should pay for them directly, without the direct *or indirect* involvement of religious employers.
With regard to the first point, Keehan proposes that a religious employer be defined not just as a church but also as
An organization is associated with a church if it shares common religious bonds and convictions with the church.
She argues that
This approach would align the policy under the women’s preventive care regulation with existing federal law on conscience protection. The exemption in the final rule is narrower than any conscience clause ever enacted in federal law and reflects an unacceptable change in federal policy regarding religious beliefs.
And that
Making this change could help address the serious constitutional questions created by the Departments’ current approach [note the implication that this may make the HHS mandate unconstitutional, a signal of how it may be challenged in court--ja], in which the government essentially parses a bona fide religious organization into secular and religious components solely to impose burdens on the secular portion.
To make this distinction is to create a false dichotomy between the Catholic Church and the ministries through which the Church lives out the teachings of Jesus Christ. Catholic health care providers are participants in the healing ministry of Jesus Christ.
Our mission and our ethical standards in health care are rooted in and inseparable from the Catholic Church and it's teachings about the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
Regarding the second point, Keehan states that
The more we learn, the more it appears that the [HHS mandate] approaches for both insured and self-insured plans would be unduly cumbersome and would be unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns of all of our members and other Church ministries.
Given this, if the Departments unfortunately continue to pursue the course that all employees must have access to contraceptive services without cost, then the government will need to develop a way to pay for and provide such services directly to those employees who desire such coverage without any direct or indirect involvement of religious employers (under the expanded definition described above.)
Precedent for federally provided access to contraception can be found in the Title X program and in the Medicaid family planning waivers. The ANPRM also suggests the possible creation of a program under which OPM provides contraceptive coverage through a multi-State policy offered on the State exchanges.
This kind of section is troubling in that it gives the appearance of telling someone how they can go about doing an evil act ("If you want to do this evil thing, follow these simple instructions . . . "). On the other hand, it can be read as simply a way of saying, "If you want to do this evil act, do it without me."
In principle, such appeals can be legitimate, but the longer and more detailed the appeals are, they more they look like instructions on how to commit evil acts.
Keehan also notes:
Among the drugs approved by the FDA for use as a contraceptive is ulipristal acetate, commonly known as “ella.” Studies of ulipristal’s mechanism of action have indicated that the drug can interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg. The Catholic Church considers a drug which interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg to be abortifacient, based upon the known science of reproduction and the Church’s belief that human life begins at the moment of fertilization.
And she states:
As the representative of Catholic hospitals and health care providers, which will be impacted in their role as employers, CHA focuses its comments on this aspect of the [HHS mandate].
We acknowledge, but will not address here the issues about whether the mandate itself is constitutional and whether it should apply to other entities, such as, insurers or individuals.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has persuasively addresses these points it its comment letter.
She also states that the CHA has not been silent on these issues in the past:
On August 1, 2011 HRSA issued . . . an Interim Final Regulation (76 Fed. Reg. 46621) proposing to create an exemption to the contraceptive coverage requirement for certain religious employers, defining the term “religious employer” so narrowly as to exclude Catholic hospitals and health care organizations as well as other religious institutional employers.
CHA objected strenuously to the inappropriately narrow definition in its comment letter date September 22, 2011 and objected again when it was announced in January 2012 that the Administration would not make any changes to the definition.
Okay, fine, but when the Obama administration proposed the tweak to its policy in February that would create the impression that religious employers were not directly paying for such services, Keehan was sounding pretty rosy on the idea, stating on Feb. 10:
The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions. The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.
We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished. The unity of Catholic organizations in addressing this concern was a sign of its importance.
This difference has at times been uncomfortable but it has helped our country sort through an issue that has been important throughout the history of our great democracy.
Admittedly, a few days later (Feb. 15), Keehan was saying:
CHA and its members were profoundly disappointed to learn that the definition of a religious employer was not going to be broadened in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' rules for preventive services for women.
The impact of being told we do not fit the new definition of a religious employer and therefore cannot operate our ministries following our consciences has jolted us. The contributions of Catholic health care, education and social services to this country's development are legion. They have responded to the needs of all, not just Catholics. They have been delivered by many who do not share our faith, but share our commitment.
From President Thomas Jefferson to President Barack Obama, we have been promised a respect for appropriate religious freedom. The first amendment to our Constitution affirms it. We are a pluralistic country, and it takes respectful dialogue to sort this out fairly. This decision was a missed opportunity.
CHA has expressed concern and disappointment about this on behalf of the ministry. We have said the problem is not resolved, and we must have a national conversation on this. CHA is working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities USA, the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities and others to look at options to resolve this. We will be discussing it at the CHA board meeting on Feb. 8.
I assure you that we will use the time to pursue a correction during the one-year extension. We will give this issue priority and consult with members and experts as we evaluate options to deal with this. Any suggestions, comments or questions are welcome. I promise to keep the membership informed as we move along in this effort. Please keep this important effort in your prayers as well.
So Keehan's history on this subject--while by no means what it should be--is more complex than the impression created by Obama administration and the mainstream media. (You're surprised by this?)
It is, however, fortunate that she has come out publicly against the HHS mandate as it stands.
It is unfortunate that this happened on a Friday, when the Eye of Mordorthe Media was turned elsewhere.
Let's make sure it doesn't die as a Friday story but sticks around and has some real impact.
In other words: Share with friends, blog, email, whatever! Let's get the word out!
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Wow really… To tell ya truth I dont trust her or her cronies. Sometimes divide and concour comes from within!! The proof is in the proverbial puddin!! Just sayin caution
“the Eye of <strike>Mordor</strike> the Media”
LOL, I love that. I noticed the same thing Jimmy. The timing does minimize any political damage to The One.
Seems awfully convenient to release this two days before the Obamacare decision is made public. Call me cynical, but I bet dollars-to-doughnuts this means they’ve been tipped off that Obamacare is being repealed.
I am not yet sure the CHA has had a change of heart. Such things do happen, but they are rare and no one should take them for granted. This could be a tactical repositioning, possibly even one worked out with the White House. While allowing the CHA to save face, preserving their Catholic cred, this latest tack gets the WH most of what it wants, namely a concession from the “alternate magisterium” that normalizes a broad spectrum of anti-life coverage, with conscience carveouts for only the exceptional few. It makes it “ok” again for Catholics to vote for Obama.
I don’t think this is any sort of breakthrough. I think this is a trap.
I don’t trust this woman either…she talks out of both sides of her mouth.
I notice she keeps changing her position. I don’t know, maybe she should have consulted with the bishops before stating her opinions. There are so many catholics who now think they don’t have to listen to the Bishops or even the Pope as long as the nuns endorse abortion.
She already got her souvenir pen - why would she care.
I refuse to accept that she’s a nun. Where is her habit? Carol is jumping ship like the rat she is, I wouldn’t trust her as far as I could throw her!
Could this change have anything to do with the Vatican focusing in on the Sisters in the US?
Why are Catholics and Protestants not unifying to stop the Obama Adminstration in its tracks? While I was hospitalized in the VA hospital my fellow patients tried to not get upset about losing the very rights they fought for and their friends died for! I even read that June 8 at noon a national rally against the HHS mandate was to take place. I ordered signs for my Catholic parish to give out to protesters. Guess what? Beauracy in my parish prevented immediate action and every parishoner scoffed at my plan. They refused to believe the mandate will take away our right to freedom of religion. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Her loyalty is not to the Church. She is not credible. It was, and still is, very disappointing to see how she openly cut down the bishops. Her actions as a Catholic are shameful.
I encourage her heading in the right direction
and pray her turnabout is a full 360.
I also appreciated
It is unfortunate that this happened on a Friday, when the Eye of Mordorthe Media was turned elsewhere. “
lol
An anti-Catholic nun? Her words have been very destructive and I find it difficult to understand why a Catholic would undermine the very Church they are members of.
I want to be excited about this seeming change of direction by Sr. Keehan, but I think she has already totally undercut her point on “...common religious bonds and convictions…” with her, and her association’s, previous disobedience and choosing of the wrong side of this issue. These Alinskyites love to find any disagreement or differences between otherwise like-minded people and exploit it to its full potential. She and her association have given much aid and comfort, and cover, to the administration to go down this road.
While moving in the right direction seemingly, I think Sr. Keehan is dropping this pretty late in the game…and in a pretty weak manner. She’s acting like a politician and, still, not like a humble, consecrated servant if the Church.
I have a VERY hard time feeling comfortable with Sr. Keenan!!
I have concluded that within the religious orders it is not uncommon for members to be in conflict with Church teachings. What comes to mind is the inaction of nuns to protest the killing of the unborn when an abortion clinic is located close by. I have learned that the attitude of many religious is not in accordance with church teachings but they have no problem accepting financial support from believers and followers of the Church. Sad indeed.
Thank you Sister Keehan. It reminds me of my memories of how the Sisters of the Notre Dame have always looked out for the young girls.
While I am skeptical that this “change” is true, I pray that it actually is. The threat to religious liberty is real and if the various entities within the Church do not stand as a united front against this assault by the Obama administration, I fear that they will have succeeded with their “divide and conquer plan.
I would not believe this is a change even if she returned the Pen.
Sr. Keehan started out okay as to the first part but then became mealy-mouthed as to the second part.
Her judgment has been suspect. We’ll see if her future conduct is consistent with her first part opposition to the HHS mandate. In other words, will she participate in civil disobedience if necessary?
Can not and will not argue/discuss someone else’s conscience. BUT…
I don’t play chess, but wonder if Sr Keenan has the administration in check and maybe checkmate? In an election year?
Wonder if the February 10, rah-rah solidified her bona fides, all the while knowing that it wasn’t going anywhere.
After all, how many will go to a hospital for contraceptives? Abortions? Sterilizations?
Wonder if backing up was setting the stage to put CHA in better position to have more say over the next 100 administrative “laws?”
Is it a sin to “back” something that will not become a reality?
Given all this, all the bishops may have helped bring the discussion to this point. Seems the president has no options but to sit down and look for “common ground” more on our side than his.
Why is this woman even in a convent? All of these radical nuns have more in common with Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres than they do with their founders or the Roman Catholic Church. These nuns have no problem with abortion, contraception, masturbation etc. They have a real problem with the Pope, the bishops, the all male priesthood, the 7 secraments, poverty, chastity and obedience and yet they stay in a church that they clearly hate. Not exactly somethng a healthy person would do. Look at that bunch at the LCWR, they have been in open heresy for 50 years and the first time the Church says one word of correction they turn like the rabid dogs that they really are. These radical feminist nuns drove out the good, prayerful nuns years ago and turned once prayerful convents in a bunch a feminist groups that are now full of nasty old women. The one good thing is that they will all be dead and forgotten soon and the good orders of real nuns will thrive. The fact that the Church allows radical nuns like this “Daughter of Charity” to remain and spread error is the real problem
The lack of Christian Charity in the comments above is astounding - not a nun> J doubt her change of heart? Her judgement is suspect. All from people who don’t have to make momentous decision or have to have their words put through the ringer of Catholic Orthodoxy. For the love of God, be thankful that she has changed her mind or that CHA has changed its collective mind. What Sister Keenan said is not based on rocket science or politics - it is the work of the Holy Spirit - try charity and acceptance and then empathy. I know it hurts, but it will help you grow as a person and a Catholic.
I would like to believe that the about-face arises from conscience and not political calculation. It would help if Sr. Keehan would issue a statement disavowing any notion that she or CHA or any collection of nuns legitimately constitutes an alternate magisterium and instead endorses the authority of the Bishops in the Church.
@ Andy. have you ever heard of admonish the sinner? Sr. Keehan and her ilk have laid waste to millions of souls, leading them into heresy! She needs to publicly confess her decades of sinful behavior before we can even begin to believe that her attempted about face on this issue is legitimately heart felt. I doubt her sincerity, however, proof is in the pudding-prove me wrong sister! For her sake I hope she does.
Jesus forgives you when you confess, but you still have to endure the temporal punishment that you merited, that’s what we old Catholics call Purgatory!
Am I the only one who read the title wrong and thought “ew, I really didn’t need to know that!”
Many people are puzzled by the Catholic Church’s teaching against contraception.
But, in a lot of ways the teaching makes sense.
For those who wish to learn more about the Church’s teaching on contraception, an excellent commentary and further resource links can be found here:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-catholic-church-opposes.html
Jimmy:
While one could argue the construction of Sr. Keehan’s letter effectively offers advice to the government as to how to achieve their stated goal, it seems to me more likely that given the severely restricted scope & restrained tone of the letter, the suggested alternatives serve rather to refute any contention that the mandate is the only reasonable funding mechanism available. One may safely assume that the Administration is adequately informed about these alternatives, so it is hardly news for them.
By avoiding any discussion of the merits of the policy, the letter is consistent with the strategy the Bishops have studiously pursued to keep the focus of their communications on the issue of Religious Liberty, to the exclusion of other concerns.
Under different circumstances, this would be a great teaching moment for the Church’s rich doctrine concerning marriage, sex, & family. However, we cannot risk having the public debate be distracted by a discussion of the merits of the Church’s teaching on contraception. We are on the ropes here, & need to survive this round first before fighting the next.
Yes, the Catechism I think, explains temporal sin, but I have also learned that reparition for sin is a must. We are not making reparitions causing a downfall of the faithful. The dogma of the Blessed Mary must be announced- RIGHT NOW! Please ask me to post my letter to Pope Benedict so it can be used by all Catholics as a template. I promise not to claim plagarism. It is paramount the dogma is proclaimed by Pope Benedict. I strongly beleive we need a mother figure right now, kindness, gentleness, and subtle but firm direction is the key to waking up the world, especially those people claiming to be Christian. Please take heed, listen and obey our Sovereign King in Jesus’ name. Amen
There are those who are theorizing that this might have to do with the so-called crackdown on the nuns. Seeing as how Sr Keehan is a prime example of the kind of nun they are talking about cracking down on, it might indeed be an attempt to protect her position, after all, if subtle but strong pressure were exerted by the Vatican to remove her from her position, there goes her prominence (although the mainstream media would canonize her as a martyr) and position. After the initial flurry whoever replaced her would now be the expert called on for the high-profile interviews, etc. Moreover, the hints that the Vatican, if not satisfied by reforms of the LCWR, might decertify it, were such to happen, that would mean the loss of Vatican funding, and the resultant loss of all other organizational Catholic funding (such as from the USCCB) and indeed funding even from the diocesan level. The writing is on the wall for these so-called modern nuns, and the writing says that without change on their part they will pay for it with loss of income. And the fact that such an organization (and similar organizations) depends almost entirely on financial support routed through other other organizations (ie, USCCB), than from direct donations, such a loss of income would be devastating. But, as we say right before the Sanctus, it is just, since if such groups want to flout the Church they should not be able to fleece it.
I used to work for Sister Carol as an RN in an inner city hospital in D.C.. I thought the world of her for many reasons. She exemplified a Catholic nurse for me. When she initially supported Obamacare and then the HHS mandate I was so saddened. I was also horrified by the mean-spirited commentary from many Catholics. (see above: she NEVER has condoned masturbation, gay marriage or many of the things comboxers here have posted)
I have prayed for her, as I’m sure have many others. I am glad to see Jimmy point out that her support for the HHS mandate was not so gung-ho as the media reported. Instead of condemning her, please pray for her to see the full truth. She’s starting to see the problems with this policy and instead of saying “Yay, she gets it!”, Sr. Carol gets slammed again. Please don’t do this. Please, instead of slamming her and lumping her in with other nuns with other agendas, pray for her and then write to support her re-examination of this issue. It will be a huge embarrassment to the administration for her to publicly call them out. She does have the ear of many. ENCOURAGE HER, pray her along, be a brother or sister in Christ to her. Stop throwing stones but help her along the way to truth. She is getting there, she’s nearly there, and she is in a position to make a difference.
@Michael McKinney (and many others): I think you need to spend some time re-examining your understanding of “admonish the sinner.” Start here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04394a.htm
It has nothing to do with spewing libelous speech in a combox. Don’t forget that “admonish the sinner” is a Spiritual Work of MERCY. If she has sinned in the past (who hasn’t?), who are we to assume she isn’t now trying to make reparations? AMDG, let’s try to focus on the positive. Take everything with a grain of salt, sure, but try to focus on the positive.
Michael, thank you for pointing this out. Our Lord would often take to task those who were sinning and practicing evil but He never called them names or degrade them. As you also pointed out, who among us have not sinned and who among us have not been wrong in our views and opinions. We must admonish where necessary, but with a spirit of love and gentleness.
If she has decided to finally submit to the Bishops and Church teaching and it comes from a heart of repentance then we should be merciful and rejoice she has repented. However, much scandal has been done by her previous actions and statement and I believe humility on her part would call her to make a public statement of apology for her past rebellion against the Church she claims to represent.
GOD GIVE US FAITHFUL PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS! AND MAY WE ALL BE FOUND FAITHFUL!
Don’t be fooled again. This lady cannot be trusted. If the bishops buy into this “change of heart” and use it in any way, Sr. Carol will only pull the rug out from under them again.
The sister is part of a long line of Catholics that have fallen for the progressive ideals and has placed her political ideology over her faith. How can one part of the Catholic organization part ways with another, unless one gives greater service to politicians than to the church or the teachings of Christ. Perhaps now is a good time to reinvest ourselves in our faith and less in our political desires. Also, the board of trustees of the CHA should takes steps to replace the sister.
I don’t think that Sister does anything without consulting Obama, et al. first. Who knows what this is all about. Using an act of the will, I am willing myself to hopeful that Sister and the CHA have had a change of heart.
“Making this change could help address the serious “constitutional questions” created by the Departments’ current approach.”
There are NO constitutional questions to be considered. The ONLY powers reserved for the U.S. Congress are contained within Article I, Section 8
of the Constitution and providing for healthcare for the American citizenry is NOT one of them. PERIOD!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress
Sr. Keehan seems to be writing from her own personal point of view. Who is she that she - and apparently she alone - speaks to the issue, claiming to represent the Catholic Healthcare Association? What is this association? To whom is it responsible? Who chose Sr. Keehan? To whom does she report?
In spite of much wihful thinking, the Catholic Church does not have independent agencies.
Wonder if it has anything to do with CDF’s on LCWR reform effort?
Sr. Keehan still doesn’t oppose abortion drugs or contraception but is advising the Obama administration that everyone, including Catholics, pay for it via our taxes:
“If the administration wants people to have free abortion drugs and contraception, it should pay for them directly…”
She has not done a turnabout at all. She’s still advocating for abortion drugs and contraception to be paid for by American taxpayers of all faiths.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/sr.-keehan-turns-on-obama/#ixzz1y6DcK8E4
I am afraid that this is a case of a rat deserting a sinking ship. Obama is in serious trouble and that leaves a lot of his supporters in a very bad position.
I wish I could believe the more charitable explanation that she has recognized the error of her ways but if that were the case then surely she would have publicly repented.
My opinion is that Sr. Keehan is operating out of self-preservation. She has sensed that should the mandate and goverment control usurp religious liberty completely in this arena, there will not be any Catholic healthcare, even nominally, and thus, the CHA will be completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Her organization will disappear.
Today I sent a message to both mother houses of the sisters who taught me in grade school and in high school. It is by what they taught me that I have made the decision to stand by my church no matter what. So today I ask all the women religious of the church: When you taught me about the infallibilty of the Pope in matters of faith and morals. Did you mean it? And when you taught me the end doesn’t justify the means. Did you mean it? And when you taught me you can’t do evil in order to do good.Did you mean it? Because by what you taught me I will stand by my church even if that means going to jail for it. If you lied then you better tell me now.
I have met many wonderful nuns and their modeling of humility and obedience to God, His Church, and service to His people have always inspired me. It is the sister who reflects the loving image of our Blessed Mother who inspires me. To “break with the U.S. bishops” is not humble, obedient, or loving but prideful, arrogant, and a scandal to the faithful. Let us pray that Sister Carol Keehan has seen the error of doing things “her” way. And let us pray that we all keep seeking the truth.
In AZ, our Bishop challenged CHW positions on funding contraception through the Medicaid plan they own amongst other violations of Church teaching. Subsequently, St. Joseph’s hospital is declared non-Catholic by our Bishop.The cost of funding the free contraception and abortion services by organizations cannot be overlooked. The unconstitutional mandate forces the cost of ‘free’ healthcare to be supported by insurances, organizations, and individuals and will always violate a Catholic’s conscience. But I am suspicious that the CHA motivator in the decision to object to the Selibus accommodation is not Catholic conscience, but rather the undue burden of the cost of funding the mandate. CHW does not balance Catholic social justice with Catholic non-negotiables. Yes, they do much good for the poor and marginalized, but they forget what helps create the poor and marginalized…poor social structures that support Sanger-like agendas that destroy the family. It will be awhile before we know the true agenda. CHA commands millions off healthcare dollars and is a business with a Catholic mission, not a Catholic mission.
This “nun” is a none. She isn’t a nun by any traditional Catholic standard. She is a man-centered person in a business suit wheeling and dealing (or so she thinks) with minions of the devil. God permits people like this to go on blathering because the Church deserves her and people like her. She is a tool of the atheistic, hedonistic, immoral, man-centered, God-less, “modern” world. And the Church deserves her because the Church completely turned its back towards the Blessed Trinity and the Blessed Mother 50 years ago. Nothing this “nun” says, thinks, does can change that. She is spitting in the wind. She is irrelevant.
While I was extremely disappointed at the position initially taken by Sister Carol on the mandate as well as her working in conflict with the Catholic bishops, I am very pleased that she has now taken a different position. Isn’t this what we want? Did we really want her to dig in her heels in opposition to the bishops creating even more scandal? I don’t agree with all of negative notes posted above. I think that making this change has to be a somewhat humbling thing for her to do considering all of the prior notoriety. Do we really want to convey the idea that all of us sinners can not appreciate someone coming out of darkness and into the light? I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and simply say, “Thank you for changing your position”.
For those of you who are not sure how sincere is CHA’s new position, let me help. There is absolutely NO reason to trust her or CHA. They are only trying to cover their collective derrieres and duck from the withering torrent of good sense they completely ignored. They still have an agenda and it IS NOT Catholic or catholic.
Clearly she has been advised by her “Obot” handlers to preserve her CHA bona fides as an “official” Catholic spokesperson of equal or greater weight to that of the Bishops so that she will remain in a powerful position to shape legislation and to salvage as much of the Abortion death cult as possible in the New Health Care Bill that will inevitably follow when Obomacare is struck down by the Supreme Court.
Because of her past actions this woman should be clearly and plainly defrocked by the Bishops of pocessing any authority whatsoever to speak for the Catholic Church.
Sr.Keehan may turn on Obama now (for whatever reason) but she will turn on the Church and the Bishops at another time…
I love Sr. Keehan. She speaks the truth, unlike many of the Bishops.
Unfortunately the Fortnight for Freedom focused primarily on religious freedom, when it could have addressed freedom of conscience for all, not just religious institutions.
All business owners - even small establishments - will be forced to provide contraception and abortion inducing drugs in their employee health care plans regardless if they are Christian, Jew, Muslim or athiest.
Our liberty is vanishing before our eyes. Welcome to the Sebeliun nightmare - just one facet of the Socialist Republic of Barackistan. One wonders when we will be forced to recant our faith and offer a pinch of incense to Caesar or to spit on a crucifix…
~ The above dystopia brought to us by the mindless horde: panem et circenses.
kaniksu I keep saying that it is time to kick the druggies out of federal prison to clear some cells for those of us who will not bow down to the secular god. I am making my reservation lower tier please I have bad knees.
The good sister may have good intentions but the visual message she is sending us with that business outfit and crooked smile, tells us that she is a rebel, and individualistic person, that she cares about how she looks, and nobody has any real authority over her, and that she is an equal if not better than men in intellectuality, and in presence. She seems to be sending a message that the Church is okay for Sunday worship, but when it comes down to the business of running things. She is her own boss. Oh, you say that I am seeing things? Really? I may be old but I am not blind yet. When did it become okay for nuns to give up their oaths for worldly goods and to serve Christ and his spouse, the Church? You know what on second thought, maybe I am getting too old, and I was asleep when all this happened. It seems that Nuns know that there will be a reckoning of all this, and they are coming back home before it’s too late. I can see that.
How do you think Jesus would respond? He never stopped loving the sinner, nor should we His followers. And most of us have sufficient baggage. Love the sinner and hate the sin.
Jim McGovern I do love the sinner but I also feel betrayed by the “nuns” I guess you should read todays 1st reading and the gospel. About shephards leaving His flocks to scatter. None of these “nuns” will live with the consequences of the choices they espouse like I have. I took those “safe” pills. I have had 42 years of medical hell because of it. Those “safe” pills are a group 1 carcinogen like tobacco, They also cause other medical problems like blood clots which I had. 3 hospital stays 12 weeks, 1 surgery, 4 episodes of Short term disability from stasis ulcers, 1 episode of long term disability same condition. 3 bouts with MRSA drug resistant Staph infection due to anarobic condition of ulcerated area. And my favorite every other week trips 50 miles to have a conversation with a vascular surgeon while watching him scrape dead tissue from my leg. Now when you can suffer those complications then you have the right to inject your noise into this “womans” issue.
Jesus also would have told the sinner to go and sin no more. Being open to His Grace for the sake of improvement has always been in God’s plan for loving more and for approaching His excellence, His Glory.
Sr. Carol Keehan is a traitor to the Church and to the people. This bill is evil from start to finish. Had she done her homework she would have known that Progressives lie, cheat, steal, deceive, etc. She should bury her unworthy head in the sand and refuse her salary of close to a million.
Still wrong! If the administration pays for abortion directly it is using taxpayer’s money. About 50% of that is from pro-life taxpayers.
“Sister” Keehan never was and never will be pro life.
She is a staunch defender of her 870,000+ dollar salary.
Even Keehan’s latest, supposedly more forceful, disagreement with the HHS mandate (and its “non-accomodation”) - which the blogger and others have noted is a reversal of her initial position of support - again leaves open the door that she would, in the future, once again sing the praises of the HHS department and President Obama if the CHA would actually fall under a newly crafted “exemption” - with new language that provides the exemption to CHA, even if it wouldn’t provide such an exemption to others. Sorry, Sister Keehan, but the government doesn’t have the authority or the right to determine how “religious” any particular employer might be, for this purpose or any other purpose.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.