An instructive posting.

Your link to “abortion supporter AT&T” does not support that statement; in fact, it specifically references the claim that AT&T gave money to pro-life candidates.

“It will also be interesting to see if Americans, including Catholics, go back to sleep on this and pretend that Obama did not just deprive us of the right to conscience.”

I am also waiting to see whether the bishops will take this as a teaching moment to revisit with all the laity how the Magisterium works and confront the notion that Catholic morality is determined by authoritative pronouncements from people like Sr. Carol Keehan and Nancy Pelosi.

Thank you for this fantastic article!  Don’t forget about Pepsico and Yoplait - also need to be on the list with AT&T and Nestle.

I am a Catholic angered by the HHS mandate. BUT the problem with Fr. Barron’s and the Bishop’s response is that it is ultimately self-defeating.

This is because it appeals to the freedom of conscience as though this were the primary issue and as though it were absolute. But it is not absolute.

It is very easy to consider situations in which the American government must police and limit religious practice with law: for e.g., sharia law or genital mutilation with extremist Muslims, polygamy with early Mormons.

It is also very easy to appeal to the freedom of conscience in order to force Catholics to privatize their teachings and their views.

For the deepest analysis of this problem from a Catholic viewpoint that I’ve seen, look up Patrick Deneen’s piece “Religious Liberty?” on Front Porch Republic (published yesterday).

P.S. The Catholic Church, Bishops, and Fr. Barron should not be appealing to freedom of conscience. Ultimately it is freedom of conscience that has also been used to justify the abortion movement to begin with (freedom to choose, the privatization of morality).

Rather the Church should be making the case for why it holds the moral position it does, i.e., why it thinks birth control leads to the moral degradation of society. This is it’s true point anyway—not some supposedly absolute right to conscience. We all know the latter is a political fiction derived by secular society from Reformation theology (after all, Luther’s dissent against the Church? Freedom of conscience!)

Ceaser will allow us to worship as long as we make a small sacrafice to his idols.  The blood of the martyrs that refuse will nourish our Church.

Appealing to conscience is not self-defeating, as one’s conscience must be formed with Catholic teaching.

The pope has said that abortion in a non-negotiable issue- it is ALWAYS intrinsically evil.

As for judging how well one’s conscience is formed or not, and how ignorant a person is of the Truth, that’ll be up to God. But we are not free to choose evil…..

Great column once again, Mark.

@liseux,
Essentially your argument is: freedom of conscience = Catholic teaching.

At that point you have successfully abolished the notion of a free conscience. If you are right we do not need consciences. We merely need to read people the Catechism.

My point is that freedom of conscience within this legal/political context is the appeal to individual rights prior to community conceptions of what is good.

This kind of legal order is the very lifeblood of an extreme secularism. Fr. Barron and Shea are appealing to a legal system that advances the very thing they wish to combat.

Great article!  Thank you.

The Roman Catholic Church has been the greatest opponent of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in history. Whenever it has had the civil power supporting it, the Church has persecuted, imprisoned, and burned those who rejected its teaching.

JWB: I am afraid that you are confusing freedom of conscience with something different, not sure what.
Please read a little on freedom of conscience from the Magisterium: it is NOT the same as freedom to do as I think best, but freedom to do what is right, in any given situation, according to the teaching of the Church, that is, according to the teaching of Christ.
Therefore claiming that freedom of conscience can justify supporting abortion is wrong, because our conscience never tells us that abortion is justified.  Our disordered desires and secular influences tell us that.

Hi, I’ve got a question. I followed your link, “abortion supporter AT&T” and it doesn’t lead to an article that shows AT&T supports abortion. Actually, it links to an article that shows AT&T DOESN’T support abortion. Mark, could you clear this up?

Mark, it is appropriate that you bring up the recent legislation allowing the Administration to jail American citizens without charge in the context of this most recent affront.  If you recall, Janet Napolitano has classified pro-life protesters as “terrorists”.  Following this to its logical conclusion:  the Church and all freedom-loving Americans who protest the HHS mandate as the affront to freedom that it is are by-and-large pro-lifers, we are organizing protests, and may very well be arrested.  Some have been already, protesting in front of the White House.  Indefinite incarceration without charges is not that big a leap in this situation.  Scary.

JWB,
Most assuredly,I was not thinking freedom to kill your own child;I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I also don’t need to read the Magisterium; you need to read Church history.  Start with the Inquisition.

I haven’t found anything that states AT&T supports abortion. I’m concerned about this because we currently use AT&T service. We don’t have a plan, but we do their Go Phones. Unfortunately, Senna doesn’t have this option, or we could easily switch. We currently can’t fit in the budget an actual cell phone plan.

I have, however, found this on their website:

“In 2010, AT&T and its employees contributed nearly $148 million through corporate-, employee- and AT&T Foundation-giving programs. AT&T has a strong legacy with organizations focused on the empowerment of the African-American, Hispanic, Asian and Asian American, active military members, LGBT, and American Indian communities.”

So, while I’m still unsure about the abortion issue, it’s apparent they support the LGBT agenda.

For some reason, I can’t post the evidence I found. The website tells me it’s unable to process it because it thinks I’m spam. This is very frustrating.

I found evidence on the AT&T website that they support the LGBT agenda. However, I haven’t found anything about abortion. This issue is important as we have Go Phones from AT&T. I just want to get my facts straight before making any decision. Unfortunately, Senna doesn’t offer a GoPhone option, and so we can’t afford a plan from them anyway… Bummers!

@ Roberto and @ Everett

You’ve completely misunderstood my point.

The appeal to conscience in order to protect Catholics is being done in the public sphere and is an appeal to the laws of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, I know that the Church would never allow abortion (nor should I as a good Catholic). The problem is that Fr. Barron and the Bishops are appealing to freedom of conscience in order for the laws of the US (which are not Catholic) to protect them. In this secular context there are many others who make appeal to the same freedom of conscience to resist Catholic influence and privatize all moral questions.
Therefore, I think it is a backfiring strategy by the Bishops and Fr. B to appeal to individualistic freedom of conscience (as protection by the secular law). They should instead make the case in the public arena against contraception as a phony health issue.
Do yourself a favor and go read Patrick Deneen’s piece on Front Porch Republic

I’m a firm believer in all kinds of conscientious objection. I especially object to having to pay for the war in Iraq that this country waged, a war condemned by the Vatican, begun by the pro-life Republican Party and forced upon the American people.  I object to much of what the CIA does, especially its programs of torturing people in foreign lands.  This, too, has been condemned by the Magisterium. (Yeah, yeah, prudential judgment yada yada.  Go ahead and wiggle out of facing these moral issues if it makes you feel better.)

I wish there were boxes we could check on our 1040 forms.  I’d vote for better funding of schools, cancer research, space exploration in a minute.

So I am glad that the Obama administration decided that Catholic institutions can avoid paying for contraception. I do not see it as a shell game.

But what do we do when we realize that many, many women take “the pill” for non-contraceptive reasons, for reasons that truly have to do with health-care and preventing pain?

See this article in Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=many-teens-rely-on-the-pill

And see Humanae Vitae #15:

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. 

And don’t quibble that bad menstrual cramps, heavy flows and the like do not qualify as “bodily diseases,” either.  Have some compassion and think “dis-ease.” 

So if my insurance covers my arthritis medicine, why shouldn’t it cover the cost of the pills that a young woman needs to manage cramps or regulate her menstruation, who has no intention of contracepting pregnancy. who may not even be sexually active?  Why should her insurance company get to weasel out of that?  Why wouldn’t the church want to ease her pain?

JWB,

This is completely different than genital mutilation, etc.  Actually the opposite.  A mutilator is trying to do something to someone else, without their consent.  A government should stop a third party from mutilating someone else against their will.  But in this case Catholic institutions are not trying to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights by forcing them to do something.  They are not trying to do anything to anyone.  The government is trying to force them to pay for and provide something.

This is of the same sort of thing as forcing Amish to have electricity, drafting Menonites for the infantry, forcing Jews to offer pork when they have pot luck dinners at the temple, or forcing Jehovah Witnesses (adults) to have blood transfusions.

If Moses, after coming down from the mountain and seeing the Isrealites worshipping the golden calf, took a poll, he would probably get at least 98% supporting the worshipping of the calf.  It doesn’t if 100% of the Isrealites supported the golden calf or 100% of lay people who call themselves Catholic, support obama’s mandate, they are both flat out WRONG.  “Right is right even if nobody is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

Everett
It is true thet there has been serious abuses of power. But making a blanket statement that indicts the Church such as you have is patently false. The One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church has served humanity in various laudable ways. Such as mission work, education, feeding and sheltering the least of Christ’s brothers and sisters (ie Blessed mother Teresa). Read some of Dr. Carroll’s “History of Christendom”.

@ Jacob Morgan,
It’s true that a stronger case exists for the non-violation of rights in the case of genital mutilation. But what about Mormon polygamy? And what about sex workers or pornography? All of these are defended on the basis of the very same individualistic freedom of conscience to which the Bishops and Fr. Barron are appealing.
The Catholic Bishops and Fr. B should not be arguing the case on the basis of “rights”. That very structure is what is used to tell Catholics to shut up and privatize their religion. They should be arguing on the basis of what is good. It is the more difficult road, but they should openly and honestly come out and make the (albeit wildly unpopular) but nevertheless vitally important case for Catholic sexual ethics.

JWB, I’ve read both articles and I can’t understand why this can’t be a two-front attack instead of one or the other.  I agree that adopting the mantra of right to act on one’s own conscience is the exact same argument made by people that would have us tolerate “gay marriage” etc., but I don’t see the harm in appealing to our Constitution to protect ourselves from a particular attack.

@David
One problem is right now it is not a two prong attack. It is woefully one prong. It is genuinely frustrating to read the news and not see Dolan and the leadership making the robust case for Catholic sexual ethics. Instead the stance is “just leave us little old Catholics alone to do our weird little Catholic thing because that’s the American way.”
A second problem is that “progressive” Catholics who no longer adhere to Church teaching on birthcontrol etc. were willing to join forces with the Bishops only so long as it was a freedom of conscience issue. There commitment only went that far. And once it seemed like the conflicting consciences of secular liberals and Catholics had been more or less compromised/brokered they backed off. This is massively damaging for the Catholic case because Obama was always prepared to ignore the Bishops on the assumption that the vast majority of Catholics were happy with their birthcontrol. So the Bishops lost a pedagogical moment—a chance to preach the gospel or at least make the public case to progressive Catholics for Catholic sexual ethics.

One reason why some in this debate are focusing on an individual’s concience as apposed to religious liberty in their opposition to the mandate may have to do with the way that SCOTUS has interpreted our first amendment rights.  The hidden “right to privacy” that brought about the legalization of contraceptives and abortion has consistently been broadened throughout the last few decades.  Meanwhile, the right to religious freedom has been consistently dampened.  SCOTUS might uphold this mandate in its current form.  The prevailing interpretation is that laws that hamper religious practice are only unconstitutional if they specifically target a religious practice.  Currently, the “right to privacy” may offer more protections for religious belief than the the actual right to freedom of religion.

@JWB
I apologize for totally misunderstanding your point.  I will read more carefully next time.

Everett Bonds: For your salvation, you better read TRIUMPH The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church BY H. W. Crocker III.

@ Roberto
Thanks. It’s nice to hear a mea culpa in these forums as they are so rare. No worries whatsoever.

Fr. Barron states correctly, that institutions who accept the mandate or who currently offer contraceptives in their health plans have “de-Catholicize” themselves.

Seattle University and Gonzaga and other cathylic institutions are no longer truly Catholic, but have sold out to the anti-Christian altar of the left and its unholy magisterium.

Post Script

Seattle University and Gonzaga University and their leftist presidents either have already included contraception in their health plans and/or have stated that they will comply with the HHS mandate, which is an attack on religious freedom.

SU and GU have stated publicly that they assent to the state rather than profess fidelity to the Church. They are in the same camp as the opponents of St. Thomas More.

Bill,
The Inquistion was not merely an “abuse of power.”  Neither was telling Jews to be baptized or burn.  Neither was torturing and burning tens of thousands of Anabaptist men and women.  The list goes on ad infinitum,ad nauseum.  My “blanket statement” was patently and sadly true.  The Catholic Church has done much good, but it doesn’t justify its one thousand year assault on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

Wednesday—**I place no hope at all in Caesar or Mammon**
Friday—**My prayer is that the courts will smack down the Administration’s assault on conscience**
_________________________

Wow.  That didn’t last long.  All of two days.  We are now to place our liberties and freedom and conscience in the hands of the judiciary?

Remember, these are the same courts which hold that it is the height of fundamental liberty to be able to kill 55 million innocent human lives.

Might they do the right thing THIS time?  Perhaps, but we should not count on it.  Ultimately, we are the guardians of our own liberties.  We need to make clear to King Henry, et al., that “no” means “no.”

We will not comply and participate in, or cooperate with, that which is contrary to moral truth.
We will not pay any fines.
We will not hand over our consciences to the jurisdiction of the courts.

We will continue doing corporal acts of mercy.
We will be a light of love and truth to the world.

If you want to play Henry and Nero and have your henchmen come and seize Church assets and throw faithful Catholics in prison, go ahead.  But we will not bend and give in to evil.  We will be free.

Bob,
I don’t need to read “Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church” for my salvation.  I’ve read and believe the Holy Scriptures.  Paul wrote to the church in Rome,“If you confess with your mouth’Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel, between Christ and Antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is therefore, in God’s Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously…”

Karol Wotyla 1976

The Catholic hierarchy was not in favor of abusive measures against heresy, but civil authority which regarded itself as the politicial arm of the church often was inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity. Heretical attacks on the church were often treated as serious threats against the stability of the Christian world. The pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct tribunal, but he did appoint special judges who worked within the context of the civil system. There were definitely abuses, but the toll of the inquisition is greatly exagerated. Moreover, after the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants also lined up with the civil authorities that supported them to war on Catholics.

Bender:

My apologies for hoping that justice will be done.  What was I thinking?  I should be praying that the Church get ground under the boot of draconian power by a lawless and unaccountable executive who owns all the guns and police.  Your big talk reminds me of the Southern gentleman who ges angry at Rhett Butler for pointing out the the Yankees are better equipped to fight a war than they are. “All we have ae cotton, slaves, and arrogance” says Butler.  Like it or not, if Catholics fight stupid, we will lose, because the odds are already against us. One stupid way of fighting is to not take advantage of the tools available to us (like the Court, which did just deliver a crushing rebuke to the Obama Administration when it tried to dictate to churches who they can hire as pastor).  If we simply defy Obama we are, recall, looking at debilitating financial reprisals against the Church, which could radically destroy parishes and dioceses and non-compliant institutions.  You may be comfortable sending others out to die for your bellicose posturing.  But you might want to check and see first if other avenues, such as the courts, can more effectively do the job.

Me: I’m more interested in defeating Obama than hating him.

As long as people like Kathleen Sibelius, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer and the rest of the pro-death democrats can say, “Hey I’m Catholic and my ‘faith’ as formed by my conscious says that the Church should be forced to provide contraception.” the Church will be unable to defend itself.

If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mk 3:25

What is going on is an attempt, pretty successful, to establish a dictatorship. Remember how Obama praised the Chinese for the ease with which they got things done? And how he said the U.S. Constitution was too restrictive since it didn’t list the things the government could do?

“I’ve read and believe the Holy Scriptures.  Paul wrote to the church in Rome,“If you confess with your mouth’Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”...

Paul writes of Original Sin in Romans 5. If he’s an Evangelical, he will next write in the context of your citation above. But what does he follow with (Rom 6) regarding our being freed from sin? Baptism.
Much later in his epistle Paul will exhort the Church in Rome to “confess” the baptismal faith.

Kathleen Sibelius, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer, saying they’re Catholic is like me saying I’m an NHL hockey player cuz I watch it on t.v.  I can’t skate to save my life.  I pray the above mentioned politicians learn their faith and change their way of thinking.

“I am for conscience protection.”

The trouble with this statement is it precedes the government action of promoting an evil. How can one allow an evil to be promoted and then rest on the thought that they have somehow been protected by somehow being cordoned off from it through government fiat, and hence they are now a merely safe bystander, a meek, insulated witness who can wash their hands of the ensuing government-sanctioned evil as it occurs?

It is a faustian bargain.

**My apologies for hoping that justice will be done**
___________

That’s NOT what you said.  You said you had your hope in the courts.

I’ll give you 55 million reasons, and more, why we should not place our trust in the courts.

You were on firmer ground the other day when you counseled putting your trust in God—that is where you are going to get justice—and not in man or the governments of man.

Bender, you write:

That’s NOT what you said.  You said you had your hope in the courts.

No.  I didn’t.  I said, “My prayer is that the courts will smack down the Administration’s assault on conscience, as SCOTUS smacked down the Administration’s recent attempts to dictate to churches who they may and may not ordain.”  A few lines later I then concluded, “God lives and is not asleep.  We can and must pray in the hope that he will move his arm for the sake of his holy Church.”

For some reason, you are mysteriously bent (pardon the pun) on wasting time prosecuting me over trivial semantics in the time-tested manner of the conservative circular firing squad instead of recognizing we are on the same side against a common foe.  I forgive you.  Now stop wasting time quibbling about such silly nonsense and get to work praying and fighting the real problem.

@Catholic in Chicago: one of the problems with your argument is that you’re operating under the assumption that hormonal contraceptives are actually the best treatment for the disease entities you mention.  Unfortunately, the pharma companies and the likes of PP (who all have substantial $$ to gain here) have pushed the contracptive agenda to “normalize” its use and expand its “benefits” to include the supposed treatment or real pathology.  At this point, the “pill” has so many FDA-approved indications, one would think it a vitamin.  However, the reality is that exogenous hormones are not the best treatment for horrible periods, migraines, acne, depression, “irregular” cycles, and so on.  Rather, clinicians have become incredibly lazy and, rather than actually investigating where the true disease lies when a woman presents with such problems (they don’t get paid to spend that kind of time, you know), the cookie-cutter answer is to just “put her on the pill.”
...
I know of what I speak, having worked in the medical field for over 15 years (the last 7 as a healthcare provider).

@ Everett, I thought I’d see you on this website to give all we “Inquisition Catholics” a run for our money.  Your Dear Leader is at it again.  Obama is just doing what every Marxist Despot does which is to persecute the Catholic Church.  I knew you wouldn’t be too bothered by his attack on the 1st Amendment because Marxist see the Constitution of the United States as an obsticle to a Communist State. This is obviously your view.  For those of us who value our right to free speech and exercise of our religion, we are a little bent out of shape at your Dear Leader.  Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are proud of Obama as one of their comrads.

Everett, save your hysterics about the Catholic Church for a website that cares.  If you compare the best of who the Church has to offer to any other religion or secular institution, the Church always looks THE best.  No one else has a St. Francis of Assisi, a Mother Teresa, a St. Maximilian Kolbe, a St. Damien of Molokai, etc.  Other than Jesus, they are the BEST humanity has to offer - hands down.  In addition, the Church feeds more people, cares for more sick, and educates more children more than any other institution in the entire world.  Yep, we’ve had a few losers too, but none of our losers compare to a Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.  The biggest losers and despots of history are all radical secularists, so don’t lecture us about freedom.  You can criticize our Church and we will crush you in a debate.  But in many countries if you criticize their institutions, they will crush your life.  I’ll throw my lot in with the Catholic Church over any institution.  The Church actually makes a difference in the world.  Maybe you should go out and make a difference rather than carry on like an adolescent.  Get off your seat and do something rather than criticize.

Letters to Editor: February 11, 2012
Rockport Pilot Paper, Texas
Published:
Friday, February 10, 2012 2:05 PM CST
Dear Editor:

In 2009 Obama used Fr. Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, as his willing dupe and told the graduates of formerly-Catholic Notre Dame the USA should “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause.” We have seen this before in history.

The movie “The Cardinal,” depicts the Catholic Archbishop of Vienna in 1938 going down a path of accommodation and conciliation with Hitler prior to and just after the Nazi takeover of Austria. Once the peaceful mini-invasion of Austria is complete, the Archbishop meets with Hitler for reassurance Hitler will honor his promises of religious liberty in the new Austria. Hitler says, “about those promises-never mind,” and the Archbishop realizes he has been had. Read the history books for the details of freedom of conscience and religious liberty in Austria under the Nazis.

Hello! USA, I am Obama; I rule. You Catholics will come to heel; you will violate your consciences, you will provide birth control, and sterilizations and the morning-after pill that is an abortafacient, i.e. it kills babies. You will obey. By the way, thanks for your support of me and of the Trojan horse legislation that makes this all possible.

Hello! Catholics …  the over half of you who voted for Obama, without your support he would not have been elected; and later ObamaControlCare would not be law. Muchas gracias!

Obama violates the four most important principles laid down by the U.S. Catholic Bishops for not voting for a person: racism, abortion, marriage and religious liberty. For some reason, outrageous violation of the first three principles didn’t matter to many in 2008. Now the Democrat party has become the Party Of Death and the President is saying you must as required by law violate your consciences and, literally, “to hell with you.” Herod, Nero, Obama.

Guy McClung

It is frightful that the perception of the Constitution by the current Administration is that is too restrictive.  The Constitution of the United States is an important protection of citizens from government intrusion and oppression.  Our Ancestors were attracted to come here because of the important principles carefully articulated by our founding fathers.
Personally, my own family suffered bitterly under government oppression.  Years ago my Cousin, a Catholic Priest, was hanged by the Gestapo for non-compliance to a deportation government order.  A relative of mine was steralized by the government because she did not meet government racial standards.  Let’s hope and pray that our great Nation is not heading in that direction.  BELIEVERS, STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!  DON’T TAKE YOUR RIGHTS FOR GRANTED!

One of the great things about Fr. Barron is that he tells it like it is. If we are to be Catholics (aka Christian) then we must follow the moral laws set fourth by Jesus Christ. We simply cannot pick and choose what we are to believe. I do not recall a debating society in the Bible choosing which laws they would follow and which they would not. Mistakes are made which can be corrected via reconcillation, however when we ignore what is going on around us we cannot be forgiven (sins of omission). If you are a Christian then it is time to stand up and be counted.

“[Y]ou can get your chocolate from some Fair Trade group that helps, rather than murders and enslaves, innocent people in Third World countries.”

Columniation’s a sin, Mr. Shea; the production and marketing of infant formula is not immoral, and Nestle isn’t “evil” for engaging in the business. You should make distinctions between the truly immoral and things are merely distasteful to you.

sadly, the Catholic Church has historically supported the Democratic Party for decades, thinking that the liberal social engineering was the work that Christ would want….now we’re paying for this wrong assumption.  All us conservative Catholics have been a minority for a long time.  Speaking the truth at the pulpit in the homily would be a nice start , instead of the liberal pie in the sky feel good homily trash we hear most Sundays.  aarrgh
It starts with holding our liberal clergy and their leadership accountable.  And now the church is reaping what it sowed all these years….

Daniel,Jason,Vance
I’m as far from Marxism as the east is from the west.  Barack Obama is arguably the worst American president in history.  Freedom of religion is a constitutional right; woman receiving free contraceptives is not.
  I’m a retired English teacher.  For years I taught in the highest crime district in Baltimore.  During the Vietnam War, I was a Vietnamese/Korean interpreter for Navy Intelligence.
  When Catholic historian Lord Acton wrote,“Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he was refering to medievel popes who literally got away with murder.  The papacy has long drenched itself with the blood of those who rejected its teaching.  A thousnd Mother
Theresas will never justify that.
  Vance, your mentioning Romans 5 and 6 doesn’t affect what Paul said in Romans 10: 9.

It’s bad enough that anyone who wants health insurance has to get it from these companies that are corrupt and pays for others to do evil deeds, even if our own plan doesn’t include those things. But obviously the HHS mandate is way beyond the pale, totally unconstitutional on its face, trying to force us all into DIRECT cooperation with evil. If those regs are upheld, we will have witnessed the death of religious freedom in this country. It’s that serious.

@Warlord - you seem to be unaware that violence has been done by all human beings, and that atheistic violence, and other violence against Christians, has been much more multitudinous than that done by Christians. I don’t at all seek to justify violence done by Christians, in fact, I abhore it, but these old canards about the blood soaked papacy are just ridiculous.

@Everett - whatever your opinions of the Catholic Church and religious freedom when it comes to the past, you should notice that TODAY it is the Church who is defending religious freedom, while atheists and secularists are working overtime to destroy it, to cut religion out from any expression in public life!! So please give us a break!!

Well then, Everett, perhaps we shouldn’t stop in Medieval Europe.  We could just as well go back to Jesus hanging on the cross.  Peter denied knowing him three times, the rest of the twelve save John ran away and one of them sold out Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.  Yet after the resurrection Jesus commissioned these weak men to be his Church.

Jesus was in the line of King David.  Guess what David did?  He sent one of his generals to be killed in the front lines so that he could have the man’s wife.  You are no doubt familiar with the expression getting “fragged?”  That was the ultimate fragging if you ask me.

The absolute power that you speak of has always been and always will be the power of moral teaching authority.  The protection of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals.  Bad Popes went far beyond the authority given by Christ, collaborating with ambitious, immoral, and often ignorant men in secular authority but Christ never did take away the authority that he gave them within the Church.  In those dark times, those popes did not have the authority they wielded, not from Jesus Christ, yet the truth of the gospel was never compromised.  Forgotten, yes, just as it is today in many quarters, until some catalyst brings the faithful back to the full understanding of the truth by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Sadly enough, the history of the Church in 2000 years has by times resembled the history of the Israelites.  Nevertheless, God is faithful to her, even when she is unfaithful, and the truth is still the same, and the promise of Jesus Christ still remains to the Church he founded, and the authority he gave her still remains in the head of that Church, protests and protest-ants nothwithstanding.

So then, Everett, is your commentary to suggest the First Amendment that you affirm is just for Protestants?  Or that we Catholics must just shut up about freedom of conscience in America like we were expected to during those bloody centuries in England until Catholicism was once more legalized (something like Constantine’s edict in the 4th century).  Or are you willing to stand with American Catholics on the principle you say you hold dear? 

Would you rather hold Catholics in the same contempt that godless dictators the world over have throughout history, much akin to the Salem witches that Protestants so despised in America (and in Lutheran Germany for that matter)?  Is the blood on the hands of Protestants so different, or is it just a matter of the perceived degree?

Come now, leave aside your hatred of Catholics for a moment and realize that this edict effects you and your freedom of conscience as well, and if you don’t defend us but rather spend your time chastising us, then we will not be around to defend you later when the damage is done.

Were not the Bishops red hot for Obamacare at the beginning by publicly endorsing it despite the fact that the taxpayer would have to pay for contraceptives and abortificients?  Where were the bishops to protect the catholic individuals’ consciences against this before the recent mandates?  They are crying foul now because the catholic “institutions” are being forced to pay for these contraceptives also.  Since wade v roe, the catholic bishops and many priests have aligned themselves with the democratic party in in order to receive billions of dollars yearly for their social justice programs while this party has been contributing to the death for forty or more years 50 million innocent babies. Dead babies aren’t as important as their social justice programs.  Sister Carol Keenan is power hungry. She too aligns herself with the obama administration in order to protect her one-million-a year salary/job and the flow of billions of dollars into the Catholic Health Associations’ hospitals.  This is clearly blood money.

Will the Catholic’s freedom of conciensce make it symphiosotomy the preferred option in difficult deliveries in Catholic hospitals/

Look it up.

Everett: I did not intend to offend you.  There is a good bit more to salvation than what you state.  There is the responsibility to atone for all your sins before you get to heaven either preferably here through confession and penance or in purgatory.  Jesus only opened the gates of heaven.  You have to earn it by following the Church he built that has authority over the Scriptures.  You owe it to yourself to at least examine the teachings of the Church you seem intent to condemn.  Your salvation does indeed depend on it.  God promised that it would always be free from error.

Everett again I recommend you read/study the work of Dr. Carroll’s the “History of Christendom” (multiple volumes). I am sure your current position on the Church is based on some research? You say the Church has done some good? What do you base that on? Some research? Please provide some documemtation on this 1000 year assault.

LJ,
  I’n not Protesant. I’ve long felt that Martin Luther was, at least,arguably the biggest hypocrite in the history of the the church. David and Peter are both examples against your argument; they repented.  The church of Rome has not only not repented or even admitted guilt to anything, throughout its history it has claimed an infallible papacy and an infallible magisterium even in the face of the most abominable sins.
  I hate hypocrisy, not Catholics.
Bob,
  We don’t atone for our sins; Christ did it for us, and we can add nothing to it.  “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is not Luther’s sola fide.  Faith in Scripture always includes obedience and good works.
  God never promised the Church it would be free of sin.  Read the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation.  Moreover, virtually every epistle rebukes sin the Church.
  Most assuredly, God did not give authority over His word to man; that’s the quintessence of presumtion.
Bill,
  I’ve studied church history for years.  It seems that you don’t know enough to realize how little you know.

Well, Everett, not to belabor the point but I hate hypocrisy too.  Most of us do, and not one of us, unless he is sinless is immune from that charge at one time or another.  So on that I think we can agree.
If you have studied Church history you will note that the immoral popes, and there were some really immoral popes, did not exercise the charism of infallibility to teach error.  Perhaps you are not aware that the charism of infallibility Christ gave to his Church and in particular to the head of the Church, the one with the keys of the kingdom, is not a charism of impeccablity.  The Holy Spirit acts as a bulwark against teaching error in faith and morals, and in a very real sense that is what is meant by the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church.
Had you studied Church doctrine as well as her history, it would be evident to you that the charism of infallibility is quite narrowly defined. 
As to apologies, JPII made a number of them on a wide range of past sins and excesses, and I am sure that if you sift through them you will find one that will addresses your particular issue(s).  And, it would be interesting to hear how you know that those sinful men who at various times ruled the Church did not actually repent of their sins at some point.
You may remember what Christ said in Matthew 23;
[2] “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”
He then went on to thoroughly denounce the hypocrisy of those same scribes and Pharisees, telling them that they will get their reward if they do not repent.  That same principle is still in operation in the Church.  Those who have authority are to be obeyed when they teach because God has given them that authority, but those in authority are held to account by God for their sins and hypocrisy.  And even so, the truth is still the truth, regardless of the sins of God’s ministers.
How many times have we seen non-Catholic preachers who have fallen because of immorality or greed?  Yet even so, would you neccessarily say that their message was in error because of it?  If a father says to his teenage son, “Don’t smoke,” yet continues to puff away himself, does that make the wisdom of the advice any less true because he is a hypocrite?
I left a church in my youth because of hypocrisy and went my own way.  Fortunately for me, years later, when Christ brought me back he brought me all the way home to the Church he founded.  I realized that the charge of hypocrisy, while true enough, became an excuse not to think, not to seek the truth.

The charism of infallibilty is not found in Scripture;it’s an invention of the Church of Rome.  He gave nothing to the “Head of the Church.”  He is the Head of the Church.  The Church never taught “error in faith and morals?”  You need to read Pius IX “Syllabus of Errors.”  He opposed freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the separation of church and state.  He very much believed the Catholic faith should be the only recognized by the state.  He condemned what the present Church praises.

Pius IX gave the Church the doctrine of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870.  That was the same year the Italian government ripped the remaining papal states out of the grasping hands of Pius. Pius’successor, Leo XIII, the second offically infallible pope, was in total agreement with Pius.  They both taught what the Church had taught and practiced ,when it had the civil power, since the fourth century.  Your example of the father smoking is irrelevent.  The father,presumably didn’t claim to be infallible.

At the First Vatican Council in 1870, Pius made the doctrine of papal infallibility in faith and morals official dogma of the Church.  That was the same year the Italian government ripped the remaining papal states out of the grasping hands of the pope.  If you really think the Roman Church has never erred in its teaching, then you don’t know enough Church history to realize how much you don’t know.
  Your analogy of the smoking father is irrelevant.  Presumably, the father din’t claim to be infallible.

I am aware of the apologies JPII made, yet to many it is a case of “too little, too late”.  Those apologies did nothing for those already dead, unless giving them a few bragging minutes in the afterlife.  For those still living, like the surviving Magdalene sisters, or the orphanage children shipped to Australia and subjected to the most brutal exploitation, including sexual - with the worst offenders being the Catholic orders, those few words do very little to heal their wounds. Even money would not be enough recompense, but that was not offered.  Just vague words that no one can cash at the bank. No loving gesture, not even a lousy Christmas card.

I would like to respond to your post, but Mark Shea has decided to limit the length and even reject my comments.  You may not see this posted.  However, if you like, you may email me at evbonds@yahoo.com.  This is an open invitation to anyone reading this.

Actually, Everett, I haven’t been paying any attention to your comments, much less doing anything about them.  Once I saw you were going to wrench the conversation away from the actual subject and ride your anti-Catholic hobby horse to death, my eyes glazed over and I started ignoring you.  So it must be a system glitch or maybe divine Providence.

At any rate, I do not owe you a forum.  So since you choose to be an obnoxious and ungrateful guest, I choose to kick you out of my comboxes.  Bye!

and there was weeping and gnashing of teeth out in the darkness….Way to go Mark! Keep on keeping the main thing the main thing. Off to Mass now to pray for Everett, you and everyone who reads this and everyone who contributes to the discussion.  And that’s everyone…the entire Church Militant..each made in the image of a loving God. May God bless and keep all and all have a full-of-wonder weekend.

Jehovah’s Witnesses must be allowed to refuse to pay into Medicare and Medicaid since it funds the destruction of souls by paying for blood transfusions. How can the conscience remain clear knowing such atrocities? And don’t even get me going on Viagra: if God wanted those to be erect, he would have made them so.

I’m sorry, but you people are all nuts.  I am a lifelong Catholic…although based on what is written above, because I disagree with what you are saying then I certainly am NOT a Catholic in your eyes. 

The Roman Catholic Church is not a person.  It has no rights.  We, the people, are the ones with the rights.  If the Catholic church wants to be an employer, and an employer of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, it should be required to follow the same laws as any other employer…and I am talking not only of the HHS ruling, but of all laws.  We as individuals have been given religious freedom by the constitution.  I am free to worship in any way I choose…the government cannot stop me.  And the HHS ruling is not stopping anyone from NOT using contraception.  Use it.  Don’t use it.  It is your choice.  You are the one that will be judged…by God…when you die.  You do not stand in judgement of me, or anyone else, and to presume that you do is the epitome of arrogance.  God gave us free will.  You cannot take it away from us.

I am increasingly disturbed by the tenor at the top of the Church.  From sweeping pedophilia under the rug for years, the the Church’s stance on excluding homosexuals, to the most recent changes in the verbiage of the Mass…This is my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.  It will be shed for you and for MANY…so that sins may be forgiven.  For MANY?  Seriously?  Who is excluded?  All non-Catholics?  Homosexuals?  Who?  and Why?  Is that really what Jesus intended?  The Church is going off the rails, and you people, it seems, are the conductors.

different Kenny G,
Your stance on the rights of people is part of the problem. If you have the right to free will in the way your conscience dictates, don’t people who are loyal to the magisterium have the same right as well? Why is it that the people who scream for tolerance are generally the most intolerant people? And why should we have to put money towards something that we believe is intrinsically evil? And the “many” who are excluded could be by self-exclusion. Hope this isn’t offensive to you, brother.

You have every right as an individual to be loyal to the magisterium.  You can, and do, exercise that right by following the edicts of the Church as disseminated by the Pope, and his minions.  I am not sure what you are implying when you say…Why is it that the people who scream for tolerance are generally the most intolerant people?  I don’t believe I am being intolerant.  I believe I am advocating for all of us as individuals to have the right to worship as we see fit.  The Catholic Church, in the eyes of the HHS, is an employer, like any other.  It’s employees are the ones with the rights.  Plus, the compromise that the administration put forward dictates that the Church, as an employer, does not have to put money toward something that the Church believes is intrinsically evil.  But they get no credit for that.  You may personally be dead set against contraception in any form, and at any time, but reality is that well over 90% of Catholics use it in one form or another.  You and I may disagree, but I don’t believe using contraception makes those Catholics evil.  More than 25 years ago the priest that my wife and I used for Pre-Cana told us that it was unrealistic for the church to think that every time we had sex that our goal was to have a child.  He said the Church wants to ensure that we fully intend to have children, and that when we did, we would raise them as Catholics.  Clearly, this is not the letter of the law.

I am not buying that the “many” who are excluded are self-excluded.  Jesus did not have that in his heart, and you’ll never get me to believe he did.  He shed his blood for ALL. 

I am never offended by an honest and open exchange where both sides are given equal credence.  You and I will definitely not agree on this issue, but we can disagree in a civil manner.  I, admittedly, took a less than civil tone in my original post because I was offended by many of the earlier comments.

Also, a lot of those employees might not be Catholic, but belong to a religion for whom birth control is OK (surprisingly, Islam is one of those - and it was the ayatollahs who carried out the population control program in Iran).  What right do employers have to tell their employees not to do what their religion say it is OK?  The problems with Catholics and the magisterium is one thing the problem with non-Catholics made to obey a magisterium they do not believe in is another. Or do you employ only Catholics in those places?

It is very hard to be pro-life when you insist on being anti-birth control as well.  It is one thing to be against abortion, and I am willing to support you there. But when you decry birth control, then I must respectfully ask you what you are smoking.

Seriously, while I am willing to have the outmost respect for bishops and cardinals (the ones not guilty of henious conduct, like the ones in Argentina), they seem to suffer from the “Red Ruhr in Red Germany syndrome”. 

Arthur Koestler tells of the plesbicite to reunite the Ruhr with Germany, when Hitler was in power. The Communists asked what they were supposed to vote - like against reunification as prudence dictated. The asnwer was to vote for a “Red Ruhr in a Red Germany” - with such a wise guidance, the Ruhr became a Nazi Ruhr in a Nazi Germany.  I thought when I read it that it showed the stupidity of Communism. But I see that Communists are not the only ones suffering from it.  In the matter of sex and birth control the churchmen set an ideal situation and advice as if that ideal situation was the reality.  Thus they talk about welcoming life in poor countries where the situation is such - there is room for six children livng with a couple. If the mother has another baby, the oldest child has to go live in the street… Thus creating another street child. Or the oldest daugther is pulled from school and sold in marriage, so that she can get pregnant before her development is complete, and die in complications from delivery, or suffer from a fistula that leaks urine and feces from her vagina - making her an outcast, and living in constant pain. 

As for the dangers to health of anticonceptives, there are countries where the leading cause of women’s deaths is deliveries.  With anticonceptives they might get cancer years later. Without them, they will not live enough to catch cancer, nor even a cold. They will be dead.

a different ken g,
There is so much that I would like to address in your statements above but I will try to keep it short and ‘tackle’ the main ‘points’, and probably not in correct order. Please bear with me as I am not a very educated man. Yes Christ shed his blood for all but it is an undeniable fact that not all will accept that sacrifice. Humanity is born with free will and some, dare i say most, choose not to except this. And if the statistic on whether or not 90% of Catholics use contraception is true, does that make it right or just? That doesn’t make sense because 90% of the people I went to high school with use drugs, so should I as well? You might argue that it is within my rights to use, or not use drugs, but that still doesn’t speak on the justness, or righteousness of drug use. I guess we will not agree on many things but I sense your anger. I understand your point of view but I don’t agree with it. At any rate, this kind of debate is best served to be done in person, as there is so much to debate about. I sincerely wish you the best, brother.

It absolutely is true that not all will accept Christ’s sacrifice.  However, to change the mass in such a way that you are changing His words is wrong,  And I am left to wonder why,  This is the cup of MY blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.  It will be shed for you, and for ALL, so that sins may be forgiven…  He did not say MANY, He would never have said many,  He would only have said ALL.  There is evil out there certainly.  And I believe that there is evil in the hearts of the leaders of the Church.  Christ would not have excluded anyone.

Humanity chooses not to accept free will?  I would say that ultra-conservative Catholics fail to accept the fact that we were all born with free will, and that our exercising that free will is something that we need to reconcile with God…not with them.  You are absolutely correct when you say that just because the majority of people do, or don’t do something does not make it just or righteous.  We all need to make those decisions ourselves. But again, the ultimate judge of all of us is God…not you, or me, or anyone else.

Ken, I’m pretty sure the analogy of contraception to illicit drug use is not accurate. Health insurance is designed to pay for therapies that are effective and safe whether one chooses to use them or not. There are plenty of treatments that I may not think are appropriate but if everyone could pick and choose what they want coverage for, the process begins to break down. There is no rheumatoid history in my family so why should I get a policy that covers expensive rheumatoid drugs? I think blood transfusions are unethical, so I don’t want my premiums going to pay for them, circumcision is not for me, etc, etc.

Are you sure you’ve never used birth control? Your wife or girlfriend? Your parents, brothers or sisters? If so, then you are either very rare or very young.

Ken G,
I think your point is well said in that those are choices we need to make for ourselves. But the Obamer admin. is trying to make those choices for us. Choose to violate you conscience or face fines or jail. What part of that can you not see my brother. Saying that the insurance companies will have to provide these services free of charge is just politalk.When do any for profit companies offer any service for free? they will pass on that cost to the employers who will then be paying for the services that we dont believe any one should use/pay for for the good of humanity. And as many have stated before, when did pregnancy become a disease? I guess some may think that poor people having children is a disease? My wife and I have not used contraception and have four girls and one boy on the way. Is it hard? You bet. Is it satisfying? Not always. But being selfless can be all of those things and more. We are not rare, we just think that there might be a calling to give life at the “loss” of our own life. I am also fighting for the right to worship as I see fit. You keep saying I shouldn’t have that right. And you can continue using gas store bathroom vending machines, or the local planned parenthoodz for free contraceptives. Don’t we all win then? I also didn’t say that if you are using contraception you are evil kneivel, I said the act in and of itself is cooperating in an intrinsic evil.  And as far as the word ‘all’
being replace by ‘many’, I assumed it was just a closer interpretation to the latin text? Please correct me if i am wrong and you have undeniable facts.I imagine we would need to find the first gospels to truly know this word or we are both just guessing. I do take a certain offense to calling the pope and his minions, well….,the pope and his minions.

bob jones,
Why do you think you have the “right” to impose your immorality on other people? Contraception is just a ruse to have free sex with whomever one chooses to and face no consequences. Like a child wanting to eat to much candy but not have the bellyache afterwards. come on man,yall cant be that brainwashed.

kenny g.
I ment to say humanity will not accept his sacrifice of blood, that some, dare i say most, will not accept his sacrifice of blood.

You are missing my point.  Why change the wording in the mass?  Why change His words?  Why exclude?  He didn’t.  Who is now, and why?  Is it a more literal translation from the Latin?  I don’t have any idea.  Even if it is…why change it now?

Re: your earlier point…the Obama administration is not making anyone use contraception.  Use it if you want, don’t if you don’t.  These are choices we all must make ourselves.  Nobody makes them for us, and nobody should judge us for those decisions.  That is God’s job.

I have not once, in any stretch of anything I’ve said, said that you shouldn’t have the right to worship as you see fit.  You absolutely have that right.  We all do.  You can’t dictate to me how I will worship, and I can’t dictate to you how you worship.  That, brother, is the essence of what is in the Constitution.

One of the definitions of minion is “A subordinate official, especially a servile one”  If that is not a fitting definition of Cardinals, Bishops, and priests in general, then what is?

We will never agree on any of this.  And I will continue wage my one man campaign against the Church that I grew up in.  This latest outrage over HHS is just another stick that is pushing me further away.

Other Ken G:

Late addition here, but I can tell you why the text was changed.  The Latin proof text is “pro multis”, which is, literally, “for many”.  A more accurate translation might be “for the many”, as in “multitude”.  The French translation is the most accurate out of the ones I have read, as it is rendered “pour la multitude”.  Hope this helps.

JPM:  Thanks for enlightening that children are God’s punishment for having sex. Of course, only women are punished, but that’s OK. because religion is another excuse to abuse women.

Everett: 
‘We don’t atone for our sins; Christ did it for us, and we can add nothing to it’.

As to what you said, it seems as though we have no purpose on earth, or do we? Did Jesus leave some work for us to do?
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.“Col 1:24

Interesting and informative! Be aware, however, how very widespread the “web of tyranny” has become in the mercantile world..and its sundry
products. For instance, if you try to buy Fair Trade chocolate that does not come “tainted” with evil sources you will often have to buy from stores that support “Murder, Inc.”...e.g. many of the chocolate substitutes suggested in order to avoid “evil Nestle” are sold in stores like Whole Foods that supports Planned Parenthood. In order to shop avoiding these evil producers one needs to spend an hour online researching for every half hour of shopping. How many have the time and resources to follow through with this?

@JWB…Your fallacious reasoning is based upon a straw man argument that the Bishops cannot hope to resolve this issue using the First Amendment protection because their “enemies”(i.e.those advocating for contraception)can use the same support for their agenda. By your logic no one could succeed in confronting injustice using First Amendment arguments. The truth is quite different. The right to exercise freely one’s religious conscience is guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens in the text of the First Amendment. There is no right to contracept included. Contraception is being treated as a health issue here not as a freedom issue. It is even questionable whether it is a civil matter at all. However no-one is being prevented from contracepting. In fact the statistics used by the “enemy” try to show that already 97% of women have or will use contraceptives. The issue is not an attempt at preventing contraception. The issue is forcing those against contraception to pay for it. Specifically those employers whose faith tenets oppose contraception to finance contraceptive and abortifacient products for all their employees. The employer is protected against such an injustice by their First Amendment rights.  Those who support the HHS mandate cannot appeal using the First Amendment rights as no one is being asked to forgo contraception. Rather the Bishops are simply saying that if you, as an employee of a Catholic Institution wish to contracept the employer will not interfere but he should not have to pay for your free choice to do so as that would violate my right to act according to my conscience. Your straw man loses as surely as this Obama Administration lost their last attempt to “neutralize” the Catholic Church by a similar unconstitutional power grab in Hosanna-Tabor vs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.