I guess I don’t know what the difference is between making a “conscientious” decision and making a decision with “good conscience”. I suppose there could be a difference. If making a decision conscientiously includes both good and bad decisions, then I agree we have to respect those decisions due to the fact that we have to respect people’s conscience in general. Of course we would still be obliged to identify the good and the bad. But if Jenkins is implying that those people who choose to use contraception due so with good conscience, then I would disagree with his conclusion wholeheartedly, and for the same reasons outlined by Pat Archbold.

Thanks Pat for putting into words what I was feeling. As an alum, I got an email yesterday about this decision, and while I was surprised and happy that they are filing this suit, I was very disappointed in the wording by Fr. Jenkins, and he should be called on it. I am also thankful that you mentioned (which many people in the blogosphere do not understand because they did not attend school there or do not care to find out) that there are wonderful things going on there in terms of authentic Catholic teaching and identity among many of the students and faculty. This is what makes it so frustrating when weak statements come out of the administration.

“do so” not “due so”. oops.

What Notre Dame needs in a University President cut from the same cloth as Fr. Robert Barron

As an alum of ND’s graduate school, I discovered while I was there that ND is Catholic “from the bottom up.”  The Catholic identity among students is high.  Among faculty, quite high. Among administration, less so.  If ND hopes to remain true to its Catholic identity, that needs to be supported from the top down.

“Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs.”

Apparently “Father” Jenkins was absent the day the seminary taught about his relationship to the Church as a priest. President of N.D. does not mean that your Magisterium is the constitution of the United States.

There have been many fools and dissidents in the church’s 2,000 year history.  Over and over agian, one way or another, in due time, the Holy Spirit purges these fools and the church snaps back.  Men like Cardinal Dolan are sent to put the church back on track.  God will not allow this foolishness to persist and all we need to do is support men like Cardinal Dolan.

I agree, Patrick. Fr. Jenkins’s statement is inexcusable, and shows just how far some clergy go to avoid preaching Humanae Vitae.

When is the Notre Dame faculty going to read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”?  All Catholics are required to adhere to the CCC - no exceptions.

CCC: “2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.  These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.  In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.”

CCC: ” 1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.”

CCC: ” 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.  This is the case when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.  In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.”

What religion did Father Jenkins say he belonged to?

The Bishop whose Diocese includes South Bend, needs to have a discussion with Father Jenkins who does not know or understand the clear teaching of the Church included in the CCC.
If the Priest refuses to conform to Church teaching and refuses to retract his public statements, he must be excommunicated.
Scandal, Heresy, and Schism must not be allowed to stand.

Ill-informed consciences are no excuse for Mortal Sin.

“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved ... and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine,  attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture,  the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.  I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “  – Pope John Paul II.  (pg 5)

I would strongly advise my grandchildren NOT to enroll in Notre Dame.
The dubious catholic leadership degrades ND.
It is true: a small amount of poison ruins the whole well. 
I wonder when will Holy Cross Rome HQ mandate a clean-up including removal of current president.
It is time to return this noble institution to its former glory.

whole ordeal remind me of a beautiful arch of a brilliant rainbow- from the west to the east with no break in between. Shinning so bright on the horizon, Why disturb the brilliance of the rainbow’s arch? Rainbows are biblical.

YOI

I believe Fr. Jenkins was simply reiterating that this is not a lawsuit about contraception, but religious freedom. In that sense his rhetoric is in no way a departure from the bishops, and this criticism merely splitting a hair to assume the worst. I understand many wish to see stronger language from our leaders, but I don’t think outsiders really understand the kind of environment Fr. Jenkins has to navigate among entrenched liberalism in the administration (or how much unilateral power he really has). Yes, the invitation of Obama in 2009 was a great scandal, but to continually look for problems with Notre Dame and it’s president - a priest to whom we owe a respect not exhibited in some of these comments - is counterproductive and fragments the religious liberty movement. The real story here is that Notre Dame is suing HHS, and that’s worthy of commendation.

“..outsiders really understand the kind of environment Fr. Jenkins has to navigate among entrenched liberalism in the administration…”
.
You are correct. We outsiders have only to deal with the entrenched liberalism of the entire society, in our jobs, in the public square, in our families, in our churches, in our ...........

QUOTE from Fr. Jenkins:  “Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives.  As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs.” UNQUOTE.

This goes too far.  No “Catholic Institution” or “Catholic Priest” should respect the right of Catholic students and Catholic faculty to commit Mortal Sin due to malformed consciences.
These adults and young adults have an obligation to form a correct conscience not only regarding contraceptives, but also sexual activity outside of marriage.

Again, as a “Catholic University” Notre Dame and others, should use the CCC as a required student text in freshman or sophomore year - to help students form a correct conscience.

As a current ND Law Student, I pinpointed that exact same word ‘Conscientious’ as completely wrong.  Carefully considered, perhaps.  As I do know protestants who have carefully considered the Natural Law and Scriptural arguments and come to the wrong conclusion.

This kind of comment may get respect from the President.  Let’s hope.  He is making it clear that we are not asking for the removal of contraception altogether, just don’t “enforce it” on the non-believing when it is so radical too many.  Hopefully in time the understanding as to the disruptive nature of the contraceptives in the light of goodness of natural order, will rise above and show itself.  Too many right now it appears to be logical, responsible and *ScieNtifIc* brilliance.  And this is how the devil works.  He’s no dummie.

Undoubtedly, Howard, it is a trying time for all Catholics in public life - and while I think his position as a Catholic university president requires more deliberation than usual, my purpose was not to defend the PR approach being taken by Fr. Jenkins. I simply believe there is no clear basis to accuse him of a departure from Catholic teaching here. Such a serious charge against a priest demands firm evidence, which is lacking in this case. There is nothing wrong with honest, probing discussion of Notre Dame and its handling of the HHS issue, but what is taking place here is rash judgement - of a cleric no less. Furthermore, it is entirely unnecessary. Many Catholic institutions, including the Cardinal Newman Society and many schools on its college list, have not begun a lawsuit against HHS - nor is there any reason for every institution to take this kind of action. Notre Dame has chosen to sue, along with the other 42 venerable institutions it chose to associate itself with yesterday. Catholics everywhere should welcome the profile Notre Dame brings to this case, and have no interest in needlessly dividing those who have taken up the cause.

“I simply believe there is no clear basis to accuse him of a departure from Catholic teaching here. Such a serious charge against a priest demands firm evidence.”

Clashmore,  this is not an inquisition, Fr. Jenkins cannot be excused from criticism because of his collar, he is also a man. He has past public actions to account for which have elevated him to public prominence. To speak of a Catholic’s decision to discount Church teaching in terms of respect is going to far. The concept of the lack of legal prohibition is not something that the Church considers as moral justification. It may be a poorly worded defense of Religious Liberty concerns, but, the impression is there.     

May God have mercy on Fr Jenkins soul. He has to answer to no one else. May his eyes be opened to the truth.

If you Love your Neighbor as required by Jesus you will want him/her to get to Heaven for eternity.  This means admonishing sinners (-a work of Mercy) if necessary.  We must never tolerate sin - especially mortal sin.  And certainly Priests should not tolerate mortal sin by Catholic Students and Catholic faculty who work for him.

Priests are supposed to teach the TRUTH of our Faith - especially in the public square. There is no justifiable reason for Father Jenkins statement.

Clashmore - - - - CCC: “2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means for example, direct sterilization or contraception. “

I agree that his use of “conscientious” here was a poor choice of word to make the argument, but I see no reason to therefore imply that he has no problem with the decision to use contraception. He’s anticipating the critics that will undoubtedly flood his office with complaints about a “war on women” or an “attack on contraception,” etc. Archbishop Lori has taken the same approach: “This is not a matter of whether contraception may be prohibited by the government. This is not even a matter of whether contraception may be supported by the government. Instead, it is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.” If Fr. Jenkins can be faulted for something, it’s an unfortunately awkward diction. After all, he’s put the University’s neck out when he did not need to do so. The Ft. Wayne-South Bend Diocese suit is filed in the same circuit court, making one of these lawsuits superfluous in the overall legal strategy, but Notre Dame chose to be a part of this anyway. Perhaps this is part of the awakening of conscience after the Obama invitation in 2009. Let’s hope so, and let’s be happy that Notre Dame is going to be active in this fight.
And I thank you, Howard, for engaging this topic with charity.

Clashmore, we have a different approach to the current state of society. If people are driven to “imply” it is because the opening has been offered by a lack of clarity or outright embracing evil. For too many years we have made excuses for not taking firm action and voicing criticism. The state of our Catholic institutions are such that we may lose them all unless the political situation changes. Acceptance of government money and the accommodation that it requires is part of the problem.
.
The lawsuits themselves are few, the institutions that have joined and lent their support are many – that is impressive and necessary.
.
I don’t believe this flap will in any way divide us. The division already exists and has to be healed by the ones who strayed. The issue of Religious Liberty is larger than Catholic in-fighting.

Also this: “...if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available…” “Means” are taxpayers, many of whom, including me, are Catholic and don’t want to pay for these things either. Very, very weasely statement. Not impressed.

A few weeks ago our young priest gave a sermon about inclusion, at Sunday Mass.  How we need to include everyone even if they don’t believe what we believe.  I have never known a Catholic Church to be non-inclusive to people who attend a service.  Someone commented about how many letters he would receive following the sermon.  I was totally in the dark.  I finally asked her if it was regarding the HHS mandate, or the refusal of Communion at a Mother’s funeral, or gay marriage.  I have a son and sister who are gay, that’s between them and God, I will not judge an individual.  But I feel there is such an agenda out there, I finally asked her why someone would want to be a Catholic if they don’t believe in Catholic teaching.  I think her answer was a mere shrug of her shoulders.  What an individual does is between them and God, but please don’t expect the beliefs and laws of an over 2000 year old religion to change to accommodate the attitudes of a current society.

According to one wife’s conscience it is alright to marry a person while her husband is suffering from paralysis as she iw willing to look after him also. If conscience is not constructively formed with reference to all teachings of the Church, such situations will come What Father Jenkins has to say ? If I steal money after a conscious decision as I am very poor, why should I be punished ?

“As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents.”

If the government has given citizens a legal ‘right’ to do an objectively immoral action, we can ‘respect’ (recognize that this legal right exists with no legal penalty attached to it) that ‘right’.  This can be the only Catholic interpretation of Fr. Jenkins’ remarks.  The Constitution recognizes that certain rights are given to us by the creator.  The courts have run with the idea that the right to pursue happiness trumps most moral considerations.  That’s the civil society we live in.  We are supposed to be a leaven.  Is Fr. Jenkins doing his best, considering the restrictions of his circumstances?  Hard to tell.  From here it seems he could have done better.

“If the government has given citizens a legal ‘right’ to do an objectively immoral action, we can ‘respect’ (recognize that this legal right exists with no legal penalty attached to it) that ‘right’.  This can be the only Catholic interpretation of Fr. Jenkins’ remarks.”

There is no need to make special mention of other legally allowed activity by the University at all. We assume that the University recognizes the rule of law. To assert it’s right does not depend on reciprocality. It is a nice bone to throw to an entrenched opposition.  The issue is in describing anti-Catholic behavior in terms that are all to familiar in the secular world – legality.

If the anti-Catholic behavior you refer to is using artificial means to prevent fertilization and/or implantation, an informed conscience will not find that to be a moral right, however the legal right exists to do so. I agree that Jenkins is throwing a bone to the opposition.  As though he’s saying, “look, we’re a Catholic college so we have to stand up against this regulation but, hey, we don’t think you’re wrong for following your erroneous conscience.”  As you imply, it wasn’t necessary for him to add that.

As a 1986 graduate of St.Mary’s College (“across the street”), what we learned from our theology classes extended far beyond some rote teachings of the catechism. We were shown a panoramic view of theology in order to understand the importance of the Church and its teachings within the world. The faculty and leadership were able to lay the foundations of the faith within the student body so we could realize just how deficient other religions are in comparison to that of the Catholic Church. Controversy forces us to look at the issues and chose where we stand. And for the perfect example we only need to look toward Jesus. He spent most of His time with tax collectors, lepers, and other sinners in order that He may convert their hearts. By inviting those of dubious character to be honored guests or visiting lecturers to Notre Dame, just maybe, once they step on campus, it may begin a change in them. Remember that it only take a mustard seed. We never know what action might be what affect this change in others. Those of you outsiders who were never able to attend either of these great schools cannot have understanding of the excellance of the Catholic education provided provided by St. Mary’s and Notre Dame. So to you I say get off your soapboxes and stop judging others. Last time I checked judging others was Jesus’ job-not yours. Besides - “WWJD” ?? If He were actually here in human form today, I would guess that places like the White House and Congress would probably be a couple of His first stops on the list.

I was involved in a program in my journey to the diaconate in the Diocese
of Kingston, Ontario.  I did not appreciate the fact that we were fed
from Notre Dame…especially after their invite to Obbama.  I have put
much of this behind me, but every now and again, I am reminded about
Fr. Jenkins and his obstinate refusal to adhere to Orthodox Catholic
teaching.  Fr. McBrien is another one…master of ambiguity!  His book:
“Catholicism” did nothing but muddy the waters.

Nuff said…for now

will someone get him out of the building please. he dosent belong there.

The job of higher education is to make it’s studentsTHINK for themselves. It does not do it’s job if all teachings are to be accepted hook, line, and sinker.  This is from someone who attended 18 years of Catholic education.

Clashmore wrote: “I believe Fr. Jenkins was simply reiterating that this is not a lawsuit about contraception, but religious freedom. In that sense his rhetoric is in no way a departure from the bishops, and this criticism merely splitting a hair to assume the worst. I understand many wish to see stronger language from our leaders, but I don’t think outsiders really understand the kind of environment Fr. Jenkins has to navigate among entrenched liberalism in the administration (or how much unilateral power he really has). Yes, the invitation of Obama in 2009 was a great scandal, but to continually look for problems with Notre Dame and it’s president - a priest to whom we owe a respect not exhibited in some of these comments - is counterproductive and fragments the religious liberty movement.”

Bottom line: souls are at stake. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil, produces diabolical fruits, and endangers the souls of those who use them. Clergy should be preaching this from the rooftops, instead of trying to appear “tolerant” and “reasonable” and “respectful” of others’ consciences. Fr. Jenkins’s statement was dreadful, misleading, and does nothing but pander to the secular world.

I don’t know why we shouldn’t respect the right of any other person to use their free will to make a decision. If their conscience tells them to make a certain choice and they use their free will to make it, that is what God allows. It may be a sinful choice, and they will have to face the consequences of it someday, but God gave them the right to make it when he gave them free will. We don’t have to respect the choice they make, but I do think we ought to respect their right to make it.Father Jenkins said he respects their right to make that choice. He didn’t say he respects the choice itself.

“The job of higher education is to make its students THINK for themselves. It does not do it’s job if all teachings are to be accepted hook, line, and sinker.  This is from someone who attended 18 years of Catholic education.”  Students need a basis of truth on which to stand and on which to base their thinking. Theology should give them that.  Then Logic should teach them how to think clearly.  Thinking for oneself about moral issues must proceed from an informed conscience and it’s the mission of Catholic education to enable a person to form his conscience rather than accept secular values.

“Father Jenkins said he respects their right to make that choice. He didn’t say he respects the choice itself.”  Excellent point!

Jenkins is kowtowing to his Board of Directors and the Trustees who in reality run the university and were responsible for Obama’s invitation to the 2009 commencement.  Jenkins is the product of the generation that just wants everyone to be their friend which demands they qualify their statements to include the opinions of all so as not to diminish anyone’s self-esteem.  The result is they are weak leaders.

Kay, you made a statement about Fr. Jenkins kowtowing to his Board.  Please support your statement with facts.

Perhaps Fr Jenkins’ redemption is still “evolving”. At least he seems to have heard the assessment of his previous actions and positions.

In 2008, when bishops put out their paper on how to form ones own conscience, “Faithful Citizenship”, it confused many Catholics.  They interpreted that document as license to disagree regarding moral issues, and with impunity.  These were church-going people, Sunday Catholics, considering themselves faithful and many even had church roles, in leadership and in teaching at their parish.

So they consider themselves good at forming opinions and making sound decisions in all aspects of their lives, personal and faith lives.

They simply disagreed with what official Church position says about morals.  They were further encouraged to “vote their conscience” by their pastor.  “Faithful Citizenship”, the bishop’s document, sealed the deal for them - the same as this university President is doing now.

Have any of you even followed this issue in the media? Do any of you realize this is case will be decided in a secular court and that this statement will be read by non-Catholics? Unless you think we should throw out yet another opportunity to turn this into a war on women I wouldn’t recommend suggesting that we don’t respect the right of women to use birth control. This is such a basic and obvious point. Yet another example of torture defending cafeteria Catholics from the right seeking to divide the faithful.

I’ve said all along that Jenkins is a charlatan and shouldn’t be lead Dog Catcher never mind being the Head Person for a Catholic University.

I’m an alum of ND and like many of my fellow alums I was very saddened by the invitation to President Obama to speak at ND. I have disliked some other actions/statements of Fr. Jenkins.

That said, I am happy about ND joining the lawsuit. AND…sigh…I see little reason for the criticism of this article or for some of comments I have read here (he should be excommunicated? really???).  There are other, better reasons to quibble with Fr. Jenkins. Fr. Jenkins wrote that he respected the RIGHT of others to follow their consciences. His language should be read more carefully by an author of an article criticizing it. He did NOT say that he respected the actual decision to use contraceptives. There is a distinction. Catechism n. 1782 says: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” He is simply reiterating that there is a freedom each human has to follow their conscience. The Catechism says in n. 1790 that a person “must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” For those unfamiliar with this kind of language, a person must obey the judgment of their conscience - even if that judgment is erroneous.

He said some have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. It might sound like he meant, “correct decisions with their consciences” to use contraception, but the words he used simply meant that there are those out there who use contraception in good conscience - that they do not think they are wrong in doing so. Which is true. It doesn’t mean he approves of the actual judgment itself - just that he thinks they have a right to act according to their (ill-formed) consciences.

Fr. Jenkins is a Thomistic scholar - it’s silly to imply he is unaware of the Catechism’s teachings on contraceptions. He is just MORE aware than others of the Catechisms’s teachings on conscience rights.

Erin , it seems that other alumni do not agree with you.
.
“There is a disquieting element respecting contraception in Father Jenkins’s otherwise praiseworthy statement. In his evident attempt to blunt faculty criticism, he seems to blunt Catholic teaching. He writes:
Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non- Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs.”
.
Father would never say this for other serious violations of moral law and Church teaching. Consider: “As we assert the right to follow our conscience and do not practice racial discrimination, we respect their right to follow theirs by discriminating.”
.
As Professor Gerard Bradley of the Law School observed, Father Jenkins “comes perilously close to implying that there is nothing objectively wrong” about using contraceptives.”
.
http://sycamoretrust.org/bulletins/120522.php

Howard,

Racism is a form of aggression against another. Use of contraception is not. Hence one being widely condemned by a plaralistic society and the other being used. You think it is wise for a university pursuing legal action against the federal government to assert that we oppose the right of Americans to use contraception?

chris, the assertion should be that we have a legal right to oppose the use contraception, abortifacients and sterilization – per Catholic teaching. Because the University tried to appease some is not going to be valid argument in court. Fr. Jenkins specifically mentioned Catholics who use contraception then gave them an apparent pardon.

I still respectfully stand by what I said. I am not bothered by other alumni or professors disagreeing with me - the words Fr. Jenkins ACTUALLY said are right there for anyone to see. He didn’t say he respected the decision to choose contraception - he respects a person’s right to follow their conscience. It is not right to put words into his mouth to make him look bad.

My (extreme) disagreement with other actions/words of Fr. Jenkins does not give me the right to change what he said to be worse than it is just so I can vent on him.

Erin, take the sentance by itself. A natural question to ask yourself is why is this said at all. That is what is being commented on, not the sentance itself. You are arguing the wrong issue.

Slightly off the subject is the attitude of many who say that a large percentage of Catholics use or have used contraception and therefore it shouldn’t be an issue.  It’s as though they think the church is a democracy and we can vote on what is or isn’t sinful.  So, they say, what’s the big deal?  The bishops aren’t in synch with American Catholics; why are these old men from the Vatican imposing their ideas on the USA?  The Catholic church shouldn’t make an issue of something most Catholics do.  It’s really hard to talk to someone who thinks this way.

Our Church badly needs to get on the same page, concerning ourselves with
THE most important issues: life, protection of marriage, and matters of morals and protection and health of families.

Everyone from Rome to our local parish and our universities needs to have the same message regarding the 5 Non-Negotiables from EWTN.  We need to focus on the basics of our faith, in order to help teach others.

Our church is not a Democracy, thanks be to God for that.  We need education, about why the church teaches as it does.  Explain and most people will see the light.

We cannot be left to flounder on our own (Faitful Citizenship) or be expected to agree to something important, just because someone says so.

May 28th:  Cardinal Wuerl was interviewed by Chris Wallace last night and gave a very good defense of the reason why Catholic Bishops are standing against the HHS mandate and bringing law suits against the Administration. Unfortunately, Chris Wallace and others continue to call this a fight against contraception.  Cardinal Wuerly clarified several times that this is not at all about contraception but about religious freedom, freedom of conscience.  We have to make sure that is clear.  If the Administration, however, succeeds in implementing the HHS Mandate, Catholic institutions should just refuse to comply.  No need yet to close down Catholic institutions, just refuse to comply and let the Administration dare to send out their troops to imprison our Cardinals and Bishops, Priests, religious and lay people…let them dare!!!  Cardinal George has already said that he is prepared to go to prison rather than to comply with the HHS Mandate.  Many Bishops stand with him but not all - yet.  There are some who are angry that lawsuits have been brought against the Administration without having convened a meeting with all Bishops first.  There is simply no time to salve everyone’s feelings about this…there is need to act quickly and clearly and strongly - and I am grateful to Cardinal George and those Bishops who have let their voices be heard on behalf of the Church and her teachings. If our Bishops go to prison, are we prepared to go with them, to stand with them?  I hope so.

I agree with Clashmore…I’m not sure that Fr. Jenkins meant to say that he agrees with their decision…but the Church does believe in freedom of conscience…Pope John Paul stated this many times.  I know this means freedom of a ‘formed’ conscience - but if these students came to Fr. jenkins for affirmation of their decision to practice birth control and he gave it, then he would be wrong. If he tried to ‘form’ their conscience but they could not or would not accept or agree, then he has to let go and let them deal with God.  We allow ‘Catholic’ politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, et al to aggressively push their anti-Church agendas like abortion, contraception, same sex marriage and seduce many Catholics to join forces with them against the Church and yet these ‘Catholic’ politicians are permitted to receive the Eucharist as Catholics in good standing. Contraception is against the Church’s law but abortion, the deliberate killing of the unborn baby, is far worse…there needs to be unity among the Bishops in this regard…when Nancy Pelosi was asked how she could continue to receive the Eucharist while promoting publicly and aggressively agendas contrary to Church teaching, she stated that the Bishops are divided on the issue…and so she goes on, becoming more arrogant and more aggressive, mocking the Bishops and calling the Church ‘old-fashioned’...so some students use birth control and some adults in the public square defy the Church on grave moral issues…either all receive consequences according to the gravity of their actions or none…

Florin, to ‘just refuse to comply’ means incurring very large fines.  This government seems determined to break the church one way or another.  If it can’t get us to knuckle under morally it will do it financially.  Is the ultimate goal to bring all medical and social services under the control of the federal government?  At least it is good to see the bishops not divided on this issue.