-255x255.jpg "DIocese of Oakland, Calif.")
WASHINGTON — Last September, the U.S. bishops struggled to raise awareness about an “interim final rule” for co-pay-free contraception, approved by the Obama administration in August 2011.
Now, in the wake of 43 Catholic groups filing 12 lawsuits across the nation on May 21, recent polling confirms that the controversial federal rule, approved Jan. 20, has emerged as an election issue. Public opposition has mounted against the controversial rule, while partisan forces and their media allies argue that Catholic leaders are “carrying water” for the GOP.
Last week, when Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., expressed alarm about the danger of politicizing the Church’s First Amendment fight, his comments in a small Catholic journal fueled news stories about divisions within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Bishop Blaire later clarified his remarks, stating that he endorsed the legal strategy worked out by the USCCB. But the flurry of headlines prompted by his remarks showed that the bishops’ campaign was under intense scrutiny.
On Sunday, The New York Times’ editorial page attacked the decision to approve the 12 lawsuits.
“It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air,” read the May 27 editorial, which concluded that the legal strategy was “a clear partisan play.”
The editorial argued that the federal law “could probably be justified under Supreme Court precedent, including a 1990 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia” — a reference to a much-discussed Supreme Court ruling broadly viewed as weakening First Amendment rights.
“But that argument does not have to be made in court, because Mr. Obama very publicly backed down from his original position and gave those groups a way around the contraception-coverage requirement,” noted the Times, repeating the administration’s assertion that its Feb. 10 “accommodation” effectively addressed the concerns of objecting religious groups.
During a May 24 address at a high-level conference on religious freedom in Washington that drew constitutional scholars, religious leaders, legislators and activists, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, defended the bishops’ decision to approve the 12 lawsuits.
Archbishop Lori noted that the lawsuits marked a necessary, if unwelcome phase in the U.S. bishops’ effort to address an “unprecedented” threat to the free exercise of Catholic institutions. In other words, the lawsuits were not frivolous, but a last resort.
Throughout 2010 and 2011, he noted, the USCCB pursued a parallel strategy of influencing the Obama administration’s health-care policies and promoting legislative remedies to broaden conscience rights.
During that period, the conference sought to counter a campaign to include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in mandated “preventive services” for women under the new health bill.
“Despite these numerous opportunities to avoid the train wreck, on Feb. 10, HHS finalized the August regulations ‘without change,’ closing the door on any chance of removing the offending items from the mandate or expanding the exemption,” stated Archbishop Lori, making the point that the bishops’ conference sought to head off the church-state contest well ahead of the presidential election.
Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, Calif., a speaker at the Washington conference, summarized the judgment of most bishops when he told the Register, I don't think we can bank of getting concessions from the Obama administration, though we can hope."
'Bizarre Turn'
While some bishops have focused on the HHS mandate’s narrow religious exemption, which does not shield Catholic hospitals, universities and social agencies, Archbishop Lori stressed that the fight was also about resisting unlawful government coercion.
“In a bizarre turn, those same advocates accuse the Church of somehow forcing its beliefs on others through the law, when the exact opposite is true,” he said.
The “strange inversion” of this dispute, he suggested, reflected a shift in cultural values.
This confusion, he added, “underscores the depth of the problem we face and points to the long-term remedy for it, which is teaching about religious freedom.”
Most speakers at the May 24 conference, hosted by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington-based research center, shared Archbishop Lori’s harsh judgment of the HHS mandate.
But one speaker, William Galston of the Brookings Institution, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton, expressed skepticism about the need for passionate rhetoric and legal challenges.
“The Church, in my judgment, is not conducting a ‘war on women,’ and the Obama administration is not conducting a war on religion,” Galston told the conference audience.
In the United States, he added, “there is no guarantee that the requirements of religion and faith will be fully compatible” with democratic society.
Galston’s remarks underscored the uncertain outcome for the 12 lawsuits filed last week.
Constitutional scholars report that U.S. federal courts are notoriously fickle in their rulings on First Amendment cases, and experts predict that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act will provide a better standard for the Catholic plaintiffs in the 12 lawsuits filed last week.
And while conference speakers like Robert George of Princeton University and Hannah Smith of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, provided a compelling framework for evaluating threats to religious freedom at home and abroad, Archbishop Lori acknowledged that Catholic leaders must continue to advance their case in the public square. A Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll, conducted in mid-May, found that just 50% of respondents knew about the HHS mandate fight, though 74% of those polled believed that freedom of religion should be protected, even if it conflicted with other laws
Last week, the coordinated lawsuits filed against the federal government were accompanied by a parallel media strategy that defended the need for the legal challenge in television news shows and op-ed pages--though some television networks ignored the story.
“With this week’s lawsuits, the bishops join a growing army of other plaintiffs around the country, Catholic and non-Catholic, who are asking the courts to repel an unprecedented governmental assault on the ability of religious persons and groups to practice their religion without being forced to violate their deepest moral convictions,” explained Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon in a May 21 column in The Wall Street Journal.
The White House issued a statement soon after the lawsuits were announced, asserting that it did not want a legal fight with religious groups and that dialogue with Catholic leaders would continue.
Yet in a reminder that Church leaders navigated a treacherous landscape during an election year, Catholic leaders were soon under fire to explain why there were “divisions” within the bishops’ conference.
Just two days after the lawsuits were filed, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, a self-identified “progressive Catholic,” challenged the appearance of a united Catholic front.
Dionne noted that Bishop Blaire had expressed concern about the politicization of the Church’s stance on the HHS mandate.
“There is a healthy struggle brewing among the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops. A previously silent group, upset over conservative colleagues defining the Church’s public posture and eagerly picking fights with President Barack Obama, has had enough,” Dionne asserted, citing as evidence Bishop Blaire’s published interview with America, the Jesuit magazine. The columnist also found it “significant” that “the vast majority of the nation’s 195 dioceses did not go to court.”
Frivolous Lawsuits?
Dionne’s remarks prompted another round of media stories speculating that “ultraconservative Catholic leaders” were filing frivolous lawsuits.
However, in an interview with the Register, Edward “Ned” Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, strongly disputed the suggestion that some California bishops were opposed to the plan.
“Just because a diocese is not in the lawsuit doesn’t mean they are not supportive. If you look at the list of plaintiffs, there is a strategy in a variety of media markets with a variety of plaintiffs,” said Dolejsi.
“The California bishops remain committed to the strategy laid out by the USCCB administrative board,” he stated.
Bishop Blaire subsequently issued a statement endorsing the USCCB legal strategy.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, a member of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, jumped into the debate, defending the USCCB’s plans and vouching for the bishops’ unity on the issue.
During a May 27 interview on Fox News, Cardinal Wuerl dismissed the suggestion that the absence of some dioceses in the nationwide legal action signaled their opposition to the conference’s strategy and noted that landmark legal challenges involved a single plaintiff.
The cardinal expressed frustration with the Church’s critics, who argue that the bishops’ conference should continue to negotiate with the Obama administration rather than turn to the courts.
“Last time the government said we are going to hear from you, 200,000 suggestions went in, and not one of them was accepted,” he recalled, in a reference to the Department of Health and Human Services’ request for comments in the wake of the “interim final rule,” approved in August.
Last fall, at the direction of their local bishop or state Catholic conference, Catholics throughout the nation registered their opposition to the mandate, flooding the agency’s email system.
Obama Losing Support
The May 27 Times editorial expressed doubt that the bishops would win their case in court.
“The First Amendment also does not exempt religious entities or individuals claiming a sincere religious objection from neutral laws of general applicability, a category the new contraception rule plainly fits.”
The Times noted the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in which Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land” would mean allowing “every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
In 1993, Congress sought to broaden religious exemptions and conscience protections with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which directed government agencies not to “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” without a compelling state interest. And, when necessary, government should adopt the least restrictive means of securing that compelling interest.
The Times asserted that the HHS mandate, “by promoting women’s health and autonomy,” met the standard of the 1993 law.
Yet the headlines prompted by the May 21 lawsuits underscore the potential danger for Obama as he continues to defend the constitutionality of the HHS mandate.
In April, a Pew Research Center poll reported that support for the president among non-Hispanic Catholics had dropped from 45% in March to 37% in April in key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Subsequent polls have confirmed this trend. And two days after the 12 lawsuits were filed in courts across the country, Obama expressed his support for Catholic institutions at two fundraisers.
“My first job as a community organizer was with Catholic churches, [which] taught me the power of kindness and commitment to others in neighborhoods,” he declared at a Hollywood event on May 23.
Yet Bishop Blaire’s recent comments in America, about the danger of politicizing the mandate fight, hinted at simmering fears that a legitimate religious-freedom battle could be hijacked by Republican forces during an election year, with unpredictable consequences.
“I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into a political issue, and that’s why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops,” he said.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops’ conference, and Archbishop Lori have acknowledged the difficulty of clarifying the Church’s immediate goals amid partisan spin and ongoing public confusion about the issues at stake. They have announced plans for a fortnight of prayer for freedom, ending on July 4, an initiative that underscores the spiritual foundation of religious liberty and is designed, no doubt, to help inoculate their crusade against uninvited special interests.
But Church leaders also have depended on their Capitol Hill allies to support this First Amendment fight, and so must balance fears of politicization with the practical reality of effecting change in a democracy. Thus, at the May 24 conference, Archbishop Lori expressed an unapologetic commitment to the strategy worked out by the USCCB leadership, in consultation with top legal scholars and other experts.
“Although fighting the tide of secularism in general and current threats to religious liberty in particular can seem like a daunting task,” he said “we know that with God all things are possible; and we know that prayer is the ultimate source of our strength in this fight.”
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.
Mark Shea: The Key to Catholic Social Teaching
Tim Drake: Register Radio: HHS Mandate Update and Chart-topping Advent Music
Comments
Post a Comment
Cardinal Wuerl and Archbishop Lori did a splendid job on EWTN’s “The World Over” last week explaining that the clock is ticking on the HHS mandate going into effect in August. The bishops had no choice and didn’t ask for this battle with the Obama Administration. I was very impressed with both prelates in their interview with Raymond Arroyo, but I pray they will carry their case to the American people with whatever fair-minded media they can find. It’s unfortunate that the bishops are not well known for effective communications, and that needs to change super-quick or the church will suffer greatly. I pray the Knights and other groups will help them get a fair hearing. I’ll be praying for them and the church at large because our religious liberty truly is being chipped away if we don’t wake up.
Pres. Obama’s statement that his first job as a community organizer was with Catholic churches reminds me of those who people in the 60’s-70’s made fun of, who said “Prejudiced? I’m not prejudiced. I have a friend who is black.” Just as one friend does not a non-racist make, doing a job for a Catbolic group because it IS your job does not mean you support or understand the tenets of tbeir faith.
I do not see the Bishops representation of HHS as an attack on religious freedom as a truth. I did not see the Church’s\Bishop’s admonishment of the Sisters as a truth. I do see an agenda to re-establish a loss of authority in the wake the sex scandals. Many of the laity are not blind to the humanness of the hierarchy. The attacks on Vatican ll are a symptom of an orchestrated attempt to return to a time when hierarchy\clergy couldn’t be questioned and were beyond approach involving or regarding any wrong doing. Recent events illustrate just how far off course and worldly the hierarchy has become. Be Blessed, shamed or tormented. Please do not edit my remarks.
The last thing we need is for the tea party kooks to take over the catholic church
Pesqueira,
You are correct. You do not see nor do you understand. Ecclesiastical authority has not been diminished in the wake of the sex scandals. Yes the laity is not blind to the clergy. The clergy does break Church laws but the laws remain. The problem of questioning authority begins early in life. Children begin this process early. You can see what it has done to society. As a parent has the right to admonish their children so does the Church when it’s members challenge dogmas and the magesterium.The good sisters know that.
The HHS mandate is a major threat to freedom and needs to go.Pray that it does.
Good article. One piece of the article made me pause. And maybe it did so because I have an incorrect understanding of the facts and details. (I have no problem being called the Village Idiot.) Beneath the heading “Bizarre Turn” a portion of the sentence reads “While some bishops have focused on the HHS mandate’s narrow religious exemption, which excludes Catholic hospitals, universities and social agencies”. These words, without an explanation of what is the narrow exemption, could be interpreted (by both Catholics and non-Catholics unfamiliar with the issue) as ‘Catholic hospitals, universities and social agencies’ are in fact excluded. Am I correct that the exemption is very narrow? I don’t think we’ve been exempted, right? Perhaps another sentence could have clarified the narrow exemption.
There’s something here I just don’t get so I hope someone can inform me as to what I’m missing. Abortion on demand is intrinsically evil and far more deadly than the current battle for religious freedom. Our preborn American citizens have been deprived of their religious freedom for decades; millions have been sentenced to a violent death. Our nation has endured forty years of religious discrimination, what is different today? Is it the shocking realization that the discrimination is being expanded and extended beyond the womb into our society, and will no longer be confined to the weakest and most defenseless members of our human family? Abortion is the worst kind of discrimination; it has made us a nation of barbarians, yet for decades there has been no great consolidation of religious leaders willing to do battle in the defense of preborn Americans.
I understand your concern Charles M. The best way to have a chance to get rid of the Supreme Court abomination of Roe V Wade is to get rid of Obamanation in the next presidential election. Our future as a free sovereign nation depends on it.
Hey there vg ..... don’t trash the tea party, they’re on our side, strongly pro-life, the tea party I’m a member of has many catholics and all are devout christians.
@Charles N Marrelli
“Our nation has endured forty years of religious discrimination, what is different today? Is it the shocking realization that the discrimination is being expanded and extended beyond the womb into our society, and will no longer be confined to the weakest and most defenseless members of our human family?
Not exactly; it started with abortion on demand remaining the law of the land for so many years exposing the U.S. Catholic Church to be a paper tiger religiously and politically because of the number of Catholics remaining in and voting for the Democrat Party, which includes a majority of the clergy. The pro-abortion, “social justice” Democrat Party neutralized the Catholic Church in America setting the stage for Obamacare which provided so much of what the U.S. bishops have been asking for for so long. The bill was crafted and supported by the Democrat President and by ONLY the Democrat majority controlling Congress. Obamacare was the opening attack on us, the born. Our bishops, i.e., USCCB, supported Obamacare in its entirety for so long until abortion and the conscience clause became part of it in its later development. Then the bishops were “negotiating” with the Democrats to keep abortion out and the conscience clause in, to no avail. The Democrats passed Obamacare using dishonorable tactics (but what would you expect coming from the party supporting the murder of babies) and Obama signed it into law with a useless executive order to pacify the weenie “prolife” Democrats who voted for it.
Since the bishops demonstrated that they no longer had any pull with the so-called “prolife” Democrat legislators, or any “social justice” Democrat legislators, as well, Obama decided to go for the whole enchilada with his HHS mandate.
So, this whole thing started with the bishops being softened up with decades of abortion on demand remaining the law of the land, then “rewarding” the bishops for their religious and political vanishing activity on abortion by giving them something they wanted - “health care reform legislation,” especially one enabling illegal immigrants and the remaining poor in the U.S. to have. The bishops supported Obamacare outright then slowly they got aced out. THAT’S when Obama threw down his trump card - gutting the First Amendment Freedom of Religion by administrative mandate using his “Affordable Health Care law.” It has been a long, slow process, but the time had come to throw the useless, useful idiot Catholics overboard and go for the socialist gold – total control of everybody but the socialist elite. Welcome to thy United States of Chicago.
Charles M., consider this: in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992, I think), the court linked the need for the availability of abortion to contraception failure. If contraception is allowed to be considered mandatory preventative medicine for women, the next step is mandatory abortion on demand. The moral conviction with which the Church opposes contraception is the same conviction that opposes abortion. It ultimately goes to the sanctity of life.
I’m very uncomfortable with any attempt to make me choose between the Catholic religion and the Democratic Party. I have been a Mass-attending Catholic for all of my life, but my adherence to the beliefs and principles of the Democratic Party is who I am. If forced to choose between the Church and my party, ..... Well, let’s just say that I don’t want to choose.
The mandate is a violation of 1st amendment rights. Therefore , it is unconstitutional, null and void. That being the case, the mandate can be ignored, with no penalties or fees paid. Because The Affordable Patient Care Law (Obamacare) allows government access into bank accounts for the purpose of withdrawing premiums, penalties or fees, all bank accounts should be closed and the monies put into a safer place.
Richard: what used to be the beliefs and principles of the Democratic Party have been changed and corrupted. Are abortion, homosexual “marriage” your beliefs? The Democratic Party, which used to be the party of the working people, has been infiltrated by leftist radicals who are using what used to be your beliefs to have you follow them in the destruction of our nation. If you want to take back the Democratic Party, vote for those Democrats who truly reflect what the Democratic Party used to be.
@JEAN MACALLISER
“If you want to take back the Democratic Party, vote for those Democrats who truly reflect what the Democratic Party used to be.”
Jean, I’m afraid that they don’t exist anymore. They called them “Blue dog Democrats,” and the crafting of Obamacare by the Democrat majority in both houses proved they don’t exist any more.
@richard
“I’m very uncomfortable with any attempt to make me choose between the Catholic religion and the Democratic Party.”
I know where you are coming from - I was there once myself. It’s difficult because being Democrat is your identity. I know what it is like.
As a Mass attending Catholic, you say the Profession of Faith every Sunday, and pray the Lord’s Prayer standing before the Holy Eucharist. The Profession of Faith is said standing after the Gospel and Homily in every Sunday obligation Mass. The purpose of that, coming right after the Gospel is to affirm the Gospel and your beliefs, as an individual, in the tenets one must believe in order to call one’s self a Christian. Failure to believe any one of those tenets negates one being a Christian. In the Profession of Faith, each of us affirms God as the Creator, the giver of life. Do you believe that? Can you prove it?
Later in the Mass, you stand again, before the Holy Eucharist, and pray the only words Jesus ever gave us so that we would know how to talk to the Father. In it we pray for God’s will to be done on earth, and ask not to be led into temptation, and to be delivered from evil.
Richard, let me ask you some things. Is God the creator of life? Is abortion evil? Does God create life for it to be aborted; is God in contradiction with himself;? Or is man in contradiction with what he says he believes and prays for?
The Democrat Party is solely responsible for abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land which has caused more deaths of innocent human beings than the NAZI Party of Germany and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - combined.
Richard, do you really believe what you profess to believe in Mass on Sundays? Do you really want God’s will to be done on earth when you pray the Our Father standing before the Holy Euchrist?
I know how “righteous” you feel as a Democrat. I’ve been there. I know our self identity is connected to our being a Democrat because we are good people, we care about others. Ah - but there’s where the temptation comes in - feeling good about ourselves because we think we care about others. Yet, we give our name identification and our support to a political organization that is diabolically opposed to what we profess to believe and pray for in church every Sunday.
Unlike 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justice who gave us Roe v. Wade saying they didn’t know when life begins, I knew when life began. I had a year of embryology in college which included lab work where I created new life by dissecting embryos of chicks and cultured them. I worked with embryonic stem cells for a half of a year. For me, when the Democrat Party came out in support for Roe v Wade and abortion for any reasons, I had to make a decision between my life long identity as a south Chicago Democrat and my being a Catholic. Was my word more important to me than my self identity which, when I thought about it, came from being a Democrat? Heck, I almost knocked over a motorcycle cop escorting Democratic Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy’s open convertible as it was slowly turning to enter a hotel driveway after a town center rally in Joliet, Ill where my older brother, president of the Will County Young Democrat’s Club, introduced JFK to the crowd. It was just me alone on the street and JFK sitting top of the back sit as I reached up to shake his hand and he leaned down to shake mine. The motorcycle didn’t fall, but came close. I’ll never forget that moment, just him and me looking directly at each other and smiling as we shook hands. So, when I say I know what it’s like having the feeling you have as a Democrat, I’m just not talking.
It was years later when I had to make a decision. Do I really believe what I say I believe? Do I really want what I pray for in the only prayer Jesus ever taught us? Is my identity more important than my word, or my word more important than my identity. When it came down to that, I had no choice. I choose my religion and registered out of the Democrat Party. I registered as an Independent because I couldn’t be a Republican…it just wasn’t me. But know this, Richard, there is life after registering out of the Democrat Party…a very good life knowing who you are, not by your party affiliation, but by learning to be true to your word.
@richard “If forced to choose between the Church and my party, ..... Well, let’s just say that I don’t want to choose.”
.
Richard, I share what you feel about those Democratic Party principles fairly supported in the Party’s better former years for I spent thousands of volunteer hours helping the poor in diverse ways, including a pilot program to help congregations act out Vatican II’s charge to improve “the temporal order”. It worked well in its pilot phase but dissent on a growing number of Catholic doctrinal matters became harbinger to the current fallen-state of the Democratic Party. Broadening dissent made it extremely difficult to wake up the Party’s rank and file as lukewarmness toward God expanded.
.
Due to strong belief in a Two-Party system I lingered in hope we could break the liberal & Leftist-grip. Alas, that could not be done by anyone. But to become an Independent made no sense because it is a spoiler 3rd Party, not good for needed timely progress. A more God-respecting President will need both Houses—after November 6 this year!
.
So, I registered in the Republican Party which is imperfect for sure—yet TONS better than the current Democratic Party when it comes to respect for God and also for people—whenever Catholic social teaching is VALIDLY applied with its intended *inter-connectedness* preserved, as Rep. Paul Ryan is at least trying to do.
.
Nationally, we may well be headed for chastisement from God who gives the condition for such societal failure in psalm 127:1—“Unless the Lord Builds the House (society), Those Who Build it Labor in Vain”, meaning we will meet FAILURE. Hence, voting unwisely this November means hiring more ‘builder-politicians’ who oppose the Lord, thus to badly hurt our own families’ future!
.
Some key Democratic leaders tend to employ isolated “proof” texts from Catholic sources thus to mislead or to induce guilt in Catholic members in order to retain their support for dangerous social agenda and also to attempt to disgrace Republican adversaries by unjustly casting them as heartless and anti-scriptural. For many years before actually joining, I’ve supported specific Republicans for reasons related to a properly formed conscience.
.
Because isolated “proof” texts are often just lifted from the “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church”, the USCCB seriously OWES us diversely educated sheep in this perilously historic year a *TIMELY* HELPFUL EXPLANATION of both the Importance AND Significance of *inter-connectedness* in Catholic Social teaching just as similar cautions apply to studying & using the Bible. Our Shepherds need to explain to us the moral right and duty of laity to exercise prudential judgments when our nation is fiscally gravely threatened and MANY faithful Catholic laity rightly sense being in the “pre-cancer” stages of Cancerous Socialism, with a Tipping Point to occur on November 6.
.
The USCCB also OWES us a *substantial*explanation of the ”level-of-acceptance” Catholics must give to USCCB authority re practical social matters involving the poor and health-care, especially. For obvious reasons – with only FIVE months to Election Day – CLARITY of Explanations this JUNE is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT not to be missing in their existing agenda item for the mid-June, USCCB Atlanta Meeting, labeled “Discussion of a proposal for a special message on Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy”.
.
Let no one hint I am being hostile or disrespectful to Shepherds, for Vatican II requires clear teaching from Bishops AND we WILL BE at a Tipping Point on Election Day. Occasionally, records show crucial Shepherd-cooperation does NOT happen. We sheep face a VERY dark future if our Shepherds do not take Vatican II’s command to them to teach clearly especially in such a perilously historic year. I speak as a magisterium-faithful Catholic.
.
Richard, history gives us enough examples of human weaknesses in the Church-on-earth for us to see why Jesus chose “prevail” in the scriptural phrase “shall not *prevail*”. Therefore in any given period it makes sense to join with the more God-respecting Party, albeit an imperfect Republican Party. Your fellow Americans need you to be courageous enough to choose.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.