WASHINGTON — In a striking reversal with unpredictable political consequences, President Barack Obama’s most powerful ally in his fight with the U.S. bishops over the contraception mandate has reversed herself.
In a five-page letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, dated June 15, Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), registered her opposition to the federal law requiring co-pay-free contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization for all private employer health plans.
“The more we learn, the more it appears that the ... approaches for both insured and self-insured plans would be unduly cumbersome and would be unlikely to adequately meet the religious-liberty concerns of all of our members and other Church ministries,” stated the letter, which was signed by Sister Carol and two other CHA board members.
“t is imperative for the administration to abandon the narrow definition of ‘religious employer’ and instead use an expanded definition to exempt from the contraceptive mandate not only churches, but also Catholic hospitals, health-care organizations and other ministries of the Church.”
The Obama administration had no immediate comment, but a Washington Post article on the late-breaking story underscored the significance of Sister Carol’s unexpected reversal:
“As the largest private health-care provider in the nation, overseeing a network of hundreds of hospitals and medical facilities, the CHA is a critical player in health-care issues. Many accused Keehan of showing the White House more deference than she did the hierarchy.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest group representing a number of plaintiffs challenging the federal law, welcomed Sister Carol’s policy reversal.
“We at the Becket Fund had no doubt that once people examined the administration's faux 'accommodation,’ they would quickly realize it had no plans to lift the burden on conscience caused by its illegal and unconstitutional mandate. We therefore welcome recent statements made by organizations like the Catholic Health Association that the accommodation is unworkable, impractical and woefully inadequate to safeguard religious freedom,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told the Register.
“The Becket Fund will continue to fight the mandate in court, along with many other organizations. As of today, 23 separate lawsuits have been filed on behalf of 56 individual plaintiffs, representing hospitals, universities, businesses, schools and individuals, all speaking with one voice to affirm the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Duncan.
The Becket Fund represents the Eternal Word Television Network in its legal challenge against the mandate. The Register is a service of EWTN.
Critical Time
Sister Carol’s action comes just days before the launch of the U.S. bishops’ Fortnight for Freedom, a two-week period of prayer and activities affirming the importance of securing the “first freedom” for future generations of Americans.
By the end of June, the Supreme Court is also expected to hand down its decision on the new health bill, which gives HHS the authority to mandate the controversial provisions in the federal rule. Constitutional scholars say it is unlikely that the high court will overturn the entire health bill.
The CHA letter asked HHS administrators to “find a way to provide and pay for these services directly without requiring any direct or indirect involvement of ‘religious employers,’ as broadly defined.”
Otherwise, the letter advised, the federal government should act to include any objecting entity within a broader exemption if it “shares common religious bonds and convictions with a church.”
After the Obama administration approved the mandate on Jan. 20, Sister Carol, a member of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, expressed strong reservations about its narrow religious exemption.
But when Obama proposed an “accommodation” on Feb. 10, passing on costs for co-pay-free contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization to insurance companies, she expressed satisfaction with the new plan. Her stance was widely cited by Democrats and commentators supporting the president to validate his policy.
At the time, media reports suggested that Sister Carol had received special treatment from the White House. A Feb. 10 New York Times story stated that the president’s “accommodation” was designed specifically to address Sister Carol’s concerns, not those of the bishops.
“The fight was for Sister Carol Keehan — head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported President Obama’s health-care law — and Catholic allies of the White House seen as the religious left,” reported the Times.
But Richard Doerflinger, the chief lobbyist for the bishops’ conference on pro-life issues, told the Register back then that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' lawyers quickly determined that nothing of substance had changed.
“The only thing that has force of law is that same final rule. It’s still in place. The rest is something that might happen,” said Doerflinger at the time. The administration told the USCCB, he said, that “some time in the coming months we will issue new rulemaking for organizations that are not exempt from the mandate.”
Thus, the bishops opposed the "accommodation," expressing "serious moral concerns” in a statement that noted the large number of Catholic institutions that self-insured and thus would be directly responsible for covering the services. But bishops also noted that insurance companies were likely to pass on the costs of providing co-pay-free services to employers.
The USCCB maintained that position after the administration spelled out its proposal for passing on costs for the services in an “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)” issued on March 21.
More Robust Language
Sister Carol’s backing of the "accommodation" raised the bar for the bishops as they continued their campaign to maintain pressure on the administration to withdraw the entire mandate or broaden the religious exemption and offer strong individual conscience protections.
When then-Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Freedom, who is now the archbishop of Baltimore, testified in several House hearings on the issue, Democratic legislators noted that the CHA backed the accommodation. The perceived divisions within the Church led the mandate’s supporters to raise questions about the credibility of the bishops’ position.
In the months following the accommodation, however, visitors to the CHA website were greeted with an announcement that offered few assurances, and the CHA told members it was seeking clarification of the proposed accommodation, which had not been formally incorporated into the federal rule and thus had no binding force.
As legal challenges against the mandate were filed by a growing number of plaintiffs throughout the country, the Obama administration, in turn, filed papers in court promising to resolve the issue and requesting that the cases be dismissed.
Over the past four months, religious leaders have consistently expressed strong concern that the religious exemption in the mandate’s language is too narrow and only shields houses of worship, not church-affiliated social-service agencies, universities and hospitals.
In Atlanta, during the bishops' meeting last week, Archbishop Lori and other speakers stressed the larger framework for this emerging threat to the free exercise of Catholic institutions. They said the effort to limit the exemption to houses of worship reflected a broader push by secular forces to redefine religious freedom to exclude public expressions of faith, such as Catholic health-care services.
In CHA’s letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, Sister Carol asked the federal agency to adopt a more robust definition of protected religious entities that would shield church-affiliated institutions. “An organization is associated with a church if it shares common religious bonds and convictions with the church,” read her proposed language.
This language, she said, “would align the policy under the women’s preventive-care regulation with existing federal law on conscience protection. The exemption in the final rule is narrower than any conscience clause ever enacted in federal law and reflects an unacceptable change in federal policy regarding religious beliefs.”
Adoption of this language, the letter asserted, “could help address the serious constitutional questions created by the department's current approach, in which the government essentially parses a bona fide religious organization into secular and religious components solely to impose burdens on the secular portion.”
While the leaders of a number of objecting religious institutions have highlighted the increasingly common effort to reserve constitutional protections solely for religious worship, Sister Carol now joins the chorus of high-profile Catholics opposing this trend in constitutional scholarship and judicial rulings.
“To make this distinction is to create a false dichotomy between the Catholic Church and the ministries through which the Church lives out the teachings of Jesus Christ. Catholic health-care providers are participants in the healing ministry of Jesus Christ,” read the letter.
“Our mission and our ethical standards in health care are rooted in and inseparable from the Catholic Church and its teachings about the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.”
The CHA letter was clearly focused on resolving its membership's problems with the mandate and did not attempt to provide solutions for individual employers that object to the federal rule on moral or religious grounds but are not formally affiliated with a church. Last week, at the bishops' meeting in Atlanta, Archbishop Lori made it clear that Catholic leaders were fighting to defend the free exercise of Catholic institutions, but also other objecting religious entities and individual employers.
“The right to religious freedom requires that all people of faith, not just organizations that are structurally bonded to a church, be exempt from ObamaCare's violations of conscience,” stated Matt Bowman, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a public interest group, outlining concerns about Sister Carol's proposed language.
Sister Carol was not scheduling followup interviews, and the CHA letter did not explain precisely why she delayed her decision to reverse course more than four months after the bishops ruled the accommodation “unacceptable.”
Some groups opposing the mandate expressed skepticism about whether she might still seek to bolster the administration's agenda. Three years earlier, the CHA leader played a critical role in the bruising fight to pass the health bill — over the objections of the U.S. bishops — and received a pen from President Obama when he signed the bill.
But Sister Carol’s letter hinted at one possible explanation for the delay: She and top hospital administrators had spent the intervening months struggling to figure out how they could make the president’s "accommodation" work, and they failed to do so.
Meanwhile, Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services, who approved the federal rule in January, acknowledged during a hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee this April that she did not seek a full constitutional review of the mandate.
Sebelius had initially promised an accommodation that “strikes an appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” But under questioning from a skeptical legislator about how she squared First Amendment concerns with the controversial measure, she admitted that she had not sought a legal memo clarifying the issues at stake and said she was untutored in the “nuances of the constitutional balancing tests.”
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register's senior editor.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
Day late and a dollar short.
Great news. YOu need the support of the CHA in an issue as vital as this one is.
Interesting that the good Sister mentions the administrative objections FIRST in her “retraction”, citing the “unduly cumbersome” aspects of the law and its “accomodation”. Gee, I’m guessing that the abject VIOLATION of the commandments of GOD, might be a bit more pressing and deserving of top billing than the paperwork required by the “accomodation”. Perhaps this is a way of sending a coded message of her hidden support of this “accomodation” to her minions and those cafeteria Catholics who are supporting of non-Catholic doctrine.
St. Peter dragged his own feet. God bless Sr. Carol, period.
I pray that she is sincere about this matter, I just couldn’t understand how she could remain a catholic in good standing if she kept up her postion with Obama.
I pray that she is being very sincere in this statement and now see’s that obama is not only against the Catholic chruch but all religions.
She helped it pass. Why should we take her seriously?
When this ‘sister’ puts her habit on and demands that Obama stops his Obamacare, I might believe her; but, until then, sounds just a lot of words to make the Bishops happy. +JMJ+
Psh. Nothing like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Nooooooo waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy! We pray that she has sincerely seen the light!
Why has no one come forward to impeach Obama
For all his unconstitutional & illegal mandates?
Are we dumb and blind ?
“Our mission and our ethical standards in health care are rooted in and inseparable from the Catholic Church and its teachings about the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.” So Sister Carol must have temporarily forgotten those standards or been willing to junk them?
Too little too late. If your going to be Catholic, especially in a religious vocation, then be Catholic all the way, not a watered down liberal form of it. If you don’t like the Catholic religion there are plenty of alternatives out there. OK, jumping off my soap box now : )
Sister Keehan is a traiter to the Church and to the faith she claims to uphold. She’s coming to the realization that the tides are turning against her, so she’s hedging her bets by issuing her letter. She is simply trying to play both sides so she can claim victory regardless of which side wins. She’s a fraud who should resign her position.
IF SHE IS A REAL NUN? then she would have never been for Obamacare in the first place. Nice that she finally woke up - now MAYBE she will put her habit back on and act like she is at least a Catholic. No wonder the Vatican is investigating the Sisters in the first place.
How wonderful! Great news, so happy to have a sister stand up and be strong enough to be humble and change her mind and do the right thing.
Actions speak louder than words. I believe she was motivated by the fact that if HHS goes into effect and the Government closes down ALL Catholic Health Services, She will be out of a JOB. Thus she will become entirely insignificant. She will have to put her habit back on or go do something else. I hope it is go do something else.
Only God’s grace can change people’s heart.
I believe the communists have a term for people like “sister” Keehan; “useful dupe.”
Sorry, Sister, you had your five minutes of fame .... Now your “recantation” will have the weight of feathers in the wind. Of course, amazing how the new “Magisterium” suddenly doesn’t know how to teach—but we should nevertheless dissent and follow the habitless Pied Pipers ..... What the bishops SHOULD learn from this event is the need to reign in the quasi-institutional dimension of the Church (like universities, colleges, and health care facilities) that have for too long been in the hands of those with other agendas ....
“Sister Carol” this, and “Sister Carol” that. What is the basis for her [apparently sole] authority? With whom did she consult? I attempted to find out who is on the board of governors of the CHA. To whom is she responsible?
No luck.
It sounds like she is attempting to set up a separate authority in the Church It is no wonder that our bishops are considered poor leaders.
And Jesus said to the woman: “Go and sin no more”. I hope this letter is a glimpse of a true change of heart in issues like contraception. I hope Sister Keehan is genuine and that she realize the impact her statements have in the broader health community so that she use her gift with wisdom and in accordance with the Chruch’s teachings.
All of this STILL doesn’t address the problem of faithful Catholics who are self-employed and must buy individual insurance policies. How is our right of conscience protected by simply enlarging the definition of “religious employer” to include hospitals and schools? We, too, are being forced to pay for services that violate our deeply held religious beliefs… and if Obama wins a second term, there is no doubt that he will decide that abortion is essential to “women’s health care”. Is there a Catholic insurance company through which we can purchase individual health policies, or must we be forced to do without, be fined, and be jailed for refusing to pay the fine? For it is coming…
Amen. Welcome back, Sister. The Catholic church is running to greet you, all along. We are so happy you are back with us on this issue and we welcome your excellent and wonderful participation and contribution and service. Nothing but open arms here. God bless you. Thanks.—Mark Kamoski
If we are to be so harsh to this woman, who, past mistakes considered, seems to have had a change of heart, then how much should God not trust us when we beg his forgiveness over and again? Lord have mercy!
A step in the right direction for the way the Holy Spirit works is like
a breath of fresh air, and He makes happen.
I’m so very thankful she has gone public with her reversal and pray her action is not in vain as she has done much damage.
At least we are making progress: Sister Carol Keehan, a presumably ordained Nun, SLOWLY comes around to OBEYING God’s commands. Good for her - welcome to the Catholic faith, Sister.
Prayer really does work.
While many are understandably suspicious of this sudden public turnabout, I myself am heartened by it, and accept it on the face of it. I hope this is just the first step in the right direction by Sr. Carol. I prefer to take a more charitable and optimistic attitude towards this unforeseen development. Only God knows if this is genuine or not, but if real, the one lost sheep found and returned to the fold is very precious, indeed (as the priest’s homily at last Sunday’s Latin Mass spoke of). Let us give it the benefit of the doubt and continue to pray to the Holy Spirit for the changing of more hearts for the better.
.
The worst that could happen here is that we would have been fooled if this turns out to be merely a calculated, cynically driven move. Yet our having hoped for the best would not be harmful to our own faith in God and Jesus Christ and the Catechism’s teachings now, would it?
AWESOME! Lord Hear our prayers….
I cannot help but think it was at least partly because Sister Kehan did support Obamacare, and defended the “so called” compromise that the Bishops gathered more support from faithful Catholics to make a stronger case. I can only hope she is sincere, has finally read the law in its’ entirety, and made a prayerful decision based on discernment. I do know God works in mysterious ways. I can only speak for myself, and share my experience, strength, and hope. Pray, pray, pray. Read, read, read. And vote your conscience if you have one.
It seems, though, that she still thinks these are services that need to be provided in another way, just not with cooperation approval of the religious employer. Me, I disagree that my tax dollars should be used for contraception, voluntary sterilizations, and abortions. But OB says no, these are ‘rights’.
Carol Keehan performed an about face when the mandate hit her group in the wallet. Her moral convictions have no objection to catholic tax payers contributing to abortion. Another $ister.
Don
Sounds like someone has had a “Come to Jesus” meeting. Let’s hope and pray that it took hold, that the conversion is real, and that this is not simply playing a sound bite until we cal all get back to business as usual. Pardon me if I am a cynic, but I have seen and heard all too many players at that level who give lip service to which ever way the wind is blowing, all the while keeping their agenda in focus and understanding that progress often means one step backward, until one can make two forward after the fuss has died down. She did not get to the position she holds by being anything less than extremely accomplished in the world of politics.
And politics is the art of compromise. Morality, last time I checked, isn’t.
The first time around I had written Sr. Carol a long letter about why I felt she was wrong on this. I am glad she has changed her message—it takes humility to do that. I think it is not so much that this administration is out to get the Catholic Church, it is that it does not “get” the Catholic Church. How can it when many Catholics do not even “get” it? I used to teach a 7th grade religion class in a Catholic school and the kids had to learn the basic tenants of the faith. The textbook did a great job of showing that Love is at the base of each tenant and in God’s language Love=life. If Love/Life is at your base, how can promoting actions, substances or people that could cause the direct taking of human life ever be justified? It is up to Catholics to find the alternatives and to hold these up to the world.
Seems to me like they are only out for religious institutions not regular people who don’t want to pay for contraceptives and abortions for others. Besides religious freedom is given to us by God not man or a man made entity like the government. Why don’t they just say we’re not going to offer this not matter what. We are just not going to do it. And make a true and visible stance . Instead we will be like the world and go out and protest. Just tell the government that we will obey the law of God and not the law of man. Just leave it at that and call their bluff. If its not a bluff, then you have a chance to suffer like Christ suffered for us, and the early Christians who refused to bow down and offer empty sacrifices for false gods. Be a true contradiction to the world.
Reading through these posts I appreciate those who commend Sister Carol & thank her for taking a stand.
You have to shake your head & wonder when we can’t forgive a fellow Catholic,especially a nun, even after they do the right thing.No wonder the world can see Christians as petty & self righteous.Good grief….
I know Sister Carol from many years ago when she was at Sacred Heart Hospital. Your negative comments about her are
uncalled for, especially those that refer to her “vocation” as a Daughter of Charity. She cares for people, especially children and IS a good nun. I find it hard to believe that she makes these decisions alone. She has a Board of Directors and others that help steer CHA. Don’t put all the blame on her.
Thank you sister for getting it right and supporting the truth!!
Once again, Carol Keehan woke up and realized that if the government shuts down Catholic Health Services, she is out of a job.
Her defense of Catholic teachings is solely the result of self-interest. So far, the only objections she raises are those that directly impact her and her personal little empire. She isn’t seeking to cleave to the Magisterium, she simply has finally unraveled the convoluted mess that is the PPACA and reckoned how the new HHS mandates would destroy the CHA.
I will believe she has a change of heart when she embraces the Magisterium, the teachings and traditions of Holy Mother Church, and orders all CHA hospitals to operate within the strictures of our Faith.
I would like to see her use her obvious influence and denounce the pro-abortion policies of this administration. I would like the CHA to articulate a statement that it is the belief of Catholic Health that life begins at the instant of conception and it will be the policy of all CHA facilities to protect that life as they would any other.
That would be ‘returning to the flock’. All she is doing now is protecting her interests.
Any employer that provides or purchases health care coverage deserves the same religious liberty. Let us hope and pray that all future efforts conspicuously include (as thankfully, Archbishop Lori has done) all healthcare purchasers and not just churches, Catholic hospitals and other ministries. The Constitution provides religious freedom to all individuals not just ‘religious employers’.
I admire the Sister for seeing the light. Now, if only she would understand that the Bill of Rights protects our individual religious consciences and the government does not have the authority to force ANY person to provide medical insurance to their employees which violates their religious beliefs. People only seem to be worried about the Church and church organizations. How about the rest of us?
In a spirit of charity, I join many of you in thanking God for this answered prayer. I share some healthy skepticism of Sister’s reformation, but hopefully it is genuine and long lasting.
The leadership we are seeing from the US bishops has been just the blessing we need at this time. Look at how things are coming together - with several notable/notorious Catholic universities, now Sister Keehan, ALL bishops, etc. unifying on this topic.
This is truly amazing, and I have to believe the outcome of grace and hard work of the leadership of US bishops.
I pray that we look back on this past year as a true and lasting turning point for Catholics in the US. With God, all things are possible!
Lizzie, I cannot admire this woman - just like I can’t admire Jenkins at Notre Dame. Amazing how both of them carried water for this most pro-abortion, anti-Catholic president in the history of this nation (and that’s saying something) until they realized that the HHS mandate and the PPACA was going to cost them countless millions of dollars. Then, like a person told their cancer is terminal and they have 3 months to live, they ‘get Jesus’.
God knows all hearts and He knows their motives, but I have to go on the evidence at hand. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Keehan needs to be much more contrite and much more proactive before I would be willing to trust her.
Well it looks like the bishops put the screws on Sister Keehan, too bad.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe the Bill of Rights really protects our individual religious consciences when it comes to taxes. Once the government decides something is right (like a war or any type of government program) or ‘a right’ (like the ‘right’ to abort life in the womb) the taxpayers pay for it with their taxes. I totally agree with Lizzie that we should not have to provide the immoral medical insurance to our employees but if the government decides it’s the ‘right’ of the employee to get it we will end up paying for it in the long run one way or another. All we can do is to keep fighting so at least we don’t have to pay for it directly. We can at least give that witness.
Don’t read too much into her objections. Sister Keehan is still in bed with the devil. Read the whole letter!
Call me a cynic but what is TRULY behind this change of heart?
My fear is that, with all of the ratings dropping for Obama, that she and the CHA will be “agents provacatures” for Obama and biden in that They will now see the Light thru the efforts of Sr. Keehan but not the Bishops repeated calls… “You shall know them by the fruit that they bear” and their fruit has been disingenuous at best.
GREAT articles & informative. So called “Sister” or MS Kenan should not represent Catholic/any women of any sort when she is not educated in the Catholic Church’s moral & ethical teachings of RIGHT/WRONG actions & behaviors that represent human dignity & protection under God. Prayer: Jude 9: “May GOD REBUKE such evil hipocrites in defiance of His Laws. Who can kill? [NO ONE has the right to kill any other human being!] for any reason whatsoever, period! NONE! Catechesis is so necessary. Thank you for leading & taking a STAND for us chickens in the hen house. GOD BLESS!. Theresa
Gods’ LOVE: What is it? Love is your visible “ACTIONS/BEHAVIOR” acted out in a form/manner for the good of the OTHER. [Works in the Light] LOVE is NOT about >ME< >ME< >ME<; my own hidden selfish narcisistic greedy agenda/grab for power, control, money to dictate to others the human way it is going to become. By the GRACE of God, Light will be brought into the darkness as prayer/time reveals the TRUTH. WISDOM: “Is to know the difference” The HOLY SPIRIT speaks to the Heart. For all concerned: We must be “ALPHA/OMEGA” PEOPLE in PRAYER/ACTION: Our Apostolic Group wants you to be: “[Apostalic Lay People in Holy Action/Opeining Man’s Entity to God’s Action]” Kenan’s ‘H’ = ‘Hellish; Action. God Bless, Respond: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Theresa
The second posting in this thread refers to the foot dragging of St. Pete:
Posted by Carol O. on Monday, Jun 18, 2012 9:30 AM (EST):
St. Peter dragged his own feet. God bless Sr. Carol, period
Anyone care to enlighten me as to what St. Peter said that could be interpreted as foot dragging by the man upon whom our holy catholic church was built?
That’s a nun? I thought it was just an elderly woman. I have a bad HABIT of not recognizing them now-a-days.
While I am grateful to see this change of position for the better, the skeptic in me has to wonder if it was brought about by a nosedive in donations to CHA. I know we personally decided against donating because of their support of Obama’s mandate.
I don’t believe it for a minute. Someone like Sister Carol—who has shown her true colors on more than one occasion—does not simply change her position like this. Her letter is a political move. She probably realizes that Obama may very well lose the election because of the HHS mandate (at the very least), so her letter is a calculated move to give Obama another “out,” so that he can appear to appease those who oppose the mandate. Many people, wanting to support Obama but balking at the mandate, will jump at the excuse to support him again, if he follows Sister Carol’s advice and makes some kind of adjustment to the mandate. Their consciences salved, they will vote for Obama (again), and he will win the election. That is what Sister Carol wants. But if Obama wins, there will be drastic consequences. There’s more going on than just the HHS mandate. Most likely he will make more appointments to the Supreme Court, which will further halt any kind of progress toward overturning Roe v. Wade. And, more likely than not, he will come up with some kind of excuse to reverse any kind of “accommodation” that he makes now, before the election. He won’t be accountable any more, because he won’t be up for re-election, and he will continue to march forward with his poisonous ideologies. (It’s somewhat of a joke to say that he is accountable even now, since he cannot be trusted; he has been caught in lie after lie after lie, but he gets away with it.) So don’t be fooled by Sister Carol’s move. And don’t be fooled by Obama, please, for the sake of all that is good and worth preserving in this country.
I am dismayed by those who speak so uncharitably of Sr. Keenan. Her support of health care reform may have been ill considered, but I see no reason to question her effort to make a faith based decision there. If she recognizes now that the Obama Administration is not offering a compromise that Catholics can accept, those who want Catholics to unite in opposition to the mandate, or more broadly to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, should celebrate CHS’ alignment with the bishops. For that matter, her reversal is timely because the Fortnight is now. The self righteous posturing of so many of us here gives us a bad name and makes us less persuasive. Moreover, those who really believe that the devout are a majority and that Obama has not carefully calculated this little spat with our Church are about to get a rude shock. Democracy does not mean the right outcome. Sr. Keenan runs a significant institution and she has to do business with the government. This cannot be easy given the things that are at stake (our mission to the sick and the poor for one) and the judgment that so many commenting here have passed upon her is naive, petty and inconsistent with our professed beliefs. She deserves some respect, finally, as a nun.
William Walsh,
Not sure what you mean about cutting some slack for the good sister K bec of the difficulty running a “significant institution and she has to do business with the government. This cannot be easy given the things that are at stake.”
Are you suggesting that tap dance that the good sister K “must” do to satisfy the government cash spigot while fulfilling Christ’s dictate of “our mission to the sick and the poor” allows her the wiggle-room to totally ignor the Magisterium, spit in the face of the USCCB, provide a thin “veil” of comfort to the perpetrators of a law that provides abortifacients and sterilization and other little things that are contrary to Christ’s mandates?
Yes, I admit I could be a bit more charitible to those public servant Catholics who bring scandal to the front doors of the church and into the livingrooms of the faithless. But the foolhearty trickery of Sr. K and her cohorts needs to stop.
William Walsh:
You seem to equate “charity” with supporting Sister Carol. Charity, however, speaks the truth, even if it be a hard one. Can one not question Sister Carol’s motives without being accused of being uncharitable, petty, inconsistent, judgmental, and so on? Then you go on to accuse anyone who does so of “self righteous posturing.” Perhaps it didn’t occur to you that your own accusations against such people fall under your own condemnation? There’s no way out of it. If someone doesn’t support Sister Carol, then they are self righteous and petty, you say. But when you accuse such people, somehow you are exempt from being self righteous. Give it a break. Perhaps you should do a little research and find out for yourself just what positions Sister Carol has taken in the past. “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…,” as the saying goes. Perhaps you have forgotten that when Saul (who became St. Paul) supposedly had converted to The Way, the early Christians were rightly skeptical of him. Not to be skeptical of him: THAT would have been naive and dangerous. Would that Sister Carol become Saint Carol! But it is TOO EARLY to applaud her move, given her past. Perhaps you have forgotten that the early Christians required at least a two-year probation of catechumens, to test their motives, before considering them to have given up their pagan ways. To be skeptical of Sister Carol, contrary to what you may believe, is not being uncharitable; it is, in fact, protecting the flock from a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Now, if you can’t understand that Obama has a better chance of reelection if he changes the HHS mandate according to what Sister Carol has suggested—and if you can’t understand what is at stake if Obama does win the election—then you have no business writing in this forum. Liberal Catholics who voted for Obama in 2008 are waiting to jump on the chance to support him again. If they do, he will win the election. Devout Catholics are not the majority, and will vote against Obama because of his pro-abortion stance, among other things. But liberal Catholics outnumber the devout ones, and it will be they who decide the election. So the point of being skeptical of Sister Carol’s supposed “conversion” is not to throw stones, but rather, to point out to Catholics who may be inclined to support Obama that there is more at stake in this election than just the HHS mandate, and that even if Obama were to rescind it, we should still not vote for him, since to do so would be considered as (at least) material cooperation with evil. Finally, I will say that Sister Carol has my respect as a nun, but I’m not surprised that her congregation is a member of the LCWR, which is being called to reform by the Vatican.
William;
She approved the accomodation, knowing full well that it relied solely on Mr. Obama’s ‘good-will’. The Hosanna-Tabor decision, upholding religous freedom from federal interference, got the administration’s knickers in a twist.
So he changed his mind.
Under this mandate, every Catholic hospital and shelter, adoption agency, foster care network, clinic, or other Catholic organization aiding those in need would have to exclude anyone who is not Catholic. It is a blatant and overt attempt of government to supplant the charitable works of the Church in favor for state-run agencies that would replace the Church. Mr. Obama is seeking nothing less than the extinction of churches as providers of charity. When the government replaces religion, it thinks that it will kill it.
The only reason Keehan has had a change of heart is that she sees her personal empire in jeopardy. I saw this coming three years ago - as did any number of people. Carol Keehan thought she would end up with her finger in the pie. Mr. Obama, however, did what he has done to everyone he no longer needs. He discarded her.
Self-righteous posturing? No, sorry. She needs to go much, much further in this fight if she wants my trust.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/16/the-little-sisters-of-limousin
In the American Spectator, George Neumayr contributes a scathing piece about Sister Carol Keehan, the head of the Catholic Health Association. Noting that Sister Keehan takes in an annual compensation package that approaches $1 million, Neumayr remarks: “Who knew that lobbying for the corporal works of mercy paid so well?” Catholic hospitals, Neumayr goes on to say, produce enormous revenue streams. Federal funding will increase those revenues. The executives who administer the hospitals are well paid, and the institutions can afford to pay attractive salaries to a representative who will further their interests in Washington.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/16/the-little-sisters-of-limousin
Since there is an automatic excommuication for helping someone to have an abortion. Do we need to think of any of these people as Catholics in good standing? In a choice between the government and my church I certainly will not follow someone who “might be” excommunicated.
Folks: Is it possible to put Mz Kenan aside/back burner? Let’s move on to the grass roots foundation/principles of life. RETIRE Bar-Obumbles. VOTE HIM OUT. PERIOD. America needs major training, education, & catechesis to get the JOB done that the USCCB has started w/ Fortnight 4 Freedom. Secular news channels DID NOT cover????? Get the word out! Never in world history has a ‘CAUSE’ ‘THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, & RELIGION, FREEDOM & CONSCIENCE PROTECTION been more important. Bottom line: A-Bishop Chaput: “Prove what you say; by what you do” LOVE = doing what is good for the ‘other’. Is KILLING ever good, allowed or right? Consequences follow; & you can’t bring a LIFE back once it is gone. Prayer & ACTION ARE NEEDED. Thanks, Tootsie
As of August 17, 20012 when Sr Carol Keehan spoke here in Cleveland Ohio to the City Club of Cleveland she certainly sounded like she fully supported the HHS mandate along with all provisions of Obamacare.
When answering questions, she certainly didn’t sound like she was in agreement with the Vatican on any topics.
Also her Medicare funding were incorrect but cleverly in tune with the President’s calculations.
She still is on the left of most issues.
What all of it comes down to is a diametrically opposed view of mankind between us and the left of center policy makers. They speak of people as instruments of public policy and not as individual people with hopes and dreams for the future. For example today there was a discussion on c-span about school choice. All but one of the panelists spoke of the children as statistics and were more worried about whether the schools were stratified economically or as one put it by religion than whether the children were prepared for the role as adults in todays world. So to all I ask what are people to you? On that simple question we divide on public policy. Is it the function of our children to be used to promote the society they want? Or is it the function of society to promote the welfare of our children?
PLEASE, Citizens of America, For GOD’S Sake and the sake of Human LIFE and for Eternal Salvation, VOTE for the SOUL OF AMERICAN. VOTE for Moral, Ethical, Christian Family men with Faith filled values: the Romney & Ryan team to get this beloved country back on the RIGHT track to a GOD fearing nation with God at the helm. It does not get any better than what we will be blessed by to carry the torch of our beloved country to restore life, liberty, freedom of religion, and the persuit of happiness and peace for all. Pass the word, like a torch, to ignite one candle, one person at a time. God Bless you and THANK YOU for representing the winning team with FAITH & HOPE in our hearts.
When you waiver on abortion look around you. Someone within hearing range was inconvienent when they were born. They were illigitimate, the parents marriage was failing,maybe mom was raped. But you are not just telling mom it is OK you are telling them they didn’t have the right to live. When you waiver on abortion you tell them they were not as worthy to live as your children were. Can you look me in the face and say I didn’t have the right to live? Because everytime you waiver on abortion that is what I hear.
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.