Obama administration critics say the president misled his religious supporters in a 2009 Notre Dame speech, in which he supported conscience protections and “common ground” on issues like abortion.
“Two and a half years after President Obama was given an honorary degree at America’s flagship Catholic university and delivered its commencement address, at least we have clarity,” wrote Kansas Catholic Conference’s director, Michael Schuttloffel, in a Nov. 13 column.
“Willful blindness regarding this administration’s true intentions is no longer possible,” wrote Schuttloffel, who highlighted conflict between the moderate tone of Obama’s University of Notre Dame commencement speech and his administration’s policies.
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson voiced similar concerns in a Nov. 14 column. He accused the president, who courted the Catholic vote in the 2008 election, of “(turning) his back on Catholics.”
“The conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services,” wrote Gerson. “And Obama’s Catholic strategy is in shambles.”
Both writers urged their readers to compare President Obama’s words at Notre Dame with his later actions.
In his May 2009 speech, President Obama expressed a desire to “work through these conflicts” over issues like abortion and stem cells, in order to “join hands in common effort.”
“Maybe we won’t agree on abortion,” the president proposed. “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
Schuttloffel compared the president’s invitation to Notre Dame, and his moderate tone there, to the legendary “Trojan Horse” of Greek mythology: a giant, hollow statue presented as a peace offering from the opposing army, with legions of soldiers waiting within.
“The folly of those Catholics who issued and defended that invitation, like the Trojans who wheeled the great wooden horse inside their city walls, has been laid bare,” the Kansas Catholic Conference director stated.
He indicated that the administration’s contraceptive mandate, which includes at least one abortion-causing drug, made a mockery of the president’s talk about “trying to find common ground” with pro-life advocates.
“With the eager assistance of old friends at Planned Parenthood, Health and Human Services Secretary (Kathleen) Sebelius recently unveiled a list of ‘preventive services’ that all private and public health plans will eventually be required to provide,” Schuttloffel noted.
“It includes contraceptives, sterilization, and even the abortifacient ‘Ella,’ which has the capacity to end a pregnancy after fertilization.”
“Because the new policy prohibits copays or deductibles for these ‘services,’ they will for provided for ‘free,’” Schuttloffel pointed out. “Which means they will be paid for with the premiums and taxes of people who do not use these services and who object to them.”
In his Washington Post column, Gerson compared the president’s past praise of conscience rights with his administration’s choice to cut funding from the U.S. Catholic bishops’ work against human trafficking.
On Jan. 12, 2009, eight days before President Obama’s inauguration, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Department of Health and Human Services over its work with the U.S. bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services.
The ACLU accused the government agency of setting up “an establishment of religion” by funding the Catholic humanitarian program, which did not refer women for abortion or contraception.
In October 2011, the Obama administration cut funding for the highly rated program after declaring it would give preference to programs offering “the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.”
“This was described by one official as ‘standard procedure,’” wrote Gerson.
“So it is now standard procedure in the Obama administration to deny funding to some Catholic programs based solely on their pro-life beliefs.”
At Notre Dame, Obama promoted a “presumption of good faith” between those on opposite sides of the abortion debate. “When we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do,” he said, “that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground. “
At an October 2011 Chicago fundraiser, however, Secretary Sebelius said she was “in a war” against political opponents who “want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America.”
“This is no longer the ‘presumption of good faith,’” noted Gerson, who said the Obama appointee had shown “all the hallmarks of a vendetta” against the pro-life movement.
Schuttloffel said the contraceptive mandate’s “so-called religious exemption” signals the Obama administration’s true policy toward religious groups.
He called the narrow exemption the “most insidious aspect” of the Health and Human Services Department rules, since it “only applies to religious employers that have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose and that employ and serve people who share their religious beliefs.”
“It will therefore not apply to Catholic universities, hospitals and charitable organizations that serve the general public,” Schuttloffel noted.
“This is of a piece with the Obama administration’s various efforts to define religious freedom down to mean nothing more than the freedom to worship in private. The broad, two-centuries-old understanding of the First Amendment’s guarantee of ‘free exercise’ is being eviscerated.”
“Under the new policy, religious institutions are only rewarded with a religious exemption if they restrict their activities to worship,” the Kansas Catholic Conference director observed.
“But if they function as full participants in society, bringing their faith to bear on public life through education, health care and advocacy, they will then be forced to provide medical services they find deeply immoral.”
At Notre Dame’s 2009 commencement, President Obama praised the university’s students for “service … performed at schools and hospitals, international relief agencies and local charities.” He described such works as “incredibly impressive and a powerful testament to this institution.”
But now, Schuttloffel indicated, the president’s own policies endanger religious work in these areas: “A new, circumscribed understanding of religious liberty is being implemented, by fiat, by those who reject religion’s legitimate contribution to the public square.”
Though Catholics fear their institutions’ religious freedom is at risk, pro-life Democrats are predicting that the federal government will create a broader religious exemption to federal mandates requiring contraception coverage in all new health-care plans.
“I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception,” former Pennsylvania Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper said Nov. 21.
“We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the president will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage.”
Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, also expressed confidence that the Obama administration will provide a sufficient exemption.
“The administration has no intention of forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs. It does not make any sense from a public-policy perspective, and it certainly is not smart politically to alienate Catholic voters,” she said.
Day charged that the Obama administration is “unfairly under attack by Catholic conservatives who are using the proposed final rule to spread anti-Obama sentiment to lay Catholics.”
On Aug. 1 the Department of Health and Human Services announced regulations for preventive care as required by the 2010 health-care legislation. The rules mandate that new health-care plans cover all FDA-approved sterilizations and contraception, including contraceptives with abortion-causing effects.
The regulations accompanied a proposed exemption only for religious employers whose primary purpose is the inculcation of religious values and who primarily employ and serve those who share their religious tenets. Catholic bishops and scholars have said the exemption would not include most Catholic health-care systems, charitable agencies and institutions of higher education.
Democrats for Life said that the health-care legislation itself proposed to continue to allow employers an exemption to mandatory contraception coverage if the employer objected on moral or religious grounds.
“This was part of the agreement reached by pro-life Democrats,” the organization said Nov. 19. “The issue for pro-life Democrats is that certain types of birth control cause abortions of new embryos.”
Other commentators have said that Health and Human Services’ narrow proposed exemption uses language originally intended to target Catholics.
The exemption originated in a California debate about a state-level contraception mandate, William Cox, president and CEO of the California-based Alliance of Catholic Health Care, told a Nov. 2 hearing of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health.
Cox said the American Civil Liberties Union “painstakingly crafted” the definition to “specifically exclude religious institutional missions like health-care providers, universities and social-service agencies.”
During the debate, the then-head of Planned Parenthood in California said the wording was designed to close the “Catholic gap” in contraceptive coverage, Cox reported.
Pro-abortion rights groups like Emily’s List and NARAL are seeking to preserve the present language of the exemption.
Democrats for Life charged that these groups are “attempting to push the mandate beyond its hard-won legislative intent” and are using “scare tactics” to convince supporters they risk losing birth-control coverage.
Organization board member Stephen Schneck of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholics Studies at Catholic University of America invoked a previous controversy over the effects of the health-care legislation.
He said the Emily’s List campaign is “as dishonest as the Republican campaign” to convince voters that the health-care legislation funds abortion.
“The PPACA does not fund abortion, and not one woman will lose access to birth control under the new law. In fact, millions of women will now receive free birth control under that law,” he said.
Democrats for Life said that the campaign to preserve the narrow exemption could mean that “millions of Americans” will lose access to employer-sponsored health care. The organization cited the remarks of University of Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins, who said the rules would force the university either to violate Catholic moral teaching by paying for contraception and sterilization or to violate Catholic social teaching by discontinuing employee and student health-care plans.
“Common sense would say health insurance, even if it does not include contraception coverage, is better than no insurance at all,” Dahlkemper said. “If commonsense prevails, the final rule will allow fair conscience protections that will not force religious institutions (to) choose between social teaching and moral teaching.”
In his testimony before the House subcommittee, Cox recommended that Health and Human Services use the broader definition of religious employer provided in the Internal Revenue Code. It should also amend the rule to ensure that individuals and non-religious employers are similarly protected, he said.
The proposed rules are set to take effect in August 2012.
Edward Pentin: Pope Congratulates President Obama, Stresses Freedom and Justice
Joseph Pronechen: Bishops Call for 'Rosary Novena for Life and Liberty'
Comments
Post a Comment
And though the lawsuit was not against Catholics people should be very horrified by the EEOC suit against Hosanna Lutheran Tabernacle Church. This is a very overt attack by this administration on religious freedom.
Clearly the Catholic Church in the U.S. has developed a strong feeling of entitlement to receive taxpayer dollars for some of its activities. I do not think the Church is generating much sympathy among said taxpayers by continually insisting that is being persecuted because it can no longer count on getting contracts when it explicitly refuses to meet all the contract requirements.
And considering that over 90% of Catholics use contraceptives, why would they be upset that Catholic institutions performing public services must provide insurance that pays for legally required medical benefits including contraception? And what about all the non-Catholics who are employed by those institutions.
Plenty of Catholics already pay into insurance plans that cover sterilization, and they don’t obsess over whether they contributed toward someone getting her tubes tied. In a complex and diverse culture they understand that they cannot impose their religious morality on others. Nor will they care if contraceptives are made a benefit. No one will force them to use them. But the majority of Catholics will probably take advantage of the benefit!
The bishops look foolish complaining over these issues because even most Catholics don’t see them as issues of religious freedom.
I hope to God that Catholics are finally waking up to President Obama’s facade of respect for conscience protections. He has done exactly the opposite in practice as his administration continues its war against Catholic social reaching. One cannot continue to support this man and, in good conscience, call oneself a Catholic.
You mean he’s a LIAR???
WHAT?
I can’t believe it!
Brother.
Cowalker…. who says most/ 90% of Catholics don’t follow doctrine.
I do. I have friends who do. We count.
Please don’t be so dismissive about what we do or don’t believe
cowalker…... 90% of Catholics use contraception…. really? Where do you get your numbers? How did you decide to make up the number 90, when 89 would have served deception just as well?
The point of the argument over the exemption clause IS that there are non-Catholics on the payroll of Catholic institutions. For example, I am employed in a hospital, the only one in a 100 mile radius. It is a Catholic hospital, espousing catholic values and upholding catholic moral and social teaching. No one is turned away from health care due to inability to pay. We also perform certain life-saving procedures that cannot be found within a 150 mile radius. It is the largest employer in the area.
Most employees here are not catholic. It would be impossible to staff the haospital with “all catholic” medical professionals, and so we would not meet the current administrations “litmus test” and would have to violate our conscience as a catholic organization. It would not do that.
Therefore the hospital would be forced to close its doors. So who do you think will take care of the sick people????
No one thinks of forcing a Jehovah’s Witness to receive blood or serve in the military. No one forces a Muslim t miss their scheduled prayer times. No one forces a devout Jew to work on the sabbath or to eat a pork sandwich. Why is it so hard to raelize that the catholics are asking for the same consideration? Non-considerate, non-thinking persons, easily swayed by the media idiots are standing in the way of the religious liberties granted by the constitution and the bill of rights. Cowalker, please think before you write your hate comments in the comboxes.
Cowalker, I think you are wrong to say that “most Catholics don’t see them as issues of religious freedom.” I know many Catholics that are opposed to birth control in its many forms. The bishops are not being foolish. They are the leaders of the Church and MUST stand up for what the Church teaches. What an individual Catholic chooses to do regarding birth control is between him/her and God, but the Church must take a stand for all believers.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/president-obama-vs.-catholic-conscience#ixzz1eNVW9QKnmost Catholics
I really don’t understand why the government is involved in what health care coverage private employers provide anyway. If an employer doesn’t want to cover contraceptives or whatever, it shouldn’t have to. If the worker doesn’t like it, go get a new job w/ insurnace that does cover it or go buy a policy that does. Problem solved.
Reading this makes me want to say some very rude things to our illustrious President. His conduct and general attitude towards anyone who believes more in God than in Government is reprehensible. Time and again, he has used his bully pulpit to impose his will. Clearly, free thinking and freedom loving people represent too strong of a threat to his Marxist philosophies.
I implore the reader to recall the Nazi play book; take control of healthcare, massive expansion of government, create and spread social class hostilities, limit or eliminate religious freedoms, capture funds from private citizens via drastic increases to taxation policies, and finally, when you have thoroughly pulverized the will of those that oppose you, it is very easy to begin atrocities without limit…November 2012…pray for CHANGE that we can live with…
Obama is a liar, a hypocrite, LOVES immoral behavior, abortion, elderly euthanasia & is anti-church…
He’s a DANGEROUS man. IF America votes this guy in for another 4 years, may as well move to Canada….
Mr. O’Donnell, most Catholics use contraceptive methods rather than NFP or letting nature take its course.
Abstract of an article from 1973
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4068/41.abstract
Article from April 2011
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-contraceptives-religion-idUSTRE73C7W020110413
Abortion rates among women calling themselves Catholics are comparable to those among other groups as well.
http://factcheck.org/2007/12/abortions-comparing-catholic-and-protestant-women/
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
Bill O’Donnell: “No one thinks of forcing a Jehovah’s Witness to receive blood or serve in the military. No one forces a Muslim t miss their scheduled prayer times. No one forces a devout Jew to work on the sabbath or to eat a pork sandwich.”
Nor do they hire a Jehovah’s Witness to work in an emergency room if he states that he will refuse to perform a blood transfusion on an accident victim about to die from blood loss. Nor does anyone hire an Orthodox Jew to work in the meat department at a grocery if he refuse to handle pork products, or to work at McDonalds if he refuses to make cheeseburgers. What would you think of the government paying an Islamic organization to provide services to the poor, but only on the condition that all their non-Islamic woman employees AND non-Islamic female recipients of services wear burqas?
In no case will a Catholic be forced to use contraceptives, or to force another person to use contraceptives against their religious beliefs. There is a conscience clause that allows Catholics to refuse to participate in performing abortions.
The bishops are so far out of step with the culture in the U.S. that I think it will be necessary for the Catholic Church to get out of the business of running hospitals. Even if Catholic hospitals were able to be staffed entirely with Catholic workers, most of them would have no problem with an insurance policy that provided contraceptives and sterilizations as benefits.
The man is a liar
I am ashamed and pained to admit that I fell for his charismatic lying to my face. Our local community, who have provided 50 years of social work (adoptions) for thousands of children, are now having to close its doors, because it cannot and will not perform any functions that are not allowed by our Church…and against the will of our God. Hospitals will also be forced to close their doors when they are required to perform abortions, etc.
If a politician has a real belief, it’s just NOT okay to flat out lie about it to get votes. I will do everything in my power to sway as many votes away from this man as I possibly can. I’m going to work hard in this next year…all Catholics should do the same.
Over the years, the Catholic hirearchy has remained silent, or at least did not take on an administration directly. This lead to a slow but constant eroding of religious liberty. After the fall meeting of the USCCB, the bishops are setting a new tone. You now have bishops who are fed up of what is going on.
So we can disagree on murder. This man is a snake.
Nothing personal against Archbishop Dolan of NY and president of the USCCB, but I will refer to him as I attempt to put a human face on the problem as I see it. Just because one is a Bishop does not make him a politician, a negotiator, a general or even a “leader of men”. There is ample evidence to support my statement in the fact that the Catholic Church failed in preventing homosexual marriage in NY when there was more than enough warning the enemy was coming. Dolan failed in this. As president of the USCCB, he did nothing to attempt to get the Catholic Bishops of America to assist him in the fight to preserve traditional marriage in NY. He failed in that. What guidance did he or fully 80% of the Bishops give in leading up to the elections in November of 2008? What are they doing now? What are they doing in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Florida? Each a January caucus or primary. Dolan wrote a letter September 20, 2011, in which he expressed his dismay that not only was Obama not going to defend DOMA, The Defense of Marriage Act, but that he was actively working to undermine it. If one reads the letter, you would have to conclude the Archbishop was both surprised and saddened by Obama’s actions. Whether one voted for or against Obama, who else in the nation was surprised? Dolan had a private meeting with Obama in thw White House on November 8th Why? For special pleading on behalf of the Bishops and the institutional Church? Would he have requested the meeting if the issues he objected to only affected the laity? Why keep what was discussed in the meeting private as it says at the USCCB website that Dolan and Obama agreed to do? Does that serve the Catholic community? If the Catholic Bishops and Priests do not attempt to get the Catholic voters behind them, why would Obama have any concern whatsoever? He knows that his actions and goals are anathema to faithful Catholics. He doesn’t care what Dolan thinks or wants. Obama promised nothing in the meeting and Dolan left feeling much better than when he went in. This is a perfect example of why we are doomed to fail. Dolan is not even trying to get the laity behind him. Why? Is he afraid they won’t vote for Obama in November of 2012? I believed, going into November 2008, it would be one of the most import elections in the history of America. Now I feel that way about 2012. 54% of Catholics voted for Obama who, it was clear, would be the most pro-abortion president in the history of America. What did 80% of the bishops have to say? The same thing they are saying now - nothing. Regarding the Bishops, I say, “lead, follow or get the h*** out of the way. http://www.rpconradio.com
Once again, Obama “catholics” are our worst enemies. Bishops who glorify politicians who are pro-abort are our worst nightmaresRegular Catholics in the pews are being snookered big time. I speak as a medical provider who has been thru the mill on this.
@Bill O’Donnell
Bravo! Thumbs up!
Your arguments, especially in your last paragraph, are stunning!
OMG, are you saying that Acorn O had lied to us? Be careful with your words. We no longer live in a free and democratic country. You might find yourself as a victim of post birth abortion. In an Acorn O world, that is a legal solution for dissenters.
Cowalker, there’s an important detail you are overlooking.
Catholics ARE TAXPAYERS. We have every right to have a say in how our money is being spent. This stupid argument that receiving government funding makes all religious principles null and void is exactly that - STUPID. It’s not as if some nebulous “they” were subsidizing all of the charitable work Catholic organizations are doing for that same nebulous “they.” IT’S OUR MONEY!!!
As Senator Nancy Pelosi says some Catholics suffer from an overdeveloped “conscience thing” ... don’t worry Nancy we will all be back in the drum circle with your occupiers pounding away and singing “no justice no peace” in time for the elections ... we have never let you down yet. Finally understand why the traditional symbol of the Democrat Party is a rooster ... it represents all the “moral chickens” coming home to roost.
Ideally, employers should not be involved in providing health insurance to employees at all. Do they provide car insurance, or home insurance? No! The employees purchase policies directly from the insurers, and choose the coverage they want, instead of being stuck with whatever cookie-cutter policy the business negotiates with the insurer. If ever there was a privacy intrusion and limit on liberty, this is it. Employees should receive ALL their pay, purchase their own insurance, set up their own retirement investments, and pay taxes when they spend their income on purchases of nonessentials.
“Democrats for Life” ? what a joke, how can they not be aware of the democratic party’s pro-abortion platform for the last 30 years…
Cowalker:
I will give you the point that more catholics use artificial birth control methods as opposed to NFP. However, your imaginary number of 90% is still rejected until you can come up with a reference that is mutually satisfactory. 1973 data is, well, over 30 years old. Reuters is a news service not known to be friendly to Catholics, or any Christian for that matter.Statistics that point to those claiming to be Catholic to others claiming to be protestant are, indeed, interesting, but prove nothing. Thank you however, for doing some homework before replying. It shows that you are interested in dialogue and not just sniping at Catholics, as so many do on this combox. I appriciate that.
Here is the point. The problem is that many Catholics are what we might call “nominal” in their understanding of Catholic moral teachings. Many are lapsed in their faith, attend church infrequently and, in general are more worldly than spiritually motivated. Same is true of nearly all who call themselves Protestant or Jewish, and in many cases Muslim. The only ones who seem to be complete in their practices are those that practice the religion of indifference, relativism or intellectual and spiritual laziness (Athiests fall into this category. Non-belief and hedonism is really very easy. Faith takes work, living an upright and moral life is harder than most think, except for those actually making an effort to do so).
Also, let us not forget that we are dealing with human beings. We error, we make mistakes and we sin. Isn’t it interesting that all major religions begin with the premise that we do and are going to sin? This is not repression, but rather a simple fact of our imperfect nature. Wish it were different, but it ain’t.
So, whose fault is it that so many Catholics are in poor spiritual health and moral frame of mind? 35 years of Planned Parenthood propaganda, media sactioning of “if it feels good…. and so long as you aren’t actually hurting anyone, it is all good” sort of nonsense has played a big role.
One can blame a generation and more of poor catechisis. One can blame a lukewarm episcopal college or too strong an emphasis on the material and the general acceptance of the idea that “I’m OK and Your OK philosophy”, as well as a failure to call sin….well… sin.
It is also my fault.
As a believing practicing Catholic I am responsible for spreading the Good News of the Gospel. As a Catholic cleric (a married father and grandfather ordained as a permanent deacon), I am responsible for teaching the faith and its social/moral teachings to those who do not know or understand them. The Church has learned a lot from the last 21 centuries, and has something of value to say in its lived
So, with that, here is a lesson in Catholic moral doctrine. It is addressed to anyone who has bothered to follow this thread beyond the bland shouting that characterizes too many of these comments. Keep in mind that I understand that people do not always follow these precepts. I am also well aware of the fear and uncertainty that a woman faces in the face of a pregnancy that was neither planned and in some case, unwelcomed. I have both empathy and love for anyone who finds themselves in such a situation.
As to the use of contraception, there may well be legitimate and moral exceptions for their use, though the Church would say that they are not as many as people think. NFP is a form of contraception. It may be prudent for a couple to put off having a family, or adding to a family for a number of reasons. The moral question here is this: (and one cannot help but invoke God and religion as they are the true moral arbitrators in all societies. Those without that sort of framework end up with anarchy at worst and socialism at best)
Back to the point. The Catholic teaching here is that in the act of sex, there is an intent and purpose. God in his goodness has made it pleasurable and that is a good thing, but He has also made it procreative. Its function, within the confines of marriage is to “Make two become one flesh” in purpose, satisfaction giving of oneself entirely to the other”.
Contraception for the sake of just “not wanting to get pregnant” lacks in true responsibility and is a selfish act. There is no doubt that sex can still be enjoyable, but without total self giving, it will never be all it was meant to be. This requires occasional restraint on both people and a willingness to be open to the needs of the other, emotionally, physically and spiritually. One must also be open to the possibility that a procreative act, must, by its nature, be open to giving life. Anything less than that is “unnatural” by the evry definition of “natural”
Thus the conflict with artificial contraception. It should be easier to see why the Church teaches as it does.
Now, as to the conscience problem that the current administration is messing around with is not what you understand it to be. Of course no Catholic is forced to use contraceptives. Of course they will force no one to use them. The problem is this: The exemptions for employers to NOT have to provide insurance benefits that mandate the financing of ones contraception meds is so narrow that there is essentially no exemption. The Church employs millions of people. Benefits are rarely paid in full by the employee, but in nearly all cases are heavily underwritten by the employer. When the employer is the Catholic Church, and artificial contraception is against its moral precepts,that’s a problem. It is the point I tried to make earlier in my previous post.
The Bishops are not anti-government, nor is the Church. Government has its place and purpose, but it is now stepping out of its proper role and is willing to legislate, not morality, as most laws are based on moral precepts, but rather immorality and demands that the Church redefine truth, which cannot be done, or violate its own moral teachings, which it will not do. Therefore, many ministries that are in fact the backbone of our countries outreach to the poor and in fact to any citizen are put in serious danger. If a Bishop has to choose between funding peoples contraceptions by paying mandatory contraception insurance coverage and closing institutions to avoid being complicate in immoralality, it is, I’m afraid, a no brainer.
Here’s what the government is willing to loose nationaly:
Thousands of privately funded gradeschools, high schools and universities, forcing a flood of biblical proportions (pun intended) of students into an already taxed and worn-out public educational system
Hundreds of adoption agencies, food banks, housing programs, outreaches to the poorest and neediest of our society will disappear.
Folks like yourself will see the closing of hundreds (in fact a mojority) of hospitals and clinics. Many thousands of other businesses, small and large, who are run by Catholics may close.
The Bishops would not do this to prove some point to the giovernment or anyone else. But because the vast majority of its employees are not Catholic, schools, universities, hospitals, clinics would be forced to close, if wishing to stay open means firing non-Catholics and hiring catholics only is the only way to avoid the moral conflict of the contraception issue.
Yes, it IS that important, ini fact vital to the Churches moral obligation.
Does the Obama administration and its supporters really wantt to push this issue of violation of the Churches conscience? It woould seem illogical to do so, but the state of Illinois has already done something similar. In mandating that same-sex couples be considered in child placemet for foster parenting and adoption, it violates the moral precept that marriage is a Sacrament between one man and one woman. And so, the Catholic Church in Illinois, who had an impressive record of placing children into permanant and loving situations was forced to simply stop doing it. Who loses here? Children and infertile couples who desperatly desire children.
What the state of Illinois wants to fund, what the state of Illinois sees as proper placement of children and the treatment of same-sex couples is of concern to the Church for it is a moral question. The real problem came when the state of Illinois made the Church’s moral precepts illegal.
That my friend, is the real problem with government sticking its collective fingers in places where it does not belong. The loss of religious freedom in this country is what is at stake. To loose it would be economically, socially and morally ruinous to our nation.
Wow, I think that is the longest comment I have ever made. To anyone who got this far… congrats. I hope this clears up the muddy water a bit for some of you. For those Catholics out there who are slamming their fists and pounding their shoes on the table about the general state of the affairs of the country, know that I believe you to be right, but a little more charity and decorum in the combox will go a lot further.
Shalom.
Ah Dennis,
Understand this: Bishops, by the very nature of that title are indeed “leaders of men” (and women to)
Have bishops failed in the political arena… to be sure they have. Have thy let down their own flock, many have, as recent events will point. Keep in mind that a bishop only has authority in their own diocese. New York State is not a diocese.
To say that he “failed” to prevent homosexual marriage is simply not true. Regardless of the law, there is no homosexual marriage in New York or any other place in the world as it is incompatible with truth.
(don’t give that tired argument of “my truth, your truth, it is just plain worn out and is of very little intellectual and spiritual value. Truth IS truth. Your saying the sky is orange does not make it less blue, anymore than my calling it purple) Truth is not subjective. Period. I won’t budge on that, and neither should anyone else in a truly enlightened society. Marrige is between one man and one woman. Period. Homosexual marriages are not marriages just because the law says they are. There are plenty of bad laws, and those that are immoral need not be followed by a person of well-formed conscience.
As to the good bishop’s tone in a letter that is intended to be public, you sir must appreciate the charitable nature of his addressing the nation’s duly-elected leader.
Your assumptions of what took place in the privacy of the Oval Office are just that. My assumption is that they are kept quiet out of a mutual respect for each others positions, but I have no doubts that the president was strongly reminded of the Church’s teachings as well as the president’s promises he made to his Catholic voters.
Bishops are not elected officials, and thank God! President are… and thank God.
Bishops are free of the worry of re-election, and frankly I would well imagine that few would seek it if they could. None of them asked for it and wouldn’t get it if they did. This leaves them free to serve the people of his diocese.
Politicians are rendered mostly useless to the people they are hired (yes, that is the term I meant to use) by the very fact that they must spend so much of their time trying to keep their jobs.
There is, by nature of the job itself, a large amount of ego involved with even wanting to be president. This president has simply elevated it to the level of arrogance.
To take on the Catholic Church, even with all of the faults of its members, is to take on the Bride of Christ. I truly pity the fool who disrespects or disregards my wife. Even though she has faults, they are not an area open to anyone who does not know her and she can certainly handle herself, but I WILL jump in. Think about that when you, or anyone else) wish to dis the Church. She can take care of herself. But, Christ WILL jump in.
I agree completely with the commentary of Deacon Bill O’Donnell. I just hope that all of our bishops, priests, deacons, nuns and laity “listen up” and start defending our Catholic Church. NOW is the time for all good Catholic men and women to come to the aid of their Church and country. It is also time that those who failed us get down on their knees and repent, go to confession and start leading all of the people of God down the right path; i.e., the path which Jesus showed us…the way of truth and life! We should also join forces, fast and pray for President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius among other liberal, pro-death politicians who call themselves Catholics or Christians, that they will be converted or removed from public office for the sake of all of us, especially our children, grandchildren and all future generations of Americans. Dear God, please help us and give us strong and holy Catholic leaders who will stand up and fight for truth, life and our rights as Catholic citizens!
Why aren’t you people outraged about the CHILD RAPE that happens under the Catholic Church.
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.