People of God have always refused to kneel and abandon truth. Catholics have gleaned seeds of wisdom from the words of St. Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.”
The faithful have taken their angst to social media, signed petitions and supported the bishops in their public denouncements of the Obama administration’s breach of religious liberty.
The president and CEO of our EWTN family and publisher of the Register, has stated, with resounding clarity, “We will not kneel.” In a bold, decisive move of faithfulness to the teachings of the Church and opposition to the clear assault against natural law and religious freedom, EWTN has filed a lawsuit against Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
What is the average rank-and-file Catholic supposed to do? What all Catholics should be doing: kneeling to the Truth, praying fervently, and then taking up the battle in whatever way we can. With respect to prayer, the Rosary should be our first recourse in this fight. As Blessed Pope Pius IX said, “Give me an army saying the Rosary, and I will conquer the world.” Of course, the aim is the authentic conversion of souls, not the power of nations.
Holy Mother Church has historically had great recourse to the power of prayer.
One such event is Lepanto. On Oct. 7, 1571, the Holy League of Europe had gathered under the vigilance of Don John of Austria to meet the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Lepanto. In what has been called the most significant naval battle since the birth of Christ, a collision of more than 400 ships and 100,000 men ensued. If the Holy League lost, all of southern Europe was lost to the Ottoman Turks.
As the battle raged, Pope St. Pius V called the faithful together to pray the Rosary — a lesser-known devotion at the time. After the Ottomans were crushed in a stunning defeat, Pius V instituted the feast of Our Lady of Victory in honor of the grace the Marian prayers had gained for the military forces.
In fact, the rise of the Rosary within the Church can be charted according to military victories and their corresponding feast days. Almost two centuries later, an embattled and strife-ridden Europe was called upon by the papacy to defend itself from the Turks. On the feast of Our Lady of the Snows in 1716, Prince Eugene of Savoy won a decisive victory over the Turks.
Like Pope St. Pius V, Pope Clement XI was convinced the victories were a manifestation of prayer, and he declared that the feast instituted after Lepanto would become the universally recognized feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary.
In times of despair, various popes have led the Church in prayer and called upon the protection and favor of the Queen of Heaven and of Christ, the King of Kings. The history of Catholicism demonstrates that when we are fighting upon the literal and/or figurative battlefields and the greater Church militant joins in prayer, entire civilizations are saved.
What the Obama administration needs to understand is that Catholics do not kneel to idols, we do not break rank before the hordes, and we do not fear the consequences of an unjust law.
The Pope’s army prays. The Pope’s army fights. The Pope’s army endures.
The Pope’s army does not kneel to the command to sin and abandon the Truth.
Pray for EWTN and the Register. Support us in this fight. The liberty and conscience of all Americans is at stake.
Dan Burke is the Register’s executive director.
Comments
Post a Comment
This is what the administration (and many, many others) do not understand: we can not throw a pinch of incense to a false God. We have a history of martyrs, know and mostly unknown, who have died rather than denounce the Trinity or the Church. We would rather our heads be lopped off - literally.
Just like Fr. Pro said, standing before a firing squad, arms spread as if on a cross, with his rosary dangling in hand, “Viva Christo Rey!” Long Live Christ The King! Then they shot him.
Amen,Amen,Amen!
The problem is that the ETWN is the Pope’s Army, not God’s Army.
I am not really sure what you are saying Lisa. But whatever you are saying, does it mean that mean religious persecution is OK?
Bill:
What I am saying is that what the pope says is not the same thing as what God says. The message of the RCC is often NOT the message found of God found in scripture.
And there is NO religious persecution gaoing on re American Catholics. To say that there is totally trivalizes what religious persecution acutally means. What the American RC bishops don’t like is that they are not getting their way, they are not being alllowed to creat an RC theocracy in America, they are not being allowed to have their hateful and unhealthy attitudes toward women prevail in American law. This is NOT religious persecution. What it is,is Americans standing up for justice, for the equality of women and for common sense in how we live our lives in America.
I’m not sure what you mean by equality of women. What makes contraception, abortion and sterilization and equality of women? That view is exactly what this secular society would have you believe!! That last I heard, pregnancy was not a disease? If that is what you want, then let it be on your own terms and your own money not mine. Who do you think is going to pay for this mandate? Why should I be forced to pay for something that I know is against God? This is not a question of equal right it is a question of morality plain and simple!!!!
Secondly, you will be the one to answer God for your decisions!! If you feel comfortable with that then by all means make your choice. But please do it without us!! I’ll pray that you see more clearly at what exactly this mandate is, “part of the culture of death”!! This is exactly an attack on religious liberties and beliefs and if you can’t see that then I’ll pray you do!! what’s next after this? Will it mean that we will have to start another mandate for those who are terminally ill to where we start euthanizing elderly, the terminally sick, the deformed, the weak. When will it end??????
Lisa: I didn’t ask you what you meant because I assumed it was long those misguided (but probably heartfelt) lines. But please answer the question I posed: is religious persecution OK. Is it OK to force people or institutions to do something against their conscience as protected by the first amendment? That is the question. Simple yes or no.
Oh, how well the father of lies has worked this one. Pray, fast, give alms! Mary, full of Grace,will interceed. Jesus, I trust in You!
Bill,
The RCC in America wants it both ways. It takes a lot of taxayer dollars for its organizations like Catholic Charities, but does not want to play by the rules. The RCC in America is NOT being persecuted. Further, the RCC’s objection to the contraception coverage rule is NOT about conscience Its about the corrupt hierarchy trying to force its hatred of women, its unhealthy and immature attitudes toward women, on the rest of the broader American society. Its about the corrupt hierarchy trying to stop its slide into irrelevancy (the vast majority of RC women/families obviously use artificial birth control). And thirdly, birth control medications are used for other reasons aside birth control. Denying coverage of such drugs to women who work for the American RCC is just wrong, immoral and unethical.
Eastern Shore,
There is no such being as the “father of lies”. This is just something the Christian church made up to keep the uneducated and gullible in line with whatever the corrupt hierarchy wants people to beleive in order to control them.
Barry, as American taxpayers we wall pay for things we object to—the wards George W. Bush foolishly involved us in come to mind. The issue of insurance coverage for birth control IS about the equality of women. Government and the RCC need to stop trying to control women’s bodies. There is no such effort to control the boides/reproductive choices of men.
Lisa, as I said more than once, you refuse to answer the question: “is religious persecution OK? Is it OK to force people or institutions to do something against their conscience as protected by the first amendment?” You know the answer and so you ignore the question, deflect it, bring up issues unrelated, and hide behind your diatribe. Just like a politician you refuse to answer a simple yes, no question. You would make a great politician.
Now answer the question: Is it OK to force people or institutions to do something against their conscience as protected by the first amendment?
Bill, I am not ignoring your question. You falsely assume that some religious persecution is happening. And as I have said before, the idea that the rule to provide health insurance coverage for contraception is NOT religious persecution and it is SILLY to think that it is. You totally trivialize what true religious persecution means. The RCC is just plain wrong about this issue. Humane Vitae was NOT issued as an infallible teaching of the church. Contraception is NOT part of the “culture of death”—again silly hyperbole from the American RCC. What IS wrong, immoral, unethical and unjust is the corrupt American bishops disguising their desire for control, their hatred of women as some matter of conscience.
AZ already has the law stating that businesses must offer contraception in their health insurance policies. The only ones who are exempt are those who hire solely or predominately of their own faith-like a diocese. This law was drawn up by AZ Republican State Representative Linda Binder in a Republican controlled congress. It was signed into law by Catholic and Republican Governor Jane Hull who was governor of AZ from 1997 to 2003. Catholic hospitals (and other Catholic institutions that hire people of different faiths or no faith) in AZ have been offering contraception in their health insurance policies for at least a decade. The Bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmsted and Bishop O’Brien before him have NEVER said one word about the law taking away religious liberty or freedom. Twenty-eight states have laws covering contraception, some as AZ and the HHS mandate does, have exclusions for religious entities that hire mainly or only people of their own faith. At least 8 states give no religious exclusion at all! This is political theatre. I agree with Lisa.
azul: I believe AZ allows entities to self-insure, which under their statute is not insurance. Therefor entities that self-insure don’t have to offer the coverage.
Now Lisa lets just say what I assume is all wrong. Next forget we are talking about contraception for the moment.
Now answer the question which says nothing about contraception, “Is it OK to force people or institutions to do something against their conscience as protected by the first amendment?” I think this is the fourth time asking you.
Bill, I live in AZ. I have a daughter who worked at a Catholic hospital for 5 years. Contraception was offered in their health insurance policies the entire time. Bishop Olmsted has never said that was against religious liberty. I looked at the law for AZ. It does not say that if you self insure you can get around offering contraception in your policy. The only exemption is for institutions that hire only people of their own faith, like a Diocese. I am glad AZ gives this exemption. This is the same exemption that is offered in HHS mandate. Some states don’t give any exemptions. Where are the bishops in AZ and the other states? Political theater.
I am against the death penalty. I am against going into preemptive wars, like the war in Iraq. Both violate my conscious but as an American, I pay for these with my taxes.
Bill,
I have answered your question. What the RCC wants to to re denying contraception to women is about power and control. Its about the RCC’s corrupt hierarchy manifesting its hatred toward women, manifesting its unhealthy and immature attitudes toward women. Freedom of religion, and all rights found in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights are NOT absolute rights. Depending on the situation, the US Supreme Court has ruled in many cases over the decades, that the rights found in in the Bill of Rights may be restricted if a state has compelling reason to so restrict that right. That is a high burden for the federal government or state governments to meet. The reason to restrict a right must be compelling, not merely rational. No faith tradition is permitted to do whatever it likes in the name of religion. A case in point is polygamy. Another case in point is the child sexual abuse problem in in the RCC. Even though the RCC wants to cover this stuff up, and enable pedophile priests to keep abusing, the RCC must follow the reporting statutes of the states in which the RCC operates (even if such reporting conflicts with canon law). I am a lawyer and so have extensively studied the US Constitution and the decisions of the US Supreme Court. So no the RCC does not have absolute right to to treat women as chattel, to control women’s bodies, to deny women decisions over their health and/or reproduction. No bishop should be making OB/GYN decisions for women. These decision are up to us women, not to the immature and hatred filled corrupt bishops.
If the bishops instruction to the faithful for the coming election commingles the pro life issue with caring for the environment etc. we will end up with the same pro abort result…Obama. The voting instruction must state that Catholics cannot in good faith vote for any pro abort politician period. I am amazed at the number of religious that vote for the pro aborts.
Harold,
There are NO pro-abortion candidates and President Obama is NOT pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion There ARE pro-choice candidates and PresidenObama is pro-choice. Bravo for him and for all politicians who keep government out of the prviate live so women, out of the reproductive choices of women. The USA is NOT an RC theocracy.
For the GOP, life ends at birth. The GOP pretnds to be all concerned about the unborn. but is is very very clear that once a child is born, the GOP could not care less about how that child is educated, fed, clothed, housed, or receives medcial care. It is President Obama and the Democrats whose policies most clearly mirror RC social teachings.
It is only the gullible and uneducated who think the GOP is the party of life or the party that works in the interests of children or in the interest os the American people.
Lisa, your lack of answering the question shows how extreme your position is - and how political. You either just don’t get it that some people won’t bow down because of religious reasons, or you are disingenuous and are just a political ideologue arguing a political point. I am talking about religion not politics. People of faith will not bow to any government - right, left or middle. They would rather loose their heads. The same can not be said for people of politics.
Yes or no: “Is it OK to force people or institutions to do something against their conscience as protected by the first amendment?” It is a simple questions. Your lack of answer shows your lack Truth in your answer. You yourself don’t even have confidence in your yes/no answer because you have no real compass, only a political direction given to you by others. Wake up from your slumber. Even then we may disagree but you will be freed of politics. Yes or no: “Is it OK to force people or institutions to do something against their conscience as protected by the first amendment?” If you answer a simple yes or no, I will leave it at that - you can have the last word - but it must yes or no. Otherwise just stick to your hate filled political rants painting everyone with one brush which gets no one anywhere - but makes politicians rich and powerful. Arise from your slumber. You are much too smart for politics.
Azul, if you are against the death penalty and going to war in Iraq, (which I am too) why on earth are you pro-abortion?
Bill,
I have answered your question. You just do not like the answer. In the US, the right of freedom of religion is not absolute. Many faith traidtions see different things as a matter of conscience. I will reeat mmy previous example. The Mormons have changed their practice but not their theology re polygamy. For some Mormons, polygamy is a matter of conscience—but it even so, it is not legal in the US. This is an example of how even matters of conscience do not give people the absolute right to do something under the rubric/guise of religion. The idea that you think your question can be answered with a yes or no, is clear domeonstration that you are not a critical or analytical thinker. It seems that you see God’s very complex world in a simplsitic way. You may want to do some reading re the US Supreme Court and freedom of religion. Again, I have answered your question. Too bad if you don’t like the response.
The father of lies also says there is no father of lies.
Eastern Shore:
Belief in satan is just a conveninet and superstitious way to deny that we are responsible for our own actions.
Lisa: the opposite is true of what you say about Satan. Catholicism, Christianity, and most religions teaching about Satan is similar and the root of their teachings: the root of their teachings is that WE - read as WE ALONE - are responsible for our actions. Satan may temp us, but if we give in to to temptation, we are responsible - not Satan, not anyone else, no one. You see the opposite is true from your “belief” - we take full responsibility for our actions - or should.
God makes heaven available to everyone - by his grace. We (Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc) choose not to go there. God does not keep us out. Satan does not cause us to go to hell. We, we alone, choose heaven or hell. It is a free choice.
Actually I find atheistic belief in nothingness after death - well, a little wishful thinking.
Lisa: Eastern Shore is correct. Read the Screw Tape letters by C.S. Lewis. Satan’s greatest lie is that there is no Satan.
Eastern Shore is correct. Satan’s greatest lie is that there is no Satan. Read the Screw Tape letters by C.S. Lewis.
Lisa: perhaps you should be careful calling people names when you don’t do your homework. You said I ” may want to do some reading re the US Supreme Court and freedom of religion.” Perhaps you should look at the unanimous decision handed down in January of this year against this administration in the Hosanna-Tabor case. Pay close attention to how they opined - and that all justices signed on to the well reasoned decision. You will see you may need to bone up on your US Supreme Court religion cases, not I. If I am “not a critical or analytical thinker”, perhaps all the US Supreme Court justices are too, like me.
Here is a link to their web site help you. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
Bill and Eastern Shore,
There is no Satan. And you do know that the Screwtape Letters are a novel, fiction, right???? Satan is superstition—a way for us humans to defelct responsibility for our failings and sins away from ourselves
God’s grace and salvation are open to all—Jews, Muslims, etc. There are 3 Abrahamic tradtions because God wills it. God has ongoing, unbroken covenants with Jews, Christians and Muslims. All 3 Abrahamic traditions are equal in the sight of God. None is better than or triumphant over the others. Eastern Shore, you are of course free to beleive what you want, as am I. But Jews and Muslims would say you are wrong. You would say that Jews and Muslims are wrong. So that gets us nowhwere. God’s promises to the peoples of all 3 Abrahamic traidtions are unbroken. God is not contained witht he RCC. God is limitless and God’s truth is beyound the RCC—no matter the RCC says. It is convenient for the RCC to try to conince that uneduated and gullible that the RCC is the sole source of truth on earth. Only God is the sole source of truth. As Genesis reminds us, all of us are created inthe image of God. God loves us all—non-Christains and Christians alike and embraces us all, includes us all. God excludes no one. God does not exclude Jews or Muslims from God’s grace.
And Bill, freedom of religion in the US , under the US Constitution is not an absolute right. Just because a faith tradition says soemthing is a matter of conscience, does not mean that the faith tradition will be permitted to practice that tenet under US law. All rights in the Xonstitution are subject to regulation, limitiation, restricition—including freedom of religion.
Eastern Shore and Bill:
The Screwtape Letters is a novel, fiction. You do know that, right????? there is no satan.Beleif in satan is superstition, a convenient way that we humans have to defelect responsibility away from oursleves for our failings and sins.
Bill,
In the US, all rights found in the US Constitution are far from absolute. That includes freedom of religion. just because a faith traidition says soemthing is a matter of conscience, does not mean that faith tradition has an absolute right to practice that tenet.
Eastern Shore,
There are 3 Abrahamic traditions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—because God wills it. God has ongoing and unbroken promises and covenants with the peoples of each of the Abrahmic tradtions. All 3 traditions are equal in the sight of God, none is better than or triumphant over the others. God’s grace and love are extened to all, all are included, none are excluded. All are made in the image of God and God welcomes us all in God’s embrace. Belief in Jesus as god, has nothing to do with how God sees us. Remember, Genesis, writtn long before any of the books of the NT, reminds us that we are all made in the image of God. Jewish scripture, Christian scripture and Muslim scripture all contain truth and revelation from God. Each truth and revelation in these scriptures are buta small part of God’s infinite truth.
God is beyond any faith tradition, including the RCC. The RCC is not the sole source of God’s tuth on earth. Yes, the bishops want you to beleive that, because it is convenient for them that you do so. But God is beyond the the RCC or Judaism or Islam.
doesn’t sound like Lisa has read the Old or New Testament. When she is done with them, (and please Lisa, read a Catholic Bible with an Impramatur and an Nihil Obstat) maybe she can try the US Constitution.
Prayers and bunches of blessings for all!
Jesus, I trust in You!
Eastern Shore,
I have msot definitely read Jewish scripture and Christian scripture and the US Constitution. My favorite version of the bible is the New American Bible (which is a “Catholic” Bible). It just that I don’t take everything in the Bible literally and I certainly do not read the Bible through the lens of the RCC. Remember it was the RCC who for centures did not allow lay peole to read the Bible have access to the Bible or to have access to scripture in languages other than Latin (which was certainly NOT the original language of either Jewish scripture or the NT). In other words, the RCC wanted to control the intepretation of all of scripture. Scripture is complex and has many layers of meaning. And you do know that Jesus was not a Christian and certainly not a Catholic, right? You do know that Jesus was an observant Jew,steeped in his tradition, whose social/moral teachings came straight from the Torah? You know that Mary and Joseph and the apostles (including Mary Magadalene) were Jews, right? They were not Christians or Catholics.
I am sure you have favorite passages of scripture, but in the end, God’s covenenant with and promises to Jews remain ongoing and unbroken and have no connection with Jesus. In no way has the person Jesus done anything to change God’s covenant with Jews. You may of course beleive differently, but you would be incorrect. Some of my favorite passages of scripure are: Zechariah 8:23; DT 7:6-9 and Dt 7:12-15. You might want to check those out.
Lisa: Catholics do not generally take the Bible literally either. I don’t know where you picked that up. You are mistaken on history again. Latin was the vulgar language which was understood around the world. So the Catholics (priest and monks) put the bible in vulgar latin vs high greek so people could understand it - does the Vulgate bible sound familiar - thats Vulgate as in vulgar. Also, very very few people could read. They could not even read their own language or any language. Only the educated could read or write - priests and monks - who copied the bible by hand.
Yes it is correct Jesus was not a Christian - he is Christ - the basis Christianity and of the fulfillment of the Old testament. And yes he was an observant Jew. Of course his apostles and Mary and Joseph were mostly Jews. And they all started the Catholic church when others (Jews) would not believe in Him - and carried on all that he taught them - which was and was not in the Old Testament. It is true God’s covenant is never broken and that especially goes for the Jews. I am not sure your point, but we Catholics believe the promises made to the Jews - in fact we believe the whole old testament. Jesus is the fulfillment of the old testament. God promised all nations (gentiles) would bow their knee to Him, that - from the morgenstern (morning star) to the evening sun - East to West. Everyone. As far as your scriptural passages go, they are all wonderful. I know you take them too heart. I try to, also because as I stated above about Satan - I am the greatest of all sinners and hope for God to have mercy on me.
Lisa: I agree with a point that God is limitless - and so do most Catholics. That is, that God makes heaven available to everyone. True the Bible says there is a way to get to heaven - via Jesus for example. However we are not so naive as to believe (as some other christians do) that everyone will know Jesus or ever have the chance to accept or reject him. In other words, God can do anything he wants - except go back on his promise/covenant of heaven. He promises heaven to everyone that loves him. Of course you and I cannot read hearts and know what is in someone’s mind - but God does. And that is basically how I understand the Catholic teaching on the subject. I am not the first to say there are many atheists closer to heaven than many Christians. Believe me I am not being judgmental - I have my own soul to worry about.
Bill,
I my history is correct. Yes, while the St. Jerome translated the Bible into latin so it could be understood when read, the RCC was very active in making sure that lay people did not have access to Bibles. During the 16th century, one of the points of contention between the RCC and those who wanted reform, was access to to Bible and the translation of scripture into the vernacular of indivisual nations.
I do understand that Christians believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish scripture. Its just that Jews, Muslims, etc do not believe that. We Jews know that our covenant with God is unbroken and ongoing and has nothing to do wth the person Jesus. For 5 decades I was an RC, with 16 yrs of RC educationa nd a BA in RC theology from an RC college. but God called me to a different path—to Judaism. And while my former RCism provides a wonderful extra dimension to my Judaism, I have come to a greater undestanding as to why Jesus was not the messiah. But Judaism as a tradition of almost 5,000 yrs, is a much fuller and richer tradition than just its beliefs re a messiah.
Lisa: Since you are Jewish from a religious perspective, I would assume that on religious matters you and I will then agree on 99% of what the other has to say. One of my favorite scripture passages is the Shema. Of which Jesus partly recites in Mark when answering a scribe as to what are the greatest commandments. And the scribe agrees that Jesus is right. I even have a mezuzah and I drill scripture into my eight children. When I hear the Shema recited at bar or bat mitzvah (in Jewish) it makes me tear up. It reminds me that even I, a gentile and sinner and Catholic, am through the Jewish tradition adopted into God’s covenant.
<a >ativan pills</a> ativan dosage daily - ativan buy online no prescription
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.