Something we have to remember when considering the Obama Administration’s erosion of the 1st Amendment through the HHS mandate, is the element of what I call “creeping incrementalism”. Each time some radical thing is proposed, even if it fails, nevertheless bumps the needle just a tad in the radical direction. Over time, tiny little increments of shift add up to a huge shift.
If the Obama Administration is pushing for Catholic hospitals to distribute contraceptives and abortifacients, perform sterilizations, etc., we know that their next goal is to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
There is an interesting story on the site of a newspaper in Connecticut:
Bishops: Don’t Make Catholic Hospitals Perform Abortions [UPDATE]
When asked during a debate Sunday if they would support, as a concept, a federal law requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, some Democratic Senate candidates indicated they would. The bishops object. [Who was it that took heat for calling the Democrat Party “the party of death”? Was it now-Cardinal Burke?]
By Patrick Barnard and David GurliacciOn Sunday, some Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate said they’d favor the concept of a federal law requiring even Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Now, the state’s Catholic bishops are objecting.
Connecticut’s Catholic bishops—including Bishop William Lori, who announced in March that he is leaving the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport to become archbishop of the Baltimore Archdiocese—have issued a statement expressing their dismay after all five Democratic candidates said during Sunday’s “Face the State” debate that they would support legislation forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
“If it is their [the candidates’] position that our hospitals should be forced by law or regulations to provide abortions in spite of our teaching, it is unfortunate to note their readiness to violate religious liberty,” wrote Archbishop of Hartford Henry Mansell, Archbishop-designate Lori, Bishop Michael Cote of Norwich, and Bishop Paul Chomnycky of the Ukrainian Catholic Diocese of Stamford in the statement issued Monday.
[NB] “Their position would be the logical extension of the federal Health and Human Services regulations with regard to so called ‘preventative services.'”
When asked whether Catholic hospitals should be required to provide contraceptive services and abortions, the candidates replied in various ways, according to the recording of the debate available at the WFSB-TV website (starting at the 5:30 mark).
Lockhart recently wrote on his blog: “Now, before those of you reading this pick a side, please watch the footage, listen carefully to what the candidates did/didn’t say and then draw your own conclusions about whether all five answered in the affirmative.”
Susan Bysiewicz and Matthew Oakes said the federal government has the right to require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Chris Murphy seemed to indicate the government should not do that. William Tong also did not give a direct reply, but said, “Access to an abortion should be open and available.” Lee Whitnum said providing contraception services is a good thing, but did not say whether Catholic institutions should be forced to do so.
Here’s the question Lockhart wrote on his blog that he asked: “Mr. Murphy, you were a strong advocate for the Obama administration’s recent decisions regarding contraception coverage for employees of Catholic organizations. The New York Times recently reported that as Catholic hospitals become a greater force within the health care industry there are concerns that women’s access to treatments from abortions to sterilizations will be limited. Should the federal government require Catholic hospitals to provide these services, specifically abortions?”
Here are some excerpts of the answers:
Susan Bysiewicz: “The federal government has the right to regulate what services are provided, because Catholic institutions, colleges and universities get funding from the federal government, and I believe that those institutions should provide access to reproductive health care.”
Chris Murphy: “They certainly have the ability to decide what services they perform.”
Matthew Oakes: “If they’re gonna take our money—I’m Roman Catholic—then they need to perform the health care issues that women need performed for them.”
William Tong: “Access to an abortion should be open and available. Acess to contraception, the same thing. These are basic liberties enshrined in our Constitution, in our jurisprudence. That’s a fact. […] I think we need a cooperative approach. We had a bill in the state Legislature to provide emergency contraception. It was called Plan B. […] Now Plan B is a reality. Emergency contraception is made available to patients at Catholic hospitals. We just need to find a way to make it work.”
Lee Whitnum did not answer the question about whether the federal government must force Catholic institutions to provide abortion or contraceptive services. She said she supported institutions providing them.
Loading ...
When a person lies down with dogs…he’ll rise up with fleas. Perhaps the Catholic Institutions should have never gotten into the habit…or become so far extended…that they needed the financial assistance of the Federal Government in order to keep the doors open?
All these recent media issues from the “sex scandal” to the HHS mandates all seem to follow the same notion: “It’s all about the money, boys!!” (said in the voice of John Goodman playing Big Dan Teague, the bible sales man) Whether that’s true or not will come out at some point, but that’s what it all looks like right now…
I live in Connecticut. This is a rabidly secular and liberal state, as is common knowledge. The Governor, Dannel Malloy, is a rabid liberal, and for years rallies have been held against the relentless attacks on legislation produced by our own Judiciary, Rep. McDonald (openly gay) and Rep. Lawlor (openly gay). They have done alot of damage. A few years ago we had to rally in Hartford against legislation produced by them to “take over” operation and oversight of….get ready….the Connecticut Catholic churches! They actually produced legislation to create “panels” that would run the churches. Finally, FINALLY, some sleepy Catholics woke up and drove up to Hartford and walked around with signs and just enough annoyance to make an impression. But oh, what it takes to get people roused to defend a cause in Connecticut!
So as a resident, this is no surprise. Everyone that gets elected in Connecticut is a liberal extremist it seems, so, this is how it goes here.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that perhaps the Church ought to get out of the hospital and health care business. If November doesn’t bring “change we can believe in”, then it may be time. There cannot be any compromise on these issues, so, what is the alternative?
Reading this article, I question, HAVE WE provided Plan B contraception at Catholic facilities as is stated? If so, we have totally compromised our God, and our religious faith and precepts. If that is the case, then the liberal extremists have won, and our faith is meaningless.
“The federal government has the right to regulate what services are provided, because Catholic institutions, colleges and universities get funding from the federal government …”
Wrong. Dead wrong. The funding is provided by the people of the United States, not by the federal government. The government is administering these funds, but it does not get to push any specific ideology as a consequence of overseeing the funding of social projects. The question of what can be done with such money is answered by the process of constitutional law. If the government were to be exempt from any recourse to the constitution, then we would have a de facto tyranny on our hands.
I mean, the practice of our faith, here in Connecticut, or anywhere this type of compromise is accepted.
Nicole, I believe that the HHS mandate affects even those Catholic institutions that do not
accept even one dime of federal funding. The way the mandate is written, if an institution
serves the general population and not just members of its own faith, or if it employs members
of another faith, it falls under the HHS mandate even if it is 100% funded from donations
from Catholics.
Also, if a Catholic college refuses to accept federal funding in an effort to escape the strings
attached, but some of its students receive Pell grants or other federal funds to pay tuition,
then it too is considered to receive federal funds. The strings remain attached, and are starting
to look like a noose.
It does seem that all the candidates believe, or want the public to believe, that Catholic hospitals can be forced to perform abortions. But the “excerpts,” curiously, are all childish equivocations:
“. . . I believe that those institutions should provide access to reproductive health care.” Are abortions “health care”?
“They certainly have the ability to decide what services they perform.” This from Murphy, who apparently is on record as unequivocally supporting the Obama policy. But who are the “they”? If if’s the hospitals, they have already made clear what services they have decided to perform.
“If they’re gonna take our money—I’m Roman Catholic—then they need to perform the health care issues that women need performed for them.” Who “needs” an abortion?
“Access to an abortion should be open and available. Access to contraception, the same thing. These are basic liberties enshrined in our Constitution, in our jurisprudence.’ Right. That’s what our founding fathers fought and died for. “I think we need a cooperative approach. We had a bill in the state Legislature to provide emergency contraception. It was called Plan B. […] Now Plan B is a reality. Emergency contraception is made available to patients at Catholic hospitals. We just need to find a way to make it work.” Blah, blah, blah: Answer the question!
“Lee Whitnum did not answer the question about whether the federal government must force Catholic institutions to provide abortion or contraceptive services. She said she supported institutions providing them.” An honest equivocation.
It really gets me that the murder of the unborn–tearing them literally limb from limb from their mother’s wombs–is called reproductive “health” or a reproductive “service”. Incredible wordsmithing that can call murder “health”, “service”, or “choice”. Since when is death called health? Oh, yeah, in this modern culture of death.
And don’t kid yourself, it is a short walk to mandatory sterilizations and abortions. Totalitarianism is like that.
Waiting for Frjim4321 to explain away this example of liberal fascism.
It’s too bad people are so out of touch with the philosophy of the founders.
The Federal government has no authority whatsoever to permit or prohibit medical procedures of any sort at any institution.
The ‘Conscience Clause’ is now being abandoned for medics in the UK with little but a whimper from the Bishops’ Conferences.
They have a D next to their name. What do you expect?
Same is true if they are Gs or Ls or Bs or Ts. Part of the same gang.
Our bulletin today has a letter from our Bishop strongly encouraging us to attend an interfaith meeting next month. I thought, “Oh, boy! He’s planning for HHS and how to confront this attack on our religious liberty.” Wrong. He’s organizing an interfaith social justice coalition. I wanted to scream. Everything he’s working so hard to plan and organize will be dead in the water if HHS isn’t stopped. He seems to be ignoring the entire topic, as if it will go away if no one looks at it.
“My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that perhaps the Church ought to get out of the hospital and health care business.”
That is the worst possible solution. It means we can be bullied into silence. We keep our charities open and continue business as normal. We refuse to pay any fines or any other sanctions due to our refusal to follow unjust laws. We force Obama to close our charities using the military, if he dares.
“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.” –Francis Cardinal George
From the look of it, what His Eminence has predicted in the recent past about the coming persecution and martyrdom is now most visibly applicable in Connecticut.
Kyrie eleison.
I work in a Catholic hospital in CT. Just down the street, less than 10 minutes walk, is an abortion mill. There is another hospital across town, 20 mins or less by car , that does abortions. How much more access do they need?
On a related note, one ‘catholic’ hospital in CT has recently merged with a large, well known hospital that performs abortions and has voluntarily given up their Catholic status, and another is merging with a neighboring hospital, and claims to be retaining its catholic status, but that is questionable. I believe this leaves only 2 Catholic hospitals in CT.
The seven sacraments of the Party of Death are Abortion, Same Sex “Marriage,” Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Fetal Destruction, Socialism, Doublespeak, and Waging War Against
the Catholic Church.
My Catholic friends in Connecticut pursue a twisted logic which allows them to work for Right to Life and Birthright and vote Democrat. The same type of odd thinking I found to be persistent in Dublin, among some of the Latin Mass goers, who are against abortion, but support the leftist politicians who support abortion. Until Catholics think and vote like Catholics and divorce themselves from old, worn-out and evil loyalties, this type of thing as seen above will continue over and over and over.
Andrew – if the Federal Gov’t is running a deficit, then they’re actually borrowing money against future income which will be paid by our descendents. That is, in effect, the promise that your figurative children or grandchildren will be forced to pay for your medical care, for example, at any institution which accepts federal funding. How, in good conscience, can so-called “catholic” institutions jump on board that bandwagon?
The problem, though, is we can refuse to pay the fines but if we put our money in any bank account – they will eventually just go in and take it. And, if left to the IRS to do so, you can expect it will come at interest rates that are akin to usury and fines to go with it.
If you’re going to push back – and I believe we’re being forced to do just that – you’d also better prepare for the obvious…get your money, all of it, out of the banking system and deal with cash and certified funds (money orders and the like) only. If you don’t – they’ll take it by force.
Supertradmum, you wrote:
My question is, just who are we going to vote for? We keep voting for people who say they oppose abortion, but nothing ever seems to change. We vote for people who say they are against same sex marriage, but it is fast spreading from state to state and will no doubt be a federal law if our country lasts long enough. The Republicans voted into Congress in 2010 were going to stop the wild spending of the Federal Government, and soon our debt will reach $16 trillion.
It seems our choice for president will be Obama, who practically worships abortion, and Mitt Romney, a once strong supporter of abortion who says he is now pro life, but can we really trust that? When governor of Mass., he forced Catholic hospitals to administer contraception to rape victims. How can he be trusted?
Politics is not the answer. I have given up completely on politices. We all need to get down on our knees and pray constantly. The answer will come from above, not from our fellow man.
Clinton – The HHS mandates would effect just about every employer whether he professes to be Catholic or not, as well as Catholic Institutions, whether they accept federal funding or not. The focus should not be shifted, as it has for the most part, to the effect that the HHS mandates have on Catholic Institutions, but rather the effect that these mandates will have on any employer (whether sole proprietor, partner or CEO) who professes to be Catholic. The point that the main focus is the public sector employers is extremely suspicious. I am not saying that an occasional “head-nod” is not being made at the private sector employers and the effects they will suffer by the HHS mandates, but that does not seem to be the main concern of the Bishops. The main concern of the Bishops seems to be this elusive “religious freedom” of the Catholic Institutions, which institutions many people tell me are not directly linked financially to the Bishops as if this assertion makes the Bishops actions LESS suspicious. The cry is that the Federal Government is retracting the religious liberty/freedom promised in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA to these Catholic Institutions (which do not employ only people professing to be Catholic) by “forcing” them to carry insurance which will provide abortifacients and sterilizations at no co-pay to their employees. Is this the same religious liberty that the Second Vatican Council told people that they have in regard to the moral right to believe what they want to believe without coersion of the government and to practice their religion publicly, all confined within the due limits of public peace/order? Is this the same religious liberty that seems to be denoted an error in the Syllabus of Errors of Ven. Pope Pius IX? Is this the same religious liberty which is compared to a “liberty of perdition” in Quanta Cura of the same-said Pontiff? Or is this the religious liberty which Pope Leo XIII quoted St. Augustine as “liberty of self-ruin” in Immortale Dei? Or maybe it is the same religious liberty that appears to be lumped under what Pope Pius XI called the “erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone” in Mirari Vos? Or possibly the same religious liberty which Pope Leo XIII called “no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin” in his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum? If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, then I ask you, what does the HHS mandates really impose upon religious liberty? As far as I can see, absolutely nothing.
It does, however, trample the doctrine of subsidiarity (which doctrine even Thomas Jefferson acknowledged to those Ursuline sisters in the newly purchased Louisiana territory who feared Federal intrusion in the running of their schools). I have no certain idea WHY the Bishops are not attacking the HHS mandates from this front (subsidiarity), but my guess is because most Catholic Institutions have already handed the reins over to the Federal Government by accepting their funding, making it nearly incredible to cite the doctrine of subsidiarity. This being because the acceptance of Federal funds implicitly states to the public that this IS the business of the Federal Government (the policies and administration of Catholic Institutions, that is) and within the society of the top-most part of the state to govern. By subsidiarity, however, it really is NOT in the society of the Federal Government to deal out the convalescent care of the individual (of which care abortifacients and sterilization could hardly be said to be a part); that is really the society of the family and the Church.
So, why aren’t the Bishops addressing either the doctrine of subsidiarity in this fight? And why are they focusing so closely on the public sector employers (i.e., Catholic Institutions) in regard to the HHS mandates if it is not an issue of money, but rather religion?
Many years of silence from Catholics, vague teaching (or plain heretic), weak homilies, brought us to this stage. Many have not seen the Democratic party move to being a pro- abortion party, many have come to think with the Kennedy clan (and others) that it is fine to be pro-abortion. If we take a look at the voting guide issued by USCCB, voting for pro- abortion candidates is still acceptable if one thinks something else is a bigger issue. It is our duty to sort out the mess and vote for the less evil candidate if there is no good candidate. In our next election it is clear that there is one candidate more dangerous to us catholics. No doubt we will have to stand against bad law at the State level as well.
To me it is a sin of omission to stand back and do nothing. WE should take a stand and continue the fight; it is fair to expect most bishops to jump ship by next October. Let’s encourage them to stay on.
Let’s remember that it is more than the end of abortion we are battling for at this point, but freedom of religion.
Doing nothing cannot be an option. When I have to attend Mass under ground an apology from my bishop will not change my life.
Saint Dominic spent hours and hours in prayers yet the following day he was on his feet preaching and debatting Albingensians. God wants us to pray, because without him we can do nothing, but he also wants us to use our brains.
Brooklyn, If you and others give up on political action, you will be contributing to the problem. It is the role of the laity to evangelize in the world, bringing the Gospel into the workplace and marketplace. If you do not work against a problem, you are apathetic and give the government to the socialists and communists on a plate
Nicole, you would like my posts on my blog. You think like a Catholic!
technically, they aren’t “taking government money”.
Actually, Hospitals and physicians are being paid for work they do.
Didn’t the state of Connecticut legislature attempt for two years in a row…
…to pass legislation that would require an independent government third-party to run the Catholic dioceses in the state, banning ecclesiastics (bishops and priests) from managing both finances and appointments to various committees?
I remember the answer now: Yes, it was the state of Connecticut that attempted to take over the Catholic Church by passing a law, not once but twice within recent memory.
And all those folks protested in front of the state-house, and so, the legislature passed a law requiring a 90-day notice before a protest could be staged before the statehouse, wherein a bill has 90-days to pass, thus eliminating the possibility of protesting acts by the legislature before they are passed.
Poor, poor Connecticut! So close to Italian and Slavic Catholic America. So far from God!
So many on the left appear too addled by hatred of the Church to see the kinds of precedents they’re setting. They don’t care now, as long as they can get at the Church, but they’re destroying the fundamental ethic of reciprocity that guarantees freedom of religion (and even freedom of non-belief, arguably): my freedom of religion is your freedom of religion. If yours is diminished, mine is diminished, and vice-versa, because if the government can abuse its power against one of us, they can use that precedent to abuse any of us.
The left needs to picture the same kind of rules they’re making against the Church being applied to them by some imaginary Dominionist Evangelical boogeyman who decides their conscience doesn’t matter.
No one cares now because it’s “just” the Catholic Church, but the precedents set here are likely to impact something they, their allies, and the fence-sitters do care about later on. Bad legislation has a way of snowballing into more of the same.
“My question is, just who are we going to vote for? ” –Brooklyn
My feeling is getting to be that the candidate has to earn my vote with some minimal level of moral decency. I’m done with holding my nose and taking the 2nd worst of two totally unacceptable candidates. I realize there are going to be choices I’m not thrilled with that are still better than the totally unacceptable candidates, I realize that a candidate can so horrible as to make an objectively bad alternative into a necessary alternative, but if I can’t find someone to vote for with a clear conscience or a compelling reason to do otherwise, then maybe they’re just going to have to figure out when they add up the totals from the people voting on the ballot initiatives that there are voters with a vote to cast who voted for someone with no chance to win or let their vote sit rather than give it to either of the front-runners.
That doesn’t mean I’m giving up on political action, I’m not correcting the bishops when it comes to weighing moral evils, but I’ve had it with being played cynically for a fool by the major party candidates…and that is what both parties have done when it comes to voters who cast votes on moral grounds. They pay lip service and then they ignore those issues–and both parties do it! From the standpoint of political strategy, I think it is time to stop letting them think they can keep getting away with collecting votes for putting together the best lip service. They need to offer something more than promises and stale bread crumbs in order to garner a vote.
The recent news that the Romney org had donated to protect marriage in CA was reassuring. but most simply, everything he does to shrink govt will help. with Bush we were seeing some of the good all of this federal power can do, but now we see how quickly it can change course. Vote in all Republicans everywhere and then be after them to cut, cut, cut. Because of all the bad that can be done with all this power, and because of the wrong of this nearly eternal level of debt. no Democrats for me anywhere. They have forgotten the most basic meaning of words, of civic responsibility and of statesmen ship.
I don’t like or trust Romney, he pegs my suspicion meter.
With that said, you had better all turn out and vote for a dead possum if that’s what winds up running against the incumbent.
Three words: Supreme Court appointments
A re-elected Obama, unrestrained by any need to disguise his true intentions, would destroy the court and make it his creature -just as he has destroyed the Justice Department. His two appointments so far are shamefully bad – particularly Kagan, who should have recused from the Obamacare case since she helped write and advocated for the law, and is also suspected of tipping her former boss off to the results of the secret preliminary vote.
Let him get back in, and you have destroyed the judicial branch (and probably the rule of law) for the next 50 years or so, if not forever. Some things cannot be repaired.
Reply to flyfree 432:
“flyfree432 says:
“My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that perhaps the Church ought to get out of the hospital and health care business.”
That is the worst possible solution. It means we can be bullied into silence. We keep our charities open and continue business as normal. We refuse to pay any fines or any other sanctions due to our refusal to follow unjust laws. We force Obama to close our charities using the military, if he dares.”
I am glad to see I am not the only one that thinks this is where we should go! Many people say that we should just close down, but that gives Obama exactly what he wants – a Catholic free public square, where we are forced into a faith that is nothing more than Mass on Sundays and private prayers!
Our ancestors who were not afraid to take up arms in defense of the faith must be weeping! The faith is worth defending with our very lives!
Vive Cristo Rey!
Supertradmum, you wrote:
You really think I should trust in politicans who voted in the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the president to use the military to arrest any US Citizen with no charge and no reason and indefinitely detain us in an undisclosed place? You think I should trust a government where the President recently signed an Executive Order that allows him to confiscate anything and everything in the country at any time and put people into forced labor or the military? Did you hear any politicans speaking out against it? I should trust a government that lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which Pierre Salinger admitted was a lie, and which started the Vietnam war, resulting in the death of 57,000 of our servicemen and countless civilians? I could go on and on.
I am tired of hearing of all these “pro life” politicians who promise us they will stop abortion, but somehow it just keeps going. I am tired of being told that if I send so and so to Washington, everything will change, but it only gets worse.
I am hardly apathetic. I care deeply about what happens to this country and to the rest of the world. I am on my knees praying about it. I stand in front of the abortion clinics with my rosary. I think there is much more power in that than in any politician. I don’t know how voting helps bring the Gospel into the workplace and marketplace.
William Tong: “…. I think we need a cooperative approach. We had a bill in the state Legislature to provide emergency contraception. It was called Plan B. […] Now Plan B is a reality. Emergency contraception is made available to patients at Catholic hospitals.”
After slight opposition, all three of the Bishops in CT buckled under a few years ago and actually agreed to allow the the Plan B, emergency contraception in the hospitals. The premise was that it was not proven that it could cause an abortion, when if fact, the Church came out with a statement in 2002 that it can. The bishops approved it. So this new attack is no surprise whatever. It follows that the Democrats know they won’t come up against many martyrs for Truth in CT. The Catholic Church in CT forfeited God’s blessings . It has left a pall over this already dreadfully liberal state. I wonder how vigorously the bishops in this state feel against Obama’s mandate when they approved letting Catholics go against their conscience here. There are too many Democrats who call themselves Catholic in CT and it’s probably never going to change.
Brooklyn-I’m totally with you on both of your posts!
I am so fed up with politicians who ‘strut and puff’ during their campaigns about being pro-life, and then when they get elected, they stab us in the back and vote the opposite!
I become rather cynical when I see obstensibly ‘pro-life’ politicians at the March For Life in DC get up on the stage before the march and make fools out of themselves by saying they will do this and that to defend life and stand up for traditional marriage.
Phooey on them! A pox and a plague on both their houses (to quote Shakespeare again on his birthday)! And on both political parties too!
I’ve mentioned this before, and I’ll do it again: Where is the ‘new blood’ to replace what we now got in Congress and the state legislatures? Where are the idealistic graduates of our ‘true’ Catholic colleges who are all gung-ho about being pro-life and pro-family, not to mention being so ‘tech-savvy’ with their Facebook and Twitter pages? Why the heck aren’t they running for public office? If they’re so smart and ‘with-it’, why aren’t we seeing them standing up to people like Obama and his minions (in Congress and elsewhere) and giving him the ‘what for’?
The young people are the future, I keep hearing it said over and over again; and the people of my generation have really screwed things up in this country, voting for CINO politicians who advocate killing babies in the womb in the name of ‘women’s health care [?]’ and pander to the homosexual lobby!
Okay, end of rant….the weather’s lousy today and I have no electricity at home and probably a big flood in my basement when I get home…I just get so frustrated with the way things are going in this country and in my life….
“William Tong: ‘Access to an abortion should be open and available. Acess to contraception, the same thing. These are basic liberties enshrined in our Constitution, in our jurisprudence.’ ”
Nope! Abortion and contraception are enforcement tools for the Sexual Revolution. They have nothing to do with woman’s true liberties. They have to do with her enslavement to the Revolution and her agreeing to make her body into a chemical factory ready for USE by men whenever they wish to engage her in uncommitted sexual intercourse.
And once again we Catholics are having a conversation about what kind of lock to buy for the barn door after the horses have been stolen! In over 45+ years, I have heard very few priests, nuns, lay people actually take on the sexual revolution. [Here I would give Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the late Chuck Colson and evangelical, pilloried Kirk Cameron more props than my fellow Catholics.]
Quelle surprise.
Bravo! Troo dat….at least Romney didn’t need to use a toothpick with his dog!
We have been voting for the lesser of the 2 evils for decades now and what has it gotten us? So far O vs R. What is the point of it if we get R and though R is only 1/2 as bad as O after R we elect X who is only half as bad as Y who was just as bad or twice as bad as O? Does anyone seriously think it will stop? I won’t tell anyone not to stick some vice grips on their nose (fingers and cloth pins aren’t strong enough in my opinion- there are some pretty toxic vapors) and go an vote for R but personally feel it is a waste of time and money for myself. I think we will only be here again 4 years from now arguing about how we should once again clamp our nose (maybe start wearing gas masks to the polls?) and vote for X who is only 1/2 as bad as Y who is only twice as bad as O who was just as bad as X. Logically it just doesn’t make any sense to go on after awhile when you see the logical conclusion. Maybe Americans should wake up and realize this has been going on longer than they previously thought and stop blindly following the 2 party system (both of which seem to be relatively the same at the upper echelons and have been playing charades for some time now). People don’t realize that if you can control who are eligible for the primaries of the 2 party system and pick one candidate who you know is real bad and another who is only half as bad that even if the one who is only half as bad is always elected the end result is the same- it is just a matter of how long. I remember that in the beginning of this primary for instance everyone was being told to vote for R since all the others didn’t stand a chance since R was “more electable.” What they meant though they never said it was R was most like O out of all of them. That wasn’t even by R’s own campaign but by the R party’s elite. R has had more backing from the R pary leaders from the very begining. R has a proven track record of being just as bad as C if not worse. Sure C was a Dem and R claims to have “seen the light.” However, R has never ever done anything in line with his “newfound convictions.” Rather all his years in office he has done nothing that O wouldn’t be proud of. And we are told we now have a chance to beat O and have a choice? Maybe the upper party echelons wanted such candidates that it really wouldn’t matter which one was elected. They would have what they wanted either way- just like in ancient Rome people rioted in the streets and spent months arguing over the various candidates when unbeknownest to them the outcome of the election had previously been determined or was determined by the Senatorial class. I suppose they did feel good though since they had the illusion the they were in control and picked the candidates. People seem to usually like flattery and having a sense of power even if it isn’t genuine.
If I had a family I would have started looking for where the life boats were hidden some time ago. There are times when God’s judgement of a country is that it gets exactly what it wants. Sort of like all the souls in Hell are there because of their hatred of God and Hell is in a sense the farthest from God they can get. While in Hell they torture each other. They are all miserable and hate everyone else there and hate where they are but refuse to leave (if even they could) since they hate God. I guess my point is souls in Hell choose Hell over God and here we choose immoral over moral even though it makes everyone miserable. Despite that misery we refuse to acknowledge that our choices have caused our misery. To further it we seek to force our societal misery down the throats of nearly every society and individual world wide. Well it seems that we are pretty far down that road now and short of a miracle nothing will stop this run away train. It is very rare that I agree with one of the protestant hesierachs but Calvin seems to be right when he said the people get the government they deserve (I think it was Calvin). My experience in the northeast seems to verify this. Unfortunately when a large ship sinks it creates a whirlpool sucking down everything within its range. So it will be here. Those who stay had better start mentally preparing themselves for persection. It will make the Roman persecutions look like child’s play. They not only hate all Christainity but even natural law (which many Romans still had a vestige of respect for).