Fishwrap’s support for the ill-effects of the HHS Mandate

Over at the National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap) here is a piece by Mr. Winter’s which shows something of their true colors over there: They don’t care about the fact that taxpayer dollars will be funding intrinsically evil actions and that they consciences of many Catholic who are faithful to the Church’s doctrinal and moral teachings will be violated.  Something else is more important.

For Fishwrap, the right to live and the right to act according to a properly formed conscience are of secondary importance.  What matters is the promotion of the agendas of the Obama Administration and the Democrat party under the flag of “social justice”.

Here is a sample toward the end of their bit about the annual Red Mass in Washington DC:

At the brunch following the Mass, Cardinal Wuerl spoke movingly about Pope Francis and the experience of the conclave. It was obvious to all how thrilled +Wuerl is by the new pope as he recalled being approached by a young boy after the conclave who said to him: “You are a cardinal, right? You did good.”

Perhaps the most interesting thing about yesterday’s Red Mass and brunch was the thing that was not said. Two words went unmentioned: religious liberty. There was not a whiff of culture warrior talk in the day’s proceedings, no condemnation of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the same sex marriage cases, no please for the HHS mandate to be ruled unconstitutional. Instead, modeling Pope Francis, both +Farrell and +Wuerl spoke about the Gospel and left the politics outside. It was so refreshing.

Refreshing?

The problem here is not that the speakers didn’t bring up the HHS mandate or other burning issues about which the Church is allegedly “obsessed”.

The problem is that they are celebrating US prelates being “silenced”.

The fact is that the problems caused by the HHS mandate have not mystically vanished with the election of Pope Francis.  The problems cannot not be addressed.  We have to find the courage to continue to address the problems and to struggle against the violations of our religious liberty.  But we need to take action which will be effective in the long run.  Is the most effective course silence?  I suspect not.   Silence, however, is what Fishwrap is happy about.

I will stipulate that not every Red Mass has to be an occasion for addressing social issues explicitly.  But that is not the point of their comments about the Red Mass.

For Fishwrap this is a defeat for the US bishops and a win for Pres. Obama.  That’s why this is “refreshing”.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Fishwrap’s support for the ill-effects of the HHS Mandate

  1. Phil_NL says:

    I wonder (no, not really) how the fishwarp et al. would respond if the bishops left their politics at the door next time there’s a meeting of some sort on ‘social justice’ or immigration. Somehow I doubt that will be labelled “how refeshing”….

  2. AvantiBev says:

    Perhaps if we had a few generations of prelates who had real life business experience and some econ courses under their red hats or mitres, we would not have had the cheerleading for this and that government program we have had over the past 60 some years. We didn’t get to Obummer Care & Control overnight. Since FDR through the Great Society of LBJ and on, each new program of misplaced “charity” administered by Big Government instead of by the little platoons of neighborhood, fraternal and church groups fed the Beast of Leviathan. Now it feeds on us.

    There is no fixing this monstrosity since its basic premise is that even more layers of government control are needed between patient and doctor. Suggested reading for all: Dr. Ben Carson’s editorial in Forbes online this past weekend.

  3. Pingback: Some views on the Vatican’s messaging | Foolishness to the world

  4. VARoman says:

    I have, rather stupidly, in retrospect, been trying to engage some of the fish wrap readers in their com section. Talk about tilting against windmills.

    I had to give it up. Frankly, my responses were in danger of becoming un-Christian. I am done giving that “paper” anymore of my time or energy, except to pray for the conversion of all their writers, editors and readers

  5. incredulous says:

    I must say that my faith is being challenged. As a very devout (or so I thought) Catholic who was attended mass every week for 20 years after my lapse from being a cradle Catholic and going to college, I have recently been re-Catechized due to some very disturbing and sinful behavior.

    Since, I’ve identified a wonderful TLM in the ADOM (fully diocesan) as well as even have viewed a handful of SSPX low masses. In this reawakening, I’ve found Father Z, Rorate, Voris, Scott Hahn, Father Richards, Venerable Bishop Sheen, Cardinal Newman, and sadly, “Brother” Dimond as well as some very good diocesan priests and deacons.

    So, as a techie, I’ve fully accepted the Old Testament prophesized Jesus as our savior and the New Testament is the New Covenant. I also believe that the Church Jesus created is the Catholic church and I believe in apostletic succession.

    Then, this Council of Vatican II comes along while I was a mere infant and creates much strife in the Universal Church. Strife I never even knew about until about 6 months ago. I am an EMHC, so clearly I had no understanding of the more traddy thoughts on the Holy Sacrifice much less what Vatican II apparently did to it and our faith.

    These schismatic nuns that you always write about as well as this garbage in the NCR only seem to prove the point of Dimond. Unfortunately, once you start down the anti -Vatican II path, you end up is the lap of guys like Dimond who apparently demonstrate that the past few Popes were probably even Free Masons never mind heretical and as such, anti Popes. As there have been anti-Popes in the past, this is not inconceivable.

    This undermining questioning of what it really means to be a Catholic MUST be the work of Satan. As Satan would have you doubt your worthiness to be redeemed, I’m sure this is one of his tricks to get people to become less zealous in their defense of the Bride of Christ. The fundamental question is what is truth and how do we know it? I want to be God’s servant and do his will. That’s all.

    I pray for direction in discerning God’s will and God’s will as it relates to what I’m told is the only route to salvation, The Catholic Church. If anybody has any good debunkers or debunking of this sort of sedevacantist analysis, I’d greatly appreciate citations.

  6. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    Incredulous, I don’t have answers for you; others will provide them, I think.

    Instead, I have a Psalm and a prayer for you:

    A song of ascents. Of David.

    LORD, my heart is not proud;
    nor are my eyes haughty.
    I do not busy myself with great matters,
    with things too sublime for me.

    Rather, I have stilled my soul,
    Like a weaned child to its mother,
    weaned is my soul.

    Israel, hope in the LORD,
    now and forever.

    – - – - Psalm 131

    Let nothing disturb you,
    Let nothing frighten you,
    All things are passing away:
    God never changes.
    Patience obtains all things
    Whoever has God lacks nothing;
    God alone suffices.

    – - – - – - Saint Teresa of Avila (1515 – 1582)

  7. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    “What matters is the promotion of the agendas of the Obama Administration and the Democrat party under the flag of ‘social justice’”.

    What principle can be more elemental, more fundamental to any concept of social justice than the right not to be summarily put to death? And yet the direct violation of this most integral human right is precisely embodied in the so-called right to abortion, an operation whose purpose is nothing other than violently to attack and to put an end to the life of the infant in the womb.

  8. CatholicMD says:

    I have a wife and an eight month old daughter. My wife is a spiritual victim of being raised in the post Vatican II church of the zeitgeist and before we met didn’t even know rudimentary elements of the faith. My conscience is telling me that the Catholic Church is not a safe place for me to raise my family. JPII and BXVI held the barbarians at the gate valiantly for 40 years. Now the gates have been thrown open and the barbarians have invaded.

  9. wmeyer says:

    When one fails to properly distinguish between immigration (a legal process) and illegal entry (a crime), then the discussion is suspect, at best, from the outset. When in doubt, turn to the Catechism:

    2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

    Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

    (emphasis added)

    Note that the CCC does not deny sovereignty of nations, nor does it suggest (as do some of our bishops) that unrestricted migration must be supported. Also note that final sentence about the obligations incumbent upon those accepted. Contrast that with the massive demonstrations in the southwest asserting that the land is theirs.

    Bishops Aquila and Sheridan of Colorado have issued a statement. Although in my own view it soft-pedals the issues of sovereignty, it does at least consider them. It is a more balanced and thoughtful statement than I have seen so far from any of our bishops. Certainly worth reading and even studying.

    As to the Fishwrap, well, what can we expect? Even the pope does not always speak infallibly, nor any priest or bishop. And if those ordained to the service of God may err, how surprised are we to be, even at the persistent, obstinate refusal of schismatics to see the light?

  10. Sonshine135 says:

    @incredulous
    I believe the experience that you are having is your wake up call from the Matrix. First, understand that you are not alone. My experience very much parallels yours. Secondly, keep calm. Many of the sedevacantist sites tend to overly dramatize the problems associated with Vatican II. You get a lot of arguments that the Pope was elected by Freemasons. The real problem with that is that there is not definitive proof. That rises to the level of a conspiracy in my book, but you will have read more and make some determinations for yourself.

    John Salza has a great, easy to understand .pdf of the errors of sedevaticanists. It is at http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

    Also, do not let these people at the Fish wrap get to you. Literally anyone can start a newspaper and spread as much BS as they want to. It is just a reminder that there is much work to do in the vineyard. Have faith and pray often. God will not let the gates of hell prevail against his church.

    Pax

  11. Heather F says:

    CatholicMD: If you believe that Jesus founded the Church, there is no place safer than this, for all your concerns. Taking your family away from the Church won’t help them. The Church survived Alexander VI and all the various Borgias. She survived the Avignon shenanigans. People in those days weren’t safer leaving the Church either.

    There is a very poor signal to noise ratio in our modern 24 hour news cycle. Everything is A BIG DEAL until the next BIG DEAL, and yes, it can cause anxiety. If the headlines are making you panic and consider leaving the Church, then get rid of them. If your parish priest gives scandal by teaching heresy, move to a parish with a pastor faithful to the Magisterium. If your internet connection causes you to sin, tear it out.

  12. Suburbanbanshee says:

    A lot of people said one of the popes had the evil eye, too. (The guy who had a church collapse under his feet.) Are we going to believe in the evil eye?

    We are not chickens with our heads cut off. Let’s stop running around flapping over stuff that probably doesn’t mean anything bad (ie, the Pope’s actual words) and start worrying about things that really are directly affecting us and directly imprudent (ie, Cardinal Wuerl not speaking out).

    I find it telling that people somehow think that Fr. Z or somebody can do something about the Pope, but nobody thinks they can do anything about Cardinal Wuerl….

  13. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    My conscience is telling me that the Catholic Church is not a safe place for me to raise my family.

    You might think that at times. But ultimately a man who has fallen in love with Jesus Christ will echo the words of the disciples who remained with Him:

    Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life. (John 6:68)

    This life is not about being “safe.” None of us is safe from the predations of the evil one. It’s about taking up one’s cross, and following Him.

  14. Phil_NL says:

    wmeyer
    Which illustrates exactly why bishops should keep shut on immigration, as it is a matter of prudential judgement. In fact, over here in Europe, ‘to the extent which they are able’, pretty much means: zero, zilch, nada. Even leftist politicans here have already admitted that immigration (and most of it here is legal) has been pushed past the point which can be taken in by society. Not that such a conclusion leads them to do something to stop the tide, but still.

    Any bishop I hear about immigration immediately looses half his credibility, as far as I’m concerned.

    Moreover, the debate is often mudied not only by the lack of distinction between illegal entry and immigration (that’s mostly a US issue), but also by failing to distinguish between providing a safe haven for refugees and immigration (which is the common European misconception; a safe haven does not mean they have to be in your country, and certainly doesn’t mean the refugees get to stay when the crisis in their country is over).

    CatholicMD: what Marion Ancilla Mariae said.

  15. Imrahil says:

    Thanks dear @wmeyer for the citation.

    Raises the interesting question: what does the Catechism mean?

    Does it mean “security” and “means of livelihood” as I guess a scholastic would understand them – as opposed to “in immediate danger” and to “not having the means of livelihood”?

    Or does it mean the words as perhaps the little Tom (or Dick or Harry) you find in the street would understand them – that is, allowing higher and lesser degrees?

    If it means the first, it is beyond question. (Though that includes the “to the extend they are able to”.)

    If it does mean the latter… how precisely would this be proved?

    For I am not obliged to support to the extent I am able who craves for more security and prosperity and has them less than myself. Why would a nation be? Is not the general prosperity a nation is blessed with, something like common (national-common) property?

  16. wmeyer says:

    Imrahil, as Phil_NL said, I believe it must be a matter of prudential judgment. Neither the CCC nor the U.S. Constitution was written as a suicide pact. A few decades ago, tuberculosis had been nearly eradicated here; now it is on the rise, and if you get it, your chances of survival are 50-50. Why? Because the TB now making the rounds is drug resistant, having ridden here in hosts from countries where medical care and literacy rates are very poor. Similarly, no country is obliged to accept without limit those who are illiterate, terminally ill, or for whatever reason, incapable of earning a living. To assert otherwise is to reject entirely economics, a subject originally developed by the Church.

    Many rail against the United States on the subject of immigration, yet we admit legally over 1 million immigrants a year. The immigration numbers in the rest of the world almost reach that number. So in truth, to some degree, when residents of other countries chastise us, it is because they see us as the cure for what ails them. Hardly a Christian sentiment.

    If our elected authorities, in defiance of common sense, choose to leave our borders undefended, then the malady will correct itself: the country will collapse.

  17. wmeyer says:

    Further to my last post, if you read the CCC (not merely the one entry I cited), you will be reading in context what the Church teaches are the rights and obligations of citizens. I believe it will be difficult then to misunderstand the meaning.

  18. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear Incredulous,

    You wrote:

    “Then, this Council of Vatican II comes along while I was a mere infant and creates much strife in the Universal Church. Strife I never even knew about until about 6 months ago. I am an EMHC, so clearly I had no understanding of the more traddy thoughts on the Holy Sacrifice much less what Vatican II apparently did to it and our faith.”

    Vatican II has had, truth be told, very little effect on our faith. It has been the mis-implementations and misinterpretations of Vatican II that have been so toxic. In the grand historical scheme of things, Vatican II will be seen as a relatively limited Council. Indeed, the whole, “Modern World,” that they were addressing is rapidly disappearing to be replaced by a Post-Modern world, if I may mix my linguistic categories. The Church was going to, “speak to the world,” but, more and more the world is shouting, “we don’t care.” I wouldn’t get too upset by the people who link Vatican II with the end of the world. It may merely be the end of the West. Vatican II will be differently interpreted and implemented (can’t say if better or worse) in Africa and Asia in the next century than in the West. Eventually, there will be another Council, but not until we have passed through the nightmare to come.

    As to sedevacantist sites, why bother to visit them unless you are a professional apologist? They have nothing useful to offer that cannot be found, elsewhere. The fact is that, except for papal deaths and a few transitions, the church has never been sedevacante. Sure, there have been anti-popes, but never without there also being a valid pope at the same time, so Diamond is simply implying something that is impossible – that the gates of Hell will prevail, even for a time, against the Church. It sounds to me like you need people and a place to discuss things like this to get them off of your chest so that they don’t fester. I can’t think of a good place at the moment, but one could be coming, soon.

    The Chicken

  19. av8er says:

    Masked Chicken. Great comment. CatholicMD, don’t give up. We have to wade through tons crap to get to the truth. It is mentally exhausting at times but you need to keep moving forward. Put on the armor of God that we may able to resist on the evil day- Eph 6:11 For me, that day is every day.

  20. acricketchirps says:

    MC: I can’t think of a good place at the moment, but one could be coming, soon.

    You mean coming soon: Chicken Blog?

  21. Rich says:

    I wonder if those at the Fishwrap are aware of Vatican II’s juxtaposition of abortion – one of the key issues about which the Church is supposedly “obsessed” – among all of the other areas that “social justice Catholics” are concerned about:

    “Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed.” (Gaudiem et Spes 27)

    “Social justice Catholics” are rightly concerned about many of these issues. But, if Cardinal Wuerl or Bishop Farrell brought up any issue like deportation or human trafficking, it makes you wonder whether they would still be making the same distinctions between these issues and “the Gospel”, as they do with the HHS Mandate and the Supreme Court’s ruling on “gay marriage”.