Catholic League on Sebelius’s admission before a Senate committee

SebeliusYesterday I saw video clips of Kathleen Sebelius, catholic Dem who as Pres. Obama’s patsy is implementing his anti-Catholic agenda, testifying before a Senate committee. She admitted that the Administration did not to any significant degree consult with the US bishops before issuing their mandate. Of course, the Administration didn’t care what the bishops would have said. The President was going to do this no matter what.

From The Catholic League:


February 16, 2012

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Following her testimony yesterday before the Senate Finance Committee, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius was asked whether she spoke to the bishops about the controversial mandate she is pushing. She admitted she did not. Then she said, “I know that the president has spoken to the bishops on several occasions.”

Sebelius is wrong. Bishop William Lori, who heads the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, said this week that administration officials should have sat down with the bishops. “That certainly did not happen,” he said. Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who heads the bishops’ conference, met once with the president, and that was three months ago; the two phone calls he has had since were to inform him that the bishops’ religious liberty concerns would not be honored.

Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sebelius further admitted that HHS never subjected the religious liberty issues to a legal analysis, as requested by 27 senators. She also admitted that she never asked the Justice Department to consider this issue.

It gets worse. Today’s New York Times reports today that the administration announced the Obama mandate “before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.” As the Times points out, this is not a slight issue: 60 percent of all workers with health insurance are covered by a self-funded plan, and the figure jumps to 82 percent for large companies. And no one bothered to address this?

So they refused to consult with the bishops; they refused to weigh the First Amendment religious liberty concerns; and they refused to study how the mandate might impact self-insured companies. In other words, with characteristic arrogance, they just “winged it.” Wait until the Supreme Court hears all of this.

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191

The bishops need to start using can. 915.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Supertradmum says:

    Someone has forgotten where she put the truth…

  2. JohnE says:

    Here’s the news blurb I’m looking forward to:
    “President Obama, former constitutional law professor and recent recipient of an honorary law degree by Notre Dame, was slapped down by Supreme Court today for egregious disregard for the U.S. Constitution.”

  3. wmeyer says:

    Lies? More lies? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you.

    I’m too old to expect honesty from politicians and appointees, but this does seem to have been an altogether gratuitous lie. Of course, that puts it on the same footing with most of the same from our Prevaricator in Chief.

    Sadly, the Congress is as reluctant to impeach, or to speak the word treason as are the bishops to formally excommunicate.

    Are we the spineless generation?

  4. Centristian says:

    All of this further supports my growing impression of a blundering White House run by children who are misguiding an inexperienced narcissist who confuses his reflection with the rising Sun at times. The GOP, you can be sure, are loving this episode; this is political gold for them in a presidential election year. Reince Priebus is sitting in his office marvelling at how much easier this has all made his job this year.

    “It gets worse.” No, it gets better, you mean. Wait until this gets to the Supreme Court, indeed.

  5. teomatteo says:

    I’m picturing a scene… yes… i see it… NFL football game and a team has just scored… the point after is being kicked and… there… in the stands …. on a big white poster board…. Cn 915.

  6. Facta Non Verba says:

    Unfortunately, I don’t think the Supreme Court will hear about this particular breakdown and lack of legal analysis in the adminstrative rule-making procees by HHS. The main issue for SCOTUS is whether the mandate required by the law is within the legislative powers of the commerce clause. The government’s position is that the health care market is factually unique; that there are few other markets where participation is a virtual certainty.

  7. Theodore says:

    Here’s an article pointing out that the panel that made the recommendation was entirely composed of abortion advocates.

    FYI, the final paragraph takes the Catholic Bishops who now oppose this to task for spending their political capital over the years on leftist social justice works while (in some cases) turning a blind eye to child abuse my some members of the Church.

  8. ContraMundum says:

    I can’t help but feel that I’ve seen that picture before somewhere.

    [Or else… this?]

  9. Centristian says:


    LOL. Brilliant. Actually, I was thinking:

  10. Andy Milam says:

    Thank you +Card. Bernadin for giving us catholics like this….it’s all your fault. All of it!

    Bottom line, “The Seamless Garment” has become the moral superdogma for American catholics. I wonder what Catholics in America think?

    Here is my take on this:

    I’m not saying I’m 100% correct, but I’m not 100% wrong either.

  11. TravelerWithChrist says:

    Fr Z – yes, you have found the picture, it’s a perfect match.

  12. TravelerWithChrist says:

    not just in looks,but character as well

    (do I need to report to confession now?)

  13. disco says:

    LOL contramundum

    It would be nice to banish her to ceti alpha v.

  14. Mundabor says:

    Heavens, if I were American I’d be truly embarrassed now. This is 100% Zimbabwe, Mugabe-style government. I knew she had admitted not to have consulted the bishops, but to not even get a legal opinion on the matter of religious liberty is the most obvious admission of tragic dilettantism.

    Compared to these clowns, Berluconi was a true professional and a lover of democratic freedom.


  15. wmeyer says:

    Fr. Z, Cruella had better hair.

  16. JPD says:

    I was under the impression after reading Edwards Peters that Sebelius is already banned from Communion, thus excommunicated right? This was pronounced by Bishop Naumann in 2008.

  17. pm125 says:

    Cruella was honest about being bad too …

  18. SonofMonica says:

    JPD: wow, I didn’t know that!

  19. Philangelus says:

    It’s not funny if she resembles Khan or Cruella. Her soul is in jeopardy. She needs our prayers. :-( Lots of them. God loves her. Jesus died for her. She needs us to pray for her.

  20. plemmen says:

    I agree that Canon 915 needs to be in effect for these pseudo-Catholics. I have published two award winning articles concerning the actual motives of this administration and a potential end-game. The articles (The State as God and The State as God Part II) can be accessed at my blog:

  21. Johnno says:

    Can they get away with this? Like no repercussions whatsoever?

  22. eyeclinic says:

    And if I remember correctly, at least Ricardo Montalban was in reality a good Catholic who only played bad characters!

  23. Supertradmum says:

    American liberals have confused sincerity with truth. A sincere person can commit murder, or incest. That a person sincerely believes an error does not exonerate one from judgment. Truth is objective, not subjective. This is also behind the lie of liberal interpretations of following one’s conscience as the highest good. If the conscience is badly formed, an adult is responsible for changing that. Grace is greater than nature. If a person states, “I really believe abortion, or contraception is ok” such a sincere statement does not change the truth or the repercussions that would follow-consequences which are eternal.

  24. irishgirl says:

    @ Contramundum and Father Z:
    Ha! Brilliant! Brilliant, indeed!
    Sebelius looks positively scary!
    @ wmeyer:
    In answer to your question, ‘Are we the spineless generation?’ I unfortunately say, ‘Yes!’
    Where are the men with real spines?
    Why are ‘impeachment’, ‘treason’, and ‘excommunication’ dirty words?

  25. Andy Lucy says:

    @Philangelus… “It’s not funny if she resembles Khan or Cruella. Her soul is in jeopardy. She needs our prayers. :-( Lots of them. God loves her. Jesus died for her. She needs us to pray for her.”

    Is it not possible to find it humorous that she resembles a couple of baddies from the silver screen (I lean toward Khan… but then I am a Trekkie) and still be able to pray for her soul? Personally, I don’t have much issue with multitasking.

  26. wmeyer says:

    Johnno: I believe that what we are seeing here is a series of tests to see how much they can get away with, without repercussions. Testing the waters, before the conversion to a peoples’ republic and installation of a dictator.

  27. Philangelus says:

    @Andy, as long as we’re doing both. But only mocking the enemies of the Church isn’t something I saw Jesus holding up as our primary standard of behavior. :-(

  28. Johnno says:


    Jesus did mock the enemies of the Church, as did many Saints. The pattern usually goes like this:

    – Person does something wrong
    – They are approached kindly and with gentleness to inform them of where they are wrong.
    – Person continues to do something wrong
    – They are approached kindly and with gentleness to inform them of where they are still wrong.
    – Person continues to do something wrong
    – They are approached respectfully but more seriously to inform them that they are still wrong and that they have been corrected before.
    – Person continues to do something wrong despite being respectfully warned 3 times.
    – They are approached more seriously with stronger language condemning what they are doing.
    – Person stubbornly continues to do what is wrong despite being told countless times clearly being unwilling to change.
    – It is then permissible that they be called out for precisely what they are through even strong language, rhetoric and even ridicule, in order for them to see the absurdity of their position and to draw parallels to caricatures of evil, and if necessary even direct comparison to actual evil personalities. This must be done for their own good. When after being repeatedly told that their positions and condemned, the person must then be told that they themselves by virtue of holding those positions are also condemned unless they see reason, repent and change.

Comments are closed.