From The Catholic League:
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
The Catholic left is so deep in the tank for Obama that they are working publicly to undermine the bishops. First a little background. [cf Magisterium of Nuns]
On March 2, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, speaking for the bishops, said that at a recent meeting between the bishops’ conference staff and the White House staff, the former were told by the latter that the issue of religious liberty was “off the table.” Moreover, following the February 10 Health and Human Services mandate, Bishop William Lori, the point man for the bishops on religious liberty, said there was “no prior consultation” with the bishops before the edict was issued.
In a piece for the Religion News Service today, David Gibson quotes an administration official who denies all of this, effectively saying Dolan and Lori are liars. The official says, “The White House has put nearly every issue requested by the bishops on the table for discussion…only to be rebuffed.” Indeed, the operative even accuses “some bishops and staff” of politicizing the issue. [Gibson refuses to name his source. So much for transparency.]
Gibson reports that “some USCCB staff members involved in the talks are veteran culture warriors” who often take “a harder line” than the bishops. But could they be more extreme than Alexia Kelley, the left-wing Catholic who presides over the near moribund faith-based programs? Before landing her White House job, she was funded by atheist billionaire George Soros; she ran a dummy Catholic entity, one that Soros greased to the tune of hundreds of thousands through his Open Society Institute.
Gibson also says that “Catholic officials from other institutions” are working more quickly to resolve problems than the bishops’ staff is. Again, we have no idea who they are. No matter, not only do these activists have no official standing, there is nothing for them to resolve—they’re all shilling for Obama.
I am still really confused by this whole issue. Why, again, is this considered a religious liberty issue? Why is it being considered a measure of immorality to have an indirect provision of abortifacients and sterilizations in the “catholic” institutional insurance policies if that is not their intention to provide those services at all? Why is there not an option to drop insurance altogether when it comes down to it?
Nicole, Obamacare is not about making health care more available, and never has been. It is about a) growing government, and b) reducing the liberty of citizens, on the way to changing us from a capitalistic to a socialistic country. Control is at the heart of it, at every level, which is why there is no option to drop.
Fr. Z, am I going to moderation because you feel the need to monitor my comments, or is it some semi-random behavior of the blog? [I don’t think your comments are generally in the moderation queue. How that queue works is, btw, sometimes a mystery to me.]
Atta boy, Bill Donohue and the Catholic League, for exposing this!
You are THE MAN! Our Irish pitbull!
I keep reading through St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, and, funny, I don’t find mention of think tanks, PACs, groups of religious or corporations. He keeps on and on about bishops.
A few days ago I had a comment in moderation for 7 hours. It hadn’t happened before or since. I don’t see why your comments would require moderation. [1) Because I want it that way, 2) it helps at times to keep off topic comments down, and 3) there are a lot of jerks in the world who would soon make this blog’s combox a very unpleasant place.]
Jim Ryon, I am guessing it is some weird behavior of the blog. I had one in moderation for nearly 24 hours a week or so ago. I’m sure the duration relates to Fr. Z’s time; the fact that they sometimes go into moderation may not be. I recall one time he said there appeared to be an issue if the post contained a URL, but this one did not…. [I think the software flags some comments with certain key words. Again, it is a mystery.]
Now… back to the actual topic…
Thanks, Father, for letting me know. I don’t often find mine going into moderation, and I do try not to stray too far from topic, most of the time. My concern was whether I had, in fact, crossed a line.
What I find encouraging in the current situation is the number of non-Catholics who have spoken out. Most of them, I am sure, are mindful of the reality Rev. Niemoller expressed in his verse, and know that if the Catholic Church can be cowed, the largest single church in the country, then their days are numbered.
It is also true that screaming loudly early on is more often effective than the application of stronger measures later on. Look at what being noisy has accomplished for the feminists, homosexuals, and environmentalists. The latter, in particular, have demonstrated that facts need not be on your side to ensure a victory.
This is a religious liberty issue because the First Amendment to the Constitution says that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the Catholic Church’s case, the free exercise means that Catholic Institutions (which exist to provide forms of charity and justice), should be permitted to not violate fundamental tenets of its religion – including not participating in intrinsically evil acts like assisting with abortions. My understanding is that by cooperating with a system (e.g., the Catholic institution’s health insurance) to supply contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients, it is an immoral act and contrary to our religious practices, regardless of whether those things are provided “free” by the Catholic employer’s insurance company or whether paid for directly by the Catholic employer. That is, you cannot avoid the culpability of engaging in an immoral act by simply having a third party perform it.
[1) Because I want it that way, 2) it helps at times to keep off topic comments down, and 3) there are a lot of jerks in the world who would soon make this blog’s combox a very unpleasant place.]
I’m sorry you took offense at my comment. I thought it was pretty innocent. I will be a lurker in the future. [No need to. No offense taken. I had an open combox for quite a while, but it became impossible when foul-mouthed, blasphemous trolls showed up.]
Shilling and undermining – serving ‘country’, pleasing in leader’s eyes – and with no job description or compensation for all that they do for any one but their God whose name they take in vain.
I am reminded of the second Sorrowful Mystery.
Why are the local Obama shill Catholics the ones I never see at Mass?
CINO- Catholic in Name Only. Or perhaps CWHP- Catholics with Huge Puppets.
Nicole asked: Why is there not an option to drop insurance altogether when it comes down to it?
Obamacare removes that option, Nicole. Any Catholic institution that attempts to drop insurance will be fined per employee, in some cases, millions per year. That’s the problem. Obamacare will coerce payment for coverage that violates the conscience of many, not only Catholics.
Facta Non Verba,
Thanks for the reply.
If one defines religion as the virtue by which one gives to God what God is due, I do not see how the HHS mandates violate that. The HHS mandates are saying that employers (apparently whether in the public or private sector) must make provision in the insurance policies they offer to cover abortifacient drugs with no co-pay, as well as make provision for sterilization coverage. Any employer who professes to be Catholic obviously would not find that situation to be favorable, but I do not see that there is actual immorality in the provision.
These employers do not have the responsibility to educate or rule the lives of their employees under the doctrine of subsidiarity…and they are by no means mandating that their employees use these services merely because there is an insurance provision for these.
Think about this: If you were a taxi driver and a woman entered your cab, asked to be dropped at an abortion clinic, and even out-right admitted she was going there for an abortion, it would not be materially immoral for you to give her a lift to the clinic. A person may argue that because she has explicitly given her reason for travelling to the clinic that you could not give her a lift, but this is not so, as she is neither a moral nor credible witness by her scandalous admission to intend to do a gravely evil action. You could choose freely not to give her a lift, still, but it would not be immoral for you to choose to deliver her to the clinic, either.
This is the same situation that any employer who professes to be Catholic is in with respect to the HHS mandates. It’s not only the “catholic” institutions facing issues here. Surely, no employer who professes to be Catholic wants to have his employees murdering their children or doing other acts against nature (sterilization), but then does that mean these employers are going to stop paying their employees altogether? I mean, these employees could take the money they earn now and just as well spend it on abortifacients, etc. Why aren’t the Bishops upset about that?
As far as I can see, employers who profess to be Catholic can choose not to give their employees the “lift” mentioned in the example by striking any insurance coverage whatsoever. Since that is the case, why are the Bishops not considering that as an option?
This is not a discussion as to whether an employer who professes to be Catholic is an accomplice to an abortion or other intrinsically evil action, since it is none of his business whether one of his employees ever has one…just like it is none of his business if his employees smoke cigarettes at home (whether or not they are pregnant) or consume alcohol while pregnant or castrate or sterilize themselves. Those are private issues belonging to the society of the family. It appears to me that the whole reason that this HHS mandate stuff has been so blown out of proportion is either due to a lack in understanding of or desire to implement subsidiarity.
I would love to hear what more you may have to lend to this discussion as I am still attempting to get many questions answered…
Thanks also for the reply. If that is the case…perhaps it is time for the Bishops to turn down their tax exempt status and take up a real political voice.
Nicole, this is what I was talking about in another place regarding religious freedom and who knows the meaning of it and what it is for. The churches themselves are tax exempt, not the priests. Losing a tax exemption would mean paying real estate taxes (based on what value? pretty difficult to have comps on that) and paying taxes on gross receipts (donations). People donating would be unable to deduct this on their taxes, leaving Planned Parenthood a “charitable” organization and a Catholic church not. Priests are citizens of the US, and as such, have a right to have a political opinion. The Left, who seems not to legitimately believe in God anyway, just pulls that theory out as another fake gag order.
Actually, I prefer the civil disobedience suggestion someone made a couple of days ago (maybe it was you, Nicole; can’t remember). Suppose the bishops just refuse to cooperate with this mandate? Most Catholic institutions are self-insured. I’d rather see them refuse to cover the mandated “services” or any resulting fines and go through a public court challenge than to drop their tax-exempt status.
Nicole said: You could choose freely not to give her a lift, still, but it would not be immoral for you to choose to deliver her to the clinic, either.
The difference here, Nicole, is that employers aren’t being given the option to “choose freely not to give her a lift”. They are being forced to do so, regardless of what their conscience might tell them. One example I read was “suppose the government mandated that a kosher deli sell you a BLT?”
I think Obamacare involves a lot more coercion than you realize.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is about a particular political party(Democrats) voting to undermine the Constitution — religious freedom and the free exercise thereof.
In 2001 in a PBS interview Obama said that he did not like the Constitution as written.
If Soros/Obama can force this through–than they have the whole ball of wax.
It is also clear that the next target will be freedom of speech and the suppression of particular points of view.
SKAY, the problem is, who will protect the Constitution and its amendments if all three branches persist in overriding it? The result of such violations is tyranny, as there can be no consent of the governed where there are no limits on the government.
Thanks, all, for your responses to me. :)
Actually Matt, those Obama shills are never very far away. They’re on the payroll.
Pingback: Convert Journal – Obama’s war on religion (update #4)