Pres. Obama channels his inner Henry VIII in this new “Act of Uniformity”

On the site of National Review there is a piece by Mark Steyn which I recommend.  Here is an excerpt.

[…]

Welcome to Obamacare.

The president of the United States has decided to go Henry VIII on the Church’s medieval ass. Whatever religious institutions might profess to believe in the matter of “women’s health,” their pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, and immunities are now subordinate to a one-and-only supreme head on earth determined to repress, redress, restrain, and amend their heresies. One wouldn’t wish to overextend the analogy: For one thing, the Catholic Church in America has been pathetically accommodating of Beltway bigwigs’ ravenous appetite for marital annulments in a way that Pope Clement VII was disinclined to be vis-à-vis the English king and Catherine of Aragon. But where’d all the pandering get them? In essence President Obama has embarked on the same usurpation of church authority as Henry VIII: As his Friday morning faux-compromise confirms, the continued existence of a “faith-based institution” depends on submission to the doctrinal supremacy of the state.

[…]

And I know that the first Act of Uniformity was during the reign of Edward VI, not under Henry VIII.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , ,
19 Comments

Why Bishops must guard the name “Catholic”

Why do Bishops have an obligation to oversee which groups or publications can use the word “Catholic”?

There is a White House response to the online petition against his recent moves against the 1st Amendment entitled “Protecting the Health of Women While Accommodating Religious Liberty” by Cecilia Muñoz, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

It is as mendacious as you would expect, since it avoids the true problem with the President’s mandate.
Not only that, the White House shut the online petition down.

The White House Statement about the petition relates declarations of groups which have come out in favor of the President’s new bitter “Plan B” pill:

Here are a few statements from groups involved in the issue:

Catholics United:

President Obama has shown us that he is willing to rise above the partisan fray to deliver an actual policy solution that both meets the health care needs of all employees and respects the religious liberty of Catholic institutions.

Catholic Health Association:

We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.

Planned Parenthood:

The Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.

NARAL:

Today’s announcement makes it clear that President Obama is firmly committed to protecting women’s health.

It is nauseating to see the word “Catholic” anywhere near NARAL and the death merchant Planned Parenthood.

If these groups are in favor of what Pres. Obama is doing, then no Catholic can support it.

The American bishops should meet in a special plenary session to discuss matters relating to the President’s attack on religious liberty and on the Catholic Church.

One of the action items should be to issue a statement that Catholics United and the Catholic Health Association may not use the word “Catholic”.

Any entity with the word “Catholic” in its title who supports what the President is doing (which is an attack on our very identity) must be formally stripped of the word “Catholic”.

UPDATE:

In the manner of Cato, I am compelled to repeat that it’s time that can. 915 be applied to Nancy Pelosi and other highly public figures who commit scandal by their words and actions, by promoting abortion.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , ,
16 Comments

WDTPRS POLL: Had this been Pres. Obama’s 2nd term, would he have offered any “accommodation”?

I put it to you.

I offer a two-tier answer option.

Had this been Pres. Obama's 2nd term, would he have offered any "accommodation"?

View Results

Posted in POLLS | Tagged , , ,
20 Comments

Supper: smoky and sweet and bitter and fishy and orangy and peppery

Supper. I had no interest in cooking, given the dreadful day we have had. However, I forced myself to look around and get creative with ingredients on hand.

I started by cutting the zest from an orange and chopping it.

20120210-182736.jpg

Into a small sauce pan with a clove of garlic and cream to reduce

20120210-182744.jpg

A reader in Alaska sent me, quite a while ago, a jar of smoked salmon.

So, since it is Friday and I am avoiding meat…

20120210-182751.jpg

I blended a shot of Grand Marnier into the cream and orange zest and then stirred in elicoidali.

20120210-182801.jpg

20120210-182812.jpg

Elicoidali with smoked salmon and orange cream. Freshly ground pepper.

Smoky and sweet and bitter and fishy and orangy and peppery.

Green salad with vinegrette to follow.

Different, easy, fast, with stuff sitting around.

Now that I have done this once, I think I can do it better the next time.

Posted in The Feeder Feed | Tagged , ,
20 Comments

Paul VI: “danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law”

Paul VIThe pontificate of Paul VI produced many a disaster, in my opinion, but when it came to a crucial turning point, in the face of diabolical opposition Paul VI issued Humane vitae.

I suspect many of you have never actually read Humanae vitae, though you have heard many invoke it for good or ill.

Here is an excerpt:

Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Limits to Man’s Power

Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII.

[…]

Posted in Classic Posts, Emanations from Penumbras, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , ,
18 Comments

Reactions of individual US Bishops to Pres. Obama’s “Plan B” pill

Now that I have posted Bp. Slattery’s statement following on President Obama’s “morally obtuse”, “insult to the intelligence”, and “cheap accounting trick”, everyone is going to ask me to post their own bishop’s statements. I can’t do that, though it would be great to try.

“But Father! But Father!”, some are saying.  “Why…”

Bp. Slattery’s people got to me first!  That’s why.

Post them here. No, don’t just send them to me for me to post. You do the work.

I might single out some statements for special attention at my own discretion.

This isn’t a discussion entry.  This is a news and text and link entry.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty | Tagged , , ,
11 Comments

Bp. Slattery (D.Tulsa) on Pres. Obama’s “Plan B”

His Excellency Most Rev. Edward Slattery, Bishop of Tulsa, has issued a response to Pres. Obama’s latest “accommodation”, which I liken to his taking the “Plan B” pill.

Text below, but here is his VIDEO!

[wp_youtube]JLWnl1P4slg[/wp_youtube]

Bishop Slattery responds to President Obama’s HHS mandate
2/10/2012 – Bishop Edward J. Slattery

February 10, 2012
Saint Scholastica

Today, the President of the United States has issued what he referred to as an accommodation on the mandate from Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued on January 20 of this year. This mandate would have required – among other things – that religious institutions provide through their insurance policies hormonal contraception, abortifacients and direct sterilization, even though such a mandate violates our conscience and run counter to the 1st Amendment guarantee for the free exercise of Religion.

We are grateful that the President has begun to listen to the voices raised in opposition to this intrusion on our first amendment rights, and we are encouraged that he understands the urgency of this matter. However, we are dismayed that he does not understand the root issues which are involved here.

There will be a time, there must be a time, when Americans of good will and strong conscience discuss these points in a rational and non-idealogical conversation. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?  Nothing has come yet from the White House except an ideological imposition.]

• First, no one is asking why it is that the Catholic Church is opposed to
artificial birth control, direct sterilization and abortifacients. For two thousand years, the Church has understood that all of these methods that prevent life damage marriages and thereby weaken the fabric of society.
• Secondly, in describing artificial birth control, direct sterilization and
abortifacients as “Preventive care” it is apparent that the ideology which
underlies this governmental intrusion is that pregnancy is a disease
and that the conception of life should be prevented.
• Thirdly, the question of who ultimately pays for this immoral coverage has remained unanswered by the President. Free coverage is never free; someone will have to pay for this coverage in their premium.

These three points will have to be addressed at some time, but what I want to address here is the constitutional issue. President Obama agreed that religious institutions would not be compelled to directly pay for coverage which betrays their religious tenants or violates their conscience. This would include churches and those charitable institutions, schools and hospitals by which churches fulfill their mission.

However, the Constitution of the United States does not merely guarantee the freedom of religion to institutions, but to every American.

This includes every businessman or woman who willingly provides health insurance to his or her employees. It includes every single mother, every married couple, and every individual who does not wish to cooperate in this sin. No one should be required to betray their religious and moral beliefs or violate their conscience.

I want to encourage people not to be afraid of the sacrifices which are required to love one another with a genuine, faithful and life-giving love. Through these we are made holy and are formed more fully into what God wants us to be. Thank you.

WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Slattery.  Extra kudos for using modern tools to communicate!

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Fr. Z KUDOS, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , ,
25 Comments

Can. 915: It’s time to use it.

Use can. 915

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged
11 Comments

Glendon, George react to Obama’s “morally obtuse”, “insult to the intelligence”, and “cheap accounting trick”

CatholicVote has been doing us all a great service these days in tracking Pres. Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church and on the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans in his pursuit of power and his agenda.

The following letter, which I saw on CatholicVote was signed by former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Princeton Prof. Robert George, Notre Dame Law Prof. Carter Snead, Catholic University of America President John Garvey, and EPPC Fellow Yuval Levin.

My emphases.

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

Signed:

John Garvey
President, The Catholic University of America

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead
Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Yuval Levin
Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , ,
16 Comments

Catholic League: Pres. Obama adds insult to injury

From The Catholic League:

OBAMA’S PLOY ADDS INSULT TO INJURY

February 10, 2012

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Obama’s revised healthcare plan as it affects Catholic institutions:

President Obama’s latest ploy just adds insult to injury. If the insurance plan of a Catholic institution must cover services it deems immoral, then such a healthcare plan is offensive, plain and simple.

The Catholic League, for example, uses Christian Brothers as its insurance carrier. So if a future employee of ours were to demand free abortion-inducing drugs, and she is allowed to request free drugs from Christian Brothers, then the rest of us would, in effect, be subsidizing her abortion. This is outrageous and will not stand judicial scrutiny.

When it comes to the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a half loaf. We want now, and in the future, the same rights we have enjoyed since the beginning of the republic.

The Obama ploy is also cynical: its effect is to peel off liberal Catholic opposition to Obamacare. In other words, the old divide and conquer strategy is in play. But it won’t work as nicely as they think: there are too many practicing Catholics who will only be impelled to revolt.

Obama has decided to turn up the heat. He’ll soon see how hot things get when Catholics team with Protestants, Jews, Mormons and others to recapture their First Amendment rights. Indeed, President Obama will now be remembered as the president who brought the culture war to a boil.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , , ,
14 Comments