Showing posts with label HHS Mandate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HHS Mandate. Show all posts

Monday, April 9, 2012

Cardinal Dolan: We didn't ask for this fight; we're not going to back away from it

This weekend Cardinal Dolan was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer on CBS. It is m my understanding that the New York prelate does this on an annual basis on Easter Sunday. The Cardinal did not initiate discussion of the religious liberty issue, but he was asked by the host some questions that prompted some interesting answers.

One thing that really jumps out at me when I listen to discussions about the HHS mandate is how some try to say that the Church started this, that the Church is getting political.  Yet, Obama drew first blood by hood-winking Cardinal Dolan and the US bishops, telling them they would not encroach on religious liberty, then proceeding to force the Catholic Church and individual Catholics to violate their deeply-held religious convictions by the HHS mandate.  Cardinal Dolan is right to say that we did not start this fight. 

The second thing that really gets under my skin is the argument that there are all kinds of Catholics, with Cardinal Dolan representing just one group.  These folks, Catholics themselves, being paraded on TV just so they can show themselves as representing the "other side" of the "catholic view", show their lack of understanding of the faith.  Catholic Health Association, which has worked to undermine the US Bishops, does not speak for the Catholic Church in America, the U.S. Bishops do when what they say is in harmony with Catholic teaching.  We have 100% of diocesan bishops together on the HHS mandate and it's infringement on our religious liberty.   If the Holy Spirit is on the side of bishops who are in union with the Church, what spirit guides those who oppose them?


H/T to Frank Weathers who also pointed to an interview where Bishop Lori, on NBC's Meet the Press, discussed the issue of religious liberty.  Here is that clip:



Related Links:

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 10:47 AM
Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 15, 2012

US Bishops Dig-in on Threats Against Religious Liberty


I don't have time to go into this and it is self-explanatory.

Yesterday, the USCCB issued a news release concerning the threats against religious liberty. Follow that link, and be sure to read the additional links embedded there.

The U.S. Bishops are digging in.

Please support them with your prayers and by thoughtfully considering what they ask of us.



For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 7:52 AM
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Video: Urban Poet Priest on Religious Liberty



The Blaze features a story about "Fr. Pontifex":  Priest's new spoken word vid targets Obama''s contraceptive  mandate: 'A threat to our country's foundation'.
For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 10:03 PM
Labels: ,

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Bishop Lori: Absurd for someone to expect a ham sandwich in a kosher deli



Check this out...

In one of the latest salvos Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

In his testimony today, he likened the imposition on Catholic institutions to include insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization to mandating that all Jewish delis should serve pork. 
People recognize, he said that "it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich." Moreover, "it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down."

Source: Zenit
For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 11:25 PM
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

USCCB President says Obama offered next to nothing; expresses disappointment with Sr. Keehan

From Catholic News Service


By Francis X. Rocca
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan of New York said Feb. 13 that President Barack Obama's proposed revision to the contraceptive mandate in the health reform law did nothing to change the U.S. bishops' opposition to what they regard as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

"We bishops are pastors, we're not politicians, and you can't compromise on principle," said Cardinal-designate Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "And the goal posts haven't moved and I don't think there's a 50-yard line compromise here," he added.

"We're in the business of reconciliation, so it's not that we hold fast, that we're stubborn ideologues, no. But we don't see much sign of any compromise," he said.

"What (Obama) offered was next to nothing. There's no change, for instance, in these terribly restrictive mandates and this grossly restrictive definition of what constitutes a religious entity," he said. "The principle wasn't touched at all."

Obama's proposed revision of the Department of Health and Human Services' contraceptive mandate left intact the restrictive definition of a religious entity and would shift the costs of contraceptives from the policyholders to the insurers, thus failing to ensure that Catholic individuals and institutions would not have to pay for services that they consider immoral, Cardinal-designate Dolan said.

For one thing, the cardinal-designate said, many dioceses and Catholic institutions are self-insuring. Moreover, Catholics with policies in the compliant insurance companies would be subsidizing others' contraception coverage. He also objected that individual Catholic employers would not enjoy exemption under Obama's proposal.

"My brother-in-law, who's a committed Catholic, runs a butcher shop. Is he going to have to pay for services that he as a convinced Catholic considers to be morally objectionable?" he asked.

Cardinal-designate Dolan said he emailed Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who heads the Catholic Health Association, on Feb. 10 to tell her that he was "disappointed that she had acted unilaterally, not in concert with the bishops."

Read the rest at CNS: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200596.htm

Further Reading:


    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 4:55 AM
    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, February 13, 2012

    The pseudo-magisterium needs to be neutered....



    A pseudo-magisterium  is a group of dissenting Catholics, sometimes working with non-Catholics, who hold high-visibility positions in the community, and who compete with Catholic bishops for authority, and other Catholics.

    During the round-table on  today's Meet the Press, Joe Scarborough said of President Obama: "He had a unified Catholic front against him, he split that in half now and now he can move on."

    Here it is in context:
    All you’re doing is shifting the burden to all Catholics now who are all paying for these contraceptive devices that they may–they may find to be immoral. But at the end of the day, this is all the president needs politically because now we have–we have sisters debating bishops, and we’ve got liberal Catholics debating conservatives Catholics. You’ve got Peggy and E.J. now once again …on opposite sides of an issue.


    For the president that’s all he needed to do. He had a unified Catholic front against him, he split that in half now and now he can move on. And I agree with E.J. If this debate moves on and stops being about religious freedom and starts being about contraceptives–contraception, then Republicans lose in a very big way.

    When Scarborough talks about "sisters debating bishops", he's referring, in part, to Sr. Carol Keehan of Catholic Health Association, who has been in public opposition to the U.S. bishops numerous times. She initially balked at Obama's mandate because it went too far.  Before the president ever got to the teleprompter on Friday to tell the nation about his, "compromise", the Catholic Health Association (CHA) released a statement saying they were, "pleased".  Rather curious timing, no?

    The New York Times filled us in on some interesting, behind-the-scenes details late Friday. 

    Rather, the fight was for Sister Carol Keehan — head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported President Obama’s health care law — and Catholic allies of the White House seen as the religious left. Sister Keehan had told the White House that the new rule, part of the health care law, went too far.
    “I felt like he had made a really bad decision, and I told him that,” Sister Keehan said of the president. “I told his staff that. I felt like they had made a bad decision on principle, and politically it was a bad decision. For me another key thing was that it had the potential to threaten the future of health reform.”

    We also learn from the New York Times:


    Tim Kaine, a Virginia Senate candidate and former head of the Democratic National Committee, echoed the concern of Sister Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, that it went too far. So did some liberal-leaning Catholics in the news media, like Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” who called the rule “frightening,” and E. J. Dionne, the Washington Post columnist, who wrote that Mr. Obama had “utterly botched” the issue. 

    Meanwhile, Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a group founded by nuns decades ago to lobby on social justice issues, warned White House officials that nearly 500 Catholic activists would be in Washington this weekend for a conference, and that if no compromise had been reached by then, all of them would return to their parishes fired up about the contraception mandate.
    “We were getting killed,” one administration official said Friday. The White House picked the deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle to talk to Sister Keehan about ways the rule could be made palatable. Meanwhile, administration officials were hearing from women’s rights organizations, particularly Planned Parenthood, who warned that they would oppose any compromise that made employees pick up the tab.

    Pitiful, isn't it?  These Catholic religious sisters have put themselves, and their organizations, on the level of the U.S. bishops!  The Obama administration, and many journalists (some of them Catholics), are using them as tools to pit the faithful against their own bishops.  Division and dissent are not fruits of the Holy Spirit.

    Catholic, Kathleen Sebelius who heads the HHS, is also a member of the pseudo-magisterium.  Her actions have created grave scandal, and she was told some years ago by her bishop in Kansas, not to approach for Holy Communion and the bishops of Washington D.C. have publicly acknowledged they will uphold that.

    Obama is hedging on winning back a number of left-leaning Catholics, but it doesn't appear he will win them all back. Cardinal Mahony isn't buying it.  Here is Michael Sean Winters, who writes for the dissenting National Catholic Reporter discussing his position. He voted for Obama in the last election.  He says he has lost trust in him and does not plan on voting in November.  I hope and pray that he remains with the bishops as we move forward.  If you watch the video, or read the transcript of today's Meet the Press, or manage to find the Fox News Sunday for today, you will get a chance to hear Jack Lew - Obama's new White House chief of staff.  He comes across as downright arrogant in that the administration is done negotiating with Catholics.

    Nancy Pelosi some weeks ago, was doing her best to divide Catholics from their bishops.  Consider that the average Catholic is going to get more exposure to Catholicism during the week  from secular sources who often lift the pseudo-magisterium above the voices of the bishops, or at least equal to their voices.  For secular media and politicians, it's perfectly fine for there to be division between Catholics, as you will find in many reports.  We see this in the reporting about Catholic Health Association, which has absolutely no authority.  



    Faithful Catholics who are watching fellow Catholics be duped by the pseudo-magisterium are calling for bishops to make use of Canon 915 - publicly.  Others are wondering about excommunication.

    Some may be wondering who is going to win the battle for authority in the U.S. Catholic Church: The pseudo-magisterium or the bishops.  I know one thing for certain: Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, so where does that leave the pseudo-magisterium and it's followers?




    Pray for the bishops, and for those Catholics who oppose them causing division among the faithful. 




    Further reading (list may be updated, so check back):


     More:





    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 2:53 AM
    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, February 10, 2012

    USCCB to Obama: Rescission of mandate only complete solution



    Well that didn't take long. The USCCB has issued it's formal statement response to President Obama's "accommodation" on the HHS mandate (Emphasis in bold in original)

    February 10, 2012
    Regulatory changes limited and unclear
    Rescission of mandate only complete solution
    Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

    WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:

    The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the "preventive services" regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

    First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated "preventive services" prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

    Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such "services" immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of "religious employers" that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

    Today, the President has done two things.

    First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

    Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

    ·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

    ·It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider.

    ·Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

    These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

    We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services. [emphasis mine]

    We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

    Rocco Palmo at Whispers has obtained an internal memo with more.  He notes the signatories:


    Here below, however, the text of the internal letter to the bishops -- obtained tonight by Whispers -- and signed by the aforementioned quintet: the conference president, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, and the bench's committee chairs for Pro-Life Activities, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston; Doctrine, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington; Domestic Policy, Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, and the newly-formed arm on Religious Liberty, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport.


    Here's just one snippet:

    We remain fully committed to the defense of our religious liberty and we strongly protest the violation of our freedom of religion that has not been addressed. We continue to work for the repeal of the mandate. We have grave reservations that the government is intruding in the definition of who is and who is not a religious employer. Upon further study we are very concerned that serious issues still remain and we have found numerous problems which we will raise in this letter.


    Hold on tight folks, we're in for a ride.  The bishops have found their voice, and their backbone.  Pray for them, and all involved.

    Phil Lawler laments the fact that Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities jumped the gun and issued statements supportive of the "accommodation" before the bishops could speak, something I discussed in my own post on Sr. Carol Keehan.  Father Z wondered how it was that Sr. Keehan of Catholic Health Association could support Obama's "plan B" before Obama even had his press conference. Elizabeth Scalia points out that there was pretty interesting timing of Sr. Keehan's statement which went out over the White House religion portal (hello?!?!?)

    Dissenting Catholics serving in political roles, heading various institutions, etc., have been competing with the US bishops for decades, but it's been intensifying.  It's the Magisterium versus the pseudo-magisterium.

    Days ago, Canonist Ed Peters re-iterated his call for bishops to start using Canon 915 as it was intended, saying that public behavior deserves public consequences. 

    Tonight, Dr. Jeff Mirus at Catholic Culture is discussing excommunication, as are others.

    UPDATE: The New York Times is reporting on how this all came about.  If this is true, I'm wondering how long it will be before Sebelius is thrown overboard (HT Deacon Greg)


    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 8:53 PM
    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    On HHS Compromise: Why is Sr. Carol Keehan stepping ahead of US Bishops?



    On March 23, 2010, just two days ahead of the Feast of the Annunciation, in which Mary gave her, "Yes!" to God through the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:38), Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association gave her, "Yes" to Obama's health care plan, in direct opposition to the U.S. bishops.

    After HHS secretary, Kathleen Sebelius announced the Obama administration's willingness to trample the U.S. Constitution and violate religious liberty, it was good to see Sr. Keehan balk along with the U.S. bishops. 

    Reports are now saying that Keehan is, "pleased" with Obama's "compromise".  I'll get to that in a moment.

    Obama couldn't have created a bigger mess than one who decides to casually stand next to a hornet's nest and tap it with a stick, convinced that the insects will not respond according to their nature.  As of this writing, 171 bishops, representing about 97% of all US dioceses have issued statements, with many ordering them to be read or distributed at Masses.  A growing list of institutions have issued statements, with four filing lawsuits: EWTN, Priests for Life, Belmont Abbey College, and Colorado Christian Univeristy (non-denominational).  Proving that this is a religious liberty issue of interests to others, here are just some of the non-Catholics who have spoken out: Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North America, two Jewish groups, and Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church, along with other protestants. 

    Signals were coming out yesterday that the Obama administration, feeling the sting of it's decision, was going to issue a compromise - supposedly the one known as the, "Hawaii Compromise".  Today, Obama spoke and it appears to be exactly what Obama has put on the table.  The Becket Fund, which is representing the four institutions above who filed suit stated that it is a "false compromise".

    Signals were also coming from the bishops that they were not in a mood for a compromise on religious liberty.  We heard from Archbishop Dolan yesterday in a CBS Morning video (link contains full transcript), who said the HHS decision was, "at odds with the very sincere assurances" Obama gave to himself and to the Catholic Health Association.  In that same video, is this exchange on, "compromise", with Erica Hill (empahsis mine in bold):



    HILL: Does- you seemed to open the door. Compromise is kind of a tough word these days. You said if he would expand the definition there. Is that what you would see as some sort of a compromise?

    DOLAN: Yeah- I don't know. You're right, that's- Erica, it's good. I don't know if we can compromise. I think that what seems to be - we can't compromise on principle. It seems to be clear now- is that this was a terrible- terribly misguided judgment. So let's not compromise on that. That's almost rewarding bad behavior. Let's simply go back to the starting line, and see how we can live with this without violating conscience or principle. I would prefer the word 'conciliatory.'




    Yesterday, Bishop William Lori who heads the USCCB's Ad Hoc Committe for Religious Liberty, released a statement on the USCCB's blog: Referral is Not the Answer, Rescinding the Mandate is.

    That brings me back to the question I asked at the beginning of my post: Why doesn't Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association wait for the bishops?   Surely, she was aware of the signals coming out of the USCCB which were not favorable as the blogosphere and Catholic news portals were on fire.



    Today we read at ABC News: Both Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood say they're pleased with contracpetion rule announcement.


    I was unsure if,  perhaps, Sr. Keehan was misquoted.  So, I went to the Catholic Health Association website (which took a while to load), and I found this:



    Unfortunately (pr perhaps, fortunately), upon clicking the, "read more" link, I ended up at a dead end.  Let's hope that Sr. Carol Keehan is in the process of trying to get her cart back behind the horse where it belongs. 

    Does she really think she is going to influence the U.S. bishops by going public with something that has the potential of being in opposition to them - again?

    I can't imagine anything more damaging to the fight for religious liberty and conscience protection than to have such public division.  The U.S. bishops, who have finally found their voice, deserve to be heard before dissent hits the ground.

    EDIT:  I see that Father Z wondered something similar, but more basic: How could Sr. Keehan have known what the compromise was to approve of it, before Obama spoke?

    EDIT 2: Phil Lawler also gets it.  See his commentary: Catholic Charities caves. Now what?

    EDIT 3: Cardinal-Designate Dolan expresses disappointment with Sr. Keehan



    Cardinal-Designate Dolan released a statement, but it is more of a punt. Don't get alarmed thinking the bishops are yielding... I think there is merit to waiting until early next week to responding, after they are certain of the details in the plan.  When he says it's a "step in the right direction" the "it" he is talking about is NOT the compromise, but the fact that they are showing a willingness to make changes.  My suggestion is that we put our heads down in prayer this weekend for the bishops, not criticize them, as some have done, before the official response is released.
    The Anchoress  has a running post which already has links to a number of reactions.

    This HHS contraceptive mandate story is one with rapid developments.  I am not in a position to follow everything, everyone is saying. I'm going to recommend that you keep an eye on these portals and sites for updates (some of these may have incredibly slow load times due to the increased traffic and interest).  LifeSiteNews crashed yesterday when DrudgeReport linked to their story on Rick Warren backing the Catholics.


    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 1:16 PM
    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    Thursday, February 9, 2012

    Obama's assault on Religious Liberty - Links


    The HHS mandate is generating many stories - way too many to keep up with. Here are just some of the video interviews and stories floating out there on the HHS mandate which has the U.S. Catholic bishops.





    *171* Bishops (about 95% of Dioceses) have spoken out against Obama/HHS mandate (see complete link list with statements compiled by Tom Peters at Catholic Vote)

    This is likely to be updated, so keep checking the link for add-ons: 13 Catholic (and Christian) Institutions Opposing Obama/HHS Mandate (Tom Peters/Catholic Vote)

    EWTN, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, files suit against the U.S. government

    154 Congressmen sent a letter to HHS in protest of the controversial mandate (CNSNews)

    Secular, business newspaper journalist |  Time to admit it: The Church has always been right on birth control (Business Insider).  Would that all bishops and priests spoke with such clarity!  In fact, I would ask clerics, bishops included, to think about when they last spoke about this issue with this kind of clarity from any pulpit. Let's not let yesterday's negligence result in silence from this point forward. 

    C-SPAN Broadcasts Excellent Discussion on HHS Contraceptive Mandate (Stephen White/Catholic Vote)

    The Birth Control Mandate is Unconsitutional (Horace Cooper - National Policy Analysis)

    ACLU: Promoting the Rape of Boys is Protected; Living According to the Catholic Faith is Not (Tom Crowe/Catholic Vote)

     Rasmussen: Majority opposes Obama contraception mandate on religious organizations (Hot Air)

    Senate Democrats say Obama 'Reinforced' his stance on contraception mandate at Democratic retreat (ABC News)


    Why the Pope's army will not kneel to the HHS mandate (Dan Burke/N.C. Register Blogs)

    The ball is in the bishops' court (Russel Shaw/OSV)

    MSNBC guest compares birth control fight to  1930's Germany (CMR)


    Did Daley leave WH because of the HHS mandate? (Elizabeth Scalia)

    You know things are bad when  even Christ Matthews (MSNBC) is upset with HHS mandate (Deacon's Bench)

    The Ironic Catholic ponders a scenario: Religious Institutions forced to pay for employees' slaves

    Father Z on Dr. Peters (canonist) on Nancy Pelosi (public abortion absolutist) - see embedded video of classic Pelosi; and, Ed Peters original post: Nancy Pelosi deserves to be taken seriously. Very seriously

    Contraception: Why Not? Some background on why the Church - and Catholic employers - are resisting the HHS contraceptive mandate (National Catholic Register editors) - N.B. please don't confuse the Register, which is owned by EWTN, with the Reporter.






    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 2:59 PM
    Labels: , , ,

    EWTN sues US government over HHS mandate



    Catholic News Agency is reporting that EWTN is is suing the US government over the HHS mandate. The Becket Fund, which is also handling similar lawsuits, such as, Belmont Abbey College vs. Sebelius, has taken the case on.


    Irondale, Ala., Feb 9, 2012 / 10:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Catholic media network EWTN sued the federal government Feb. 9, challenging the Obama administration's rule requiring many religious ministries to subsidize contraception and sterilization in their health plans. 
    “We had no other option but to take this to the courts,” EWTN President and CEO Michael Warsaw said in an announcement about the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday. “There is no question that this mandate violates our First Amendment rights.” 
    “Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice,” Warsaw explained. “Either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable.”
    [snip]


    Because EWTN serves not only Catholics but the public at large, the network would not qualify for the religious exemption offered by Secretary Sebelius. 
    At least one of the mandate's required drugs, the emergency contraceptive “Ella,” has the potential to cause an early-stage abortion.





    At the Becket Fund website:


    Becket Fund Files Lawsuit for Nun’s TV Network Against Obama’s Abortion Drug Mandate
    Thirty years ago, a cloistered nun named Mother Angelica started a small television network in her monastery garage to spread the teachings of the Catholic Church. 
    Today, the network she started is suing the federal government for the right to remain faithful to those teachings.
    [snip]
    “The federal government cannot force people to violate their religion like this,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund and a constitutional law professor at the Catholic University of America.  “Mother Angelica founded EWTN to spread the teachings of the Catholic Church—not to betray them.”
    Over the last three decades EWTN, has become the largest Catholic media organization in the world.  Now run by lay Catholics, the network refuses to pay for contraceptive services and for drugs that destroy human life.  “If we are willing to compromise our Catholic faith, we are selling the soul of the network,” said Michael P. Warsaw, EWTN’s President and Chief Executive Officer.  “The mission of EWTN is not negotiable.” 
    The network also rejects the government’s offer last month of another year to “adapt” their consciences to its mandate.  “Maybe they missed the word ‘Eternal’ in the name,” quipped Warsaw.  “Betraying God’s love for every human person—even ones who are small and vulnerable—just isn’t something we’ll ever be able to adapt to.” 
    EWTN’s case is the third lawsuit brought by the Becket Fund challenging the Obama administration’s abortion drug mandate.  The Becket Fund also represents Belmont Abbey College (a Benedictine Catholic college in North Carolina) and Colorado Christian University (a nondenominational Christian University in Colorado) in similar lawsuits.  To date, the government has sought several extensions in those cases rather than answering the claims. 
    The mandate has been widely criticized from across the political spectrum and by religious leaders of all faiths.  Senator Marco Rubio recently introduced a bill to amend the healthcare law to instruct government bureaucrats to respect conscience rights in their mandates.

    A note about the Becket Fund:

    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law, and they recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government at the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.


    If religious liberty is important to you, please consider supporting the Becket Fund: https://www.becketfundcommunity.org/SupportUs


    Update with more from the National Catholic Register (also owned by EWTN)

    The Obama administration has argued that more than 28 states already have some kind of contraception mandate for health plans, and thus the HHS final rule should not be seen as a significant intrusion of the state in the affairs of church-affiliated groups. 
    But Rienzi calls the administration’s claim, “at best, a half truth. Other states have some requirements related to contraception. But they all have either broader religious exemptions or other ways for religious individuals and organizations to avoid the requirement — such as by self-insuring or using a federal ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plan.” 
    “This mandate from the federal government is completely new and far more coercive than anything that existed before, which is precisely why the government is dealing with the broad-based outrage it is currently facing,” Rienzi said.
    He expects that more organizations will challenge the federal rule in court now that the administration has announced it will hold to its policy, despite the controversy.


    Read the whole thing because it gets into additional explanations as to why there is optimism for cases like these.

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 12:34 PM
    Labels: , ,

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012

    USSCB: White House Misrepresents it's Own Contraceptive Mandate

    From the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

    February 3, 2012
    WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued the following response to the February 2 post on the White House blog.


    Full text follows:


    The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1).In what follows, each White House claim is quoted with a response.


    Claim: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”


    Response: This is not entirely true.To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose.Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith.Such churches would be denied an exemption precisely because their service to the common good is so great.More importantly,the vast array of other religious organizations – schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions – will clearly not be exempt.


    Claim: “No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections.For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.”


    Response: It is true that these rules directly apply to employers and insurers, not providers, but this is beside the point:The Administration is forcing individuals and institutions, including religious employers, to sponsor and subsidize what they consider immoral.Less directly, the classification of these drugs and procedures as basic “preventive services” will increase pressures on doctors, nurses and pharmacists to provide them in order to participate in private health plans – and no current federal conscience law prevents that from happening.Finally, because the mandate includes abortifacient drugs, it violates one of the “existing conscience protections” (the Weldon amendment) for which the Administration expresses “strong support.”


    Claim: “No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible.But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.”


    Response: The statement that no one will be forced to buy it is false.Women who want contraception will be able to obtain it without co-pay or deductible precisely because women who do not want contraception will be forced to help pay for it through their premiums.This mandate passes costs from those who want the service, to those who object to it.


    Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”


    Response: False.The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects.[i] RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.


    Claim:“Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions.Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”


    Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false.All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA).None of these havens is available under the federal mandate.It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption.It is broader:It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion.Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.


    Claim: “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.”


    Response: This is irrelevant, and it is presented in a misleading way. If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so? But this claim also mangles the data to create a false impression.The study actually says this is true of 98% of “sexually experienced” women.The more relevant statistic is that the drugs and devices subject to this mandate (sterilization, hormonal prescription contraceptives and IUDs) are used by 69% of those women who are “sexually active” and “do not want to become pregnant.”Surely that is a minority of the general public, yet every man and woman who needs health insurance will have to pay for this coverage.The drugs that the mandate’s supporters say will be most advanced by the new rule, because they have the highest co-pays and deductibles now, are powerful but risky injectable and implantable hormonal contraceptives, now used by perhaps 5% of women.The mandate is intended to change women’s reproductive behavior, not only reflect it.


    Claim: “Contraception coverage reduces costs: While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, insurers and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost.The National Business Group on Health estimated that it would cost employers 15 to 17 percent more not to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of potentially unintended and unhealthy pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.”


    Response: The government is violating our religious freedom to save money?If the claim is true it is hard to say there is a need for a mandate: Secular insurers and employers who don’t object will want to purchase the coverage to save money, and those who object can leave it alone.But this claim also seems to rest on some assumptions: That prescription contraceptives are the only way to avoid “unintended and unhealthy pregnancy,” for example, or that increasing access to contraceptives necessarily produces significant reductions in unintended pregnancies.The latter assumption has been cast into doubt by numerous studies (see http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contraception-fact-sheet-3-17-11.pdf).


    Claim: “The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. And as we move forward, our strong partnerships with religious organizations will continue.”


    Response: False.There is no “balance” in the final HHS rule—one side has prevailed entirely, as the mandate and exemption remain entirely unchanged from August 2011, despite many thousands of comments filed since then indicating intense opposition.Indeed, the White House Press Secretary declared on January 31, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” so little was placed on that side of the scale.The Administration’s stance on religious liberty has also been shown in other ways.Recently it argued before the Supreme Court that religious organizations have no greater right under the First amendment to hire or fire their own ministers than secular organizations have over their leaders– a claim that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court as “extreme” and “untenable.”The Administration recently denied a human trafficking grant to a Catholic service provider with high objective scores, and gave part of that grant instead to a provider with not just lower, but failing, objective scores, all because the Catholic provider refused in conscience to compromise the same moral and religious beliefs at issue here.Such action violates not only federal conscience laws, but President Obama’s executive order assuring “faith-based” organizations that they will be able to serve the public in federal programs without compromising their faith.


    [i] See A. Tarantal, et al., 54 Contraception 107-115 (1996), at 114 (“studies with mifepristone and HRP 2000 have shown both antiprogestins to have roughly comparable activity in terminating pregnancy when administered during the early stages of gestation”); G. Bernagiano & H. von Hertzen, 375 The Lancet 527-28 (Feb. 13, 2010), at 527 (“Ulipristal has similar biological effects to mifepristone, the antiprogestin used in medical abortion”).

    ---
    [Source]
    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 6:02 AM
    Labels: , ,

    Monday, January 30, 2012

    The 1996 Bruskewitz Excommunications: 50,000 letters of support; only 300 negative



    Jim Graves at the National Catholic Register (not the dissident "Reporter"), has an excellent story on Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, 76, of Lincoln, Nebraska.  He is entering his 20th year as bishop of that diocese.  There is some interesting background which then leads into an interview.  One question put forth concerns excommunications he publicized in 1996 (and which were upheld by the Holy See)


    Most bishops in the United States haven’t publicized decrees of excommunication. What led you to publicize decrees of excommunication in 1996?

    That year I became more famous than I ever intended or wished to be. I issued the decree to clarify that one cannot be a loyal Catholic and a member of certain organizations. Call to Action, for example, advocates homosexual “marriage” and other distortions of Catholic teaching. I said that Catholics had a certain time to withdraw from such organizations or face canonical penalties. 
    It hit the national news, and I was interviewed for radio and television programs, such as The Today Show. The reaction I received was overwhelmingly favorable. I received about 50,000 letters of support, versus about 300 negative letters. I’d come home, and I could hardly get into my house, because supporters had sent me bouquets of flowers and baskets of fruit that arrived on my doorstep. Our diocese received a half-million dollars in donations. 
    Many bishops privately offered me their support. Some were astonished, but many said what I did was great, even if it wouldn’t work in their part of the world. I never intended it to be an example to others. It was part of my job as shepherd and chief pastor of Lincoln. 
    I believe we sometimes have to take steps to move beyond the intellect to motivate the will. Sin is not in the intellect, but the will. We do have to inform people about Church teaching, but once that is done, some choose to be willfully sinful. A great lawyer can know the law but still be a criminal. People can know what is right but do wrong. So, in regards to the excommunications, I believed I had to do something. Sometimes action must be taken.


    Read the whole thing: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-bishop-bruskewitz-built-up-the-church-on-the-plains/#ixzz1kuhvfD00

    Here is another interview from 1996 by James Likoudis on the excommunications, at EWTN.

    Just think how the landscape might be different today if bishops had taken a unified approach with Bishop Bruskewitz in 1996.  Catholics involved with those organizations would know exactly where they stand, and what must be done to regularize their status.  The secular media would not be able to parade people from these organizations in front of other Catholics in an effort to create dissonance.  Ordinary Catholics in the pew who get their "catechesis" from the New York Times would not be scandalized as badly if everyone was clear about the Church's position on these groups.  Furthermore, politicians with agendas that conflict with the natural law and Catholic teaching would not be able to hide behind these people and organizations to mislead Catholic voters.

    Let's pray that our bishops change their approach to groups like these in ways that will seriously hinder their ability to undermine the apostolic successors as they have done for decades.  If they operate nationally or internationally, the USCCB ought to have a list of organizations on their website that would make clear to media outlets and politicans those that are out of harmony with the Catholic Church.  It's because these groups seem to enjoy support from some bishops, even if only by their silence about them, that more of the faithful are misled by them.

    I really think the HHS mandate has awoken a sleeping giant.  Perhaps God permitted all of these things to happen to light a fire under the seat of bishops' cassocks.

    If you want further reading on that, Joan Frawley Desmond has a new article out: Sebelius' Contraception Mandate and the Media


    UPDATE:  Here is the statement by Bishop Bruskewitz on the HHS mandate
    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 12:14 AM
    Labels: , ,

    Saturday, January 28, 2012

    Vegetarian shop owners; and, the Catholic bishops' beef with Obama

    This post has been edited and updated. See a growing list of bishop statements below this thought-provoker intended to help non-Catholics understand the issue.  For the record: I'm not a vegetarian. =)  I also understand that my spoof below is not identical to the threat posed to Catholics for a number of reasons (see combox discussion on that ).





    Shock! Utter shock!!! The Obama Administration has mandated that all food stores in the United States selling refrigerated goods, MUST sell beef!

    There is an exemption for vegetarians who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegetarians; and, for vegans who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegans.

    What are the vegetarian and vegan store business owners to do?


    How long will it take for these businesses to go bankrupt if the owners refuse to violate their conscience by carrying beef in their stores? How many people from the area, meat eaters included, frequent and buy some of the excellent products sold at vegetarian/vegan owned shops? Are people forced to shop and work at these places, or is it a choice?

    If the food shop owner happens to be a Jain, then this mandate would not only be expecting him to violate his conscience, but also would be an assault on his religious liberty.

    Get it? Get it?

    OK, so it's a satire - an example of what you might find in a place like, The Onion.   Well, that has some similarities to what the Obama Administration wants to do to Catholic institutions with the HHS mandate (see combox discussion on this point). But, it doesn't just force Catholics and other people of faith with similar convictions to violate their conscience, it's a violation of religious liberty.


    What about the Catholic business owners and other people of faith who don't want to violate their conscience over the HHS mandate?   People are not forced to purchase products or services, or to work for any particular business. Why should those business owners be forced to offer something that is contrary to their religious beliefs?


    Just think of the people - those who are currently defending this mandate, or who are taking a back seat to the assault on liberty of Catholics.  Want to bet that they would fight with vigor if this was about vegetarian and vegan store owners being forced to sell beef!


    Some of the Catholic bishops quoted below



    And now, a word from our bishops

    NOTE: Feel free to drop additional and new statements, interviews, videos, etc. in the combox, but I prefer to have statements from original sources. So, if you see a news item, go to the diocese or the diocesan paper to see if there is something there before providing a news article.

    I don't think any other issue in recent years has galvanized the U.S. Bishops more than the reality of this particular threat.  This threat has many tentacles and we've only scratched the surface.  Look past the excerpts by bishops and read some of their full statements and interviews.

    Where we often see one set of bishops speaking more forcefully about pro-life issues and others about social justice issues, the HHS mandate has unified bishops from one end of that spectrum to the other.  Reading through the names and statements below, you will see what I mean. 

    In most cases I am linking directly to diocesan resources, or the original sources of interviews so you can see full text and not excerpts.  This is just a sampling of what is out there (in no particular order).


    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has an entire page dedicated to this, including information on what you can do!  Along with tools to help you contact Congress, you will find these things:






    USCCB President, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who earlier stated that Obama gave Catholics one year to figure out how to violate their conscience with the mandate,  has a new article which is being carried by the Wall Street Journal:  ObamaCare and Religious Freedom.  In it he states: "Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees."




    Bishop David A. Zubik of the Diocese of Pittsburgh gets the award for the most eye-catching headline: "To Hell with You" (in reference to what the Obama administration is telling Catholics with this action.)  Excerpts have been flying around the internet, but here is the full text, along with some resources.




    Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, who serves as the ad hoc Chair of the USCCB Committee on Religious Liberty said: It is true that the HHS rule includes a religious exemption. This exemption, however, actually constitutes a very narrow governmental definition of the Church’s mission. It applies only to religious organizations that that exist solely to teach doctrine and to serve their own members. This is not how the Catholic Church understands its mission. The Church proclaims the Gospel to all and serves people of all faiths and none with an array of educational, charitable, and social services. Its contributions to the common good of society are immense.  Bishop Lori also had an interview on Fox News.




    Bishop Daniel Jenky brought back an old tradition in the Diocese of Peoria.  Quoting The Catholic Post:  "I am honestly horrified that the nation I have always loved has come to this hateful and radical step in religious intolerance,” and until "the 'grave issues' are favorably resolved, he asked all Sunday Masses in the diocese include the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel for the freedom of the Catholic Church in America."




    Detroit's Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron said the HHS mandate tramples religious freedom. He had a short video interview on a local ABC affiliate, and a longer interview with WJR radio show host, Frank Beckman (all found in this post).




    In Arlington, Bishop Paul S. Loverde said, "a dangerous line has been crossed"




    Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services in the United States said, "We cannot - we will not - comply with this unjust law".  (Note: The letter here is based on a form letter sent out by the USCCB, so similar letters will be seen at other dioceses.  It is rather strongly worded and the bishops sending it out are  basically saying, "it speaks for me."  In some dioceses I'm reading that the bishop wanted it stuffed into bulletins or shared at Masses.  Those using variations of this form letter include Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinatti, and Bishop McFadden of Harrisburg, and Bishop Sample of Marquette and probably many more.)




    Cardinal Wuerl of Washington D.C. offered a video response and in an interview with CNA he said, “This is all new, in the sense that never before in our history has any government simply issued a decree emptying the religious convictions and conscience protections of all the institutions that serve the poor.”


    At the Diocese of Scranton, Bishop Joseph Bambera says, "the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."




    In his column in The Tidings, Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles said, "this is a time for Catholic action and Catholic voices.




    At his blog, Archbishop-Emeritus of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony called the ruling, "a direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience" and, "any candidate refuses to acknowledge and to promote those rights, then that candidate will not receive my vote."




    Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans, commenting from Rome during his ad limina visit, said, "As bishops, we can't stand back and let this go unnoticed."



    Cardinal Sean O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston expresses, "deep disappointment at this unprecedented infringement on religious liberty in our country."




    In the Diocese of Peoria, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky called it a, "bigoted and blatant attack on the First Amendment rights of every Catholic believer."




    Bishop Leonard Blair, urged everyone in the Diocese of Toledo, beginning with the clergy, to address this issue squarely, to inform people what is at stake, to prepare them to make sacrifices for their faith, to keep our country in their prayers, and to work to overturn what we Bishops have called a ‘literally unconscionable’ decision by the Obama Administration."


    In the Catholic Spirit of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Archbishop John Nienstedt said, this is the logical result of a seismic change in this administration’s approach to religious groups involved in providing social services to, among others, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the immigrant



    Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison asks Catholics to pray and offer sacrifices like fasting, and to contact members of Congress.




    Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston said: HHS's mandate includes an incredibly narrow exemption for "religious employers" that protects almost no one. Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families, their employees or those most in need.




    Bishop Farrel (Diocese of Dallas) and Bishop Vann (Diocese of Forth Worth) co-authored a guest column in the Star-Telegram in which they said: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." But in recent days the latest salvo in the attack on religious freedom was fired by the Obama administration and, sadly, by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic.


    Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/26/3691131/vann-and-farrell-obama-administration.html#storylink=cpy


    Bishop Patrick Zurek of the Diocese of Amarillo has an interview and a video response.  He points out:  First of all, it’s much broader than just contraceptives, the Order also includes pills that can act as abortifacients. So it is a very serious threat to our Catholic moral tradition and belief; and, The Right of Conscience, or Freedom of Conscience, is supreme in our Catholic tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas was very clear on that point. The Second Vatican Council even refined this more. The Second Vatican Council teaches that “Conscience is that inner sanctum within each individual human being where the individual meets God.”




    Archbishop Thomas Wenski of the Archdiocese of Miami said, "To force all of us to buy coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including drugs that induce abortion, is a radical incursion into freedom of conscience."



    Archbishop Robert Carlson of St. Louis point out: "Even Jesus and the apostles would not be 'religious enough' under such a test, as they served and healed people of different religions."


    Additional statements by bishops will be added above this note (see what I have noted next to Archbishop Broglio's statement about a form letter being used.  Some bishops feel it speaks for them and are using it; others are adding in a few words of their own.  I'd like to collect unique statements here, whether they accompany the form letter, or do not use the form letter).
    Several blogs have quoted something by Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB communications.  She may have coined something new here (empahsis mine in bold):

    Some months ago HHS refused to award an anti-trafficking grant to the U.S. Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services (MRS). It did so despite MRS’s scoring higher on an objective scale (according to the government’s independent advisors evaluating grant applications) than two of the three organizations that were awarded grants. (And two of those scored so low that they were deemed unqualified.) I suggested then that HHS had an ABC rule, “Anybody But Catholics.” Now I wonder if ABC isn’t also the answer to who gets freedom of religion.

    Additional links:

    The Anchoress talks about having shared my example with a friend:

    Reading this to a vegetarian friend of mine — she’s not a Vegan; she eats dairy — I was not surprised at her expression of outrage for the sake of the Vegan shop owners. She wondered if there was any sort of petition being offered or a demonstration being planned, because she’d participate: “I may not be a full Vegan, but that’s not right! You can’t force a Vegan to sell beef! That would be like telling them they have to actually slaughter the cow — it would repulse them! They wouldn’t be able to do it!”

    Nota Bene: There is a Facebook page for standing with the US Bishops against the HHS mandate
    For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

    Te Deum Laudamus! Home

    The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
    Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.
    Posted by Diane Korzeniewski at 6:10 AM
    Labels: , ,
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)