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.

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:

• Six more things everyone should know about the HHS mandate (USCCB blog)
• Archbishops Kurtz and Chaput join protests over 'unacceptable' attack on religious liberty (N.C. Register)
• How the White House's 98% Contraception Figure for Catholics is Wrong (Tom Hoopes/Catholic Vote)
• Obama seen working to splinter Catholic community (Catholic Culture)
• Cardinal-Designate Dolan says bishops are not 'Obama Haters' (John Allen / I don't normally link to the NCR, but John Allen's articles are an exception because he is the exception there)
• Fr. Jenkins: Where is your signature? (Pat Archbold/N.C. Register)
• Just a minute Mr. President (Cardinal Roger Mahony)
• The Audacity of Power: President Obama vs. the Catholic Church (Charles Kadlec/Forbes)
• Intolerance is at the heart of Obamacare (James Taranto/WSJ)
• Obama has stranded the Catholic 'left' (Elizabeth Scalia / First Things)
• Democrats to Catholics: We don't want you (Rod Dreher)
• The pseudo-magisterium needs to be neutered (Te Deum Laudamus)

---

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.

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):

• USCCB: The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services
• Archbishop Chaput: Catholics should not be misled into accepting feeble compromises" on "dangerous and insulting" HHS mandate.....  
• This maneuver was a fraud and an absurdity (George Weigel)
• Don't be deceived! Evil Obama policy now even more evil! (Jimmy Akin)
•  The bishops' tougher response to the Obama 'compromise' mandate (Phil Lawler)
• The White House in bed with the Magisterium of Nuns (Father Z)
• The Counter-Cultural Church has a Credible "Yes" (Elizabeth Scalia)
• Obama "Accommodation" Reactions (Elizabeth Scalia)
• EWTN has no plans to drop lawsuit against U.S. government (N.C. Register)
• Fr. Jenkins, where is your signature? (N.C. Register)

 More:

• Obama's contraception retreat is not enough (U.S.A. Today)
• The Church of Obama (Mark Steyn)
• The Libertine Police State (George Weigel)
• Cardinal Mahony: Just a Minute, Mr. President!

---

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.

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.

Video and Text: Bp Slattery's response to Obama's "accomodation"

In the meanwhile, Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, Oklahoma has released his own statement, and we may see other bishops doing the same.

Here is video; below is the text

My response to President Obama's HHS mandate "accommodation"
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.

• 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 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.

The USCCB has issued a statement, which is, to my mind, a pass on making a more formal statement at this time. I'm perfectly fine with Dolan issuing his statement for the USCCB on Monday.  It will give him time to get buy-in on the language from other bishops.  I just hope he puts something out as good as what Bishop Slattery offered.

Before everyone gets upset thinking that +Dolan is giving in, you need to read very carefully.

February 10, 2012


New opportunity to dialogue with executive branch
Too soon to tell whether and how much improvement on core concerns
Commitment to religious liberty for all means legislation still necessary


WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.


“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.


“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

First, I don't think it's all bad for a more formal statement to come out early next week. 

What I want to point out here is that the USCCB, in this, "we'll talk to you when we're ready" statement, Dolan talks about it being a "step in the right direction". Well, pay attention to the "it" he is talking about. I don't believe he is talking about the President's words, but the fact that Obama is recognizing something needs to change. Further up in the statement he says that the USCCB continues to express concerns. Stay tuned early next week for a more thorough response.

---

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.

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.

• New Advent
• Catholic Vote Blog
• National Catholic Register
• Catholic Culture
• Catholic League
• Father Z
• Catholic Blogs at Patheos
• PewSitter
• Real Clear Politics (Political portal which has had much discussion on this - both ways)
• LifeNews
• LifeSiteNews
• Catholic Lane
• Catholic World Report Blog

---

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.

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.

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.

HHS Mandate & Archbp Vigneron interviews; and, Belmont Abbey College vs. Sebelius

Detroit's Archbishop, Allen H. Vigneron, was interviewed by local ABC affiliate, WXYZ. There is a much longer interview on local radio. You can listen by going to this link at the Archdiocese of Detroit (may load slowly so be patient).  You can also find the link on January 23, 2012 at the page of the interviewer, Frank Beckman at WJR.

This was a very good interview and the Archbishop points out why so many other groups should be concerned with the impact that this could have on the Catholic Church.

The exemption that the Obama Administration wants to give is ridiculously narrow.  What it means is that Catholic hospitals, universities and other institutions would only qualify for the exemption if they limited their service and employment to Catholics only!!!

Catholic Hospitals, Schools, and Soup Kitchens

If a hospital were to hire only Catholics to work in Catholic hospitals, and only serve Catholics, they would then likely be charged with discrimination; so on it's face, it's a catch-22.  Further, what if a Muslim, Hindu, atheist or Protestant were to end up in an accident at the intersection of the hospital, what is that hospital suppose to do - refuse treatement because they aren't Catholic?  What if that is the hospital where their practitioner practices and to go elsewhere would drive up out-of-pocket expense for going, "outside of network", which may ultimately be prohibitive? How does that impact the rights of individuals to choose their own doctor?

Many non-Catholics have chosen to go to Catholic schools and universities.  Should these institutions post a sign that says "non-Catholics need not apply?"  What about the rights of students to attend a school of their choice, with full knowledge that at a Catholic institution they won't be able to get certain things because those things violate the conscience of Catholics? They no longer have a choice to attend such a school, even if they are willing to accept such a practice.  How many non-Catholic students attending Belmont Abbey College would choose to go elsewhere, if they knew couldn't get a condom on campus, or birth control pills?  How many employees would reject an employment opportunity with Belmont Abbey College if their insurance didn't cover these things?  Do students and employees not have a choice to go to hundreds of other colleges that do offer these things?

And then, there are the soup kitchens and other services for the poor, like warming centers and shelters, and adoption centers.  Can you see a Catholic soup kitchen refusing to serve non-Catholics?  Perhaps this mandate doesn't fully impact these services in the way it does hospitals, but who is to say that it won't - eventually? Ponder for a moment the loss of all of these things to a community because they won't cover condoms and birth control pills.  What does it mean when a soup kitchen must close? Are we to believe the government is going to step in and take over?

Here's the bottom line:  Obama is trying to destroy all of the good that the Catholic Church does in terms of service to the community, and he is using dissident Catholics in his administration to do it.  How much more do the bishops need to see from certain Catholic politicians before they take public action? As long as the bishops are silent on this aspect, Obama, and the media can continue to pedal them as, "devout".  The fruit of reticence couldn't be more manifest than in the scandal caused for decades by Catholic politicians and school officials who retain good standing in the Church despite persistent public actions in opposition to the Church.  That said, I'm very glad to see our bishops speaking out, and boldly; but, until they do something about the pseudo-magisterium of theologians, politicians, and nuns, they have a real uphill battle.

The net effect of this is very clear.  It means the end of Catholic hospitals, schools, soup kitchens and more.  There really can be no other way to look at it because that is the long term effect.  The Catholic Church will not permit what it considers to be a violation of the 10 Commandments in order to do other goods (Veritatis Splendor 75).  It won't do it, because it can't (setting aside those officials at Catholic-in-name-only institutions who distort Catholic teaching using a pseudo-magisterium of theologians).

ALL EYES ARE ON BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE VS. SEBELIUS

Now, there is a case winding it's way through the system thanks to the Becket Fund.  You will want to follow the case of Belmont Abbey College vs. Sebelius.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty represents Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic liberal arts college founded by Benedictine monks, in a lawsuit against the federal government to protect Belmont Abbey’s right to be true to its principles. As a Catholic college, Belmont Abbey teaches that contraception, sterilization, and abortion are against God’s law.

So in August 2011, when the federal government issued a regulation requiring that all group health plans must cover “[FDA-]approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” Belmont Abbey knew it could not be true to both the government mandate and its Church’s teachings. This is so because FDA-approved contraceptives include a number of drugs Belmont Abbey, and many scientists, consider to be abortifacients—most notably Plan B and Ella. Were Belmont Abbey to choose not to cover contraception and sterilization as required by the government mandate, it would be penalized with a hefty fine and forced to terminate its health insurance for employees and students. For example, a religious organization with 100 employees would have to pay the federal government $140,000 per year for the “privilege” of not underwriting medical services it believes are immoral. In other words, Belmont Abbey would be forced to pay for the right to remain true to its principles!

Although the government regulation includes an exemption from the mandate for certain religious employers, Belmont Abbey believes that it will not be exempted from the mandate’s requirements. The exemption is extremely narrow... [continue reading at the Becket Fund site]

If you want to help, consider going to that page at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and donate, then spread the word. Support them generously.

Further reading:

I was trying to find the full text or audio/video of the main homilies at the March for Life.  If anyone has a link to these, please drop them into the combox.  I found people claiming to have "full text" but they were merely news reports.

• USCCB Statement: Bishops decry HHS rule, urge Catholics to stand up for religious liberty and conscience rights in homilies at vigil for life.
• Obama offends the Catholic Left (Wall Street Journal)
• Even Cardinal Mahony blogged on the HHS mandate saying he cannot imagine a more frontal attack on freedom of conscience.  See a post about that at Catholic Vote by Tom Crowe
• Notes from homilies of Cardinal DiNardo and Cardinal-Designate Dolan from March for Life (Catholic Culture)
• Cardinal DiNardo: We are walking through Ninevah! (Catholic Tide)
• Father Z: Robert George on Pres. Obama's attack on religious freedom and Catholics
• Catholic leaders criticize ‘profoundly troubling’ contraception mandate (CNA)
• J'ACCUSE! Why Obama is wrong on the HHS conscience regulations (n.b.: Obama supporter and Catholic, Sean Michael Winters, writes for the dissident rag, the National catholyc Reporter, and even he gets it; says "Obama lost my vote".  Father Z fisked a related piece in what has become known as "the fishwrap" ). 
• Cardinal Wuerl laments push toward 'monolithic' secularism (Catholic Culture)
• Cardinal DiNardo: HHS mandate gravely compromises religious liberty
• Has Obama lost the Catholic left? (Cardinal Newman Society blog)
• Obama Administration picks a fight with Catholics (Washington Post - not exactly a Catholic-friendly publication, and they get it)
• Pennsylvannia Bishops speak out on HHS Mandate (Diocese of Pittsburgh)
• Video from 2009 of Cardinal George warning that Obama was moving US towards depotism 

---

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.

Bill Donohue to appear on Fox News at 1:15 to discuss HHS mandate

From the Catholic League (emphasis mine in bold):

The announcement on January 20 by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius that religious non-profits will have to cover sterilization and contraceptive services, including some abortion-inducing drugs, is being met with growing rancor. Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to this issue today:


Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, responded to the Obama administration’s edict by saying, “Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience.”

Joining him in this assessment is an unlikely ally, namely the editorial board of the Washington Post. Today, the editorial on this subject says that “requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views.”


Michael Sean Winters at the liberal National Catholic Reporter was highly critical of the Obama edict; he even went so far as to say that Obama “lost my vote” as a result of this decision. Some prominent priests and nuns who initially supported Obamacare have also expressed their opposition to this ruling.


What’s going on? Many of those who tend to side with abortion-rights advocates also hold to the very American principle of respecting conscience rights; when these issues collide, the latter proves decisive.


The Obama administration made a fatal flaw when it assumed that most people are not going to get worked up about healthcare plans that carry contraceptive coverage. If the plans were voluntarily adopted, the administration would be right. But the difference in this instance is that this service is being mandated by the federal government, allowing no exceptions for those who in good conscience cannot go along; the inclusion of abortifacients in the policy only deepens the problem.

There is a high price paid for arrogance in politics. Stay tuned—this issue isn’t going to go away. (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.

US Bishops: Obama Administration decision literally unconscionable

Photo: AP

USCCB President, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, came out swinging after HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius stated that church groups must provide contraception.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan on HHS Conscience Regulation from Rocco Palmo on Vimeo.

Here is what accompanied the video:

WASHINGTON—Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), sharply criticized the decision by the Obama administration in which it “ordered almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans.” He made the statement in a web video posted at: http://bcove.me/ob5itz9v. . .

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said.

On January 20, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Health and Human Services, announced that non-profit employers will have one year to comply with the new rule.

Cardinal-designate Dolan urged Catholics and the public at large to speak out in protest.

“Let your elected leaders know that you want religious liberty and rights of conscience restored and that you want the administration’s contraceptive mandate rescinded,” he said.

Here is the full text from the USCCB website (my comments bracketed in red)

Unconscionable to force citizens to buy contraceptives against their will
No change in limited exemption, only delay in enforcement
Matter of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion

[emphasis mine in bold]

WASHINGTON—The Catholic bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” [Classic +Dolan ] said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.

At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.

“This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,” [since when has Obama concerned himself with the Constitution?] said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”

Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with the decision.  [What did Keehan expect?!?!?] Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care annually.

“This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection,” Sister Keehan said.

Cardinal-designate Dolan urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.

“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.”

Let's see.  In addition to the above, Sebelius, a Catholic, has:

• protected the gruesome, partial birth abortion, while the governor of Kansas
• vetoed attempts to further regulate partial birth abortion, as HHS secretary
• palled-up with late-term abortionist George Tiller

This is beyond Canon 915.  How much more do the responsible bishops need to see?

'nuff said

---

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.