"Not Remotely The Issue"

FURTHER DISHONESTY FROM MIKE'S FAVORED HORSE (the "Catholic" candidate):

Gingrich Asks Florida GOP to Allocate Delegates Proportionally
National Journal By Sarah Huisenga | National Journal – 8 hrs ago

From National Journal

LAS VEGAS -- Newt Gingrich’s campaign on Thursday confirmed that it will ask the Florida Republican Party to allocate its delegates proportionally rather than allowing state primary winner Mitt Romney to claim all 50 at the Republican National Convention.

The move drew criticism from state party officials as well as Romney, who accused his rival of not acting in enough haste. "It would be nice if Speaker Gingrich would challenge the rules before he's lost as opposed to after he has lost," Romney said on Fox News' Hannity.

Speaking to reporters following a Hispanic Leadership Roundtable in Las Vegas, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said the campaign would be sending a letter to the Florida GOP.

The Republican National Committee “sent out rules last winter and stated any contest held before a certain date must award its delegates proportionally,” Hammond told the media. “Florida moved its [primary] inside of this date. So therefore, we're asking the state party of Florida to enforce the existing rules, which state they must award their delegates proportionally.”

Asked if they would be contesting the state’s allocation process had Gingrich won in Florida, Hammond replied, “Probably not.”

In response to the newly raised questions about Florida’s winner-take-all status, the Republican Party of Florida put out a statement from chairman Lenny Curry explaining that a rule unanimously passed by its executive board unequivocally stated that Florida would be winner-take-all “if the primary date was moved by statute and Florida was penalized by RNC for the move.”

“Florida was winner-take-all before Election Day, we were winner-take-all on Election Day, we will remain winner-take-all,” the statement read.

In response to the Gingrich campaign’s recent efforts to challenge the ruling, Curry wrote, “It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing.”

Romney, for his part, said he isn't concerned about the rule process. "It's going to be worked out by the Republican National Committee," he said.

Michael, this issue is primarily and succinctly about contraception. This situation with HHS is merely an avenue by which the USCCB can barge in (and that includes bedrooms), and then make a whole lot of noise about feeling victimized, persecuted with implications of martyrdom for their pet cause. Yes, there are issues related to "religious freedom" (a dubious statement coming from the USCCB) and resurrecting the contraceptive issue to the front burner under the guise of government persecuting religious influence is apparent for all to see.

All of this is happening, oh so (what shall I say) --coincidentally --in this election year, and it was primed to coincide with "March for Life", (--thousands-- showed up) and so it reflects the power and control the USCCB once again wants this year, particularly as Obama is beginning his campaign and, sounding way out there to be sure (but maybe not so much) , we have a strident, ultra-fundamentalist, ultra-traditionalist Catholic also running for the presidency that, despite his background, is being fawned over by those same Catholics and hierarchy because of the very remote possibility of overturning Roe versus Wade.

There are built in and I believe now many more explicit reasons why this invasion of the USCCB into the offices of HHS is taking place at this time in our country and only a few are listed above.

Bottom line is that it is no secret ------whatsoever----- that the hierarchy and the Vatican are still blistering over the rightful refusal of the laity to remain reproductive puppets in the whole ecclesial scheme of things. The hierarchy and the Vatican must have had one huge, egotistical presumption that the laity would fall on their knees upon their reception of Humane Vitae in the late 60's. When that did not happen, when the rightful refusal of the laity to do same and in fact when the laity made private and personal decisions related to their sexual expression, something hit the fan.

And thus now we have the USCCB (under direction from across the pond?) aggressively invading the contraceptive issue using again whatever means possible, this time via the government, to incrementally remove access to contraception. In fact, dare I ask about their involvement (hidden to be sure) in the Planned Parenthood debacle with the Susan G. Komen Foundation and should that be any surprise to anyone?

The hierarchy is in dire straits these days on all fronts. The sex scandals, for example, come to mind and again, not to be a 'coincidental' conspiracist, isn't it rather remarkable that Catholicism versus the HHS is happening as we type, as names of priests are being exposed, as victims are coming forth??

Think about it, folks. There's an app, I mean -name- for it: deflection. And that's a non-stop endeavor which, when all is said and done, will fall flat also.

Pride, indeed, goes before the fall. And it's there for all to see, right now.

Distinctly Roman Catholic Theologian, columnist Manson has a distinctly Catholic take on this issue, well worth reading prayerfully at

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/unconscionable-consequences-con...

Lots of emotion; she makes it personal about Obama vs. Keehan. Did she read Sr. Carol's response to the HHS decision. Much more nuanced, rational, and measured than this tiresome display.

First - despite Dolan's whining, this HHS decision is not about conscience unless you believe that bishops/church as corporations are people. This decision is about a "traditional" religious liberty exemption

Second - it is correct to reach political differences or warnings about this decision. It is interesting that many on this NCR blog don't really question the social justice, PPACA support, and supporting the lower economic levles with access to total healthcare (specifically) women. The whine seems to be about the fact that Obama will no longer treat the catholic church/bishops as "special"

Third - respect that any limitation of a religious liberty exemption is on a slippery slope; but do you really want to make your stand on the issue of contraceptives?

Fourth - the hue and cry over sterilizations/abortifacients can only be supported if you take the extreme and unscientific position that a human person begins with conception.

Again, let's let Sr. Carol work with HHS/Obama on this - clear, reasoned heads that see the big picture; uphold the church's social justice imperatives, and keep a balance on this hue and cry.

Sorry, this will be just like FOCA - lots of "J'Accuse" but little traction.

In fact, one could say that it took some courage to make this decision in an election year - would Republicans or Congress do that?

You cite that Susan Komen Foundation pulled because they wanted to fund direct delivery of mammograms. If you keep this up, it will be like watching Fox News and keeping count of all the inaccurate "facts" they use; the biased interpretations; etc.

Komen just reversed their decision (guess you can write about that MSW). It appears that some of the PP clinics are the only service delivery in many areas (contrary to your factual statement).

The key Komen decision about service delivery was pushed, positioned, and motivated because of their belief that they should not support organizations under congressional investigation. But, you know, that is like French law - you are guilty until you prove your innocence. That is not our system.

Congressional sub-committees investigate for lots of reasons in an election year - political; to score points; etc. and it has little to do with facts.

You have lost your perspective on this.

If the issue is about conscience and not contraception, then there is no relevance to the question of abortifacients, which actually are not because if the soul is not active until gastrulation, preventing gastrulation from happening is not abortion. Until the genetics of both parents are equally active in development, you cannot infer the pressence of a soul, especially if one of those parents may not even be human.

If, on the other hand, the question is about conscience and not contraception, then the consciences of Catholic students and employees are due an equal share of protection as the bishops who would limit their ability to exercise their consciences. It is still Truthspeak to speak of one's own conscience rights at the expense of those who have earned the benefits or paid for them through their tuition. While I am sure many donors agree with the bishops on contraception - I am also sure that many do not.

What am I missing? The establishment church has demonstrated over and over again in recent times that it will make the policing of women's reproductive rights THE issue over all others. This is no different and their attack on Obama is a red herring.

To call a President who has battled to extend healthcare to millions of uninsured Americans, "anti-Catholic" is to ignore the very direct call of the Gospels to feed the poor, tend to the sick, visit those in prison.

Christ asked for no exemptions, even as he was being led to his Crucifixion. Why do the princes of the Church believe they are special?

Perhaps their infatuation with the thrice married, Tiffany-customer, Newt Gingrich with his million dollar fees for being a historian while he mocks the "food stamp" President springs from the fact that Newt's behavior aligns more closely with their notion of leadership. It is one that Tom Roberts in The Emerging Catholic Church describes correctly as "prone to royal bearing and distance from the everyday lives of the people" rather than the personally empowering Vatican II model that millions of Catholics subscribe to. Catholics are not looking to the legalistic approach of the Bishops for a map on how to live their lives. As Roberts says "The people of God are, simply put,more intriguing, and complicated than any interest group's talking points."

President Obama's "preferential option for the poor" is far, far more Catholic than anything Newt Gingrich or the Bishops are capable of imagining. He is a catholic President.

I am so sick of the Church's being so hung up on the don'ts, rather than on the do's. Or, as might be expected, the Church would deny giving precedence to don'ts, then let them at least acknowledge that somehow the publicity attendant on the don'ts so far exceeds that on the do's, that the Church needs to push hard to be heard more on the do's. Like care for the hungry, the unemployed, the sick,the young, the stranger, the outcast.

And, sad but true, our friends on the HHS issues are our enemies on the justice issues, and our friends on the justice issues are our enemies on the HHS issues. Thus we have to be sophisticated and complex in our dealings, not simplistic on one and counter-justice on the other.

The idea that bishops’ or the Catholic Church’s “consciences” are violated by being required to “write a check” for health insurance premiums that include features with which they disagree is nonsense.

Bishops “write checks” for very few things, and health insurance premiums are **not** included.

Exactly who DOES fund health insurance premiums?

• School income at all levels comes from tuition, scholarships and grants.

• Hospital income comes from insurance payments, patients’ co-pays and research grants.

• Catholic Charities income comes from donations, grants and various governmental contracts.

• Even parish and seminary income comes from donations. In the case of seminaries, Bishops are only a “pass-through” vehicle.

• Income for monasteries and convents comes from some product sales, but mostly from their congregations who get their income from a variety of sources – and I doubt very seriously if Bishops are a major source of income for them.

Victimhood is a mantle that doesn’t fit in this case.

The "religious freedom" guaranteed by the Constitution is the freedom of the individual. It is the freedom of an individual both to live by his or her own faith and to be free from being required to live by someone else's faith.

There has to be a balance, a way of drawing some lines around one person's religious freedom impinging on another person's religious freedom. We have to have that balance if we are to exist as a society that respects the rights of both. How do we draw those lines? It seems to me that the definition of "religious employer" in the HHS regulations is as close as we can come to defining a group that can be assumed will agree that they have the same definitions of "religion" and so agree on rules under which they will live. We assume a commonality of belief and practice within the group.

On the issue of contraceptives and sterilization, we know, the government knows, and the Church knows that there is no such agreement. We know that to grant the bishops the right of "religious freedom" does in fact violate the religious freedom of tens of thousands of others. Even the Catholic Church knows that what the bishops are doing is an attempt to deny other Catholics to live according to their own conscience.

When are the Catholic people going to be part of your definition of the Catholic Church?

Bravo for an excellent and courageous article. This is exactly about freedom of conscience. Millions of Catholics do not dissent from the Church's teachings on contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs, and choose to live their lives in accord with those teachings. My family are among them. And it's not just Catholics whose freedom of conscience is affronted by the HHS mandate. Lawsuits and protests been lodged against this HHS mandate by other Christian Groups as well as Jews and Muslims. If the President and Secretary Sebelius are so intent on contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations being made available to everyone, I'm sure they could get Bill & Melinda Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett and others of like mind to pay for their universal and free availability. But to coerce faithful Catholics and others of like principle to pervert their institutions by doing so violates their freedom of conscience. As Michael writes, coercion of conscience is a violation of human dignity. Forcing Mother Theresa to hand out condoms may be "red meat for the base" -- but only to the extent that the base is rabidly anti-Catholic, rabidly anti-traditional religionist, and anti-First Amendment. Kinda reminds me of 2 Maccabees 7, which recounts the story of a pagan emperor who thought it would be fun to force a Jewish Mother and her seven sons to eat pork in violation of the tenets of their faith. They all refused and, one by one, were brutally executed, last of all their Mother. Some of your posters evidently think they should have all complied with the emperor's decree, since after all it was the law; or that their claimed faith-based objection was insincere or invalid, or in any event not deserving of any respect, since most Jews of their day did not strictly observe the Mosaic dietary laws; or that their resistance was an attempted power grab. I just read the Complaint filed in DDC by Belmont Abbey College against the HHS mandate -- powerful (and I predict, ultimately winning) stuff. (It's by the same lawyers who just won a First Amendment case 9-0 at the Supreme Court). For those who don't get what this is all about, and why President Obama and Secretary Sebelius will lose and lose badly, I commend William Lee Miller's treatise on Freedom of Conscience, which he calls the very "First" of our liberties as Americans.

We had the Virginia Catholic conference letter today at Mass. Interestingly, the bishops asked for two things: prayer and fasting and going to web pages and signing up for e-mail updates.

First off, fasting does not work as a bribe to God - but as a way to get to either self-mastery or a sense of powerlessness - doing it for a cause unless you are hunger-striking has no value.

Second, I am suspicious of calls to go to a web page to register one's opinion - especially if it is to a sponsor site rather than to your member of Congress or the White House. Too often these "petitions" become mailing lists to be used for fundraising and "voter education."

The pro-life movement is known for their ability to make and sell these lists. I expect the FOCA lists were sold to Republican operatives and this project will be no exception. Expect to get some kind of correspondence in October about this issue if you support the bishop's position - and expect it to contain slanted information opposing the President. Think I'm wrong? If you register on any of these pages, use your confirmation name and see what mail you get and from whom this fall.