The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionWhy the bishops will never be satisfied
by Jamie L Manson on Feb. 13, 2012
"It seems clear there is no exemption for Catholic and other individuals who work for secular employers; for such individuals who own or operate a business; or for employers who have a moral (not religious) objection ... This presents a grave moral problem that must be addressed."
When Archbishop Timothy Dolan's initial reaction to President Barack Obama's compromise on the contraception mandate was "It's a step in the right direction," I knew it was too good to be true.
I knew this because, the night before the compromise was announced, I had listened carefully to Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the USCCB, imply that the bishops were seeking conscience exemptions for far more entities than Catholic institutions. As he said on PBS's "Newshour," the exemptions should cover "both religious employers and employers with religious people running them or other people of conviction who are running them."
I also listened carefully to Luke Goodrich, general counsel for the highly conservative Becket Fund, who spoke to CNN immediately after Obama announced his compromise. Goodrich shared Picarello's concern, saying, "A lot of religious individuals who own small business are not covered by this supposed compromise and they are going to be forced to violate their religious beliefs, too."
Although the bishops did not mention their desire to cover the rights of secular employers and small business owners in their formal statement, an internal, bishops-only briefing memo obtained by Whispers in the Loggia's Rocco Palmo, confirms this as one of their goals:
These statements demonstrate how disingenuous the bishops have been in their cries about Obama's attack on the Catholic church and in their claims of concern over the fate of Catholic hospitals, universities and charities.
Their goals go far beyond Catholic entities. What they really seek is to enable secular employers to impose their religious ideologies on the lives of their employees.
We have heard the bishops talk a lot about the First Amendment over the last week. The First Amendment text about religion reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
How does this amendment defend the right of secular employers to use their religious beliefs to burden the civil rights of their employees? To allow secular employees or small business owners this kind of conscience exemption from U.S. law would be a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
All U.S. citizens are forced to pay for practices that violate their consciences: wars, executions, a broken prison system, the mistreatment of immigrants, the salaries of elected officials who do not represent our ideas and convictions. We may not like it, but this is the price of living and working in a democracy.
But the bishops do not seem interested living in a democratic nation founded principally to protect its citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They seem more interested developing a bizarre form of theocracy in which personal religious ideology can trump civil law.
The Obama compromise showed that some members of his administration were wise to the fact that the bishops had a much broader agenda behind the contraception battle. Why members of liberal Catholic groups and the liberal Catholic media couldn't see this remains a mystery. It isn't hard to figure out their agenda if one reads Archbishop Dolan's announcement of the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, dated Sept. 29, 2011.
In this letter, Dolan lays out examples of "grave" challenges to religious freedom. He appointed the ad hoc committee to look at these six issues in particular:
- The HHS-mandated coverage of contraception and sterilizations
- The HHS requirement that the USCCB's office of Migration and Refugee Services offer reproductive services to victims of sex trafficking
- USAID's increasing requirement to provide HIV prevention services (including condoms) in certain international relief and development programs
- The Department of Justice's refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and its criticism of DOMA as an act of bigotry
- The Department of Justice's argument against expanding the "ministerial exception," which allows religious groups to be exempt from employment laws, including claims to sexual harassment and unlawful termination
- The narrow religious exemption in New York state's same-sex marriage bill, which, in particular, doesn't protect the rights of county clerks to refuse to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples for moral reasons
Here is the full agenda of the bishops' fight for religious freedom. Looking over this list, it becomes clear that if Obama had given the bishops an inch, eventually they would have taken six miles.
Dolan's announcement also clarifies why so many evangelical groups, who otherwise support the use of contraception within marriage, came to the bishops' defense. They knew full well that if the bishops got this exemption, it would create a small opening that other religious groups could continue to widen in their own fight against recognizing same-sex marriages.
The evangelicals may not share the bishops' moral objections to contraception, but they have formed a united front with the Catholic hierarchy in the war on same-sex civil unions and marriage. They declared the war in a joint statement titled "Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods that Stand or Fall Together."
The letter was released Jan. 12, just weeks before the contraception controversy dominated the headlines. In it, Catholic bishops and leaders of right-wing Christian organizations warned that if employers are forced to recognize civil unions and marriages between people of the same sex, they will also be forced to obey the same laws that apply to heterosexual couples.
And like the contraception coverage, these religious leaders want secular employers protected, too. The letter states, "The most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations -- throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies -- to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct."
The religious leaders lament that both religious institutions and individuals who object to same-sex marriage will be forced to comply with laws governing "employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation."
The bishops' defense of secular individuals is not without precedent. When the same-sex marriage bill passed in Connecticut in 2009, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, who now serves as chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, attempted to extend religious liberty protections to florists who might object to same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.
Mr. Obama's compromise is shrewd in that it shines a light on the true motivations behind the bishops' crusade. The bishops' complaint was that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities would have to pay for services that are not consistent with Catholic doctrine. Mr. Obama arranged it so they would not have to pay for those services. The hierarchy, therefore, should be as pleased as Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Larry Synder.
The fact that the bishops aren't satisfied suggests they and their right-wing religious and political brethren had a broader agenda at work all along. Members of the Obama administration should be applauded for seeing through the bogus holy war they ignited.
In their objection to Obama's compromise, the bishops argue that it "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."
This criticism is ironic, since the bishops are insisting that employers have the right to force their personal morality on their employees. They are demanding that employers to be allowed to coerce employees -- through the denial of benefits -- into accepting their personal or religious convictions.
If such a scenario had been allowed, it would have created a hostile work environment for women and gay and lesbian employees not only in Catholic institutions, but in the secular work force as well. It would have legitimized, if not codified, our society's disrespect for the rights of women, gays and lesbians.
Most of all, it would have fostered the anti-feminist, anti-gay culture that so many right-wing religious and political groups dream of.
Mr. Obama's compromise averts what could have been the beginning of a disaster for human and civil rights. If given this pass, the bishops would no doubt have continued to achieve the goals set out by the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty.
And if that had been allowed to happen, eventually this could have happened, too: Poor- and working-class women would be denied adequate health care, trafficked women who are systematically raped would be denied reproductive care, those threatened by the global HIV epidemic would be denied life-saving prophylactics, and gays and lesbians would be denied the rights to which they are entitled as working, tax-paying citizens.
By refusing to cave in to the demands a religious and political right-wing agenda, Mr. Obama actually upheld the Constitution: He ensured that most individuals in this nation will be guaranteed equal protection under the laws.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School, where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
| Editor's note: We can send you an email alert every time Jamie Manson's column, "Grace on the Margins," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: Email alert sign-up. If you already receive email alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list. |
Thank you Ms Manson for
Thank you Ms Manson for keeping reasoning in such an irrational debate!
It would be the hierarchs
It would be the hierarchs greatest, biggest dream if they could get the government to enforced their anti-feminine ideology, i.e. no contraceptives for anyone, when they have failed to convince Catholic women and men for decades.
Sadly this ill-fated political gambit further demonstrates the hierarch's irrelevance to and alienation from the everyday lives of Catholic men and women, and in the greater society at large.
This whole episode of the hierarchs' political intrusion into the presidential election campaign is actually rooted in the internal politics of the Catholic Church: First, please their patroni in the Vatican. Second, extend their political hegemony over the rest of the church. Third, do every thing you can do to further demean and denigrate the status of women.
CATHOLICS AS RABBITS ........
CATHOLICS AS RABBITS ........ So right you are, Jim.
For more detail on how we got here, please read the comment, "Catholics Are Not Rabbits", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/what-about-contraception
Let the bishops get honest
Let the bishops get honest for a change. Let them get rid of all the trappings of their status, step down, step out and work with the poor of this nation and internationally. Go to the Phillipines and see the problems that the birth control issue has caused first hand - starvation and a people who now are can't feed themselves from the oceans that they have fished dry because of overpopulation. I have no idea how these men sleep at night when the very things they are putting forward and pushing as a moral issue are causing such grave harm to human beings. And they know it! Shame on each of them. They have a lot to answer for to God. This is just my opinion.
When I read that the ACCB was
When I read that the ACCB was going to sue the government for violating their first amendment rights it made me wonder where the funds for this were coming from. So many millions of our tithing dollars have already gone to paying for child abuse lawsuits and their victims that there must not be much left. How many parishes have already gone bankrupt? Do they have a separate "legal" funds account? Do they have to request permission to use it?
I don't think this is what Jesus meant for our 10% return to the church to be spent on.
ELECTION YEAR PLOY .........
ELECTION YEAR PLOY ......... Manuel, I agree. But Jamie, a non-lawyer, omitted to mention the bishops' real objective that appears so obvious to me as a lawyer. Obama has been outspoken against child sexual abuse and his prosecutors are even involved in a case related to Cardinal Rigali's protege and Opus Dei member, Kansas City's Bishop Finn. The bishops want to replace Obama with a "friendlier" US prosecutor-in-chief, like Santorum. The bishops are terrified of another four years of an Obama Justice Department.
For more info on the pope and bishops' contraceptive Trojan Horse strategy to protect bishops from prosecutions by Obama, please note the comments, "Founding Fathers Shock", "Obama Dream Comes True" and "No Deal Ever, Obama!", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishops-studying-revised-contraceptio...
I really believe a large part
I really believe a large part of the war against human rights that US right wing religionists wage against women, gays and lesbians is also very very racist when it comes to President Obama.
I remember speaking to a very staunch Republican who is an active local leader in his religion and politics 3 or 4 years ago who could not stand Hilary because she is female and who could not stand Obama because he is black and the inference was he is also Muslim. However, this man noted, Obama was the lesser of two evils In early primaries and caucuses the plan he devulged was two cross over and defeat Hilary.
I wonder now if gridlock in our congress is a function of Republican and religious right wing racism against our President?
Of course it's racism.
Of course it's racism. Remember when LBJ worried the Democratic Party would lose a whole generation of Southerners. As a Southerner, I know where all the Dixiecrat racists went. They fled the Democratic Party and became Republicans. It's been more than a generation, but, to use a cliché, water has indeed sought its own level. Many of the Republicans I am acquainted with, though not all, mask their racism with a thin veneer of civility and political correctness, veneer that gets peeled away when they believe they are safely among their own, as in unguarded moments when they don't realize a microphone is live or when their boozy conversation is overheard in a restaurant. Some think they can get by with being racist because they avoid the N word in public, but their hatred for President Obama and Secretary Clinton knows no bounds. You think Rick Perry's threat to have Texas secede from the Union had anything to do with the national debt or big government!? Think again! Texas just looooves Federal spending, as long as it takes place in Texas.
I don't honestly believe the Catholic bishops are by and large racist. I just think, as a body, their grasp on reality is tenuous. I think they are easily led like lambs to slaughter. They have no long-term strategy. Their corporate vision is clouded. Apparently many can't see past immediate needs. Are they delusional, sexist, elitist, provincial, and xenophobic? You bet!
I can't comment on this diocese's present bishop. I don't know him. He seems affable enough. The three predecessors I did know well were men of intellect who could not be led astray. Two have already gone before us as a sign of faith. Vatican II is passing from the scene. The spent dregs are bitterly disappointing.
Yes, I agree with Manuel. I
Yes, I agree with Manuel. I had suspected there was more to the story, but did not know all that Ms Manson wrote. It was very enlightening. And, it corresponded with my thoughts that President Obama was far smarter than folks give him credit. Thank you Ms. Manson for keeping us informed.
Well, you came close to an
Well, you came close to an well-reasoned analysis of the problem, although you showed your own agenda in your ever-present same-sex marriage campaign. I think the bishops are all wrong on this issue, and I appreciate your insights, but I think you would do well to draw some clear lines and not, as the bishops do, claim that the sky will fall if you don't get your way. - Sandra.
Sandra, It is the bishops,
Sandra,
It is the bishops, namely Archbishop Chaput, who have called gay marriage "the issue of our times" and have put it front and center in this so-called religious freedom battle. So, don't blame Jamie for making this issue a part of the larger problem. She's just connecting the dots!
Outstanding, Jamie! You
Outstanding, Jamie! You said what needed to be said, and you said it very well. For a further description of this right-wing movement to make America a theocracy, I recommend "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" by Chris Hedges. Dolan and his right-wing friends are a very serious threat to American values. Most Americans are not aware of the organization and power that this movement controls. The Taliban would be proud!
Thank you, Romano, for your
Thank you, Romano, for your concise, dead-on analysis of this situation. I pray to God that Presdent Obama does not give even an inch more than he already has in his attempt to molify these bishops who have this subversive, but ever-clearer, theocratic agenda.
He needs to ignore them from now on, cut off the oxygen supply to their un-righteous indignation so that it burns out, and let them rail on continuing to try to be the tail that wags the dog.
And we thought the Muslims
And we thought the Muslims were the only adherents whose faith could be hijacked.
Jamie L. Manson has written a
Jamie L. Manson has written a perceptive article about the Catholic bishops.
It appears to me that the Catholic bishops feel that their Catholic thought-world is in danger. By their Catholic thought-world, I mean the thought-world based on Catholic natural-law moral theory regarding issues of sexual morality.
Because the Catholic bishops feel that their Catholic thought-world regarding issues of sexual morality is endangered and threatened, they are fighting for the life of their Catholic thought-world.
So let us be clear here. The basic problem is the Catholic natural-law moral theory regarding issues of sexual morality.
Classical Natural Law Theory,
Classical Natural Law Theory, upon which the current crop of bishops determines the morality or immorality of sexual behavior, was developed in pre-Christian and pre-scientific times. It is based largely on observations of lower forms of animals held in captivity and such overly simplistic conclusions as convex fits with concave. As such, it is overly physical. It does not account for the emotional and psychological needs for partners; yet it falls to the bishops, who by and large admit to little or no experience of sexual relationships, and who therefore tend to exaggerate the physical aspects of sexuality to the exclusion of everything else. This is the caste of supposedly inexperienced and mostly elderly men charged with making the rules for everyone else. The virtue they claim is their naiveté. What is wrong with this picture! Only the willfully invincibly ignorant could claim to not see the problem. Classical Natural Law Theory is erroneous on many points. It does not comport with known scientific data, and it is based on ancient pagan philosophy. To allow oneself to be ruled by obvious error is untenable for any person God has given common sense and the ability to reason.
The Roman Catholic Church in the United States is fast becoming the Republican catholic church. The manipulation of Catholic bishops by Christian Fundamentalists is about as difficult as taking candy from babies. The babes are in over their heads. They have tactics but no strategy. They are outgunned and outsmarted, but hubris keeps them from recognizing what others see easily. Look at the corner they have painted themselves into by opposing single payer. Now contraception is supposed to be a big moral dilemma, not for the Catholic people, but for the celibate bishops who most Catholics realize have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about sensus fidelium. How can the Catholic bishops have the unmitigated effrontery to preach to ANYONE about sexual morality when they have been complicit in the sexual abuse of children! Not mere fornication. Not mere adultery. Rape! Of children! By their fruits you will know them.
You go, Jamie! Speak truth to power.
Unless your pastor is bucking the caste system, send your tithes to Haiti where they will actually do some good.
I am afraid that, like the
I am afraid that, like the bishops she is always criticizing, Jamie Mason will never be satisfied either!
Her rants against the bishops and the Church are starting to tire for this reader.
Initially, I enjoyed her columns with their insights and clearly analyzed issues but
recently her chronic attacks on the bishops in particular and the Church in general are beginning to sound like a broken record. Like some of the survivors of sexual abuse groups, the bishops can never do anything right no matter what they do. I think she might actually need the bishops as opponents to continually vent her dissatisfaction with the Church. I am at the point of just skipping her contributions because they have very little positive to contribute to a rational, balanced dialogue.
Bob, I think you have missed
Bob, I think you have missed the point of what Ms. Mason is trying to do with her column. As a Christian, an individual cannot just walk away from an obvious injustice. Ms. Mason is simply trying to bring to the attention of thinking Catholics the many un-Christian aspects of this church. So many Catholics use 'blind faith' as an excuse for not thinking for themselves. We all need to wake up and realize what these bishops are all about.
This is the United States of America where individual citizens are allowed to make free choices. The bishops apparently want to impose their misguided and misunderstood concept of ecclesial leadership upon the government of this free country. We are not the Catholic church of Rome, we are a free country. Having just typed that, it sounds exactly like what the Prime Minister of Ireland told the Vatican nuncio before he threw him out of Ireland.
Thank God for columnists like Ms. Jamie Mason and for presidents like President Barack Obama. We need people like this to wake us up to the threat of the right-wing religious Fascists like Dolan and his Pentecostal and Evangelical cohorts!
"This is the United States of
"This is the United States of America where individual citizens are allowed to make free choices." And this is a credal (sic) statement in American civic religion. For disciples of Jesus, don't other gods come second, at least?
In a theocracy, Mark, that
In a theocracy, Mark, that would be true. However, we in the United States live in a democracy. In our form of government, the people make the rules not the religious prelates. Look to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan for examples of a theocracy. In that form of government, the religious hierarchy set government policy.
President Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Because of his oath, he is obliged to oppose people like Dolan who are attempting to subvert the Constitution. In our democracy we have a foundational principle that no religious entity can be joined to the state. Dolan and his friends have the right to vote just like every citizen has, but they do NOT have the right to set policy. That is a function of the government not a church body.
Ray, you're missing my
Ray, you're missing my question: how does a Christian live in the midst of a society whose culture includes a kind of civil religion hostile to Christianity? This is a problem the West has not faced since 100 - 300 CE.
Mark, I think one's
Mark, I think one's spirituality is a personal choice and, at least in a democracy, cannot be a part of government. As soon as a government dictates spiritual values and practices, they cease to be personal or spiritual in value. I think that is one of the main insights that Christ gave us: to be a disciple we choose to follow him freely out of friendship and love, NOT out of coercion and fear. That is one of the main impediments that the RCC has in its struggle to be a Christian church, it attempts to mandate with threats and coercion what Christ asked to be given freely. There can be no democracy or Christianity without free choice, operating out of love and genuine friendship with Jesus and one another.
"Out of adversity comes the call to greatness" is true for athletes, scholars, and believers. God bless!
Mark, The West from 100-300
Mark,
The West from 100-300 CE??? Not really. Prior to the order to sacrifice to the emperor in 250, persecution is local and sporadic and thereafter only taken seriously in Asia Minor. The four edicts of the Great Persecution don't happen til 303-304.
Right now no church leader in the U.S. is being decapitated, crucified, burned, jailed or sold into slavery. No churches or texts burned.
What we currently have is an internal disagreement among Christians--the specifics of which are not new--spilling over into the presidential campaign, as if by design.
Something one does find from 100-300 are disagreements among Christians: a huge diversity of movements and intense theological disagreements. Sound familiar?
Check out: W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity; anything by Peter Brown; Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome, ed. Donfried and Richardson.
Mark, disagreeing is not
Mark, disagreeing is not always "hostile", but too often is promoted as such.
Ray: May I also add to your
Ray:
May I also add to your missive that 61% of Catholics, same as the population, do not buy the anti contraception agenda. THe bishops are trying to coerce their faithful into doing something they do not believe in by trying to make it law. No one is forced to used contraception because it is funded. IF the bishops can make their case on contraception to catholics and can convince catholics not to use it, then they don't need this exemption. I am reminded of John Howard Yoder's examination of post Constantinian Catholicism. After Constantine, because he tried to enculturate Christianity, you did not know if your sister/brother Christian was actually a Christian or rather just someone carried along by the cultural imperative. I think culture is often the enemy of faith because it exalts certain behaviors without convinction or inner conversion. Cultural Catholiciism gives Bishops a lot more personal power than is necessary. The power they need is one of integrity, faith and the ability to connect baptism, the resurrection and incarnation with the behavior they desire. Natural Law, not intrinsically but as we see it articulated, diminishes the role of faith, baptism and conversion. Suggest bishops go back and work on their pastorship and leave the culture wars to the finatics.
Thank you, Anonymous. I
Thank you, Anonymous. I couldn't agree more and you explained more carefully and more clearly what I was trying to communicate. I think the "cultural imperative" that you describe is as dangerous to real discipleship as the "ecclesial imperative" that Rome is built on. The one thing they both have very much in common is their obsession with the law. Oddly enough, this obsession was the very thing that Jesus was opposed to in his appeal to those called to discipleship.
I believe that Jesus was trying to convince the people of his time that Love replaces Law in the faith community he was trying to establish; we now have the new Scribes and Pharisees [Right Wing zealots] trying to replace Love with Law!
Ray, NO ONE is trying to take
Ray, NO ONE is trying to take away abc. Despite the RCC, we all STILL have the right to make "free choices."
Despite protecting Catholic employers' rights to their consciences, women will STILL be able to go out and get abc.
You are believing in a straw man argument.
Robert Nugent, she nailed the
Robert Nugent, she nailed the problem. The bishops are indeed the problem. There is no getting around it. Until these bishops are severely dealt with, the rampage must continue. Unfortunately, the bishops mired in believe that they are part of an apostolic succession, witnesses to Xt, heed no advice, and exercise an agenda as would any other political organization.
Good for Jamie for calling a
Good for Jamie for calling a spade a spade and telling it like it is. I, for one, am tired of listening to the bishops continual harping on this subject. They are not doctors, they are priests. There are those who still sit as bishops who covered up sexual abuse. They have no shame. They have no care of concern for the poor who can't feed their families. Why should they? All their needs are met quite nicely. And they don't get either issue because they are too far removed from the general populace, especially, with women.
It is some of the bishops
It is some of the bishops (not all of them) who are providing material for these columns. If the bishops would stop committing outrageous acts, there would be nothing to write about.
Let's pray that they will stop moving farther and farther out on a limb of extremism, because the further they go, the more likely it is that the branch will break, and the break will be their alienation from the People of God.
The Bishops are being exposed
The Bishops are being exposed over and over and over for the charlatans they are on any topics to do with the politics of religion and sexuality. Exposing the ease with which these Bishops lie using God, conscience, and the unbelievable idea that they represent the majority of Catholic women on birth control to hide their sick motives is a necessary good for all who really believe in God and country.
I agree with Robert. The
I agree with Robert. The bishops are the punching bags for the SSM/womyn's ordination crowd. I'm just waiting for Sr. Joan to reemerge with her two cents.
Robert Nugent, as one who
Robert Nugent, as one who gave into the Vatican's silencing you should not be the one to criticize a prophetic voice. How is that "rational, balanced dialogue" with hierarchy working out for you?
As a regular reader of Manson's articles, I would point to her columns on the work of women religious in Africa as just one example of her work as source of inspiration and hope--and certainly not an example of a "broken record."
Today I filed a formal
Today I filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Department of Revenue against Cardinal George and the Archdiocese of Chicago regarding their direct political activities, requesting that they lose their nonprofit status over the HHS debacle they and the USCCB have perpetrated.
May I suggest that those individuals who observed direct political action at their churches (links to "protest the White House" on their websites, preaching to congregations that they are obligated to call the White House and protest, etc.) do the same with the respective Departments of Revenue in their states. There's usually a website for the "Department of Revenue" through which one must plow to get to a complaint section.
I respectfully suggest that the Departments of Revenue will do nothing without citizen complaints, and the bishops will continue to violate their nonprofit status tax-exempt rules unless they are stopped.
Susan Lersch
susan.lersch@yahoo.com
Good for you "Susan"-How dare
Good for you "Susan"-How dare cardinal George have the right to say he doesnt want to pay for someone else's birth corntrol or abortion. Free speech belongs only to those who agree with..well like you "Susan"........
Gerard, You needn't put my
Gerard,
You needn't put my name in quotes -- it's not a pseudonym. Unlike you, I stand behind what I write.
Francis George can speak for himself whenever he wants -- it's his right as a citizen.
However, to maintain the church's nonprofit status, he and his brother bishops and priests need to stay out of the realm of direct political action with his organization. Attempted coersion of his co-religionists crosses the line.
Susan Lersch
susan.lersch@yahoo.com
Right. He is speaking as a
Right. He is speaking as a citizen, which is his right. HE is the one who is bsing forced to violate his conscience. Therefore he has a RIGHT to demand the state adhere to the Constitution.
He didn't start this. Obama did. What you are saying amounts to outrage at the one whose rights have been stripped for daring to complain about his rights being stripped.
I did not give the USCCB or
I did not give the USCCB or Cardinal George the right to speak for my own conscience. I don't believe an institution has a constitutional right to trump my personal conscience because I do not believe there is any such legal thing as an institutional conscience.
The USCCB took their objections to the pulpit which takes their objections out of the realm of the personal and into the realm of institutional coercion. You may not see it that way because the bishops do in fact speak for your point of view, and that blinds you to seeing any other point of view.
By the way, President Obama did not start this. This issue of birth control in insurance started under President Bush and various state governments as far back as 2000. Where were the bishops then? Why weren't they speaking for you then? Where were you then?
The bishops are not trumping
The bishops are not trumping your conscience. Your conscience actually has nothing to do with it. Regardless of the outcome of this, you will still be able to obtain abc. The only question is will it or will it not be free for you.
The bishops ARE allowed to speak politics, as long as they don't speak about particular candidates. The idea that what they say amounts to "institutional coercion" is ridiculous, since regardless of their teachings, we all are still free to believe as we wish. NOTHING happens to the one who disagrees. It is beyond me why people don't see that the bishops are obligated to preach according to the doctrine of the church. You KNOW they are against abc, so EXPECT them to preach against it.
Obama started this by mandating private ins cos to provide something to all Americans for free. Creeping tyranny. Can you see it?
If institutuons have a
If institutuons have a conscience then they can also have mental illness.
I look forward to your filing
I look forward to your filing equal complaints against Revs. Sharpton, Jackson Pfleger, et al.
I do not think you are
I do not think you are properly applying the basis for tax exemption for a nonprofit, at least as far as IRS regulations are concerned. IIRC, the exemption is not for any political advocacy, but rather it is political advocacy for a particular candidate or party. The HHS regs at issue do not fall in that category. Essentially, it is issue-based, not candidate or party-based. Did you file a complaint when CHA advocated in favor of the health care act?
Dear "Em," It's not
Dear "Em,"
It's not party-based? Oh, please!
No -- only Santorum, Romney and Gingrich are campaigning on the conveniently timed anti-Obama message. Is there a Democratic Presidential candidate who opposes? Are there any bishops or pastors who aren't toeing the Republican party line on this? I'd have a lot more respect for those involved in this disagreement if they'd just come out and say they were conservative Republicans, were adopting the Republican platform on behalf of all their co-religionists, and were compelling them all to fall in line with same.
If Americans are happy with a Catholic theocracy, that's exactly what they'll have.
Susan Lersch
susan.lersch@yahoo.com
A Catholic theocracy? Really?
A Catholic theocracy? Really? Half the articles here predict the death of the Catholic Church, and you portray this last-gasp effort by the USCCB as an attempt at theocracy? Are you serious?
You've got to be kidding. The
You've got to be kidding. The USCCB is actually LEFT-leaning. Their very creation was influenced by none other than Saul Alinsky-leftwing radical, with the help of Fr. Jack Egan, his friend and co-radical.
Why do you think they were originally FOR Obamacare? But as history teaches us, those who are complicit with utopian architects become its victims.
Susan, I am in agreement with
Susan, I am in agreement with you and your warning about a Catholic [or any other ] theocracy. An excellent book that addresses this very real possibility is "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" by Chris Hedges.
We only need look to Iraq, Iran, and other Mideast countries to see the result of theocracies on their people. We are a democracy and we, the people, better wake up and see the threat. We Catholics, as the People of God, have already lost our church to the totalitarian rule of Rome, we don't want to now lose our country! Thanks, Susan.
It's just me, jonny beeski,
It's just me, jonny beeski, Ms. Lersch. Look, I get that you are upset, but really, this is not the type of advocacy that is impacted by the IRS tax exemptions. On this very site, Mr. Winters, as Democrat as they come, has opposed the mandate. There is, I understand, a bi-partisan letter from 154 congressional representatives from both parties opposing the mandate. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/07/154-members-of-congress-object-to-pro... (internal links to the actual letter and list of signers). Can you not see that this is not the type of activity envisioned by the regs? As to the timing, well, that is a result of when HHS decided to make its decision, no? What control did any of the presidential candidates have over that? Further, under the regs, this is not a political campaign as it is defined, so it may be lobbying, but if one letter constitutes a "substantial part" of the diocesan activities, per the regs, I would be amazed.
Perfect! I've filed one
Perfect! I've filed one against Chaput here in Philadelphia. To help others move this forward here is the form:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
UPDATE! I received a call
UPDATE!
I received a call from my State Department of Revenue, telling me that I should start from the top -- namely, with the IRS. Just passing on what I learned.
Susan Lersch
susan.lersch@yahoo.co0m
LOLOL They're passing the
LOLOL They're passing the buck!
They don't want to deal with this because they know it's a waste of time. Thanks for the update! ;)
So I assume you will be
So I assume you will be making the same complains this fall when Obama and Democrats march themselves into the pulpits of protestant churches and give stump speeches and then stand in the sanctuary as the minister publicly endorses them?
Susan, leftist radical and
Susan, leftist radical and Chicago priest Pfleger was on Obama's campaign website publicly endorsing him for president. Please add that to your complaint to the State of Illinois.
As a 72 year old Catholic,
As a 72 year old Catholic, who attends daily Mass and who went to Catholic schools until graduate school, I say lets get rid of the tax exempt status for all churches. Too many are more political than some political organizations. It would go a long way in helping to reduce the deficit.
My apologies to "Em." My
My apologies to "Em." My comments were meant to be addressed to the comment above yours.
Susan Lersch
susan.lersch@yahoo.com
I agree, I thinks it's time
I agree, I thinks it's time to turn the Church loose to give the parishoners the real lowdown on political candidates. The Church could start paying income tax any time it wanted to and transform the political landscape - but I think they'd RATHER JUST BE LEFT ALONE to feed the poor and heal the sick. Drat.
Once again you miss the
Once again you miss the point. The issue isnt whether birth control or abortion should be legal The issue is whether I or you or XYZ has to pay for the birth control or aboprtion of someone else. The author is too educated to miss this distinction. I think the real agenda here is that birth control and abortion are to be the supreme rights in our society. Whether you like it or not the govt will make you pay for it and eventually perform it and maybe someday recieve it against your own will. The same could be said for gay marriage. It will never be enough that it is legalized. Churches will have to eprform it or close down. And ultimately (as in Sweden) if you even so much as say anything against it you may well end up in prison.
You are absolutely correct!
You are absolutely correct! They ARE too educated not to see the straw man that they propagate. This is about preserving one's personal right to NOT provide abc if it is against one's relgion.
Also, there is a push to have abc and abortion as a "right." The Obama Administration spent MILLIONS of our tax dollars on ad campaigns in KENYA to change their constitution to include ABORTION as a right.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201007191533.html
We all pay for other people's
We all pay for other people's medicines one way or another already. The point is some policies offered contraception coverage, and now all policies will, one way or another.
Abortion is different from contraception. Can you really abort someone who has not implanted into a growing medium like its mother's uterus? The government does not fund abortions. This restriction has been spelled out.
The Catholic Church is free to decline to do weddings of all sorts. Individual priest have the authority to decline, and they sometimes do. The government lets all sorts of people perform weddings. It only keeps track of marriages.
Who do the Swede's imprison? People who say what?
Churches have never been
Churches have never been forced to perform any marriages they don't want to perform. Churches refuse to perform marriages all the time.
Until Obama decides that they
Until Obama decides that they must start performing whatever marriages he says.
The only agenda the bishops
The only agenda the bishops have ever had is denial of health services to women and the election of a Republican as President. On the America website there is an article wondering why young women are leaving the Catholic Church. Incredible!! After everything that has happened and is still happening, the official church still doesn't know?
I absolutely agree. Despite
I absolutely agree. Despite the ugliness which is occurring regularly in the GOP (racism, totally unfettered access to any and all guns, a wholly anti-poor and pro-rich orientation, and an anti-environment stance) the bishops remain bound to them because they expect them to eventually make abortion (and maybe now birth control) illegal. I know many people believe that a change in the abortion law in the US will make all the difference. But will it? There were abortions before Roe v. Wade, and there will be again. As was the case then, it will be the poorest of women who take their chances with abortionists and then with courts, increasingly poised to charge them with murder. Meanwhile middle-class and wealthy women will simply depart for Canada, Europe, wherever, and they will return minus a baby. Unless we plan to subject all women to gynecological exams prior to their journey and afterwards, we certainly will not know that the law was broken in those instances. And, of course, as several have noted, those who can afford birth control will procure it. But the bishops are potentially opening a much bigger can of worms. What if your employer believes only in faith healing? Or what if an employer believes that AIDS is a result of sin and s/he objects to having to pay for treatment of it? Where do we draw the line on this issue? Will employers have the upper hand always because they negotiate the insurance coverage? Don't employees have any rights? Far-fetched now, but how about if the local imam chooses to stone a woman caught in adultery, under the terms of Sharia law?
OMGoodness! DO you mean to
OMGoodness! DO you mean to tell me they are out trying to make sure we don't have coverage for pap smears, cervical cancer, and maternity?????
They are against annual check-ups, dental visits, and prescription drugs for whatever ails us??????
NO! The bishops are NOT against women's healthcare. They are saying that as US citizens, they have the RIGHT, guaranteed by the 1st amendment, to NOT have to provide abc in any way, shape, or form, because it is against their religion.
Women, however, will STILL be able to obtain abc, regardless of the outcome of this case.
Miriam, What is abc? If you
Miriam,
What is abc?
If you believe contraception is wrong, don't use it. No one is forcing the bishops or anyone, for that matter, to use contraception. The fact is that many Catholic institutions benefit from public money. Also, most Catholic institutions are tax exempt. This means that they benefit from tax dollars paid by those who disagree with Catholic teachings. These institutions have the benefit of paved roads, fore and police protection and other municipal and state services. Yet, they pay no tax.
If an institution is to benefit from public money, then the institution must follow the rules that are attached to getting those benefits. Why should Catholic hospitals and colleges and other institutions that hire non-
Catholics and exi9sat because of money they get from the government be allowed to impose their religious views on their employees? Why should a woman who works as a low-paid clerk in a Catholic hospital not be able to obtain contraceptive services because her pay is so low?
I can imagine that if a Jewish hospital were to prohibit its employees to eat pork at home, there would be an outcry. How is this different?
The Catholic hospitals and universities will not be paying higher premiums for the additional services. This is something that individual people will be doing outside of work. How is this within the purview of the bishops?
ABC is artificial birth
ABC is artificial birth control.
This mandate has nothing to do with whether or not an institution receives federal money. EWTN will also be obligated, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the government in any way.
Those who work at Catholic institutions are not required to reject abc in order to work there. Catholic views are not being imposed. Jews are still free to be Jews; Protestants, protestants; and atheists, atheists. No matter the outcome of this, abc-users of every faith and no faith will STILL be able to obtain it.
Miriam on Feb. 13, 2012. You
Miriam on Feb. 13, 2012.
You stated:
"OMGoodness! DO you mean to tell me they are out trying to make sure we don't have coverage for pap smears, cervical cancer, and maternity?????
They are against annual check-ups, dental visits, and prescription drugs for whatever ails us??????
NO! The bishops are NOT against women's healthcare. They are saying that as US citizens, they have the RIGHT, guaranteed by the 1st amendment, to NOT have to provide abc in any way, shape, or form, because it is against their religion.
Women, however, will STILL be able to obtain abc, regardless of the outcome of this case
---------------------------------------------------
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What women are you referring to? You aren't referring to poor women who can't afford to see the doctor because the fees are beyond their incomes.
If you are able to receive all of this coverage that you listed---YOU ARE NOT POOR. Decent birth control pill cost anywhere from $600-$1200 per year. Poor women cannot afford this.
Secondly, it is time for the bishops to begin treating their parishioners like responsible individuals, rather than like un-thinking 'sheeple'. This IS a conscience issue----the People's conscience--not the bishops. The bishops don't pay one plugged cent into the insurance of the people who work for them. And the bishops have their own insurance coverage---they are self-insured.
In an above blog you complained about Obama's campaign in Kenya about birth control. Are you aware that in the United States---1 in every 4 children lives in extreme poverty. But in nations in Africa---it is far beyond that. Families in Africa have many, many children hoping that at least one or two will live and make it to adulthood.
Your comments have nothing to do with the reality that so many Americans face everyday---just like that of the bishops, who live like rich king-pins off of the backs of their parishioners.
LB, let's start for the
LB, let's start for the bottome up. Read my link. Your response shows you don't know what this is all about.
The issue over Kenya's Constitution was not about bc. It was about ABORTION. The American people spent MILLIONS in tax dollars to CONVINCE the Kenyans (via tv commercials, etc) that abortion should e a "right." The Kenyans did not initially want this. WHY are we interfering in their affairs??????
I understand the situation in many parts of Africa is dire. The answer, my dear Little Bear, is not in abortion nor abc. It is in NFP, which is >99% effective.
I've noticed you have the habit of answering posts in a vacuum. IOW, you don't seem to read the initial post to which the poster responded. That means you are answering out of context.
The poster to which I responded stated the bishops are "against women's healthcare." I was pointing out how wrong that statement was by outlining a few of the items concerning women's healthcare that they were NOT "against."
As far as poor women not being able to afford bc, there are a number of government agencies which help with that.
Your post is FULL of strawmen.
Miriam on Feb. 16, 2012. You
Miriam on Feb. 16, 2012.
You stated:
"LB, let's start for the bottome up. Read my link. Your response shows you don't know what this is all about.
The issue over Kenya's Constitution was not about bc. It was about ABORTION. The American people spent MILLIONS in tax dollars to CONVINCE the Kenyans (via tv commercials, etc) that abortion should e a "right." The Kenyans did not initially want this. WHY are we interfering in their affairs??????
I understand the situation in many parts of Africa is dire. The answer, my dear Little Bear, is not in abortion nor abc. It is in NFP, which is >99% effective.
I've noticed you have the habit of answering posts in a vacuum. IOW, you don't seem to read the initial post to which the poster responded. That means you are answering out of context.
The poster to which I responded stated the bishops are "against women's healthcare." I was pointing out how wrong that statement was by outlining a few of the items concerning women's healthcare that they were NOT "against."
As far as poor women not being able to afford bc, there are a number of government agencies which help with that.
Your post is FULL of strawmen."
------------------------------------------
And your post tells me that you are nothing but a puppet---who cannot think for herself, nor do you work with the poor. You only repeat what your hierarchical ventriloquists have already stated.
Name the government agencies that help with Birth Control?
Yesterday, we saw in Washington, DC the Republicans march in a number of Churchmen (and I emphasize MEN) who were testifying about HHS. Where were the women? Where were the people who are really being effected by our Republican Catholic bishops decisions? The women aren't even being consulted on this issue. The bishops think that they are experts in this area. They are nothing but regional managers of the Church. They are not doctors and they absolutely have no understanding of what family life is like today. And they certainly don't understand women's issues.
As far as Kenya is concerned---do you have collegues over in Kenya? I do---they run a clinic. The children infected with HIV (passed to them by their parents), and the hungry---too many mouths for too few resourses.
If you are talking about someone using strawmen---go to the mirror and look at yourself.
LB, you believe the party
LB, you believe the party line that you are given, without doing further research to verify.
For example, you believe NFP is not reliable, despite the clear research out there, easily accessible to all, that NFP is actually >99% effective. I have done your homework for you, posting links to a 2007 German study from a secular university (Heidelberg)proving the point. But you ignore this, because it does not fit your preconceived agenda.
I cannot believe you are asking about which government agencies provide free bc. Welfare agencies across the country already provide free bc for poor women. Look up "public health clinics."
As far as yesterday's hearing---do you know what the hearing was about? If you are going to say "birth control," you would be WRONG. It was about the overreach of government, and whether or not what HHS did was within their power.
And as far as Kenya goes, the answer is NFP which is MORE than 99% effective.
Hun, you do not know enough about these topics to accuse anyone of being a puppet. Oh the irony!
Submitted by Miriam on Feb.
Submitted by Miriam on Feb. 17, 2012.
You stated:
"LB, you believe the party line that you are given, without doing further research to verify.
For example, you believe NFP is not reliable, despite the clear research out there, easily accessible to all, that NFP is actually >99% effective. I have done your homework for you, posting links to a 2007 German study from a secular university (Heidelberg)proving the point. But you ignore this, because it does not fit your preconceived agenda.
I cannot believe you are asking about which government agencies provide free bc. Welfare agencies across the country already provide free bc for poor women. Look up "public health clinics."
As far as yesterday's hearing---do you know what the hearing was about? If you are going to say "birth control," you would be WRONG. It was about the overreach of government, and whether or not what HHS did was within their power.
And as far as Kenya goes, the answer is NFP which is MORE than 99% effective.
Hun, you do not know enough about these topics to accuse anyone of being a puppet. Oh the irony!"
-----------------------------------------------------
First of all----stop the patronizing tone---I'm not your "Hun"!
And lets start with some of your responses:
1) I absolutely know what the hearings in DC were about yesterday. The question was raised in congress as to "where are the women"? That was a statement heard by millions on TV---and it was a valid question.
2) Let's start with what the bishops are doing. The USCCB began preparing months ago for a battle royale over religious freedom. Last fall, the conference bulked up its staff, hired a lawyer who had devoted his career to religious liberty cases and had also been a lobbyist to press the cause in Washington. The group also created a special commmittee on religious liberty, chaired by Bishop Lori.
In a September letter announcing the committee, Archbishop Timothy Dolan declared that religiious freedom "is not increasingly and in unprecedented ways under asault in America." He and other officials offered many examples of that perceived assault.
Religious institutions ACCEPT TAXPAYER Money in hospitals and colleges/universities. Courts nationwide have repeatedly ruled that religious groups MUST follow the same rules as everyone else when holding a government contract. According to Marci Hamilton, a constitutional scholar at Cardozo School of Law, 'Any institution that can't in good faith follow those rules shouldn't apply for public funding."
I have stated on other blogs of the same topic that the following Catholic Colleges and Universities have it in their employees health benefits the option to receive birth control. They are not forced to receive it---but if they choose to---it is there for them. And the Catholic institutes are:
a) San Francisco College
b) Boston College
c) DePaul University of Chicago
d) Catholic University of America
e) Georgetown University
Your remarks about having the people of Kenya, or any other country like Ruanda (most Christian of African nations) use NFP---show just how much out of the loop you are.
Women who live in huts with dirt floors, with little or no separation of rooms, with children and chickens running in and out of the house are supposed to:
a) Be turned into labratory rats---who a few days before and after their ovulation are to swab their cervical mucus. They are, then, to determine if it is stretchy, clear and slick. If it is---they are not to engage in intercourse (if they don't want to conceive)
b) Secondly, the woman can take her temperature each day with a basal body therometer and write it down on a chart. At the time of ovulation, a woman's temperature will rise slightly (about .9 degrees F). And she should also do a cervical mucus swab. And this should all be recorded on a chart.
YEAH, RIGHT----some of these people can't even read or write----but they are going to do all of this. And are the Catholic bishops going to teach these women how to do this?
Your comments are those of a well-off White woman----who doesn't know what women who are poor, who live in other parts of the world have to deal with.
Post new comment