The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionObama cannot be at war with Catholics if he is at peace with religious freedom
Nov. 22, 2011
President Barack Obama. (CNS photo/Kevin Lamarque, Reuters)
VIEWPOINT
Sometimes one is tempted to say a plague on both your houses. We're not even close to the 2012 election season and already there are overheated claims that the Obama administration is at war with Catholics.
It is not.
One of the most attractive aspects of President Barack Obama is the significance of faith in his life. Raised outside a formal church of any kind, Obama early on discovered his own life's meaning in giving of himself to others. He also discovered that even the magnanimity of community service could often be misunderstood outside a context of shared belief.
Yet with tea parties and occupiers and dissenters of every variety active in the land, shared belief is increasingly hard for political figures to manifest on a national or even state or regional level. It is easier, but still not without challenge, for churchmen to articulate first principles held in common -- like, for example, that life is a gift; it is sacred; and it is not within our power to forfeit our own life or take that of another.
The recital just made, with some exception, would garner near-unanimous agreement, but digging into its meaning even in the most superficial manner immediately divides. No right to forfeit our own life? Some seek to justify euthanasia; others find the attempt at that justification indistinguishable from murder, even as these others would respect a choice not to be kept alive by heroic means.
Of course, then there would then be disagreement over what is and is not a heroic means. Is it an extraordinary or heroic means to be force-fed with nutrition and hydration, for example? By his own witness, John Paul II thought it was not, but the sequence of death is not the same for all. In some cases, artificial nutrition and hydration can merely represent prolonged pain for the dying and wasted and anxiety-laden grief for families seeking to do the right thing.
The "right thing"? Different, not infrequently, conflicting religious beliefs do not stand as equal in Catholic thought. How could they? There is "one true, catholic and apostolic faith," after all. Yet not every human mind is prepared to grasp the truth as the church sees it, for among other reasons, the opposing views think we have it wrong. Trying to govern a civil government with people convinced that their neighbor has a fundamentally mistaken idea of something as consequential as life and death is not easy. Yet the Catholic tradition -- at least since Vatican II and Dignitatis Humanae -- opens the way to civil peace among faith beliefs not by imposing one view of the matter over another, but by proclaiming all of the holders of these divergent religious views to be equal before the law.
The principle of religious liberty that the Catholic church observes, and that the church must ask the polity to observe as well, is not the insistence that the deprivation of artificial nutrition and hydration be punishable under civil law, but that to the extent one's freely chosen faith belief requires such forced feeding that the law not make it impossible for the believer to pursue that care. If the law allows for religious beliefs to be observed or unobserved as the authoritative family member may decide, the church really should not complain about the president if its own believer makes the wrong choice in terms of Catholic doctrine. In such circumstance, the church's focus should be upon the education and conversion of heart of its own believer, not whether the law permits a contrary belief.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
This same principle explains the limits of the law with respect to all manner of subjects, from abortion to artificial contraception. That the law may specify that abortion or contraceptive coverage be included as choices for employees ought not be seen as making the employer contributing to the legally imposed medical premium complicit in the act itself. To think that an authorizing statute or executive decision violates principles of religious liberty or free exercise merely because it allows a choice contrary to faith is to misunderstand the nature of democracy and individual freedom. It also vastly understates the responsibility of the church's own obligation of moral formation -- including effectively revealing to married couples the sublime joy and significance of intimacy that is total and ever open to new life.
At present, however, both political parties are remiss in not reminding the body politic how the principle of religious liberty actually operates. This has permitted some media voices, like the Washington Post's Michael Gerson, to perceive religious hostility where there is none. There is no violation of religious liberty when HHS announces a temporary (or permanent) regulation requiring all employers -- religious or nonreligious, Catholic or not -- to provide employees with an insurance benefit for artificial contraception. Yes, it would be more congenial if the HHS administrative process adopted the Catholic view of contraception over that of other churches, but that declination was a choice the church herself since Vatican II has conceded belonged to Caesar. Had the HHS regulation gone farther and demanded a religious employer to affirmatively endorse or require the use of artificial contraception or any other choice contrary to its own teaching or face a penalty, that would violate the principle of religious liberty.
While there is no constitutional violation of religious liberty in the HHS regulation requiring that coverage allow for the informed choice of all consumers, and therefore, HHS is not duty-bound to allow a Catholic employer exemption, why HHS went out of its way to promulgate an unduly narrow religious exemption intruding upon religious employer hiring policies and their ability to be of service to Catholics and non-Catholics alike illustrates a type of blunder-headedness on the part of some Obama subordinate officers playing into the hands of single-issue Catholics and other partisans. The intrusive exemption shows more disrespect for faith than the president's own value commitments.
Shame on Republicans for claiming a constitutional violation where there is nothing more than a fully authorized invitation to citizens to be guided by faith -- or not, as the case may be in matters of contraception. Shame on Democrats for undercutting the president's efforts to promote inter-religious respect and common ground. Shame on us all if we let ourselves get distracted by either shortcoming to the exclusion of addressing the far more pressing need for a family wage and a restructuring of tax and regulatory policy to ensure the economic and social needs of the middle class or average American family, which New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan highlighted recently. Aristotle taught us long ago in his ethics that the middle class is essential to the success of democracy, since the rich are immune from bad times and the poor consumed by them.
And, Mr. President, you cannot remind us too often of the prayer you told us in 2006 you said every day for your country that despite our profound disagreements, "we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all."
[Douglas W. Kmiec is the former ambassador of the U.S. to Malta and is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University.]
Hurrah for elucidating a
Hurrah for elucidating a point of view that I, a Catholic, wholeheartedly concur with. Thank you.
The question is where does
The question is where does the buck stop and when does President Obama assume responsibility? Doug Kmiec writes:
While there is no constitutional violation of religious liberty in the HHS regulation requiring that coverage allow for the informed choice of all consumers, and therefore, HHS is not duty-bound to allow a Catholic employer exemption, why HHS went out of its way to promulgate an unduly narrow religious exemption intruding upon religious employer hiring policies and their ability to be of service to Catholics and non-Catholics alike illustrates a type of blunder-headedness on the part of some Obama subordinate officers playing into the hands of single-issue Catholics and other partisans. The intrusive exemption shows more disrespect for faith than the president's own value commitments.
Are we willing to blame things which attack the exercise of faith done during a Republican Administration on subordinate officers? I think not. It is interesting that when President Bush authorized the use of drones, liberals, in addition to finding the use of drones morally reprehensible, stated: “Bush authorizes drones which kill innocent people.” When President Obama authorizes the use of drones, and he has authorized more drone strikes than any other president, liberals no longer find the use of drones morally reprehensible. And if they say anything, they say: “United States authorizes the use of drones.” Kmiec, by blaming “subordinate officers” is not casting blame where it belongs—President Obama.
There is no generally
There is no generally applicable principle, and there are the inevitable consequences of political elections. When I became a Sergeant in the Army I began learning about what some call "span of control." There is a limit to the ability of the human mind effectively to control the doings of more than five to eight people. What this means is that the Cabinet already includes more people than a President can carefully watch. To hold any President responsible for the doings of people ten or twenty steps below the President in the hierarchy is ludicrous unless one can independently establish that what that person was doing was in actual fact directed by the President. One needs to find independently of the mere existence of the hierarchy that the doing was directly passed down to that person from the President.
1. What is always far more relevant to inquire is whether the Cabinet member known to some as SecDef did or did not accurately pass down to the SecArmy what the President directed, or rather SecDef interpreted something else the President said as requiring them to act, or rather Sec Def passed down nothing and SecArmy came up with something themselves. And then one must inquire
2. Whether the SecArmy did or did not accurately pass down to the big General what the SecDef directed, or rather the SecArmy interpreted what the SecDef said as requiring him/her to act, or rather SecDef passed down nothin and SecArmy came up with something themselves to tell Army. And then one must inquire
3. Whether SecArmy ..... and so forth down the hierarchy of general officers through the hierarchy of unit officers to the junior officer or higher sergeaat who overseas the drone launch hands-on.
What one needs is independent information about the level of direct Presidential involvement in the particular matter, i.e. 'you're in charge of the Afghan war', 'do what you think best' or 'go ahead with countermeasures to border crossing' or have the man at the button call me to tell him whether or not to 'blast the H out of that particular house.' George II (some degree of a pilot in own right) flew to an aircraft carrier for mission accomplished. I don't think Obama has done the like. As an organizer, Obama probably adheres to the maxim of hire good people and let them do their job with modest oversight. It is likely he never saw the HHS document before it went out. If he wanted to read all such government documents he'd never sleep and be falling rapidly behind.
I expect (but do not know) he and Bush both expressly authorized drone strikes after talking to SecDef and SecState.
The political fact is that any hot potato will be laid by the other party on the President's desk as proof he's a bad guy or proof that he can't run the administration. The attributes of the 'potato' will be worth looking at and the above analysis made. But the accusation is a sound bite, and the response is many paragraphs. So the dropping of hot potatoes goes on.
Now if the Church (
Now if the Church ( especially Bishops & Popes ) would apply the principles of Religious Liberty as defined by Vatican 2 we might start to get somewhere. Wonder how many people have even read that document?
They are like members of
They are like members of congress who exempt themselves from the rules that apply to the rest of us.
Fie on them.
Re: Church hierarchy in
Re: Church hierarchy in general, U.S.bishops... I find the Chinese bureaucracy far more representative, as well as increasingly flexible in their decision making
REASON, BUT WAR YET ........
REASON, BUT WAR YET ........ Thank you, Doug for so rationally and carefully clearing away and so effectively demolishing the mystical smokescreen of "religious liberty" being fanned by the US bishops as part of their efforts to help elect a Republican US president next November.
President Obama may not have been at war with Rome and the US bishops, but the evidence is overwhelming that they are at war with him, at least politically.
A unifying theme of the US bishops' current election year morality play is cleary pro-Republican. In a close election, as expected, the bishops' unmistakeable bias could make the critical electoral difference by rallying conservative Catholic support.
The US bishops' overall electoral strategy is also hardly Christian. The current Republican agenda includes lower taxes on the 1%, less regulation of big banks and even war with Iran. So much for helping the poor and promoting peace.
Given these efforts of Rome and the US bishops, is it any surprise that the Obama administration has responded firmly by tightening the purse strings on some of the bishops' Federally funded programs, as well as stepping up, post-Penn State, Federal legislative and criminal enforcement efforts against child sexual abusers and their institutional enablers.
For more information on the pope's and US bishops efforts to elect a Republican US president next November, please see the NCR comment and related cross links under the comment headings, "Don't Shudder, Change!" , accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/religious-liberty-tops-concerns-bisho...
For more information on the Penn State child sex abuse scandal's major impact on the US bishops' election year strategy, please note the NCR comments and related cross links under the comment headings, "Bill Donohue as Pope?" , and "Penn State "0" v. RCC "-0" , accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/mark-silk-donohues-kc-fix...
Thank You! You can't
Thank You! You can't legislate morality. You can pass laws that are designed to protect and serve the citizens of this country. It is up to the religious leaders to help form our moral conscience.
If the bishops would start really looking at the PIP (people in the pew) and trying to meet their needs something might get done. But no.........that's too difficult, they would have to think outside the box and truly WORK. Instead they spin their wheels and send up a smoke screen by focusing on abortion, euthanasia, and gay rights, instead of truly trying to shepherd the WHOLE flock!
Catholic Bishops' Guiding
Catholic Bishops' Guiding Principle:
If persuasion fails, try legislation.
It used to be Catholic
It used to be Catholic teaching that extraordinary means, such as forced feeding, are not necessary. Why did this change?
Well argued article, reinstating "freedom of conscience" as the norm in a society that separates church and state. With exceptions, of course, such as forbidding murder and disfigurement. Which brings us back to disagreements based scientific and medical interpretations. Many scientifically oriented people believe that human life, as distinguished from biological life, begins when brain waves appear. And many of them support abortion only early on in pregnancy and they certainly support birth control. The church does not have scientific evidence to support its opposition to birth control and early abortion. Many outside the church prefer to go by science and medicine rather than rationalistic/logical arguments without empirical back-up. In the past such arguments passed for science, but many of these arguments have very been proven false as science.
There are three absolute
There are three absolute benchmarks in a human life: conception, birth & death. All other are man made, or relative, subject to change if convenient.
The note from the prophet Isaiah might be appropriate, as to when God started to "knit" in the womb.
"Many scientifically oriented
"Many scientifically oriented people believe that human life, as distinguished from biological life, begins when brain waves appear"
--Yeah, ok. It is simply false that a biological organism is human only if there are brain waves present. An organism is human (homo sapien sapien) only if it possesses the necessary genetic code distinguishing it from other species. Brainwaves are neither necessary nor sufficient to be considered human: there are dead human beings, unconscious human beings, not to mention conscious donkeys and conscious elephants. You seriously need to rethink your argument, assuming there is one.
"The church does not have
"The church does not have scientific evidence to support its opposition to birth control and early abortion."
--Yes it does. Apart from the "rationalistic arguments" you so disparage without reason, here is at least some empirical evidence supporting the Church's views.
Birth Control Pill increases health risks: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/health/26contracept.html?pagewanted=2&...
Findings: Why the Pill May Increase Breast Cancer Risk:
http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/why-the-pill-increases-breast-cancer-ri...
Here are the studies for condoms:
Condoms have a 15% failure rate:
http://www.epigee.org/guide/condomfaq.html
This 2007 study shows a 15% failure rate:
http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html
There is a graph here to show the failure rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Compari...
The FDA requirements say that no more than one condom in 250 can fail a leakage test.[10] Do the math: When the United States donated eight hundred million condoms to developing nations in 1990, the condom companies could have included 3.2 million defective condoms in the batch! But it gets worse: Globally those who promote “safe sex” say that the world needs twenty-four billion condoms every year in order to be protected.[11] If they had their wish, and each government ensured that condoms were at least as reliable as those produced in America (which they are not),[12] there could be ninety-six million defective condoms being used every year.
[10]. “Perspectives in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Condoms for Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 37:9 (March 11, 1988), 133–137.
[11]. Gardner, et al., “The Condom Gap: A Health Crisis,” Population Reports, Series H, No. 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Population Information Program, April 1999), 36.
[12]. Associated Press, “Study Finds Fewer Defects in Condoms on U.S. Market,” The New York Times, May 12, 1988.
http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/methods/condom/condom
douglas Kmiec's problem is
douglas Kmiec's problem is that we do not believe in the "one true, catholic and apostolic faith," but we speak of the "one true, catholic and apostolic church,"when we recite the Nicean Creed. WE Church are driven by the Holy Spirit to live and proclaim.
Most of us have also forgotten that our Creed waswritten in 314 when Catholic meant the faith of the various christian dioceses in the Greco-roman empire: today we would say "the holy GLOBALIZED. catholic and apostolic Church.
In this church, the question whether Married Catholics should take the Pill to bring forward a better family, more developed childrn and more song and songsparents, this question is still not settled. In Europe, e.g. Belgium the Pill is still well regarded and distributed by Catholics.
the church in the process of understanding the globalized Modern Humanity and in in-carting/in-culturating faith is indeed driven by Holy Inspiration, as underlined by the Creed we recite every Sunday.
Nicene, not Nicean. It was
Nicene, not Nicean.
It was 325 A.D., not 314 A.D., assuming you are referring to the Council of Nicaea (which of course was not the final author of the "Nicene" Creed we regularly pray at Mass).
"In this church, the question whether Married Catholics should take the Pill to bring forward a better family, more developed childrn and more song and songsparents, this question is still not settled."
Have no idea what you mean by the above sentence. Can you clarify? And share what it has to do with this article?
As a lifelong Catholic I have
As a lifelong Catholic I have never understood why the church wants to insert itself into our political system. Human rights, peace, anti-capital punishment and social justice are trademarks of Democrats, while Republicans preach on the ills of abortion and support capital punishment. How can a church decide between those platforms? Besides, a church should be teaching their congregation right from wrong and if it is effective, their members can be educated, thinking voters that don't need the church telling them who to support. The Church should stick to ministering and leave the political process to the citizens of the country.
"The Church should stick to
"The Church should stick to ministering and leave the political process to the citizens of the country."
If you meant to say something like: "Church leaders should...leave the political process free of authoritarian meddling..." I would cheer your point.
The problem with your wording is it neglects the fact that "the church" is, in fact, made up of "citizens".
Kenny, If the Democrats "own"
Kenny,
If the Democrats "own" human rights, peace, anti-capital punishment and social justice, why are those (traditionally)Democrat- controlled states suffering with rising poverty, crime,hopelessness and escalating unrest ? Things have NOT gotten better under the Democrats ideology of "fixing" these ills....they have however tethered the poor to them with promises in exchange for their votes ! Ever hear of "Teach a man to fish...." ? If they are for eradicating these scourges wouldn't things be better after all these years ? I think you are a highly naive and uninformed "Catholic". "Republicans preach on the ills of abortion"....are you serious? LIFE supersedes all other "social justice" issues. As stressed by JPII and Benedict. It is appalling that you so trust our elected officials with their ever increasing mandating of morality. I will pray for you.
I have to admire your
I have to admire your chutzpah. You liberal democrats will go to any lengths to try and make a case for Obama. I would agree that he is not against liberty for Catholics, he is against liberty for everyone. By adding 4 trillion dollars in new debt he is working hard to turn us into a european type socialist state. Greece and Italy show you where that is headed. Spain had that kind of government for the last few years and resoundingly threw them out.
Well, I consider a pro-choice
Well, I consider a pro-choice position a war on Catholicism. It legalizes countless murders every year. So why would the bishops support him? I agree with one response that you cannot legislate morality. Killing innocents is not morality, it is convenience. However killing people is against the law, just not unborn ones. If you are not ready for kids, why have sex? Catholic doctrine mandates marriage, so the unrestrained killing of unborn fetuses foments ignoring this. Why would any Catholic be for him? To me, it boggles the mind. Thinking outside the box, as in a coffin. Do aborted children have coffins? This is one transgression that is not even debatable. His fostering rights to abortion is not my worst problem with him, but it is the only one on point. In conclusion, allowing unrestrained murder defines him as at war against Catholics.
Seriously? Allowing a rape
Seriously? Allowing a rape victim to have access to the morning after pill is "anti-Catholic religion" in your eyes? Allowing birth control is "anti-Catholic religion"? You seriously believe that in this country all Americans must follow the rules of the Catholic church?
I find it strange that the pro-life Catholics in this country are fixated only on pregnancy. (Not against war. Not against all the other social injustices.) Because once that baby is born, all Catholic "love of life" goes out the window. Those same "Catholics" are against health clinics, Baby-Keep-Well programs, pre-schools, school lunch programs, etc. They vote against school budgets. And support elected officials who would eliminate "entitlement programs", the safety net programs that babies not aborted need. I find it strange that the bishops have all this SPOTLIGHT to be "pro life" for babies in the womb, but spent so much more energy covering up pedophilia. Oh that's right - abused little boys were OUT of the womb.
Does anyone believe that even if abortion and birth control were "illegal" in this country , that they would not still occur? (Am I the only one who remembers how - before Roe vs Wade, well-off women - many of whom were Catholic - had "D & Cs" and the rest had back alley abortions?)
Why in the world do the righteous "cherry-pick" the sexual behavior of women over all the OTHER directives of Our Lord? Jesus Himself spoke less to sins against God, and more about our inhumanity to each other. Remember the parable about the beggar Lazarus and the rich man? The rich man was in hell because he did not help the poor.
The President is "waging war" against Catholics? Congress is? The rest of Americans are?
Be careful, Anonymous. You're siding with political operatives who support very little of what Jesus said.
Anonymous, YOU may consider
Anonymous, YOU may consider a pro-choice position a war on Catholicism but I do not. I consider it supportive of the Church's teaching of the primacy of personal conscience. I am an extremely "pro-life" person and would love to live in a world where no one ever saw an abortion as a good thing. But I would also like to live in a world where no one would ever try to use force to overrule another person's
decision of honest conscience.
So if someone decides to kill
So if someone decides to kill an abortion doctor as a matter of honest conscience no one should ever try to use force to stop him? Strange doctrine IMO.
"Pro-choice not war on
"Pro-choice not war on Church....I consider it supportive of the Church's teaching of the primacy of personal conscience."
--Unfortunately, you are very misinformed about the Church's actual teaching. The Church "supporting primacy of conscience" means it respects and upholds your capacity as human being to judge what you think is right and good. But this teaching doesn't in the slightest entail the Church holds your conscience is infalliable, because as so often happens, your judgments can be erroneous due to a poorly formed conscience (as is obviously the case here).
I quote the Vatican itself. "It often happens that conscience goes stray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity. But this cannot be said of the person who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."
- Second Vatican Council, The Church in the Modern World (1965), §§27
Abortion is wrong, and always has been wrong. The Church has ALWAYS held this. For God's sake, read your Catechism!
If you truly want people to
If you truly want people to be allowed to live by the convictions of their faith, then the government needs to step out entirely - especially the federal government - because it can only make one-size-fits-all rules.
I agree with the author on the point that people must be allowed to make their own decisions even if they are bad ones. But to say that the government is not imposing on anyone's decisions simply because they are making the rules for the employer and not the employees, is wrong.
I am a small business owner. I have run everything with a mind towards keeping with Catholic teaching. Forcing me to provide for things that I find objectionable is wrong and infringes upon my religious liberty. If my employees want those things, they are always free to choose another employer that does not find them objectionable.
I think the problem that the author has is that he forgets that it is real people behind those legal entities, and forcing a legal entity to do certain things makes a real person do it. The action must ultimately be carried out by a real person, and that real person is the one that is made to suffer a loss of their religious liberty.
I think a good analogy would be if the government were to require movie theaters to dedicate one of their screens to showing adult movies. Under the author's reasoning this would not be an objectionable rule because it is not forcing any single individual to go see these movies, but simply making sure it is available should they like to go see one. Under the author's reasoning, the movie theatre owner is not being forced into anything because he or she is not being made to affirmatively endorse or require the patronage of the adult movie screen. They are simply being made to have it available.
I'm pretty sure, however, that no one would be in favor of such a rule and would be understandably upset that it infringed on the religious liberty of the owners of the theaters that did not want such things in their theaters.
Well said!
Well said!
", for example, that life is
", for example, that life is a gift; it is sacred; and it is not within our power to forfeit our own life or take that of another."
President Obama has been quite open about his disagreement with that statement in the extreme, to the point of not even allowing Catholic doctors and nurses to follow this basic conviction.
Therefore your entire premise fails, since he obviously does NOT respect religious liberty for Catholics at all.
"That the law may specify that abortion or contraceptive coverage be included as choices for employees ought not be seen as making the employer contributing to the legally imposed medical premium complicit in the act itself. "
This statement is utterly incorrect and illogical in it's basis, and has no merit at all.
" To think that an authorizing statute or executive decision violates principles of religious liberty or free exercise merely because it allows a choice contrary to faith is to misunderstand the nature of democracy and individual freedom."
But it doesn't. It *requires* that coverage be paid for by people who don't believe in it, and that is a *direct* violation of the principles of religious liberty and the free exercise of "that life is a gift; it is sacred; and it is not within our power to forfeit our own life or take that of another."
Contraception clearly and objectively does this, thus requiring a Catholic employer to pay for the health insurance of this "choice" is requiring that Catholic to violate his own religious liberty for that of another.
"While there is no constitutional violation of religious liberty in the HHS regulation requiring that coverage allow for the informed choice of all consumers, and therefore, HHS is not duty-bound to allow a Catholic employer exemption, why HHS went out of its way to promulgate an unduly narrow religious exemption intruding upon religious employer hiring policies and their ability to be of service to Catholics and non-Catholics alike illustrates a type of blunder-headedness on the part of some Obama subordinate officers playing into the hands of single-issue Catholics and other partisans. The intrusive exemption shows more disrespect for faith than the president's own value commitments."
Clearly, this conclusion is as illogical as the rest, and I'd say that if this is what passes for Constitutional Law in this country, then religious liberty is null and void under the Constitution, and in fact, the Constitution itself is profoundly anti-Catholic.
I really have a problem with
I really have a problem with this view. Jimmy Carter, when President, would not allow Federal money to be used for abortions. No President did - until Bill Clinton. George W. Bush reversed that, only to be reversed by this President.
And now, whether it is "temporary" or not, the idea of forcing insurance companies that are Catholic or any other denomination to pay for contraceptive devices and abortions, when the tenets of their faith go contrary to that, is both morally and ethically wrong. If a person doesn't like that insurance, they can opt out or pay for additional insurance outside of that which is offered. Abortion is murder. Period. That is the Catholic stance - and the stance of many in this country.
The Federal Government should not be taking one side or the other. Allowing something to occur is one thing, forcing its acceptance on those in society who are against this is wrong. Abortion cannot, MUST NOT, be compared with slavery or racism. In those cases, the government must side with life and abundant blessings of our country to share in a decent life.
When a President advocates for the poor, the marginalized, the helpless within our Society, then he speaks with a moral authority which comes from a Faith nurtured in love. When our President speaks for the least in our Society, he champions a Faith built on a foundation laid by our ancestors in this great country.
Yes, the Bishops take exception - and they should. We should ALL take exception and demand that the government - a limited government - would ensure that ALL of us are allowed to speak. And that includes a multitude of insurance plans - those that might cover that horrible act, and those that won't simply because our Faith demands it.
I really have a problem with
I really have a problem with this view. Jimmy Carter, when President, would not allow Federal money to be used for abortions. No President did - until Bill Clinton. George W. Bush reversed that, only to be reversed by this President.
---------------------------------------------
First, this statement is factually wrong. The Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funds from paying for abortions continuously since 1976. You are probably referring to the so called "Gag Rule," which prevents the US government from providing funds to overseas social service agencies that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling. These funds paid for a myriad of health services and did not pay for abortions directly, but were seen by anti-abortion groups as indirectly supporting abortion. The "Gag Rule," was instituted by Ronald Reagan, reversed by Bill Clinton, re-instituted by George W. Bush, and re-reversed by Barack Obama. This kabuki dance is likely to continue into the future as control of the White House alternates between the two parties.
Second, this article by Professor Kmiec has to do with contraception coverage included the new Affordable Care Act, and not abortion.
Your statement is wrong. The
Your statement is wrong. The Hyde Amendment only applies to certain kinds of legislation. For example, despite what Obama and the Catholic "health" assoc and other liberals said, it did not apply to Obamacare. This is why opponents of Obamacare wanted that language specifically in he legislation, but for all the times he said he would not fund abortion he refused to put it in.
It Would be a wonderful thing
It Would be a wonderful thing if Catholics started too look outside the two party system. Both are pro Wall St.
Is it not ashame that we American Catholics never heard of Eugene Debs?
I've heard of Eugene Debs.
I've heard of Eugene Debs. He's dead.
Thank you for drawing my
Thank you for drawing my attention to Eugene Debs. I have just read about his life in Wikipedia. I think that Catholics should found a party, which defends moral values (against normalization of abortion, homosexuality or drugs) and which defends poor people and the needy and employees and small entrepreneurs. So it would be a mixture of the positive values of Democrats and Republicans. I think about founding such a party in my own country, Hungary.
With the passage of the 2000
With the passage of the 2000 page "Obamacare" health Bill, a legislative reality has been created that is now, and will continue in the future, to erode and marginalize Catholic healthcare and Catholic values. At the time of the legislation, some in the church who were politically and legally aware of the Bills ramifications knew this and expressed concern. However those closest to Catholic Healthcare did not, and ignored such warnings, after all who in today’s society is humble enough to listen to "the Bishops" or those who oppose "free healthcare for all".
The cost for the Church will be heavy, as a secular government steadily marginalizes Catholic institutions, agencies and employees in a large sector of society. Already those on the left, in classic Alinsky style, have begun to "blame the Church" for "creating" its own problems. Take the recent quote from Nancy Pelosi who, after criticizing pro-life positions as "Leaving women to die on the floor" declared the she was a devote catholic who loved the church, but complained that ”they have this conscience thing [that puts women at risk.]” Also from within the Church, there are not only those who seem baffled at what “Religious Liberty” means in terms of the recent Bishops announcement ,but who also attack and denigrate the Bishops for even attempting to speak out. The course will be very hard to change, but first the step is understanding the current reality and the damage not already done but also of that still to come.
Thank you for you truthful,
Thank you for you truthful, logical, "Catholic", common sense comment. The question remains : Will Catholics once again be duped into supporting this anti-life, anti-christian Marxist with the help of those like Doug Kmiec ??
Lumping birth control
Lumping birth control (synthetic or "natural") together with abortion is the first fatal flaw in attempting to create a universal political vision of life. I am curious whether those who are adamant about disallowing abortion of any kind at any stage of pregnancy for any reason fully understand differences in male and female anatomy and sexuality and the effect of healthy orgasm on the neurological, endocrine, and circulatory systems of both active and resting adults. We have defended for centuries the right of woman to in effect destroy her womb and induce early menopause or dysmenorrhea in order to maintain her vows of celibacy. A side effect of placing so much cultural pressure on young people has been the cultural reluctance to touch at all and a cultural association between all touching and sexuality. One of the lessons learned from orphanages in Europe and the States was that infants die, even if fed, if they are not touched and held. Why has touching been relegated to the world of the immature now? The religious or sacred command that it must be special does not reconcile with a punishing understanding of procreation. The goal should be to prevent unplanned pregnancies - not unwanted, not unintended, but unplanned. You cannot plan for an event that you cannot end unless you either control the entire social interaction of coitus or decide that you do not want a pregnancy at all. Both sides of the many segments of the debate, secular and religious, have been too focused, for centuries, on whether sexual desire is healthy and normal. It is. The command about lust is to discourage a desire that is absent of a care-taking emotion, or, worse, comingled with feelings of anger or unresolved discord. Human ingenuity is not unnatural, but condemning or marginalizing or just not discussing birth control besides the rhythm method is to buy into a gateway drug understanding of abortion. A healthy goal is to manage one's own body, not only to avoid the natural consequences of a certain type of sexual interaction. The various birth control pills, for instance, merely persuade a woman's body that she is pregnant by mimicking hormonal action. That allows her to function in a psychologically healthy way that respects the slightly more aggressive hormonal levels in men. The rhythm method is sweet and simple in theory, but it may not coexist well with all lifestyles and careers. Many parents struggle with what is the appropriate age to introduce using a basal thermometer to whichever partner is responsible for it, much as they do with what is the appropriate age to help their daughters to use tampons not just pads for managing her period. A later start to the school day might facilitate using the thermometer in the morning, IF responsibility for it in that method is to be laid squarely with the girl/woman. Demanding this lifestyle for all people regardless of faith is inattentive and self-centered.
Thank you, Kathryn for your
Thank you, Kathryn
for your insight and beautifully presented comments -- from a Catholic priest/theologian who has taught sexuality for many years.
Who is "demanding this
Who is "demanding this lifestyle for all people?" The bishops are just saying that should not be made to pay for methods that we find objectionable.
I guess we just ignore the
I guess we just ignore the whole 98% of American Catholic laity don't find birth control objectionable and support the bishops against our own judgement.
I'm not sure how quoting that
I'm not sure how quoting that statistic answers the question of how the bishops' objections are forcing a lifestyle on people of all faiths.
Right... because our God
Right... because our God established a democratic Church!
After all, Jesus told the Jews, "Because you all wanted divorce, Moses wrote this commandment because my Father wanted you to do whatever you wanted to do. He doesn't believe in rules." Mark 10:5
Oh no, wait, Jesus rebuked those who cited the commandment of divorce by pointing out that it was against God's will.
If then as an employer you
If then as an employer you wish all who work for you to follow your religious tenets then Jehovah's Witnesses should be permitted to refuse coverage of blood transfusions and Christian Scientists should simply tell all employees that they can pray away their diseases, no medical intervention needed. We have what was once accepted, FREE WILL. If we believe that certain things are not acceptable to our religion we can refuse them even though we have the coverage. It is UNFAIR in a puluralistic society to INSIST that ALL FOLLOW OUR RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS. Can you ask for a tax return if you do not believe in was or executions? Soooo, where DO you draw the line??????
Contrary to what you suppose,
Contrary to what you suppose, Catholic employers are not trying to force people to follow their religious tenets on this matter. They only ask the freedom to follow their own. If you want contraceptives, go buy them from some other provider, don't force me to market them to you. Give me a break. How twisted can your logic get?
If you do not want to pay for
If you do not want to pay for some employee's contraceptives, as the church says, than the church should NOT ACCEPT ANY GOVERNMENT MONEY. If the church does not accept government money then they are FREE TO DO ANYTHING they want as a PRIVATE agency. Sounds logical to me!!!!
Actually you are incorrect.
Actually you are incorrect. The Obamacare legislation requires all employers to provide this coverage whether they accept government money or not.
John G., if you pay someone a
John G., if you pay someone a salary and they use it to buy birth control or to pay for sterilization, you are "paying for methods...found objectionable." Insurance is another form of compensation. Those who work at Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, and service organizations, are not required to sign a statement that they will not use any part of their salary for contraceptives or sterilizations - I am not sure that would even be legal. All refusing to make contraceptive coverage part of health insurance does is make it more expensive and means you are trying to make up someone else's mind about the birth control they may choose. No one forces anyone to actually take The Pill or undergo sterilization.
HHS did a good job on the regulations and the definition of a "religious employer." I also think they did the right thing in awarding the service contracts to organizations that will provide all of the needed services to those who suffered under human trafficking. Further, I think the State of Illinois was right to assure that gay people are not discriminated against in adoptions.
Quote: "John G., if you pay
Quote: "John G., if you pay someone a salary and they use it to buy birth control or to pay for sterilization, you are "paying for methods...found objectionable."
--No, you aren't "paying for methods found objectionable" in such an instance, because the money you give to someone in exchange for his or her labor is no longer YOUR money, and it is NOT YOU purchasing such a product. We release all rights and claims over those things exchanged in transaction. Give me a break.
Quote: "Those who work at Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, and service organizations, are not required to sign a statement that they will not use any part of their salary for contraceptives or sterilizations"
--Good, that's how it should be. No Catholic employer is trying to control how others spend their money. The Catholic employer only wants the freedom to decide which services HE, not the laborer, pays. There is a big difference between (1) forcing me to buy certain goods and services I consider wrong for someone else in exchange for his labor, and (2) allowing me to the freedom to pay someone for his laber without any stipulations on how that money is to be spent in the first place. The former requires me to directly purchase a good or a service I find objectionable, the latter requires nothing from me because in this instance HE purchases something I happen to find objectionable--I don't pay for it. He's free to do what he wants with his own money. Like I said, once you give someone money in exchange for Labor, it is no longer yours over which you have anything to say anyway because you release all claims over how it is spent or invested. If you want contraceptives find an employer who will help you buy them in exchange for your laber, but don't FORCE anyone to buy them in exchange for your labor.
Thank you Kathryn for
Thank you Kathryn for elucidating the central arguments of Planned Parenthood, although your assertion that " We have defended for centuries the right of a woman to destroy her womb and induce early menopause or dysmenorrhea in order to maintain her vows of celibacy" is unclear and needs further clarification. Was this right an overt act or a lifestyle decision? Why do you assume that it would lead to early menopause? Please respond.
Kathryn, Perhaps you should
Kathryn,
Perhaps you should read Humane Vitae, especially #17. However, as someone who rejects the tenets of the faith, I suspect you will reject HV as "authoritarian" rather than accepting that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope and HV is actually prophetic!
Ms. Hanley has the integrity
Ms. Hanley has the integrity to sign her name; why don't you?
Uh, no Doug. Obama was
Uh, no Doug.
Obama was elected by Catholics such as my wife and I, Catholics who are pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research and pro-birth control. He owes his loyalty to voters like us, not the hierarchy for whom we don't elect and likewise, didn't elect him.
If you're pro-abortion,
If you're pro-abortion, pro-ESCR and pro-birth control, then you aren't really Catholic. You've sold your inheritance for worldly things. Tis the pity.
Aye, that's the truth of it.
Aye, that's the truth of it.
Wny, yes - it's all there in
Wny, yes - it's all there in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds.
Sheer and utter nonsense!
It is a great shame in
It is a great shame in American Catholic political discourse that most have never heard of Eugene Debs.
Thank You
PEACE
This is ridiculous! This is
This is ridiculous! This is an abominable war cry! Obama is not, and has not, been "at war" with any religion or church. To the contrary, he has gone too far beyond constitutionality in placating the excessive demands of religious groups. Like all recent presidents, for example, taking part in the so-called National Day of Prayer. That has no place in our secular, civil government--and ours is a secular government. Or government protects religion and its freedom as long as that religion respects the rights of others, but it should never be participating in any religion, in any church. It is not at all difficult to recognize how church and state should be separated, how the can be separate and how they should be separate. The Framers of our Constitution knew their history very well. They well knew the outrageous results when religion and politics are mixed. History is loaded with examples, and we are seeing a great deal more of that now, especially in the behavior of a great many factions of the Republican Party and the ridiculous Religious Liberty Committee concocted by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York who was managed into the presidency of the U.S. bishops conference. No one, Catholics included, are forced to have abortions or marry anyone of the same sex. Those are plain lies by Dolan and his puppets. No one is interfering with the freedom of Catholics to practice their religion. But Catholics, Southern Baptists, Rick Perry, or any other groups or individuals like Douglas Kmiec are far out of line when they distort constitutional insistence on religious freedom by maintaining separation of church and state as warfare against religious freedom or any church. Shame on Kmiec and anyone who does this. They are perfect examples of the awful danger of blending religion and politics, church and state. Go back and read your history. No need, just study the currents of the insolence of Catholic clergy, from the Vatican down to the sex abuser on the lowest rung of the clerical ladder, and then start weeping about religious liberty! After John Paul II provided sanctuary protection to Cardinal Law by installing him at St. Mary Major in Rome, thumbing his nose at the U.S. legal system, that culprit is now safe with the statute of limitations, having reached 80 years of age, to be finished with that disgusting protection. Watch and see where he goes to live now. This is only the most modern example of the sin and crime of religion and churches! You're treading on very thin ice when you begin this ridiculous argument about religious freedom.
Here's how I see the
Here's how I see the continuum of options with health insurance coverage for contraception:
1. Banning employers from covering contraception
2. Allowing employers to choose whether to cover contraception.
3. Requiring all employers to cover contraception.
I agree with Prof. Kmiec that Option #1 is not feasible in the current political environment, and I'm not certain it's desirable, either. But I think that's what it would look like if the government "adopted the Catholic view of contraception over that of other churches."
It seems to me Option #2 is the one most respectful of freedom of religion. And the administration has chosen Option 3.
This goes beyond allowing people to make choices we feel are wrong, since the Church is not asking for the ability to prevent employees from using their own money to buy contraception. It is requiring the Church to facilitate it.
Prof. Kmiec writes that this is preferable than requiring the Church to affirmatively endorse or require the use of contraception, which would be a clearer threat to religious liberty. This is true, but besides the point. One could think of worse things we could have done to captives than waterboarding that the Bush Administration didn't pursue that would clearly be torture. That doesn't mean waterboarding isn't torture.
--
But Prof. Kmiec doesn't rely try to argue that this is not a threat to religious liberty, but rather says we should trust President Obama, because he's a decent, religious guy who understands religious liberty, which is utterly inconsistent with someone "at war" with Catholicism.
I'm sure Prof. Kmiec is correct about President Obama's fundamental decency, and perhaps some of the rhetoric from those opposing these measures is stronger than strictly necessary or would be prudent.
But that doesn't mean President Obama and his Administration cannot be seriously wrong on important issues, even issues touching on religious freedom.
One thing the past few years have taught me is that good people are capable of grave and serious mistakes. We can't dismiss objections to political actions by pointing to the decency of the people behind them.
"OBAMACARE?" What??? I know
"OBAMACARE?" What???
I know about the "Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act".
"OBAMACARE" sounds like an overly simplistic lack of understanding about an extremely complex subject.
Unfortunately it is the simpletons--Tea Party-types that use simple terms to cover up their ignorance.
It appears some commentators
It appears some commentators have an automatic response to any article mentioning "Obama," "the bishops," and abortion or birth control.
This is not an example of the bishops sticking their nose into the government's business, but the opposite -- the government is telling the Church how it must operate, and the bishops are objecting.
It is depressing how may people refixively side with the president against the bishops.
It is most depressing! Well
It is most depressing! Well said, John McG!
I couldn't have said it any
I couldn't have said it any better!
I also want to point out a common misconception about the term 'Catholic'. The 'Roman Catholic' church is not synonymous with the term 'Catholic'. It is only a part of the Catholic or Universal church. The 'Catholic' church referred to in the Apostles Creed is the 'Universal Church' or more simply the Body of Christian believers and not the Roman Catholic Church.
What is really depressing is
What is really depressing is the bishops, as a group, are spineless, and do not merit my loyalty.
First of all, again, neither
First of all, again, neither Obama nor his administration have ever been at war with Catholicism or any other religion. But there are people of many religious persuasions, including many Catholics and many other Christian persuasions, who have long been at war with the Constitution of the United States and its protection of religion by maintaining that it be kept separate from the politics of the state. That is why we have a secular state, to make it possible for all religions that respect the rights of others to exist freely and openly. The same holds for irreligious and non-religious people. You wouldn't realize that from the behavior of most of the current crop of Republican candidates to beat "Warrior Obama."
Douglas Kmiec is right in recognizing the "heroic means" of maintaining life can include those very means opposed by many people on religious grounds. One person's religion is another person's considered evil. Recent case in point, Terri Schiavo of Florida who was nothing but a vegetable for years. That's life? That's a person? Some think yes, some think no. In a free, secular society, it must be the right of each person or their designated of kin to decide. Not that we need to rely on papal announcements to develop our own ideas about such matters, but Pius XII had a lot to say about "heroic means."
"The right thing" is not the same for all people. One of the major declarations of Vatican II was an insistence on the sacredness and need for respect for individual conscience. One wonders about that when a pope acts like a reigning monarch of centuries past and fires bishops, excommunicates members, or ends the teaching careers in Catholic institutions of theologians who dare to disagree with him. John Paul II and Benedict stand out as awful examples of this.
"Catholic tradition" includes the sacredness of conscience declared by Vatican II, and that dignity must be maintained in spite of "Hamlet," Paul VI in proclaiming Dignitatis Humanae and the recent efforts in Mississippi to use politics to have a zygote declared a human being. When we witness the ignorance and the lethargy of our electorate, are we ready to leave such a "vital" decision up to them? The recognized breadth of the lay People of God in ignoring Paul VI and his Dignitatis Humanae is People of God 1, Paul VI 0.
"Catholic doctrine." "Religious liberty." "Free exercise." "Wrong choice." "Conversion of heart." Does anyone really "believe" that when a crowd of people at a Holy Communion, all reciting the same creed, interpret the theology of each statement in any single "Catholic doctrine" way? Listen to the mumbling. They aren't even thinking about what they are saying. So does it matter if the Vatican declares that an outrageous "literal" translation of the liturgy from ancient Latin (Tridentine Latin, no less.) be identical with every speaker of English--or the same for every other language? Why must everything be controlled from the Vatican?
"The church's focus should be upon the education and conversion of heart of its own believer..." What about the part the "believer" plays in all this? Is prating words proof of belief? How do we measure? And why bother? What difference does it make? Face reality.
"Responsibility of the church...moral formation...revealing to married couples the sublime joy and significance of intimacy that is total and ever open to new life." Are we to expect that the sex abusing clergy and their protectors, all the way up to the popes, required to be celibate, presumably chaste, can be teachers of the "sublime joy of intimacy?"
Every sexual act "open to new life?" Is pregnancy the only purpose of sex? With the science we have today, shouldn't that mean sex outside periods of possible pregnancy are sinful? Wouldn't that be in agreement with Pope Hamlet's Dignitatis Humanae? It appears that celibacy warps clerical minds, one way or another. Either those clerics know something they have never practiced, or their wisdom is supposed to come from sexually abusing teens and younger.
There is room for argument that employees of Catholic institutions are aware of all limitations, even medical insurance limitations, or that they be made aware of them at the time of employment application. The same holds true for participating in hospital activity in abortion or contraception. If a prospective employee finds it a contradiction to their morals or ethics to participate under such restrictions, you go elsewhere for employment. The same holds true for pharmacists and pharmacy employees. And the same holds true for Catholic hospitals. When they accept public funding, they cease to be just private. Should they accept public funding and refuse legally public services?
Kmiec's arguments end with no solution in his proposed concerns. The only solution is the wisdom of our Constitution in this matter. It must be remembered that our Constitution cannot be claimed as altogether wise. Slavery was bad. Not allowing women to vote was bad. Attempting to limit voting and governing to the wealthy elite--as is happening voraciously again now--and still call it "democracy" was bad--and is bad. One of the wisest things was the proscription against mingling church and state. And that is being violently violated, not only by Obama and his administration, but by far too many religious groups and their churches across this nation as those extremists boldly dare to try to take over our government to repeat the horrors of history when churches and their "men" violated human rights, all decency.
"a zygote declared a human
"a zygote declared a human being"
Biologically, certainly. Or is the sprout of an oak not an oak? It is the same kind of species and the same being. And it is so comparing a zigote to a newborn baby, too. Both of them are human beings.
Should biologically human beings be deprived of the basic right to life for some reason - because of lack of intelligence or in lack of consciousness?
Well, what about the intelligence of the newborn then - which is lower than that of many animals (dogs, dolphins etc.)? What about the lack of consciousness in case of sleeping men? Should newborn babies and sleping men lose their right to life because of the lack of proper intelligence or consciousnes? If these would be absurd then why is it not so in the case of unborn babies?
The argument perhaps most used in politics is that "it is the part of the mother's body". Well, this is simply not true. Still Barbara Boxer, member of the Supreme Court used this in connection with children who were killed during the process of birth, partly outside of their mother's body. She said that "until one inch is in the woman it is part of her body"...
Perhaps the Bishops should
Perhaps the Bishops should just find an independent insurance provider such as the KofC and not be part of any government insurance pool. I'm sure the KofC would be willing to give the bishops a break on premiums--or maybe not.
It will be interesting to see
It will be interesting to see if the attempts by the USCCB to attach the Obama administration for restricting religious freedom gains traction with rank and file Catholics. I fail to see where the Obama Administration is limiting religious freedom. We,in this country, are still free to practice whatever we believe. Those who use government health care services are free to choose the services they use and those they don't. The fact that Catholic hospitals cannot dictate health care services they provide, is understandable if they choose to accept Government support. Our county is not comprised solely of Catholics, but the vast majority of people come from other faiths. I am staunchly Catholic, but I am also a staunch advocate of religious freedom. The religious freedom issue seems to arise from differences between the USCCB and Government health care guidelines. If the Bishops want our hospitals to strictly conform to Catholic beliefs, they can deliver by not accepting Government support and asking Catholics to step up to the plate and follow. However, I suspect the Bishops know they could not deliver. The fastest growing religious segment in America are former Catholics. When will our Church leaders recognize that God speaks and instructs through his Body...the sense of the faithful... and not just the Ordained. If God only spoke through the Ordained, Jesus would not have been born a manger to a poor woman and carpenter. Instead, he would have been born into a family of Jewish nobility. If the Body of Christ is not following the Ordained, what is God telling us?
I always smile when I hear a
I always smile when I hear a discussion which includes the public idea of providing nutrition and hydration to keep someone alive. I've been kept alive for 30+ years by providing 12 hours a day of IV nutrition and hydration. I lost a large amount of my intestines in an auto accident when I was 19 years old and haven't been able to absorb enough nutrition and hydration on my own to stay alive for all this time since. I know of hundreds of other people just like myself who live full lives in the same condition. There was a time when I was in intensive care when they considered stopping my IV's and letting me die. Especially when the Karen Ann Quinlen case was in the news back in the 1970's. But thank God, the Catholic hospital I was in and the Sisters and Brothers of the local monastery in Peoria, Illinois stood up for my life. Since then I have co-founded a Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Crisis Center, Built mobility equipment for the disabled, served as Grand Knight in my local Knights of Columbus, served on my Parish Council, along with other services which I wouldn't have been around to perform. Needless to say, "It's a Wonderful Life" is one of my favorite movies of all time. I often wonder what life would have been like if I would have been denied nutrition and hydration and I never existed.
Thank you, Rickie Bradshaw!
Thank you, Rickie Bradshaw! Feeding people who can't feed themselves is not "heroic action", it's just basic human decency... otherwise, we could stop feeding our infants and see how well they get on by themselves.
President Obama has made it clear his goal of substituting "freedom of worship" for the "freedom of religion" the founders envisioned. At war with Catholics? Not yet. It takes two sides to make a war, and I've yet to see any significant push-back. Catholic hospitals and insurers and adoption agencies, as well as individual citizens, should simply continue to do as we always have and be willing to go to jail for doing so.
It has been in the news
It has been in the news lately that a woman raped by her brother-in-law was given a 12 year prison sentence for allowing herself to be raped. The only way out of the prison term is to marry her rapist. That is no more draconian than Catholic Social Services telling a female immigrant raped on her journey to the US that she cannot receive an abortion. An immigrant with no money, raped, no family here to help her raise the reminder of her rape. I have to laugh the pro-life/pro-family crowd here doesn't mention the anti- family actions of the Vatican and bishops who protect pedophile priests, lie for them and cover for them. The government/legal system is having to take over Mr. Finn's diocese in order to provide protection for Catholic youth.
Religious freedom doesn't give one group (Catholic) the right to say their mythology is better than the mythology of Moslems, gays, Hindus, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Jews, etc. Playing the political game will haunt the Catholic church in the future. Religious freedom means Catholics have the right to be catholic but we don't have the right to impose our life style, views on others. Most of the members of my parish, support abortion, support gay rights, support using women priests, and use contraceptions. We cannot deny over population of the planet or aids (but we rail against contraceptives), we cannot deny that our church is allowing the rape of our youth by pedophile priests, and we cannot deny others their freedoms without our freedom to be Catholics being threatened. When will we wake up instead of trying to go back to the dark ages and start to embrace religious freedom for the world?
Howard
The first phase is, when
The first phase is, when people are forced to tolerate that unborn children are killed. The second phase is, when people are forced to finance killing unborn children. The third phase is, when they are even fired if - as doctors or nurses - they do not actively kill unborn children when ordered so. And the fourth phase is - present only in China yet - when people are forced to tolerate that their own unborn children are killed with abortion, even when in the children are in the ninth month.
Obama and his pro-death extreme liberal and radical feminist camp want to push America from the first phase to the second phase now.
This is essentially not a religious issue but a human right issue. Basic human rights to life are violated with legal abortion. But it is mainly Christians who are vehemently against it because they are more sensitive to human right issues than others. "But they are for capital punishment" - one would argue. Well, some are, some are not. But most victims of capital punishments are criminals, not innocent babies like in the case of abortions. Why should one wonder why abortion is more rejected than capital punishment?
It is not some very special particular religious doctrine - an only Catholic one - what is violated here, but a general moral conviction shared by the bulk of society that human life is to be defended. It is just the greater moral sensitivity of Christians - and the unified consequentiality of the Catholic church in it - what is in conflict with "Obamacare".
Anyway we can simplify it rightly to the question of religious freedom. Catholics and many other Christians would be forced to help in acts which are deeply against their religious faith.
Post new comment