President Obama Mocks U.S. Catholic Bishops: “Darn Tooting!”

He needs to go out because of his policies. That he’s an ass is a secondary reason that would make his early dismissal more satisfying.

“Affirming a ‘shout out’ at violating religious freedom is mocking the bishops.”

Well, let’s take a look at these remarks in context. This is what the linked-to story actually said:

*****

“Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage for no good reason,” said Obama. “They won’t be able to deny your coverage because of preexisting conditions. Think about what that means for families all across America. Think about what it means for women.”

“At that point, an audience member shouted: “Birth control.”

“Absolutely. You’re stealing my line,” said Obama.

“Breast cancer, cervical cancer, are no longer preexisting conditions,” Obama continued. “No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth.”

At this point, a member of a laughing audience shouted out: “Darn right!”

“Darn tooting,” Obama answered back—to laughter. “They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs.”

****

When Obama says “they” won’t be able to deny coverage, he obviously is talking about insurance companies (a favorite bete noire of the left), NOT bishops.

As far as I know, no Catholic institution has ever objected on moral grounds to covering genuine preventive health care such as mammograms. Nor is refusal to cover preexisting conditions a hallmark of Catholic medical ethics. All of these practices have, however, been common among health insurance companies (because of the very nature of insurance, which is based on minimizing risk to the insurance provider; from a purely economic point of view, covering a preexisting condition makes as much sense as selling someone fire insurance AFTER their house has burned down, but I digress.)

In any event, it is certainly fair to say that this exchange indicates the depth of Obama’s committment to passing these regulations. It may also be fair to say that these remarks indicate a lack of concern about the violation of religious freedom involved.

However, to characterize this as a direct “mockery” of the bishops is stretching things quite a bit.

The contempt that President Obama has shown towards Christians is almost palpable.

-Tito Edwards

Meanwhile, from the pulpits in the diocese in which I live – from the out-of-town parishes to the downtown cathedral – silence remains the Church’s most-used method to communicate basic Christian moral teaching to the laity.

Obama is playing to his core constituency, the something for nothing crowd. … We shall see next year how many people still believe in the illusions of unicorns, pixie dust and better living through government fiat.

-Donald R. McClarey

Obama isn’t playing, he’s prepping the battlespace.

Much of the agenda of Obama and his core constituency is contrary to Christian morality. For example, there’s no practical difference in this life between desiring “something for nothing” and coveting thy neighbor’s goods. (I’ll leave drawing the connection between other elements of the Obama agenda and the commandments against coveting thy neighbor’s wife and adultery as an exercise for the reader.) Because the Church might be an impediment to Obama’s ambitions, it must be destroyed – or at least rendered impotent to influence voters by mockery.

Exit question: Does silence from the pulpits imply the Church’s consent?

“It is becoming imperative that President Obama needs to be voted out of office next year due to this incident and many other policies that he has implemented.”

“…[B]ecoming imperative”? Did you just wake up, sir?

Whoops, added an extra “in” there

Tito – No. When the guy in the crowd said “darn right”, he was saying “darn right”, and also disagreeing with the bishops’ position, although he might not be aware of it.

If Archbishop Dolan were standing right next to him and had been stating the argument, then the President said the argument was stupid, then the guy in the audience said “darn right”, then yes, that would be a mocking of the bishops’ position.

If Obama said “the bishops are jerks” and the guy in the audicence said “darn right”, then he would have been mocking the bishops.

“Hence when the audience member shouted “darn right” he was saying ‘hell yeah, we’ll make Catholic institutions’ provide contraceptives”

How do you know what that audience member was “really” saying, unless you can read that person’s mind?

My guess, which I admit is only a guess, is that he/she probably wasn’t thinking about Catholic institutions or bishops at all — the person was thinking about the alleged greed and heartlessness of insurance companies who deny coverage for preexisting conditions and for preventive care.

The person in the audience obviously assumed that birth control qualifies as preventive care. While that could mean he/she actively rejects or despises Church teaching regarding contraception, it could just as easily mean that this person is not Catholic and has never had reason to think about or care what the Church teaches regarding contraception.

That doesn’t mean I’m seeing “all roses and posies” here or trying to defend the policy in question. What I take away from this exchange is not that Obama “mocked” the bishops but that he ignored them — which is some ways is worse than mockery.